Jump to content

Wilson Calls Out TaylorMade on "new" RocketBladez Technology


displayname

Recommended Posts

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.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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?

Titleist TSR3 8* / Fuji Ventus Black TR 6X               

Titleist TSR2+ / Fuji Ventus Black TR 7X               

Callaway UW / Fuji Ventu Black 8X

Edel SMS iron 4-5 / DG TI X100 /////  SMS PRO irons 6-PW / DG TI X100

Edel SMS 50V, 54T, 60T / DG TI S400/ BGT ZNE 130

Edel PROTO




 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='ShortSticks' timestamp='1351096133' post='5839291']
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.
[/quote]

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: [i]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.[/i]

TSR2 8*, Ventus TR Red 7x

TSi2 15*, Diamana BF 80TX

TSR2 18°, Atmos TS Blue HB 8x 
Mizuno MP Fli Hi 21°, Recoil 110

MP-20 MMC  5-P, DG X100
SM8 50F, 54S, 58M (X7 "spinners")
Odyssey Eleven S
Tour BX

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='GooseHook' timestamp='1351096469' post='5839333']
[quote name='ShortSticks' timestamp='1351096133' post='5839291']
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.
[/quote]

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: [i]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.[/i]
[/quote]


So True So True. It's such a predictable pattern at this point with all companies not just TM.

Titleist TSR3 8* / Fuji Ventus Black TR 6X               

Titleist TSR2+ / Fuji Ventus Black TR 7X               

Callaway UW / Fuji Ventu Black 8X

Edel SMS iron 4-5 / DG TI X100 /////  SMS PRO irons 6-PW / DG TI X100

Edel SMS 50V, 54T, 60T / DG TI S400/ BGT ZNE 130

Edel PROTO




 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

TSi3 9* RDX Smoke Black 6.5
M5 15* Kuro Kago Silver 75x
Rescue 11 18* Diamana D+ 90x
P790 4 S400
MP-20 MMC 5-PW S400
Vokey SM6 Black 52/56/60 S400
Newport Mil-Spec 350g / Byron 006 / Laguna Pro Platinum / White Hot RX #7 / Stroke Lab Double Wide Flowneck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jc0' timestamp='1351097284' post='5839401']
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.
[/quote]

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='ShortSticks' timestamp='1351103129' post='5839935']
[quote name='Jc0' timestamp='1351097284' post='5839401']
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.
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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 Q10 LS 9, Graphite Design AD XC X
TM M4 3 wood

TM Stealth 4 hybrid
TM p7mc 4-PW, DG S300
Titleist SM8 50, 56, 60
Titleist Scotty Cameron Squareback 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='ShortSticks' timestamp='1351103129' post='5839935']
[quote name='Jc0' timestamp='1351097284' post='5839401']
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.
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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 :)

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.

TSR2 8*, Ventus TR Red 7x

TSi2 15*, Diamana BF 80TX

TSR2 18°, Atmos TS Blue HB 8x 
Mizuno MP Fli Hi 21°, Recoil 110

MP-20 MMC  5-P, DG X100
SM8 50F, 54S, 58M (X7 "spinners")
Odyssey Eleven S
Tour BX

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='GooseHook' timestamp='1351104137' post='5840017']
[quote name='ShortSticks' timestamp='1351103129' post='5839935']
[quote name='Jc0' timestamp='1351097284' post='5839401']
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.
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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 :)

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.
[/quote]

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='displayname' timestamp='1351095302' post='5839209']
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.


[attachment=1395021:Reflex.JPG]
[/quote]

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 crap? 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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:
"[color=#333333]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 i[/color][color=#333333]ron heads back then were rigid, with a COR measuring around .760. The Reflex measured around .800. RocketBladez COR is about 20 points higher. [/color]
[color=#333333]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]

[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]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='displayname' timestamp='1351095302' post='5839209']
I mentioned this in the RocketBladez thread, but I thought this was enough to post on it's own.
[/quote]

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Our picks

    • 2024 Valspar Championship WITB Photos (Thanks to bvmagic)- Discussion & Links to Photos
      This weeks WITB Pics are from member bvmagic (Brian). Brian's first event for WRX was in 2008 at Bayhill while in college. Thanks so much bv.
       
      Please put your comments or question on this thread. Links to all the threads are below...
       
       
       
       
      • 31 replies
    • 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #1
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #2
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #3
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Matt (LFG) Every - WITB - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Sahith Theegala - WITB - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Cameron putters (and new "LD" grip) - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      New Bettinardi MB & CB irons - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Custom Bettinardi API putter cover - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Custom Swag API covers - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      New Golf Pride Reverse Taper grips - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 15 replies
    • 2024 Cognizant Classic - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #1
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #2
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #3
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #4
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Brandt Snedeker - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Max Greyserman - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Eric Cole - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Carl Yuan - WITb - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Russell Henley - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Justin Sun - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Alex Noren - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Shane Lowry - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Taylor Montgomery - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Jake Knapp (KnappTime_ltd) - WITB - - 2024 Cognizant Classic
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Super Stoke Pistol Lock 1.0 & 2.0 grips - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      LA Golf new insert putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      New Garsen Quad Tour 15 grip - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      New Swag covers - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Jacob Bridgeman's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Bud Cauley's custom Cameron putters - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Ryo Hisatsune's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Chris Kirk - new black Callaway Apex CB irons and a few Odyssey putters - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Alejandro Tosti's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
      • 2 replies
    • 2024 Genesis Invitational - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Monday #1
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Monday #2
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #1
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #2
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #3
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #4
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Rory McIlroy - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Sepp Straka - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Patrick Rodgers - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Brendon Todd - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Denny McCarthy - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Corey Conners - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Chase Johnson - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tommy Fleetwood - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Matt Fitzpatrick - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Si Woo Kim - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Viktor Hovland - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Wyndham Clark - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Cam Davis - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Nick Taylor - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Ben Baller WITB update (New putter, driver, hybrid and shafts) – 2024 Genesis Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Vortex Golf rangefinder - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      New Fujikura Ventus shaft - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods & TaylorMade "Sun Day Red" apparel launch event, product photos – 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods Sun Day Red golf shoes - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Aretera shafts - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      New Toulon putters - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods' new white "Sun Day Red" golf shoe prototypes – 2024 Genesis Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      • 22 replies
    • 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put and questions or comments here
       
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open - Monday #1
      2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open - Monday #2
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Ben Taylor - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Garrick Higgo - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Billy Horschel - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Justin Lower - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Lanto Griffin - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Bud Cauley - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Corbin Burnes (2021 NL Cy Young) - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Greyson Sigg - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Charley Hoffman - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Nico Echavarria - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Victor Perez - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Sami Valimaki - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Ryo Hisatsune - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
       
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      Jake Knapp's custom Cameron putters - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      New Cameron putters - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Tyler Duncan's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Greyson Sigg's custom Cameron putters - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Sunjae Im's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Ping's Waste Management putter covers - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Vincent Whaley's custom Cameron - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Odyssey Waste Management putter covers - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Super Stroke custom grips - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Cameron putters - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Zac Blair's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Bettinardi Waste Management putter covers - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
       
       
       
       
       
       

       
      • 12 replies

×
×
  • Create New...