Titleist 716 Iron Photos and Comparisons: AP1, AP2, T-MB, CB, MB

ladahl · January 9, 2016

Buzzkill- Looking good! I can't wait to get some real grass scars on mine.

Thanks and I hear ya! When my course thaws, I'll post some disturbing battle scars that might not be suitable for viewing.

The more the better IMO. They're golf CLUBS.. I like your style

NoTalentLefty · January 9, 2016

Of all the 716s the best looking to these old eyes are the T-MBs . Still love my AP1s.

Peanut191 · January 10, 2016

Hit the T-MB 3 iron(s300) vs the 915h 21 degree(Kiyoshi white 95 stiff). The ballspeeds coming off of the T-MB were impressive for an iron. They were almost as high as the hybrid. I was actually getting close to the same distance out of the two clubs, just in a different way. The hybrid launched higher and had a little more spin than the iron. I was getting about 10 more yards carry out of the hybrid compared to the iron, whereas I was getting 5 more yards roll out of the iron compared to the hybrid. The hybrid was slightly more forgiving, while I found the iron slightly easier to aim. It seems I might have been getting a couple more total yards out of the hybrid, which I would attribute to the shaft being slightly longer.

Generally, I am not able to get a long iron to perform this close to a similarly lofted hybrid. So, I was incredibly impressed with the T-MB 3 iron. I could see players who like the look of irons better than hybrids, but have had to go to hybrids for performance, easily being able to drop the hybrid in favor of the T-MB long irons.

boulAAYYY · March 15, 2016

DAMN!!! I was about to pull the trigger for a set of T-MB 3 to pw and my rep just told me that they are not available in CANADA......

Faking-it-with-blades · April 15, 2016

RE: Comparing the T-MB 4-iron to the 716 AP2 4-iron.

Both clubs are 38.5 inches long, and the T-MB is 1 to perhaps 1.5 or 2 degrees stronger. So the T-MB would naturally be longer, right?

Specs on the T-MB 4-iron is 23 degrees loft, and on the AP2 it is 24 degrees of loft. If we presume they are spot on, it's a one-degree difference. If they are just a little bit off, that difference could be almost nothing, or it could be something like 2 degrees (more?) stronger loft for the T-MB. Independent of any design breakthroughs, I'd expect the T-MB to be longer based on simple geometry.

So Titleist acknowledge the TM-B's are strong lofted - saying they cranked them in order to bring the launch back down to what a traditional lofted iron would be. They claim that because the amount of tungsten used sent the MOI way up, it made the CG so low the launch got way up too.

So, according to Titleist, the on-paper loft of the T-MB isn't the story. The story is launch angle, think that, not loft. It's the iron equivalent of the bounce number stamped on a Vokey wedge - it's not the actual bounce angle, it's the effective bounce angle.

Above is a key point to keep in mind when deciphering whether manufacturers are simply cranking iron lofts (and lengths!) in an effort to create the longest "6-iron" in the demo bay. It' certainly true that the likes of TM and Cally have essentially started creating 6-irons that are actually just 5-irons in disguise. With more refined companies like Titleist or Mizuno, however, any strengthening (or weakening) of lofts is generally an adjustment to maintain appropriate launch angle and spin rates in the face of changing CG distribution. Assume, for example, you start with a bladed pitching wedge at 46* of loft. If you then add tungsten weighting moving the CG lower and further back, this would improve MOI but it would also increase dynamic loft and spin. Therefore, if the goal is to maintain the traditional launch angle and spin rate with this new CG, it will probably be necessary to strengthen the loft by 1-2 degrees.

This same principle is why the "optimum" loft of a forward CG driver (e.g., SLDR) is 1-2* higher than a driver with a rearward CG (e.g. a G30). The driver with the rearward CG will be adding dynamic loft through impact, which also adds spin. Hence, compared to an SLDR, the optimum setup for a Ping G30 will be lower loft and a lower spinning shaft.

If you're trying to see if companies are juicing their clubs for distance purposes, it's probably more instructive to look at length. For example, a TM 6-iron will often be as long as a Mizzy 5-iron. And let's not even get started on the 47" drivers in the demo bays!!

Kylekoz17 · April 15, 2016

RE: Comparing the T-MB 4-iron to the 716 AP2 4-iron.

Both clubs are 38.5 inches long, and the T-MB is 1 to perhaps 1.5 or 2 degrees stronger. So the T-MB would naturally be longer, right?

Specs on the T-MB 4-iron is 23 degrees loft, and on the AP2 it is 24 degrees of loft. If we presume they are spot on, it's a one-degree difference. If they are just a little bit off, that difference could be almost nothing, or it could be something like 2 degrees (more?) stronger loft for the T-MB. Independent of any design breakthroughs, I'd expect the T-MB to be longer based on simple geometry.

So Titleist acknowledge the TM-B's are strong lofted - saying they cranked them in order to bring the launch back down to what a traditional lofted iron would be. They claim that because the amount of tungsten used sent the MOI way up, it made the CG so low the launch got way up too.

So, according to Titleist, the on-paper loft of the T-MB isn't the story. The story is launch angle, think that, not loft. It's the iron equivalent of the bounce number stamped on a Vokey wedge - it's not the actual bounce angle, it's the effective bounce angle.

Above is a key point to keep in mind when deciphering whether manufacturers are simply cranking iron lofts (and lengths!) in an effort to create the longest "6-iron" in the demo bay. It' certainly true that the likes of TM and Cally have essentially started creating 6-irons that are actually just 5-irons in disguise. With more refined companies like Titleist or Mizuno, however, any strengthening (or weakening) of lofts is generally an adjustment to maintain appropriate launch angle and spin rates in the face of changing CG distribution. Assume, for example, you start with a bladed pitching wedge at 46* of loft. If you then add tungsten weighting moving the CG lower and further back, this would improve MOI but it would also increase dynamic loft and spin. Therefore, if the goal is to maintain the traditional launch angle and spin rate with this new CG, it will probably be necessary to strengthen the loft by 1-2 degrees.

This same principle is why the "optimum" loft of a forward CG driver (e.g., SLDR) is 1-2* higher than a driver with a rearward CG (e.g. a G30). The driver with the rearward CG will be adding dynamic loft through impact, which also adds spin. Hence, compared to an SLDR, the optimum setup for a Ping G30 will be lower loft and a lower spinning shaft.

If you're trying to see if companies are juicing their clubs for distance purposes, it's probably more instructive to look at length. For example, a TM 6-iron will often be as long as a Mizzy 5-iron. And let's not even get started on the 47" drivers in the demo bays!!

I see what you are saying, and what companies are saying, but it's all marketing. Everyone is saying oh I'm hitting so and so irons further. Well yeah, because the lofts are jacked. They can talk about launch angle and spin all they want, but in reality, if you bend the TMB to standard loft, they aren't going to go much, if any, further than another iron. So what's the point of jacking up the lofts then? To say you gain distance.