New TM p790 irons ???

[JoeJoeJoeUrBoat]

Couldn't wait, pulled the trigger on a set of P790s 4-AW in DG 105 S300. Watching Wolff bomb the ball pumped me up lol.

[TheMoneyShot]

> @JoeJoeJoeUrBoat said:

> Couldn't wait, pulled the trigger on a set of P790s 4-AW in DG 105 S300. Watching Wolff bomb the ball pumped me up lol.

 

You will love them!!

[BiggErn]

> @JoeJoeJoeUrBoat said:

> Couldn't wait, pulled the trigger on a set of P790s 4-AW in DG 105 S300. Watching Wolff bomb the ball pumped me up lol.

 

I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.

[mrmikeac]

> @JoeJoeJoeUrBoat said:

> Couldn't wait, pulled the trigger on a set of P790s 4-AW in DG 105 S300. Watching Wolff bomb the ball pumped me up lol.

 

 

Oof.......stock shaft.......Just bought off the shelf??? That’s a cardinal sin here on WRX. Those 105’s are like over cooked spaghetti noodles lol

 

Good buy though, you will not be disappointed, just watch those short irons and weaken the lofts if need be.

 

[Morry]

Well said

i swapped in 790's for 760's for all these reasons - maybe 5 yards less, but turf interaction, offset, feel and control make them a no-brainer

unless they are re-doing the 760 as well, I am not sure i see the point

 

 

> @BiggErn said:

> > @TheMoneyShot said:

> > > @hankmoody said:

> > > Why would they take down the distance? That doesn't sound like a TM thing to do...although increasing the forgiveness does.

> > > I wanted to buy a set this July at a demo day, but had a feeling it was getting time for a 2.0. I am coming from Titleist C16s and Apex original/CF blended set. I was surprised by the offset in the 790s, and liked the 760s in that regard, but wanted the distance of the 790s. Excited to see this thread.

> >

> > If TM can slim down the top line, reduce the offset and keep the charged distances. They will outsell the first generation...

>

> They’re called P760s. Not sure why some can’t grasp that.

 

 

[TheMoneyShot]

> @JoeJoeJoeUrBoat said:

> Couldn't wait, pulled the trigger on a set of P790s 4-AW in DG 105 S300. Watching Wolff bomb the ball pumped me up lol.

 

Keep us posted on how the first round goes with these bad boys!

[JoeJoeJoeUrBoat]

> @TheMoneyShot said:

> > @JoeJoeJoeUrBoat said:

> > Couldn't wait, pulled the trigger on a set of P790s 4-AW in DG 105 S300. Watching Wolff bomb the ball pumped me up lol.

>

> Keep us posted on how the first round goes with these bad boys!

 

Will do! The set was on eBay but was in Ontario where I’m from so it should be at my door in 2-3 business days. I’ll be updating the thread after my first round for sure!

[mrmikeac]

 

[mBiden2]

> @mrmikeac said:

>

>

 

They look pretty much the same. Is there anyway you could post a pic of the sole and top line compared to the current 790s?

[mrmikeac]

> @mBiden2 said:

> > @mrmikeac said:

> >

> >

>

> They look pretty much the same. Is there anyway you could post a pic of the sole and top line compared to the current 790s?

 

 

I found this pic on IG. No idea what the top line and sole looks like yet but, if you look closely, it looks like the speed slot is still present ugh.

 

[TheMoneyShot]

> @mrmikeac said:

>

>

 

Looks like the finish is a little different. Besides the “T” logo, everything else looks the same.

[JoeJoeJoeUrBoat]

Looks darker to me?

[BiggErn]

Looks mostly cosmetic. The toe screw is definitely lower so maybe they’re doing variable speed foam or something. Looks like the tungsten is just in the longer irons again too.

[mrmikeac]

> @BiggErn said:

> Looks mostly cosmetic. The toe screw is definitely lower so maybe they’re doing variable speed foam or something. Looks like the tungsten is just in the longer irons again too.

 

Was thinking the same thing, variable speed foam and maybe a milled face in the short irons? Possible milled grind as well

[twod0gs]

Looks like the tungsten weight flares a little towards the toe unlike the original version unless I am mistaken.

[TheMoneyShot]

I wonder if the foam will be all the way through the set once again? Probably so..

[herbert7890]

Just take my money!

[BiggErn]

> @twod0gs said:

> Looks like the tungsten weight flares a little towards the toe unlike the original version unless I am mistaken.

 

The tungsten weight is on the inside of the club head and just in the 7 iron and lower. The chrome strip with P790 isn’t a separate piece.

[rkelso184]

> @mrmikeac said:

>

>

 

Your heaps better at photo shopping pics then I am ?

[mrmikeac]

> @rkelso184 said:

> > @mrmikeac said:

> >

> >

>

> Your heaps better at photo shopping pics then I am ?

 

Lol right.

[rkelso184]

Speed foam lower to generate a slightly higher ball flight to assist with stopping power due to all the "low spin" complaints. Keep in mind correct decent angle will stop a ball as efficiently as spin.

Tungsten in higher irons only.

Finish is def different.

As discussed earlier more compact and changed "lines" to give a different visual effect to appeal to more players.

 

[BiggErn]

> @rkelso184 said:

> Speed foam lower to generate a slightly higher ball flight to assist with stopping power due to all the "low spin" complaints. Keep in mind correct decent angle will stop a ball as efficiently as spin.

> Tungsten in higher irons only.

> Finish is def different.

> As discussed earlier more compact and changed "lines" to give a different visual effect to appeal to more players.

>

 

How does foam lower raise the flight? Are they switching to tungsten foam? The finish looks pretty much identical as well as the head size.

[rkelso184]

Lower CG > @BiggErn said:

> > @rkelso184 said:

> > Speed foam lower to generate a slightly higher ball flight to assist with stopping power due to all the "low spin" complaints. Keep in mind correct decent angle will stop a ball as efficiently as spin.

> > Tungsten in higher irons only.

> > Finish is def different.

> > As discussed earlier more compact and changed "lines" to give a different visual effect to appeal to more players.

> >

>

> How does foam lower raise the flight? Are they switching to tungsten foam? The finish looks pretty much identical as well as the head size.

 

Lower CG I assume. Don't hold me to this but I thought these were getting the same foam as the M5 and M6 irons. Yer def a smaller head but higher MOI just like ping done with the G400/ G410. A few pages back I marked up (very rough) how they have changed the shape of the top line to "appear" thinner also.

[TheMoneyShot]

> @rkelso184 said:

> Lower CG > @BiggErn said:

> > > @rkelso184 said:

> > > Speed foam lower to generate a slightly higher ball flight to assist with stopping power due to all the "low spin" complaints. Keep in mind correct decent angle will stop a ball as efficiently as spin.

> > > Tungsten in higher irons only.

> > > Finish is def different.

> > > As discussed earlier more compact and changed "lines" to give a different visual effect to appeal to more players.

> > >

> >

> > How does foam lower raise the flight? Are they switching to tungsten foam? The finish looks pretty much identical as well as the head size.

>

> Lower CG I assume. Don't hold me to this but I thought these were getting the same foam as the M5 and M6 irons. Yer def a smaller head but higher MOI just like ping done with the G400/ G410. A few pages back I marked up (very rough) how they have changed the shape of the top line to "appear" thinner also.

 

Music to my ears?

[BiggErn]

> @rkelso184 said:

> Lower CG > @BiggErn said:

> > > @rkelso184 said:

> > > Speed foam lower to generate a slightly higher ball flight to assist with stopping power due to all the "low spin" complaints. Keep in mind correct decent angle will stop a ball as efficiently as spin.

> > > Tungsten in higher irons only.

> > > Finish is def different.

> > > As discussed earlier more compact and changed "lines" to give a different visual effect to appeal to more players.

> > >

> >

> > How does foam lower raise the flight? Are they switching to tungsten foam? The finish looks pretty much identical as well as the head size.

>

> Lower CG I assume. Don't hold me to this but I thought these were getting the same foam as the M5 and M6 irons. Yer def a smaller head but higher MOI just like ping done with the G400/ G410. A few pages back I marked up (very rough) how they have changed the shape of the top line to "appear" thinner also.

 

I think you’re missing my point. The foam is virtually weightless so how would a feather light foam lower CG as opposed to moving the foam and cavity higher and keeping more actual weight lower? I don’t know what they’re doing but foam lower to lower CG makes zero sense. I think people are gonna be pretty disappointed if they think there’s gonna be any discernible difference in the footprint of this club.

[rkelso184]

> @BiggErn said:

> > @rkelso184 said:

> > Lower CG > @BiggErn said:

> > > > @rkelso184 said:

> > > > Speed foam lower to generate a slightly higher ball flight to assist with stopping power due to all the "low spin" complaints. Keep in mind correct decent angle will stop a ball as efficiently as spin.

> > > > Tungsten in higher irons only.

> > > > Finish is def different.

> > > > As discussed earlier more compact and changed "lines" to give a different visual effect to appeal to more players.

> > > >

> > >

> > > How does foam lower raise the flight? Are they switching to tungsten foam? The finish looks pretty much identical as well as the head size.

> >

> > Lower CG I assume. Don't hold me to this but I thought these were getting the same foam as the M5 and M6 irons. Yer def a smaller head but higher MOI just like ping done with the G400/ G410. A few pages back I marked up (very rough) how they have changed the shape of the top line to "appear" thinner also.

>

> I think you’re missing my point. The foam is virtually weightless so how would a feather light foam lower CG as opposed to moving the foam and cavity higher and keeping more actual weight lower? I don’t know what they’re doing but foam lower to lower CG makes zero sense. I think people are gonna be pretty disappointed if they think there’s gonna be any discernible difference in the footprint of this club.

 

Yep you make complete sense. So I'm gonna leave that one for there sale pitch! I completely understand what your saying hey. In regards to size I feel it's a win.

 

Those who like playing small irons but probably shouldn't this will appeal to them

Those who play small irons already this will appeal to them

Those who buy clubs based on forgiving sales pitch this will appeal to them

Those who love the P range this will appeal to them as they are a more compact players club

 

It all comes down to how people buy clubs and why they choose the irons they do. Having a players, improvement, forgiving, forged, high MOI, smaller head, nice to look at, good brand name, proven product is always going to sell. Add in taylormade marketing and it's going to be a huge success as the existing P790 already is.

[eyeeye]

> @BiggErn said:

> > @rkelso184 said:

> > Lower CG > @BiggErn said:

> > > > @rkelso184 said:

> > > > Speed foam lower to generate a slightly higher ball flight to assist with stopping power due to all the "low spin" complaints. Keep in mind correct decent angle will stop a ball as efficiently as spin.

> > > > Tungsten in higher irons only.

> > > > Finish is def different.

> > > > As discussed earlier more compact and changed "lines" to give a different visual effect to appeal to more players.

> > > >

> > >

> > > How does foam lower raise the flight? Are they switching to tungsten foam? The finish looks pretty much identical as well as the head size.

> >

> > Lower CG I assume. Don't hold me to this but I thought these were getting the same foam as the M5 and M6 irons. Yer def a smaller head but higher MOI just like ping done with the G400/ G410. A few pages back I marked up (very rough) how they have changed the shape of the top line to "appear" thinner also.

>

> I think you’re missing my point. The foam is virtually weightless so how would a feather light foam lower CG as opposed to moving the foam and cavity higher and keeping more actual weight lower? I don’t know what they’re doing but foam lower to lower CG makes zero sense. I think people are gonna be pretty disappointed if they think there’s gonna be any discernible difference in the footprint of this club.

 

I think they lowered the CG by .. :

1. Moving the foam port screw lower

2. Lower foam screw would mean thinner SS and possibly more tungsten situated lower and farther back then the previous gen. Which looked like this:

 

3. Thinner top line also means there's no cavity by the top, which means no return, therefore less metal used on the top edge.

 

[WavesandBirdies]

 

> @rkelso184 said:

> > @HackATK said:

> > > @cradd10 said:

> > > > @rbilramz said:

> > > > I think they look much better, but will hold out for a side-by-side comparison.

> > > > I’m “this” close to a set of PXG 0211 irons, but may hold off to try these.

> > >

> > > you do realize the above pictures are photo shopped correct???

> > What makes you think they are photo shopped?

> >

>

> You do realize I took these on my phone right... oh wait do you mean my black outlines showing the difference! Lol if I could photo shop don't you think I would be able to mark up a pic better then a squiggly line using snap chat to edit them ?

 

Let’s back up a second... you took these pics with your phone but opted not to take any shots from other angles?!? I mean I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed. ?

 

[herbert7890]

Hope someone takes a pic of the top lines, to compare with the current ones.

[JoeJoeJoeUrBoat]

From the pictures the top line doesn't seem that slim... Hard to tell from the angles of the lying flat. I'm imagining them smaller, but not P760 smaller. I can see some people being disappointed if that's a deal breaker for them. I personally don't mind the top line of the 790s, so anything that's slightly smaller is just bonus.