Titleist T100s

[Hogzy]

On 7/31/2021 at 11:44 PM, Golfin83 said:

Titleist achieved perfection in 1993 and have yet to reproduce it.  I have 4 sets of "modern day" irons sitting in my closet and gathering dust.  The CB series came close and WHEN I fail to find anymore 962's on ebay they may get their day in the sun.  I get made fun of regularly for my "antiques" until we settle out at the 19th hole.  I'm not sure why this "testers wanted" post got me so hard to sign up and make a post but here I am.  I doubt to get a tester pick so I'll leave my plea here...Not everyone chases distance, with what we can do with drivers now irons do not need to be delofted for distance (and yes the 2 degrees you can change in a fitting doesn't cover it).  Kind of ironic that I am Titleist biggest fan and hardest critic...I might be a small percentage but a little nod to distance control with your upper tier blades would be appreciated.  I know it sounds counter intuitive but I'd like to think their are more people like me who would give up yardage on irons to be able to cover numbers.  I don't care about the look/feel of the latest generation, with enough swings we can get used to anything....I'm just begging for loft control.  Being able to dial in a set of irons to what numbers you need is essential.  I started this post with intentions of making a case for a trial selection, I know longer would want one.  I'm sure the "newest line" is beautiful and eye pleasing...but is it functional? While it's impressive to hit a PW 160 yards it helps nothing.   I hope next years release has an option for loft control.  #DistanceIsn'tEverything 

I agree with most of this... There are still a few of us out here. ( Hey buddy )

I was and am still a big fan of the 962's but would disagree that they haven't been improved upon.

Starting with the 710's, I would say that all of the following CB generations have been a great addition. In addition to the 990's and 690's.

My number one priority with my irons is distance control and workability. To be able to play the same clubs the same distances I have become accustomed to the last forty years of playing.

All my sets which are MB/CB combo's, have given me that. 

Having had a medical issue ( a year ago today), I am in need of an equipment adjustment. My hope is that the new "regular" lofted T100's will give me back that little distance which I have lost this past year. Not for the purpose of hitting it farther, but to get me back to the distances my "traditional" lofts have given me trough all my playing days.

The smaller profile and thin topline of the new T100 seem to be in line to what I am used to looking down at and that has me intrigued.

Here's to those of us still hitting our numbers without the jacked lofts..

 

[Shankster]

20 minutes ago, rbsiedsc said:

No offense taken at all. This is a great discussion and actually makes sense with what everyone else is saying. It is an ingenious design with "stronger" lofts but same head shape. My first set was my dad's old Ping Eye2 clones where my 7i i think was 36* and i could barely hit it 150, which is about how far my 8i now goes (hmm, loft for loft the same).

 Your bag setup is actually really well spaced, even compared to mine:

D-8*, 2H (super hybrid) 16*, 3H 19*, 4i 22*, 5i 25*, 6i 28*, 7i 32*, 8* 36*, 9i 40*, PW 45*, GW 50*, SW 54*, LW 58*, putter

With that said my set is a progressive set. I could totally game your set up based on my set up as well. Like everyone here, we are all hoping to be testers for the new Titleist irons. I may have been amiss to select the T100 in my application.  The fact that they made them stronger but they still spin and launch the same is quite a feat in engineering and goes to show that, like you eluded to, its just a number on the club, it doesn't mean anything as long as they are playable.

I don’t have the 2 and 3 yet, but that it what I plan on getting.  Planning a trip to the fitter for the T200 2 and 3 iron very soon, but it might have to wait until I get to Tampa in a few weeks.

Currently use the 3 and 4 from the set, so 19° and 22° respectively.  Looking for a smidge more of help in these two, and a ball speed boost never hurt anyone.

I’ve mentioned before, but I can’t stand hybrids.  I had one in the bag for a while, 17° Jetspeed.  But it’s been archived as I think it has a crack somewhere I can’t see.  

[Vegan_Golfer_PNW]

4 minutes ago, Shankster said:

I don’t have the 2 and 3 yet, but that it what I plan on getting.  Planning a trip to the fitter for the T200 2 and 3 iron very soon, but it might have to wait until I get to Tampa in a few weeks.

Currently use the 3 and 4 from the set, so 19° and 22° respectively.  Looking for a smidge more of help in these two, and a ball speed boost never hurt anyone.

I’ve mentioned before, but I can’t stand hybrids.  I had one in the bag for a while, 17° Jetspeed.  But it’s been archived as I think it has a crack somewhere I can’t see.  

Ya, i almost killed my hybrid. At one point i went Driver 2 DI, 3H. Hit the 2 DI great but it was winter and got no roll. Would totally consider a back of 2 DI, 3 DI in the T200 and then T100s and then T100 in the AW

[Plumbob]

I do like reading all this, loft, gaping, distance, stopping power, and shafts  but! It would seem to me that the real winner is getting fitted, and then practice, practice and practice some more, so you know how far each club goes plus or minus a yard or two, and bring home the bacon.

[John S]

Not sure I understand the issue or the debate on this matter.  Virtually every manufacturer offers a "players" club, typically standard lofts, smaller profile, thin to line, forged.  They then offer a Players Performance or Players distance club,  this option typically has a max COR face ( usually 2 piece welded with a light thin strong face on a forged " shell".  IN all cases the goal is to max distance without going to a massive head, this is accomplished with the face, jacked lofts, longer lighter shafts.  The final options fall into game improvement which are the "tennis racquets", large profile, thick top line, low CG, Long shafts, all designed to get the ball in the air and optimize miss hits.

If you are playing the proper club in the line, the difference from older "classic" clubs to the newest players clubs should not be extreme.  The lofts are conventional, the head/ face are forged, the lengths are standard, CG is not typically exceptionally low, and the performance is consistent with 4 degree gaps between clubs yielding standard and consistent distance.  The muscle back versions of the Players club options play exactly like the older versions in my opinion with the possible exception of the shaft options which are newer technology and design and could yield significant differences.  If you are playing an older muscle back with a TT Dynamic Gold in the same weight as an older version, the difference should be minimal comparing your older "classic" to the new 620MB for example.   They should perform very similar.   Maybe there is a slight change in location of CG ( higher or lower) and overall face size, but the difference should be minimal.   If you are comparing to T100s or any player distance club the difference will be significant as the  player distance club design is a relatively new category and features jacked lofts, longer lighter shafts, maxed out COR faces, etc. These clubs can have "distance Gaps" and HOT spots on the face that result in inconsistent distance and performance

Make sure you are focused on the "players clubs" in the line if your goal is standard lofts and a performance profile that is similar to older classic designs. Also make sure the shaft is a similar EI profile to the shaft in your older club.  Newer shafts designs can have a significant performance difference.  There was no such thing as a 90 gram stiff shaft 10 years ago.  Just look at the KBS line of shafts to get an overview of the many and varied shaft designs.  KBS was not even a company 20 years ago.   They have shafts with all sorts of specific design goals and the weight range is extraordinary.  Same is basically true with True Temper, Nippon, etc etc.  IF you want similar results to your older "classic" clubs be sure to match up a modern shaft to the shaft in the clubs you have.  Most often any fitter can do this for you.  Usually is comes down to similar weight, kick point, and  stiffness.   

 

[TR1PTIK]

1 hour ago, jlukes said:

Lets remember why the T100-S line was created in the first place.  PGA Tour players were wanting their T100 irons bent strong, but didn't like the offset or decrease in bounce that came from bending an iron strong

Tony's writeup on the original T100-S irons was spot on

https://mygolfspy.com/titleist-t100s-iron-review/

 

 

I was just about to chime in with this when I saw your post. Another option the T100S provides is the ability to bend them weak - reducing offset and increasing bounce (something several golfers have done).

[BGRI]

Looking at this discussion from a testing perspective has me a little confused. Is the point of the testing to determine if the new models make golfers better than the previous models? Or is it something else?

Right now I’m using T300’s I bought last summer and amazingly they are getting better and better. I guess irons mellow with time and my shots are getting smoother and smoother, to the point that they are working so well that I’m playing twice as often as last year.

The T300’s seem to work real well when I hit a drive in the fairway and I’ve found I can even shape my 5, 6, and 7 a little more than I ever could do in the past. In an unusual twist, the T300’s seem to respond very very well when I take one more club than my initial choice. ( can these clubs actually sense and encourage appropriate decisions)?.

One detriment to gaming the T300’s is that proportionally I am hitting the ball more often into the gnarly stuff just off the green and the wedges don’t seem to respond as automatically on those little 6 foot chips off the green to short sided pins as they do from 35 yards out in the fringe.  

Also the T300’s seem to have a problem with purring on shots out of the rough with the ball below my feet on side hill lies. ( “ pureing” was autocorrected to purring and I left it in out of deference to my cat loving wife who understands that my T300’s have a need to be put into action more often to remain happy. Happy clubs, happy wife, happy life…..)

In a nutshell I would like to test the newest version of the T300, so I can see if they can maintain my game improvement progress and confirm  whether or not they are an improvement relative to my existing model.

Also can supply Arccos numbers and promise to never compare T300s to blades or even T100’s.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gavwlee]

Isn’t it a matter of the target audience? I’m thinking the 100S are for those that are proficient at ball striking but may have lose some speed to get the ball to the same distances as before. Also, correct me if I’m all out of sorts but it isn’t just jacking lofts but offsetting the tech in both ball and club head to get the ball higher with stronger lofts for a more playable golf club. FWIW, I’m all about making the game easier for those not good enough (whether talent or no time for the long range sessions) as it’ll only make the game more approachable/popular for folks as well as companies with more tech. We can’t all wield butterknives and be the baddest purest at our local clubs. :)

[RickyBobby_PR]

21 minutes ago, Gavwlee said:

Isn’t it a matter of the target audience? I’m thinking the 100S are for those that are proficient at ball striking but may have lose some speed to get the ball to the same distances as before. Also, correct me if I’m all out of sorts but it isn’t just jacking lofts but offsetting the tech in both ball and club head to get the ball higher with stronger lofts for a more playable golf club. FWIW, I’m all about making the game easier for those not good enough (whether talent or no time for the long range sessions) as it’ll only make the game more approachable/popular for folks as well as companies with more tech. We can’t all wield butterknives and be the baddest purest at our local clubs.

It’s about getting balls to fly in the right window. As jlukes pointed out the 100-s were to fix the bounce issues caused by bending the lifts stronger by the pros. They want certain spin and a certain bsll flight. When you bend lofts there’s a 1:1 ratio change in bounce. 
 

As for the general approach to what people call loft jacking the construction of the various clubs is to also fit launch and spin do that balls just don’t fall out of the sky because they launch high and have the incorrect spin to go with it. 

[Gavwlee]

13 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

It’s about getting balls to fly in the right window. As jlukes pointed out the 100-s were to fix the bounce issues caused by bending the lifts stronger by the pros. They want certain spin and a certain bsll flight. When you bend lofts there’s a 1:1 ratio change in bounce. 
 

As for the general approach to what people call loft jacking the construction of the various clubs is to also fit launch and spin do that balls just don’t fall out of the sky because they launch high and have the incorrect spin to go with it. 

Completely on board with you on the bounce and turf interaction with bending lofts stronger for pros. What about for the average 10 hdcp looking to keep the yardage despite aging and losing swing speed? I’d think the stronger lofts coupled with the lower cg would help. Not to mention, with 2 clubs at 32 degrees, 7 iron’s length may be easier to control than a traditional 6 iron length (assuming that longer clubs are harder to control for the average joe). I currently play “traditional” lofts but with balancing a career that doesn’t revolve around playing golf and a you kid, playing with “easier” clubs that give me a bit more distance sound mighty appealing. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

12 minutes ago, Gavwlee said:

Completely on board with you on the bounce and turf interaction with bending lofts stronger for pros. What about for the average 10 hdcp looking to keep the yardage despite aging and losing swing speed? I’d think the stronger lofts coupled with the lower cg would help. Not to mention, with 2 clubs at 32 degrees, 7 iron’s length may be easier to control than a traditional 6 iron length (assuming that longer clubs are harder to control for the average joe). I currently play “traditional” lofts but with balancing a career that doesn’t revolve around playing golf and a you kid, playing with “easier” clubs that give me a bit more distance sound mighty appealing. 

The cg and lofts all go hand in hand. And usually someone with slower swing speeds will benefit from these designs because they make getting the ball in the air. But even for that golfer if the manufacturer didn’t “loft Jack” the ball would fall out of the sky. But even with that said the golfer needs to find a set than not only gets in the air but also has the proper land angle to be able to hold greens. Some people won’t benefit because the size of the sole doesn’t match their swing. People forget that proper bounce isn’t just for wedges 
 

 

[JonMUSC08]

11 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

The cg and lofts all go hand in hand. And usually someone with slower swing speeds will benefit from these designs because they make getting the ball in the air. But even for that golfer if the manufacturer didn’t “loft Jack” the ball would fall out of the sky. But even with that said the golfer needs to find a set than not only gets in the air but also has the proper land angle to be able to hold greens. Some people won’t benefit because the size of the sole doesn’t match their swing. People forget that proper bounce isn’t just for wedges 
 

 

exactly. The sole matters just as much. Those Ping G710's had a nice big sole which made them easy to hit (for those needing help) but also had aggressive lofts to get its going. Most importantly was the peak height and descent angles were optimal to help hold greens.

[Tsecor]

The T100-S has 10g more tungsten in it and is engineered differetly from the T100......it definitely goes further just on lofts alone but with some of the other difference in the club, the 100-S is probably 10 yards longer on average than the T100.

 

these are players distance clubs

[golfinnut]

Get fitted.  Not just for 30 minutes ... "yeah these feel good." & you're done.  But a real fitting.  Dive into the head design, functionality, your numbers, etc.  Be able to hit to certain number by making sure the gapping is correct.  If it requires loft jacking, then so be it.  That's why the T100s were made ... for those that like the feel of a players iron but want the added distance.  Who cares what they look like.  

I'd play with a shell attached to a piece of bamboo like Thurston Howell III if I knew my numbers were correct.    

[DCWT]

Bro, I'm 100% with you, I was as loyal to Titleist as anyone, what did me in was when I had to bite my tounge and realize my teryllium Scotty was to light, getting a little older just needed a little heavier to control the stroke a touch more. Remind you I hadn't hit a Scotty since the Studio Style with GSS insert was released, that was 05 I think, so I went to buy the the special select newport, thank God I said let me hit this b4 I buy it, I hit it 3 times handed it back to the dude and said to myself wtf was that milled in some crap Chinese factory, it was horrid. Scotty sold out. Than I learned that so did Titleist, I was getting out of my 712 mbs, they where really tired, every single iron I hit from titleist felt like, well felt like nothing, there was no feel, they felt cheap and springy, junk. I was lost, playing titleist since early 90s, but I made greatest decision ever, got some Hogan Icons, the put Titleist to shame, traditional all the way thru. And my putter, im now a Loyal Loyal Loyal Bettinardi guy, Scotty could learn something from Bob Bettinardi, like how to get his hands dirty a design putters, and do a quality mill job. I think Wilson might have passed Titleist when it comes to equipment. Titleist owns the ball market, but they lose a tiny bit each year. It's really sad how far down the toilet they have gone. I swore I'd never say that, but its true.

[Blove]

I hit the T100 and S today. It was really hard for me to accept the Ss due to my “old school” thinking but begrudgingly I have to admit I hit the S better. Distance wasn’t too dramatic for me on a 7 iron - just 3 or 4 yards but the feel and dispersion was better. I was worried about the S being too hot and distance variability that the springy clubs tend to have, but oddly they were tighter (admittedly I didn’t put great swings on the T100).
 

I think the little slot in the back of the S really helps on just off center hits and maintains speed on mishits. That’s what we are all looking for, right (assuming dispersion and gapping overall is the same)?  I think while the two clubs are mostly the same, we can’t understate the extra technology in that slot - apparently it allows a slightly more flexible face. Plus it just felt better. 

Again it’s hard for me to reconsider my bag setup, because it’s a radical shift, but I’m slowly coming around to it. If it hits longer, tighter and better on mis-hits, then really it’s a no brainer. Oh and it’s still plenty workable for me.  
 

Just my ego that needs a check. 

[HeathS16]

I think most OEMs are going the way of "options". That is what the T100-S represent to me, just gives you more options when looking at the Titleist line up to fit into. If the clubs give you the best performance who cares if the lofts are "jacked". Most of the data, especially Strokes Gained Data, suggests closer is better anyways.  Just reiterates that people need to get fit for their clubs! 

[mchiller]

.

Edited August 28, 2021 by mchiller
Quote didn't work

[mchiller]

@Blove@golfinnutDo you have recommendations on where that can done? A national fitter like Club Champion, you'd only get to hit the 6 iron and aren't fittings with a Titleist rep only 30-45 minutes long? 

Edited August 28, 2021 by mchiller
Wrong tag