Titleist 975F

[Sizzle]

I'm a huge fan of the 975f. When they first came out, they kinda passed me by, but a couple years ago I hit a shot with a friends "14.5" on a par 5 in Bend, OR and, to this day, it is the best feeling 3 wood shot i've ever hit. So, yesterday, in the used rack at my local shop was a minty-fresh 14.5 (non-bore-thru) and I snapped it up for 45 bucks. Yes, these clubs do appear to be very small (by todays standards), but, I tell you what, these clubs have 'eyes' -- they behave kinda like a good old wood 3 wood, in that the gear-effect / bulge / roll thing seems to really work. The head is so small and dense, you feel like you can really, really put a heavy hit on the ball, too. I'd been hitting a Taylor r7 'steel' for a while, and, yes, it was a decent club, but it seemed to be missing that something special that really good clubs have -- they (the 975f series) may have "small" sweet spots / low-m.o.i., but they 'get out of their own way' and it actually seems like you have easier 'access' to the sweetspot, if you know what I mean. Way back in the day I read an equipment interview with David Graham, and he was of the opinion that if you hit a small headed club (he was talking about irons), that if you do hit it at all, you're bound to be hitting it close to the sweet spot! That kind of stuck with me over the years. You can have the big huge faced stuff - Its all a marketing hoax.

 

three cheers for well designed, compact-head golf clubs!

 

Sizzle

 

Well here it is, an oldie but a goodie nevertheless.

 

 

[pro11ace]

I agree, a goodie indeed, i hit my friend's 975f 5 wood and hit it farther than my 3 wood! Today i bought a 904, so hopefully that is even better.

[JHR]

I have a 12.5* that i absolutely love, one of my favorites, i have had several of them and think they are fantastic.

[divot46]

Bought a 14.5 and a 20.5 a few years ago brand new with DGR300 shafts. The 14.5 is nice, has great feel to it, and a nice boring ball flight. Can't seem to hit the 20.5 though. Face too shallow I guess. I do like a deeper face 3 wood and this one just couldn't kick my PT 15 out of the bag. Still have them both. I'd give it a 4 just because of the shallower face. I'm playing a 904 now but don't have enough time in with it yet to review.

[GoIrish17]

I know this thread is old, but was hoping someone could answer a question for me if it's still open.

I went to the used bin the other day with the mindset of, "I AM going to leave here with a club today." I didn't have a boatload of money to spend, but was kinda jonesing for that feeling you get when you buy a new club. You know the one, "boy, what grip would look good on this driver?" "I wonder if this 3 wood can finally dump that Callaway from the bag?" "what driving range is most on the way home?"

I saw a old Titleist 975F with a Dynamic Gold S300 in it sitting there for $15.00, and I figured why not? It had some dirt on the face and sole, and the crown had some dirt and smudges, but I thought it looked mint. The grip was the stock grip, and was hard but had no noticeable wear from use. I took a chance, bought it, got it home and cleaned it up, and it looked like new. The face didn't even have much in the way of marks from hitting balls at the range. Paint still in grooves and still looks glossy like the day it was painted. I haven't really had a chance to hit it yet, just a few balls at the range. It seemed to smoke the ball on well struck shots, but my slightest misses lost noticeable distance. Tough to hit well off the turf, but I didn't take a whole lot of cuts with it off the turf. I threw a white and green Niion on it, and it looks pretty sharp.

Anyways, I didn't mean for this to turn into a review of a club released over a decade ago, sorry. I am curious what the difference is between "non-bore-through", as the OP stated, and what is the alternative? I am aware of the Titleist bore-through hosel design, and know the difference between bore-through and non. Just curious why there is a difference, what it is, and if one is more rare/ desirable/ better than the other (in reference to this club specifically, not which is a better design overall).

Hope someone can lend their knowledge, I appreciate it!

[Pete3]

As I recall, the 1999 version was bore through and it was a design flaw that eliminated the sweet spot. Titleist offered to replace the 1999 version with the revised 2000 version at no cost. The 2000 had no through and it was awesome. I still play it with a 6.5 Rifle shaft.

[SadTrombone]

[quote name='Pete3' timestamp='1379734973' post='7887289']
As I recall, the 1999 version was bore through and it was a design flaw that eliminated the sweet spot. [b] Titleist offered to replace the 1999 version with the revised 2000 version at no cost.[/b] The 2000 had no through and it was awesome. I still play it with a 6.5 Rifle shaft.
[/quote]

......


WHAT!?!?!?!

....I'm still sitting on my "bore-thru" model. Why didn't someone tell me this!?

[viviandrew]

Got a 16.5 with DG S300. I like it better than my Big Bertha and Diablo Octane 3 woods.

[edmondlee79]

I can't praise the 975F 14.5 enough!!! Picked up a used one with EI70 X non-bore thru at a local golf shop's used club barrel for $15!!! Absolutely mint condition at that time, which was probably now 7 years ago.
I've been known to be a equipment junkie in the past but this 3wood, simple but consistent Cleveland putter (very under-rated IMO and I was a Yes! putter demo-rep in my past life, so I'd like to think I've experienced all putters) are 2 clubs that I've never felt to urge to change.
Close my eyes, swing away and always dependable 260 with baby draw. Put a bit more oomph to it, loads well (fantastic shaft!!!), good weight balance, and pure thwack feel.
Last year, bought a X Hot 3Deep (13) to tinker around, shafted with EI70 X (have a few extra), but tried-and-true 975F delivers better results.
Goes to tell you that newest isn't always the greatest.