ANNOUNCEMENT:
Please have patience. We understand that this sucks and it will get MUCH better.

Link to full post HERE
Please add any bugs (problems) with new software in the Website Help Forum. There is a dedicated thread HERE.

Wilson Calls Out TaylorMade on "new" RocketBladez Technology

displaynamedisplayname Advanced Members Posts: 2,004
I mentioned this in the RocketBladez thread, but I thought this was enough to post on it's own.

When the RocketBladez were announced yesterday, I thought the tech looked familiar. My first thought was the Nike CCI Cast. That was also funny because the Nike did a compression channel in a driver before Adams and TM did it in woods.



But Wilson Staff was kind enough to let everyone know the truth on their Facebook page. They did this exact technology, and same basic marketing DECADES ago with the Wilson Reflex.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151125009477675&set=a.80492297674.80818.55676157674&type=1&theater



I love that Wilson just called them out. It was a bold move, and I hope they get some notice for it. Sadly they probably will still get beat out by TM in the sales area. TM has amazing marketing, and it's hard to deny it. But hats off to Wilson for this move. It made me laugh.





«13

Comments

  • J13J13 Dad golf Advanced Members Posts: 15,232 ✭✭
    edited October 2012
    So when Nike came out with slot technology in the driver then TM followed and sold a ton of Rocketballz 3 wood why would Wilson not jump on the bandwagon and create a new version of irons?
    Callaway Flash SZ 9* / ROGUE 130msi Silver 70TX
    Nike VR Pro LTD 15* / Aldila RIP 80X
    Srixon 745's 4-PW / Modus Tour 120 TX
    Callaway MD3 50, 54, 60 / Modus 125
    Odyssey White Hot Versa #6 Tour issue
    Srixon Zstar XV


    GolfWRX WITB Podcast - Irons reveal 11/14/18 http://www.golfwrx.c...utm_content=sub

    GolfWrx WITB Podcast 2017 : http://www.golfwrx.com/482668/tgtg-golfwrx-forum-member-j13-talks-witb-and-club-testing/

    WITB- http://www.golfwrx.c.../page__st__1590

    INSTAGRAM- @Jminis13
  • ShortSticksShortSticks Advanced Members Posts: 706 ✭✭
    I think the Wilson tech has merit, whereas the Taylormade tech is just hype to ride off the RBZ 3 wood. Take a look at where they place the slot and you can see that it will not help the face flex as it is not directly behind the face, but in the bottom of the sole. In the Wilson clubs the slot make the face sort of a "floating" face that may flex at impact. In the Taylormade rollerbladz the face is not floating, but is solid and the slot is cut in the sole where it cannot help the face flex at all.



    I would love to hear Tom Wishoms take on this one.
  • 6thFairway6thFairway Advanced Members Posts: 1,815 ✭✭


    I would love to hear Tom Wishoms take on this one.




    ditto
  • GooseHookGooseHook Keep it Fraiche Advanced Members Posts: 11,599 ✭✭


    I think the Wilson tech has merit, whereas the Taylormade tech is just hype to ride off the RBZ 3 wood. Take a look at where they place the slot and you can see that it will not help the face flex as it is not directly behind the face, but in the bottom of the sole. In the Wilson clubs the slot make the face sort of a "floating" face that may flex at impact. In the Taylormade rollerbladz the face is not floating, but is solid and the slot is cut in the sole where it cannot help the face flex at all.



    I would love to hear Tom Wishoms take on this one.




    Their take on it is that the slot is needed low on the face, to help mishits travel at a more consistent distance.



    Or the cynic's (mine) take on it: we can't have a FULL slot in the first iteration of the iron, because then it would be the best version of itself. The size of the slot behind the face needs to be phased in over the course of 4 product cycles.
    M4 9.5°, Motore Speeder 757
    Mizuno ST-180 17°, Tour Blue
    F9 Speedback 19°, Recoil 95 ES Hybrid
    Mizuno MP Fli Hi 21°, Recoil 110

    Srixon Z785 5-PW
    Mizuno S18  50.07, 54.08 & 58.08

    EVNROLL ER3
    Z-Star/XV
    Lead Tape


  • J13J13 Dad golf Advanced Members Posts: 15,232 ✭✭
    GooseHook wrote:



    I think the Wilson tech has merit, whereas the Taylormade tech is just hype to ride off the RBZ 3 wood. Take a look at where they place the slot and you can see that it will not help the face flex as it is not directly behind the face, but in the bottom of the sole. In the Wilson clubs the slot make the face sort of a "floating" face that may flex at impact. In the Taylormade rollerbladz the face is not floating, but is solid and the slot is cut in the sole where it cannot help the face flex at all.



    I would love to hear Tom Wishoms take on this one.




    Their take on it is that the slot is needed low on the face, to help mishits travel at a more consistent distance.



    Or the cynic's (mine) take on it: we can't have a FULL slot in the first iteration of the iron, because then it would be the best version of itself. The size of the slot behind the face needs to be phased in over the course of 4 product cycles.






    So True So True. It's such a predictable pattern at this point with all companies not just TM.
    Callaway Flash SZ 9* / ROGUE 130msi Silver 70TX
    Nike VR Pro LTD 15* / Aldila RIP 80X
    Srixon 745's 4-PW / Modus Tour 120 TX
    Callaway MD3 50, 54, 60 / Modus 125
    Odyssey White Hot Versa #6 Tour issue
    Srixon Zstar XV


    GolfWRX WITB Podcast - Irons reveal 11/14/18 http://www.golfwrx.c...utm_content=sub

    GolfWrx WITB Podcast 2017 : http://www.golfwrx.com/482668/tgtg-golfwrx-forum-member-j13-talks-witb-and-club-testing/

    WITB- http://www.golfwrx.c.../page__st__1590

    INSTAGRAM- @Jminis13
  • geesecougar2geesecougar2 Advanced Members Posts: 2,009
    Most golf club innovations were thought of many, many, many moons ago. Only, the manufacturing processes and technologies were not available to make them a reality, or to make them financially feasible.



    Anyway, the thing TM has been better at than anyone is incorporating a bunch of innovations into an aesthetically pleasing package, engineering them to work with synergy, and creating enough variations of the product to have something that suits almost everyone. That's the true value add, not the innovation in and of itself.
    M1 8.5 Fuji 757 Evo X
    SLDR 15 Axivcore Tour Green X
    Rescue 11 18 RIP 105 X
    S55 4-PW X100 TI
    Vokey SM4 52 X100 TI
    Vokey TVD 56/60 S400
    White Hot RX #7 / Newport Mil-Spec 350g / Byron 006 / Laguna Pro Platinum
  • Jc0Jc0 ChicagoAdvanced Members Posts: 1,835 ✭✭
    edited October 2012
    Not a golf engineer but here is my opinion as an engineering student. Only having it on the bottom makes sence. The point is to make it so that mishits on the lower part of the face go the same distance as those hit it in middle. So when the ball is hit in the middle of the face the channel does nothing, but when hit low on the face the channel compresses adding a little COR and increasing ball speed back to a number similar to the middle of the face. If you were to put the port for the entire face no increase in distance consistence would be made because the middle of the face would still be hotter than the rest of the face. By having it only in the bottom in makes the bottom part of the face just as hot at the middle.



    Another little thing I'm wondering how loft is affected when this happens. Based on where the channel is placed a ball struck low on the face would also cause the face to deloft slightly when the channel compresses. I would be interested to know if the increased COR or the decreased loft plays a bigger role in ball speed consistency.



    Wilson's tech is the same thing as having variable face thinkness on an iron (look at the cross section lf the rocketblade for example) but needing to have it back supported because the metal couldn't handle the fatigure of being flexed. In no way does it increase consistsncy on face. Insted it does the opposite and creates a hot spot in the middle with dead zones surrounding it which would cause huge incosistencies in distance.
  • Jamboy72Jamboy72 Powered by the old school Members Posts: 5,958 ✭✭
    This will work perfectly for my invention vs. innovation conversation in class...the list of changes and modifications to existing original ideas is where the emphasis is now, not necessarily on ground-breaking, earth-shattering improvements...
  • Skaffa77Skaffa77 No place like the Sand Hills! ClubWRX Charter Members Posts: 6,827 ClubWRX
    edited October 2012
    Seriously....Wilson already invented the "Reflex" technology repackaged as "Speed Pocket" technology in their RocketBladez



    LOL...Wilson can easily call them out in a funny and somewhat effective way. In a weird sort of way, it's like rooting for the underdog...
  • +Church+Church Advanced Members Posts: 1,032
    WOW! This is awesome to see a company stand up for themselves.
  • ShortSticksShortSticks Advanced Members Posts: 706 ✭✭
    Jc0 wrote:


    Not a golf engineer but here is my opinion as an engineering student. Only having it on the bottom makes sence. The point is to make it so that mishits on the lower part of the face go the same distance as those hit it in middle. So when the ball is hit in the middle of the face the channel does nothing, but when hit low on the face the channel compresses adding a little COR and increasing ball speed back to a number similar to the middle of the face. If you were to put the port for the entire face no increase in distance consistence would be made because the middle of the face would still be hotter than the rest of the face. By having it only in the bottom in makes the bottom part of the face just as hot at the middle.



    Another little thing I'm wondering how loft is affected when this happens. Based on where the channel is placed a ball struck low on the face would also cause the face to deloft slightly when the channel compresses. I would be interested to know if the increased COR or the decreased loft plays a bigger role in ball speed consistency.



    Wilson's tech is the same thing as having variable face thinkness on an iron (look at the cross section lf the rocketblade for example) but needing to have it back supported because the metal couldn't handle the fatigure of being flexed. In no way does it increase consistsncy on face. Insted it does the opposite and creates a hot spot in the middle with dead zones surrounding it which would cause huge incosistencies in distance.




    I'm no engineer either, but this still doesn't make any sense to me. How can that little slot on the sole do anything to the face of the iron? AND If the face is flexing when struck low on the face, then it would de-loft the club and add even more inconsistencies.
  • mweaver84mweaver84 Advanced Members Posts: 535

    Jc0 wrote:


    Not a golf engineer but here is my opinion as an engineering student. Only having it on the bottom makes sence. The point is to make it so that mishits on the lower part of the face go the same distance as those hit it in middle. So when the ball is hit in the middle of the face the channel does nothing, but when hit low on the face the channel compresses adding a little COR and increasing ball speed back to a number similar to the middle of the face. If you were to put the port for the entire face no increase in distance consistence would be made because the middle of the face would still be hotter than the rest of the face. By having it only in the bottom in makes the bottom part of the face just as hot at the middle.



    Another little thing I'm wondering how loft is affected when this happens. Based on where the channel is placed a ball struck low on the face would also cause the face to deloft slightly when the channel compresses. I would be interested to know if the increased COR or the decreased loft plays a bigger role in ball speed consistency.



    Wilson's tech is the same thing as having variable face thinkness on an iron (look at the cross section lf the rocketblade for example) but needing to have it back supported because the metal couldn't handle the fatigure of being flexed. In no way does it increase consistsncy on face. Insted it does the opposite and creates a hot spot in the middle with dead zones surrounding it which would cause huge incosistencies in distance.




    I'm no engineer either, but this still doesn't make any sense to me. How can that little slot on the sole do anything to the face of the iron? AND If the face is flexing when struck low on the face, then it would de-loft the club and add even more inconsistencies.




    I'm definitely no engineer either but I think that is where the variable face thickness comes into play to even the effect throughout the face. Don't quote me on that =P Either way I will staying clear of these irons!
    TM M3 9.5, Graphite Design AD DI 7x
    TM M4 3 wood
    TM p790 3 iron
    Mizuno MP-59 4-PW, DG S300
    Titleist SM4 50, 56, 60
    Titleist Scotty Cameron Newport 2
  • Willie MalayWillie Malay Advanced Members Posts: 2,667
    And someone made a feathery a long time ago and it looks like a golf ball...
  • GooseHookGooseHook Keep it Fraiche Advanced Members Posts: 11,599 ✭✭

    Jc0 wrote:


    Not a golf engineer but here is my opinion as an engineering student. Only having it on the bottom makes sence. The point is to make it so that mishits on the lower part of the face go the same distance as those hit it in middle. So when the ball is hit in the middle of the face the channel does nothing, but when hit low on the face the channel compresses adding a little COR and increasing ball speed back to a number similar to the middle of the face. If you were to put the port for the entire face no increase in distance consistence would be made because the middle of the face would still be hotter than the rest of the face. By having it only in the bottom in makes the bottom part of the face just as hot at the middle.



    Another little thing I'm wondering how loft is affected when this happens. Based on where the channel is placed a ball struck low on the face would also cause the face to deloft slightly when the channel compresses. I would be interested to know if the increased COR or the decreased loft plays a bigger role in ball speed consistency.



    Wilson's tech is the same thing as having variable face thinkness on an iron (look at the cross section lf the rocketblade for example) but needing to have it back supported because the metal couldn't handle the fatigure of being flexed. In no way does it increase consistsncy on face. Insted it does the opposite and creates a hot spot in the middle with dead zones surrounding it which would cause huge incosistencies in distance.




    I'm no engineer either, but this still doesn't make any sense to me. How can that little slot on the sole do anything to the face of the iron? AND If the face is flexing when struck low on the face, then it would de-loft the club and add even more inconsistencies.




    It essentially creates a "trampoline zone" wherever it is. Without it, the club face would basically behave like the face of a drum. Hit it in the middle and you get a good bounce, around the edges....well let's hope you did it for the rhythm image/smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />



    It wouldn't deloft the club like a driver. When we're talking about gear effect, that pertains to clubfaces that are built with bulge and roll- an iron does not have these. I would guess that if loft is changed dynamically at all, it might be a slightly higher loft.
    M4 9.5°, Motore Speeder 757
    Mizuno ST-180 17°, Tour Blue
    F9 Speedback 19°, Recoil 95 ES Hybrid
    Mizuno MP Fli Hi 21°, Recoil 110

    Srixon Z785 5-PW
    Mizuno S18  50.07, 54.08 & 58.08

    EVNROLL ER3
    Z-Star/XV
    Lead Tape


  • Jc0Jc0 ChicagoAdvanced Members Posts: 1,835 ✭✭
    GooseHook wrote:


    Jc0 wrote:


    Not a golf engineer but here is my opinion as an engineering student. Only having it on the bottom makes sence. The point is to make it so that mishits on the lower part of the face go the same distance as those hit it in middle. So when the ball is hit in the middle of the face the channel does nothing, but when hit low on the face the channel compresses adding a little COR and increasing ball speed back to a number similar to the middle of the face. If you were to put the port for the entire face no increase in distance consistence would be made because the middle of the face would still be hotter than the rest of the face. By having it only in the bottom in makes the bottom part of the face just as hot at the middle.



    Another little thing I'm wondering how loft is affected when this happens. Based on where the channel is placed a ball struck low on the face would also cause the face to deloft slightly when the channel compresses. I would be interested to know if the increased COR or the decreased loft plays a bigger role in ball speed consistency.



    Wilson's tech is the same thing as having variable face thinkness on an iron (look at the cross section lf the rocketblade for example) but needing to have it back supported because the metal couldn't handle the fatigure of being flexed. In no way does it increase consistsncy on face. Insted it does the opposite and creates a hot spot in the middle with dead zones surrounding it which would cause huge incosistencies in distance.




    I'm no engineer either, but this still doesn't make any sense to me. How can that little slot on the sole do anything to the face of the iron? AND If the face is flexing when struck low on the face, then it would de-loft the club and add even more inconsistencies.




    It essentially creates a "trampoline zone" wherever it is. Without it, the club face would basically behave like the face of a drum. Hit it in the middle and you get a good bounce, around the edges....well let's hope you did it for the rhythm image/smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />



    It wouldn't deloft the club like a driver. When we're talking about gear effect, that pertains to clubfaces that are built with bulge and roll- an iron does not have these. I would guess that if loft is changed dynamically at all, it might be a slightly higher loft.




    I'm talking about when the channel compresses. When this happens it will make the face will become more vertical, but now that I think about it it will probably decompress with the ball so it is really negligible.
  • TMBobTMBob Advanced Members Posts: 5,373
    Till Wilson provides a cut out of those old heads, there is nothing to be called out IMHO. Just because they seem the same fom the out side, does not mean that they are the same on the inside.



    Come on Wilson, post one cut in half and then point your finger all you want.



    Wait, did Karsten call out Scotty?
  • HateTheHighDrawHateTheHighDraw Advanced Members Posts: 2,434 ✭✭
    The slots are only there to help on thin hits or other hits low on the face because "68% of mishits occur low on the face" according to Taylormade. Also telling is the fact that the slots are only on the 3-7 irons and the scoring irons don't have them.
  • BeTheBallBeTheBall Advanced Members Posts: 429


    I mentioned this in the RocketBladez thread, but I thought this was enough to post on it's own.

    When the RocketBladez were announced yesterday, I thought the tech looked familiar. My first thought was the Nike CCI Cast. That was also funny because the Nike did a compression channel in a driver before Adams and TM did it in woods.



    But Wilson Staff was kind enough to let everyone know the truth on their Facebook page. They did this exact technology, and same basic marketing DECADES ago with the Wilson Reflex.

    https://www.facebook...&type=1



    I love that Wilson just called them out. It was a bold move, and I hope they get some notice for it. Sadly they probably will still get beat out by TM in the sales area. TM has amazing marketing, and it's hard to deny it. But hats off to Wilson for this move. It made me laugh.









    Oh, another 6 months must have gone by as TM puts out ANOTHER model. A trampoline effect, like loose strings in a tennis racket, will create more distance but much less control. I don't use my calendar any more, I just watch for new TM "marketing breakthroughs". So curious, do you golfers here really fall for this ****? Make a "lighter grip for more distance" and "hit our 49" shaft and we'll get YOU 15 MORE YARDS", yeah, in the woods! Who remembers the huge marketing campaign of the "BUBBLE SHAFT"? Hmmm, I bought in and got one and saw 0 change, apparently I'm not the only one as the "new great bubble shaft" was never used again. I guess being lied to during these political times has me short fused for "marketing schemes/slants", it' all about the $$$. BTW, I hit R11's so I am not anti-TM, just anti TM marketing promises every other month.
    PING G25 Driver
    PING G25 3W Hyb 20
    PING i25 4-GW
    PING Tour S Rustic 55, 60
    PING Ketsch
    Srixon XV
  • Flyers99Flyers99 Advanced Members Posts: 507
    I have a few TM clubs so I am not a hater....but.......TM "innovation" and their clubs are no better than others. They are a marketing machine. I always hear well tour pros would not play their driver if it was not good. Any manufacturer can make a prototype driver to anyone's specs. Cleveland could turn around and make Dustin Johnson a driver as good as he has now. Although it seems every year TM claims their players are hitting the new driver 10-15 yards further yet it does not show up in their stats. Ahhhh marketing again.



    As said before, they did not have any "innovation" with the slot in the RBZ line. Nike and Adams had versions before them but they would make you believe they started it all. Funny they bought Adams so their could be no issues with that technology. Similar scenario in the irons. They just make stuff that is a little different, sell to the public and then on to the next.
  • TheUTheU Advanced Members Posts: 276
    This is brilliant and hilarious.
  • sblack5sblack5 Long Armed Monster Advanced Members Posts: 2,528
    Worst thing is that their marketing is working with all of us.....weve all checked out the product's info and even tho most of us are hating TMAG......we ARE talking a lot about it
    hit is with so much authority
    that when you find it
    and it sees you, it is trembling.
  • WpgMikeWpgMike Advanced Members Posts: 607
    Well done by Wilson. For those wanting Wishon's take, all he has to do is point to the 870's which have a .83 cor...which he created like 4 years ago without putting some cheap looking rubber strip in his design.
    Driver: Wishon 919thi 11* w/AXE 6 stiff
    FW: Wishon 949mc 16.5* w/AXE FW Stiff
    3-4 Hybrids: Wishon 775hs w/ S2S White Stiff
    Irons: Miura CB-1008 w/Nippon Modus 105 S
    Putter: Ping Ketsch Heavy 34" 2 degrees flat
    Wedges: Cleveland RTX 2.0
  • mudmarlinmudmarlin Advanced Members Posts: 245
    Remember the Taylor Made bubble shaft? I love new and amazing golf technology. But how come cavity back irons, metal drivers, graphite shafts, and the urethane golf ball are really the only technology's that don't get forgotten evey year?
  • SpartySparty Advanced Members Posts: 135
    These are god awful ugly...
  • bouche03bouche03 Advanced Members Posts: 239
    Too bad Wilson wasn't a major player anymore like they once were
  • saltcitysaltcity Advanced Members Posts: 488
    So who would rather play Wilson Staff Reflex irons rather than Rocketbladez?



    Get real Wilson.
  • displaynamedisplayname Advanced Members Posts: 2,004
    edited October 2012
    I think I should update, and TaylorMade's social media staff had a very detailed response in regards to this photo from Wilson.



    From TM:

    "The Wilson Reflex iron was introduced more than 30 years ago. Iron design has progressed significantly from that time. The Reflex incorporates a slot that enhances face flexibility to increase COR (a term that wasn’t used back then). All iron heads back then were rigid, with a COR measuring around .760. The Reflex measured around .800. RocketBladez COR is about 20 points higher.

    Also, the Reflex didn’t have enhancements like the RocketBladez’ complex face design, Inverted Cone, high MOI and low and centered CG location. The Reflex had a constant face thickness of about 3mm, while RocketBladez’ varying face thickness is 1.6 mm at its thinnest. The Reflex’s vertical CG was relatively high, about 20 mm above the ground, and the set didn’t employ progressive head design in terms of topline, sole width and MOI."



    Obviously TM didn't appreciate the joke, but they did take the time to respond, so I thought it was worth mentioning to all the technically inclined people here.
  • 596596 Lakeland, FLAdvanced Members Posts: 3,581 ✭✭
    edited October 2012
    All this for distance claims and the forgotten 26.5* lofted 6 iron. Will the resulting distance gain be from the iron itself or the 4.5* less loft in the 6 iron? My 5 iron (27*) has more loft then the TM 6 iron. Pretty soon the TM 6 iron will have 23* of loft and be claimed as the longest irons yet!!! That would make the 4 iron 15* and a total rocket. No longer need a 3 wood!!



    TM engineers are total freaks of nature. Come out with ground breaking technology every 4-6 months.



    Com' on Man!!!!!!!!!!
  • TheDarkOneTheDarkOne Advanced Members Posts: 3,725


    I mentioned this in the RocketBladez thread, but I thought this was enough to post on it's own.




    I was in the thread where you were the first to bring this up so I gave you a big plus one, great catch sir.



    Also, can someone PLEASE get Tom Wishon to give his opinion of this new technology? That's the kind of reading a golf equipment nut dreams of. Heck I'd love to hear Tad Moore's view also.
  • jwolfe15jwolfe15 Members Posts: 23
    BeTheBall wrote:



    I mentioned this in the RocketBladez thread, but I thought this was enough to post on it's own.

    When the RocketBladez were announced yesterday, I thought the tech looked familiar. My first thought was the Nike CCI Cast. That was also funny because the Nike did a compression channel in a driver before Adams and TM did it in woods.



    But Wilson Staff was kind enough to let everyone know the truth on their Facebook page. They did this exact technology, and same basic marketing DECADES ago with the Wilson Reflex.

    https://www.facebook...&type=1



    I love that Wilson just called them out. It was a bold move, and I hope they get some notice for it. Sadly they probably will still get beat out by TM in the sales area. TM has amazing marketing, and it's hard to deny it. But hats off to Wilson for this move. It made me laugh.









    Oh, another 6 months must have gone by as TM puts out ANOTHER model. A trampoline effect, like loose strings in a tennis racket, will create more distance but much less control. I don't use my calendar any more, I just watch for new TM "marketing breakthroughs". So curious, do you golfers here really fall for this ****? Make a "lighter grip for more distance" and "hit our 49" shaft and we'll get YOU 15 MORE YARDS", yeah, in the woods! Who remembers the huge marketing campaign of the "BUBBLE SHAFT"? Hmmm, I bought in and got one and saw 0 change, apparently I'm not the only one as the "new great bubble shaft" was never used again. I guess being lied to during these political times has me short fused for "marketing schemes/slants", it' all about the $$$. BTW, I hit R11's so I am not anti-TM, just anti TM marketing promises every other month.




    Wow, totally agree. I didn't know there was this technology to still be discovered. TM must have some crazy engineers that have figured out things no one else in the world can. It's so great to get on here and see that people aren't dumb enough to buy into all this hype, that some people can see beyond the commercials and the 5000+ pros they sponsor.
  • GooseHookGooseHook Keep it Fraiche Advanced Members Posts: 11,599 ✭✭
    TheDarkOne wrote:



    I mentioned this in the RocketBladez thread, but I thought this was enough to post on it's own.




    I was in the thread where you were the first to bring this up so I gave you a big plus one, great catch sir.



    Also, can someone PLEASE get Tom Wishon to give his opinion of this new technology? That's the kind of reading a golf equipment nut dreams of. Heck I'd love to hear Tad Moore's view also.




    What's Tad Moore's interest? Not really familiar with him, just curious.
    M4 9.5°, Motore Speeder 757
    Mizuno ST-180 17°, Tour Blue
    F9 Speedback 19°, Recoil 95 ES Hybrid
    Mizuno MP Fli Hi 21°, Recoil 110

    Srixon Z785 5-PW
    Mizuno S18  50.07, 54.08 & 58.08

    EVNROLL ER3
    Z-Star/XV
    Lead Tape


  • GooseHookGooseHook Keep it Fraiche Advanced Members Posts: 11,599 ✭✭
    jwolfe15 wrote:

    BeTheBall wrote:



    I mentioned this in the RocketBladez thread, but I thought this was enough to post on it's own.

    When the RocketBladez were announced yesterday, I thought the tech looked familiar. My first thought was the Nike CCI Cast. That was also funny because the Nike did a compression channel in a driver before Adams and TM did it in woods.



    But Wilson Staff was kind enough to let everyone know the truth on their Facebook page. They did this exact technology, and same basic marketing DECADES ago with the Wilson Reflex.

    [url="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151125009477675&set=a.80492297674.80818.55676157674&type=1&theater"]https://www.facebook...&type=1[/url]



    I love that Wilson just called them out. It was a bold move, and I hope they get some notice for it. Sadly they probably will still get beat out by TM in the sales area. TM has amazing marketing, and it's hard to deny it. But hats off to Wilson for this move. It made me laugh.









    Oh, another 6 months must have gone by as TM puts out ANOTHER model. A trampoline effect, like loose strings in a tennis racket, will create more distance but much less control. I don't use my calendar any more, I just watch for new TM "marketing breakthroughs". So curious, do you golfers here really fall for this ****? Make a "lighter grip for more distance" and "hit our 49" shaft and we'll get YOU 15 MORE YARDS", yeah, in the woods! Who remembers the huge marketing campaign of the "BUBBLE SHAFT"? Hmmm, I bought in and got one and saw 0 change, apparently I'm not the only one as the "new great bubble shaft" was never used again. I guess being lied to during these political times has me short fused for "marketing schemes/slants", it' all about the $$$. BTW, I hit R11's so I am not anti-TM, just anti TM marketing promises every other month.




    Wow, totally agree. I didn't know there was this technology to still be discovered. TM must have some crazy engineers that have figured out things no one else in the world can. It's so great to get on here and see that people aren't dumb enough to buy into all this hype, that some people can see beyond the commercials and the 5000+ pros they sponsor.




    I can assure you that any engineers worth their salt already have the next 2-3 years of products designed, or they're at least in prototype phase. It's the marketeers and bean counters that tell them what to release and when.



    It's a big frustration for engineers in a corporate environment, but that's just the way it is.
    M4 9.5°, Motore Speeder 757
    Mizuno ST-180 17°, Tour Blue
    F9 Speedback 19°, Recoil 95 ES Hybrid
    Mizuno MP Fli Hi 21°, Recoil 110

    Srixon Z785 5-PW
    Mizuno S18  50.07, 54.08 & 58.08

    EVNROLL ER3
    Z-Star/XV
    Lead Tape


  • OUZO PowerOUZO Power #CallaWRX2 Banned Posts: 2,712


    I think I should update, and TaylorMade's social media staff had a very detailed response in regards to this photo from Wilson.



    From TM:

    "The Wilson Reflex iron was introduced more than 30 years ago. Iron design has progressed significantly from that time. The Reflex incorporates a slot that enhances face flexibility to increase COR (a term that wasn’t used back then). All iron heads back then were rigid, with a COR measuring around .760. The Reflex measured around .800. RocketBladez COR is about 20 points higher.

    Also, the Reflex didn’t have enhancements like the RocketBladez’ complex face design, Inverted Cone, high MOI and low and centered CG location. The Reflex had a constant face thickness of about 3mm, while RocketBladez’ varying face thickness is 1.6 mm at its thinnest. The Reflex’s vertical CG was relatively high, about 20 mm above the ground, and the set didn’t employ progressive head design in terms of topline, sole width and MOI."



    Obviously TM didn't appreciate the joke, but they did take the time to respond, so I thought it was worth mentioning to all the technically inclined people here.
    From this response I still don't see how TM proves they didn't "copy" wilson.
    Driver: Callaway Big Bertha Alpha 815
    FW: Callaway Big Bertha 3W
    FW: Callaway Big Bertha 5W
    Hybrid: Callaway RAZR X Tour 3H
    Irons: Callaway Apex 4-9, PW, AW, SW
    Putter: Odyssey Metal X Milled #9HT
  • BigHook25BigHook25 Advanced Members Posts: 2,284 ✭✭
    596 wrote:


    All this for distance claims and the forgotten 26.5* lofted 6 iron. Will the resulting distance gain be from the iron itself or the 4.5* less loft in the 6 iron? My 5 iron (27*) has more loft then the TM 6 iron. Pretty soon the TM 6 iron will have 23* of loft and be claimed as the longest irons yet!!! That would make the 4 iron 15* and a total rocket. No longer need a 3 wood!!



    TM engineers are total freaks of nature. Come out with ground breaking technology every 4-6 months.



    Com' on Man!!!!!!!!!!




    Yes, and this new 3-iron has 18 degrees of loft (can we say 2-iron) and has a shaft that is about an inch longer than my 3-iron now. Their steel shaft in these clubs are only 85 grams and the graphite are in the 60 gram range. So between the longer shaft, lower loft, and lighter shaft these new TM clubs will probably hit 2 clubs longer than what a real 6, 7, 8, etc. iron will. Unfortunately for the people who don't know any better, they will love the new fake distance, but will miss more greens. Some people just don't realize your irons are to perform at specific gaps and are more for accuracy. What good is hitting your PW 165 yards when now you have to fill that more many gaps below that yardage.



    Yea, TM is definitely overhyping their stuff when the differences in golf technology from year to year is very minimal.
  • Fore_ManFore_Man Advanced Members Posts: 2,104
    Seriously!?
  • KYMARKYMAR Advanced Members Posts: 13,257
    Flyersby99 wrote:


    I have a few TM clubs so I am not a hater....but.......TM "innovation" and their clubs are no better than others. They are a marketing machine. I always hear well tour pros would not play their driver if it was not good. Any manufacturer can make a prototype driver to anyone's specs. Cleveland could turn around and make Dustin Johnson a driver as good as he has now. Although it seems every year TM claims their players are hitting the new driver 10-15 yards further yet it does not show up in their stats. Ahhhh marketing again.



    As said before, they did not have any "innovation" with the slot in the RBZ line. Nike and Adams had versions before them but they would make you believe they started it all. Funny they bought Adams so their could be no issues with that technology. Similar scenario in the irons. They just make stuff that is a little different, sell to the public and then on to the next.




    Where did they make this claim?



    The most comical part of the "taylormade is pure marketing" type is their incessant need to misquote what they have said. I am not sure if this is intentional and done out of irrational hate, or people just don't pay attention, or think for themselves. Or maybe if they hear someone bang TM for their "marketing" and join in because there is a rebel element in it. Either way these posts are still funnier than any actual claim TM has made. The weirdest part is TM has done and said plenty of real things that are worthy of criticism. The bottom line is, misquoting their marketing campaigns dont make them look ridiculous at all.



    I also have to say that while I am a huge fan of Wilson and hope for their success, the idea that POS reflex iron is the same tech is silly. From a practical standpoint, it's not even close to the same thing.



    For the record, I have like 8 brands in my bag, 1 taylormade club which may sit out tomorrow as I have an itch to bust out the 9015D.
    Callaway XR Pro Attas Tour SPX X
    Taylormade Tour issue 15* V Steel 3 wood
    Hybrid undecided
    Cobra Amp Cell Pro's (All MB) 4-GW Project X Rifle 6.0
    Cleveland CG15 56 and 60
    White Hot 6 Long Neck
  • justoddjustodd Chief Advanced Members Posts: 636
    I hope they don't come after my dad, he has a slot on the bottom of his ping putter.
  • xabiaxabia Advanced Members Posts: 1,818 ✭✭
    Good lord its amazing how people think TM bogarted something from 30 years ago, and that's the ONLY thing that makes those irons superior, It's clear that they are not the only ones to use a speed slot in any of their clubs so stop getting all torn up about it.. oh wait I forgot, THE LOFTS ARE JACKED UP!!! OMG WHAT WILL WE AL DO image/russian_roulette.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':russian_roulette:' />
    Mayfield Sand Ridge CC
    TI M2 Tensei Orange V3 60TX
    TI M2 Tensei Blue 70TX / M4 Atmos 7 stiff / CBX HC Evenflow Black 75X
    T1 M2 16.5 Speeder Evo 3 7X
    Mizuno MMC Fli Hi 3 iron Diamana D+ 90X / Ping Anser 20* oban kiyoshi white
    MP 18 MB 4-PW Ctaper Lite 110 stiff
    Scratch 53 / Vokey SM7 Raw 56* / SM7 60D Raw
    Odyssey Jalibird Mini 33"
  • Jamboy72Jamboy72 Powered by the old school Members Posts: 5,958 ✭✭
    Kind of get the feeling TM got caught with their hand in the cookie jar...yes, designs have changed...in some ways a lot and in others not so much...but to give people any impression that this slot idea is entirely original and solely the work of TM is misleading...
  • waaayrightwaaayright Advanced Members Posts: 113
    It is very evident from TM's response that they knew all about the Wilson Reflex irons and their specifications. No doubt they had a few on hand for "research" purposes.



    We have reached the age of tweaks and everything old is new again....
  • G N RG N R Advanced Members Posts: 936
    topekareal wrote:


    ...but to give people any impression that this slot idea is entirely original and solely the work of TM is misleading...




    I think that's the point that needs to be highlighted. Your average guy who will pick this up in a store, hear all the marketing **** that comes along with it, will have no idea about what Wilson did 30 years ago. To this guy, TMag has "done it again".
    Titleist 913 D2 10.5* Diamana S+
    Bridgestone J40 4W 16* Project X 6.0
    Bridgestone J40 3H 21* Project X 6.0
    Mizuno MP 53 4-PW XP S300
    Mizuno T4 52* and 58* S300
    Odyssey ProType Black 2 ball
  • Jamboy72Jamboy72 Powered by the old school Members Posts: 5,958 ✭✭
    Right...the marketing piece is always very interesting to me...don't get me wrong, there are wonderful and creative new ideas in the golf industry each year...but those true breakthrough type introductions are not the norm...



    what will be really interesting to see is if other companies follow suit as they did with the adjustable driver, which imo, is one of the only significant product releases in the last 10 years...
  • idiotboxidiotbox Advanced Members Posts: 1,029
    imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
  • smackygolfsmackygolf Banned Posts: 1,501
    OK. I want you whiners to post what company has new product coming out that isn't a descendant of a past product. I'll hang up and listen.
  • Jamboy72Jamboy72 Powered by the old school Members Posts: 5,958 ✭✭
    I guess it depends on what you mean by "descendant" because if we're just talking about a hunk of metal at the end of a shaft with some kind of grip, then I guess there really can't be any revolutionary ideas...I think the better question is to come up with a list of advancements in the game in the last 50 years and define which of those changes had the greatest impact...and which were truly unique...I don't think Rocketbladez would qualify...
  • jholzjholz Advanced Members Posts: 1,249 ✭✭
    KYMAR wrote:

    Flyersby99 wrote:


    I have a few TM clubs so I am not a hater....but.......TM "innovation" and their clubs are no better than others. They are a marketing machine. I always hear well tour pros would not play their driver if it was not good. Any manufacturer can make a prototype driver to anyone's specs. Cleveland could turn around and make Dustin Johnson a driver as good as he has now. Although it seems every year TM claims their players are hitting the new driver 10-15 yards further yet it does not show up in their stats. Ahhhh marketing again.



    As said before, they did not have any "innovation" with the slot in the RBZ line. Nike and Adams had versions before them but they would make you believe they started it all. Funny they bought Adams so their could be no issues with that technology. Similar scenario in the irons. They just make stuff that is a little different, sell to the public and then on to the next.




    Where did they make this claim?



    The most comical part of the "taylormade is pure marketing" type is their incessant need to misquote what they have said. I am not sure if this is intentional and done out of irrational hate, or people just don't pay attention, or think for themselves. Or maybe if they hear someone bang TM for their "marketing" and join in because there is a rebel element in it. Either way these posts are still funnier than any actual claim TM has made. The weirdest part is TM has done and said plenty of real things that are worthy of criticism. The bottom line is, misquoting their marketing campaigns dont make them look ridiculous at all.



    I also have to say that while I am a huge fan of Wilson and hope for their success, the idea that POS reflex iron is the same tech is silly. From a practical standpoint, it's not even close to the same thing.



    For the record, I have like 8 brands in my bag, 1 taylormade club which may sit out tomorrow as I have an itch to bust out the 9015D.




    Man, I think you are the one who needs to read what people are saying. If you look at flyersby99's post he isn't quoting anyone, he is offering a broad and general characterization of TM's marketing that I think many would argue is fairly accurate - that's what the "it seems as though..." preface to his comment indicates.



    Perhaps you could develop a point of criticism that is more substantive and a manner of communication that isn't so insulting. The venom with which you defend TaylorMade borders on the ridiculous.
    Cleveland Launcher HB 10.5* - Stock Miyazaki C. Kua 50 Stiff
    Callaway Diablo Octane Tour 13* - Aldila NV 75 Stiff
    or
    Callaway Diablo Edge Tour 15* - Accra Dymatch M5 75
    Mizuno F-50 18* - Stock Stiff
    or
    Callaway Diablo Edge Tour Hybrid 21* - Aldila NV 85 Stiff
    Callaway RAZR Tour Hybrid 24* - Stock XStiff
    5 - PW Cleveland CG7 Tour Black Pearl - DGSL S300
    Vokey Design 200 Series 52* Stock Wedge (?)
    Cleveland CG15 Oilcan 56* Stock Wedge
    Callaway X-Series JAWS Slate CC 58* Stock Wedge
    Odyssey White Ice #7 - Golf Pride Oversize
  • LlortamaiseyLlortamaisey Advanced Members Posts: 5,861


    I think I should update, and TaylorMade's social media staff had a very detailed response in regards to this photo from Wilson.



    From TM:

    "The Wilson Reflex iron was introduced more than 30 years ago. Iron design has progressed significantly from that time. The Reflex incorporates a slot that enhances face flexibility to increase COR (a term that wasn’t used back then). All iron heads back then were rigid, with a COR measuring around .760. The Reflex measured around .800. RocketBladez COR is about 20 points higher.

    Also, the Reflex didn’t have enhancements like the RocketBladez’ complex face design, Inverted Cone, high MOI and low and centered CG location. The Reflex had a constant face thickness of about 3mm, while RocketBladez’ varying face thickness is 1.6 mm at its thinnest. The Reflex’s vertical CG was relatively high, about 20 mm above the ground, and the set didn’t employ progressive head design in terms of topline, sole width and MOI."



    [color="#333333"]Obviously TM didn't appreciate the joke, but they did take the time to respond, so I thought it was worth mentioning to all the technically inclined people here. [/color]




    Thanks for posting. I would have never seen this if you hadn't. If TM truly didn't copy Wilson's idea, it's pretty convenient they had the Reflex's COR specs handy.
  • KYMARKYMAR Advanced Members Posts: 13,257
    edited October 2012
    jholz wrote:

    KYMAR wrote:

    Flyersby99 wrote:


    I have a few TM clubs so I am not a hater....but.......TM "innovation" and their clubs are no better than others. They are a marketing machine. I always hear well tour pros would not play their driver if it was not good. Any manufacturer can make a prototype driver to anyone's specs. Cleveland could turn around and make Dustin Johnson a driver as good as he has now. Although it seems every year TM claims their players are hitting the new driver 10-15 yards further yet it does not show up in their stats. Ahhhh marketing again.



    As said before, they did not have any "innovation" with the slot in the RBZ line. Nike and Adams had versions before them but they would make you believe they started it all. Funny they bought Adams so their could be no issues with that technology. Similar scenario in the irons. They just make stuff that is a little different, sell to the public and then on to the next.




    Where did they make this claim?



    The most comical part of the "taylormade is pure marketing" type is their incessant need to misquote what they have said. I am not sure if this is intentional and done out of irrational hate, or people just don't pay attention, or think for themselves. Or maybe if they hear someone bang TM for their "marketing" and join in because there is a rebel element in it. Either way these posts are still funnier than any actual claim TM has made. The weirdest part is TM has done and said plenty of real things that are worthy of criticism. The bottom line is, misquoting their marketing campaigns dont make them look ridiculous at all.



    I also have to say that while I am a huge fan of Wilson and hope for their success, the idea that POS reflex iron is the same tech is silly. From a practical standpoint, it's not even close to the same thing.



    For the record, I have like 8 brands in my bag, 1 taylormade club which may sit out tomorrow as I have an itch to bust out the 9015D.




    Man, I think you are the one who needs to read what people are saying. If you look at flyersby99's post he isn't quoting anyone, he is offering a broad and general characterization of TM's marketing that I think many would argue is fairly accurate - that's what the "it seems as though..." preface to his comment indicates.



    Perhaps you could develop a point of criticism that is more substantive and a manner of communication that isn't so insulting. The venom with which you defend TaylorMade borders on the ridiculous.




    LOL well if you could read you would note that the "seems" he used referenced the "every year" and not the claim of 15 yard gain. Otherwise, there would be zero need to reference the 15 yard gain not showing up in players stats. Clearly, he expected to see it based on a false belief that that's what they told him to expect. So, if someone is going to make a statement criticizing what they say. They can at least get the claims correct. Are you all that familiar with what they claim? I must admit to being skeptical when you call the above quoted post as "fairly accurate" There is nothing accurate about the part I bolded. How much more substance do you want? I have ZERO allegiance to any OEM. I do however have an allegiance to truth. And the amount of untrue statements about what they have actually said far outnumber the true ones.



    And as i said, there is plenty to criticize TM for (the ATV wedge comes to mind imo) Hate how they pay players? Criticize and boycott! Don't like the white? Blast away! Hate the name Rocketballz? Make another post about how stupid it is, Think the Adjustable sole plate on the R11 is a pure gimmick? CRUSH 'em for it! Think the updated sole plate on the R11S is even MORE of a gimmick? Hang the designer in effigy!! At least those are actual things you can be mad at. Being mad at fiction is what is really ridiculous.
    Callaway XR Pro Attas Tour SPX X
    Taylormade Tour issue 15* V Steel 3 wood
    Hybrid undecided
    Cobra Amp Cell Pro's (All MB) 4-GW Project X Rifle 6.0
    Cleveland CG15 56 and 60
    White Hot 6 Long Neck
  • hef63303hef63303 Advanced Members Posts: 2,854 ✭✭
    Been a long time since there was something that was really new.
  • golfwaregolfware Advanced Members Posts: 4,779 ✭✭
    When I saw their Facebook post I was LMAO!!
«13
Sign In or Register to comment.