Titleist T100s

[Getoffmylawn 5,821]

2 minutes ago, Shankster said:

 

W - 49°

 

 

Is that a set gap wedge or something else?  I thought I remembered the stock set wedge loft of the T-100S as 48...did you bend it or get a specialty wedge?

[Shankster 33,165]

@rbsiedsc none of that was directed toward you, or meant in a jerking way at all.  You just brought up a good point that I wanted to address.  

[Shankster 33,165]

Just now, Getoffmylawn said:

Is that a set gap wedge or something else?  I thought I remembered the stock set wedge loft of the T-100S as 48...did you bend it or get a specialty wedge?

No. Just a vokey 48 bent weak 1.  Just for me personally, I could probably get away with a 50 honestly.  The P and the 48° I have now are really close in distance.

[JonMUSC08 972]

I like the opinion but not everything is loft jacking. Sometimes we can think of it as "assisting the high handicap" to all them to hit the ball further with more aggressively lofted clubs. I reviewed the Ping G710's and they are an aggressive loft for a Super Game improvement player. As an 11 hdcp, i could easily hit them straight and far. I barely had to ever hit a 7iron into a long par 4, if that. Wasnt my cup of tea BUT for high hdcp players, it helps get the ball further down the fairway for them with more controlled clubs.

 

In term of the T100s, those seem to be more of abridge between game improvement and players distance irons maybe? I wpould LOVE to test them out and see if they allow for better shot shaping capability as opposed to a Game improvement iron WHILE also allowing for a bit more distance capability. 

 

My $0.02

[DiscipleofPenick 4,207]

On 8/1/2021 at 7:55 AM, RickyBobby_PR said:

Well the new line isn’t really about distance. The 100 isn’t a distance iron and the 100-s aren’t either. I hit the 100-s today and they don’t go further than the previous version and are about the same distance I’ve seen from the Ap2 and both the ap2 and t100 are the most played on tour so not really pure distance clubs.

the t200 and 300 are like every other club on the market from other manufacturers. They are designed to help those who need help to get the ball in the air or reduce spin. I have a friend who doesn’t need distance help and is a low single digit that plays the ap3. 
 

What you didn’t talk about in your rant js titleist chose not to release a new cb or mb this release because there was nothing to improve on and still have those in their lineup. 
 

Edit: posts pleading for a test opportunity isn’t how testers get chosen. If you want to be a tester contribute to the forum and the opportunities will come. 

That's good to know.I haven't hit the T series yet, but I was checking out the AP2 when I bought my CBs. It was close and I chose to move back to a smaller head, classic iron.

[DiscipleofPenick 4,207]

2 hours ago, Shankster said:

Nope.  My 6 iron stops on a dime.  

I like hearing this. I wasn't sure but I want to test the T100S. I have 714CB in the bag now.

[jlukes 16,777]

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/

Quote

We’ve covered this many times before but, what the hell, I’ll bang my head into the wall again. Yes, everybody is jacking their lofts, but it’s time to start coming to terms with the idea that static loft (the number listed in the catalog) doesn’t tell you much of anything about performance. Even on a relative basis, it won’t tell you launch angle, spin rate, peak height, descent angle or whether you’ll be able to stop a ball on the green. All of that stuff is heavily dependent on additional factors like geometry and CG location.

 

Quote

 

When Titleist offers an 8.5° driver head, nobody shakes their fists and yells at a cloud about how they have a 10.5° driver in their bag and that they are sick of these sons-of-bitches loft-jacking the big dog. “Back in my day, son…”

Back in your day, drivers were made of wood and golf balls were filled with feathers. Things change.

Nobody complains about lower-lofted drivers because everyone understands that loft is an essential fitting variable. Guys, loft is an essential fitting variable for the rest of the bag, too. Loft isn’t the SAT; there’s more than one right answer.

 

 

[chisag 19,945]

2 hours 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/

 

 

 

... The "loft jacking" boat sailed long ago. T100S are some of the best irons I have played and if it weren't for the Cobra MIM irons that are only 1* weaker I would still be playing them. Like all new clubs it took a little while to dial in distances and gapping but once I did it was like playing any other iron set. 

[RickyBobby_PR 10,243]

39 minutes ago, JonMUSC08 said:

I like the opinion but not everything is loft jacking. Sometimes we can think of it as "assisting the high handicap" to all them to hit the ball further with more aggressively lofted clubs. I reviewed the Ping G710's and they are an aggressive loft for a Super Game improvement player. As an 11 hdcp, i could easily hit them straight and far. I barely had to ever hit a 7iron into a long par 4, if that. Wasnt my cup of tea BUT for high hdcp players, it helps get the ball further down the fairway for them with more controlled clubs.

 

In term of the T100s, those seem to be more of abridge between game improvement and players distance irons maybe? I wpould LOVE to test them out and see if they allow for better shot shaping capability as opposed to a Game improvement iron WHILE also allowing for a bit more distance capability. 

 

My $0.02

But it’s not just the high handicap. There’s low single digit handicaps that play Apwx cg. p790, t100-s, t200 and t300 along with ap3. Ap2 were loft jacked when compared to the cb and mb and they have been the most played iron on tour.  Golfers need to stop looking at things in terms of handicaps or skill levels and look at launch characteristics and what fits their swing.

 

[Vegan_Golfer_PNW 5,121]

47 minutes ago, Shankster said:

I fully intend to have my iron set up like this soon.  Getting the 5 iron bent strong 1°

here is my 14 club set up… now, take the numbers next to the iron and insert 1970 numbers next to them.  It doesn’t matter what the number is, not one bit.  16° is 16° as 28° is 28°… and 48° is 48°.  

Here me out… 

There is no such thing as loft jacking!!!  

It’s our perception.  We think a 1 iron should be 16° and a 7 iron 34-36° because that is what was normal.  The numbers are just to tell you the order of the dang clubs…. And I’m a traditionalist, look at it from my point of view.  Make sense now?  You’re welcome.

 

this is a pretty loft gap too I might add…

 

Driver - 8-10° depending on fitting.

3W - 14.5°

2 - 16°

3 - 20°

5 - 24°

6 - 28°

7 - 32°

8 - 36°

9° - 40°

P - 44°

W - 49°

S - 54°

L - 59°

Putter

 

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.

[Hogzy 0]

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 33,165]

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 5,121]

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 13]

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 11]

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 3,614]

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 5]

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 34]

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 10,243]

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 34]

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.