Is anyone NOT impressed with the Apex 21's (irons)?

[jjfcpa]

I have to say, I was not in the market for new irons this year, but these Apex 21's have me drooling and excited.

 

I think Callaway has hit the sweet spot with the Apex 21's.  There's something for just about any golfer and the combo's are over the top.  

 

I'm either going DCB all the way or blend the DCB with the standard in the 8-PW.  I've had a couple fittings in the past, but it just might be worth getting fit to find the right combo or do I just go standard or DCB.

 

I with those you tubers would do some comparisons with all three and maybe throw in the G425 irons for comparison.

 

 

[MtlJeff]

i'm actually pretty interested in the Apex Pros but would need to see them in person first to make sure they are big enough for me. 

 

The regular Apex look cool. But they are a bit pricy for a GI club as all of the Apex lines are. Even if money ain't a thing for MtlJeff, the Ping G series is like 5 hundy cheaper in my worthless Canadian dollars

[ThinkingPlus]

Hard pass for me unless Cally has changed their high CG, high bounce design paradigm.  I ditched my CF16s for that reason.

[mooseman76]

They look great and I was considering the same combo you were 5-7DCB and 8-AW regular, until I saw the price. I saved a couple hundred and ordered Ping G425’s. I know the Pings work for me and we’re the safe bet. 

[jjfcpa]

14 hours ago, mooseman76 said:

They look great and I was considering the same combo you were 5-7DCB and 8-AW regular, until I saw the price. I saved a couple hundred and ordered Ping G425’s. I know the Pings work for me and we’re the safe bet. 

 

The Ping G425's would be my second choice so far, but the ability to combo the Apex DCB and Apex standard is probably the right combination (no pun intended) for me, in spite of the price.

 

What shaft did you go with in the G425's?

[Brizam]

I was surprised to see how strong the lofts were in the Apex pros.  But I guess that is most irons now.  I do like that they have straightened the leading edge of them up some.

[elwhippy]

Need to see them in the metal. Like the idea of the DCB but the shaft offering is a non starter and previous models don't fit my eye. Especially the shorter irons. 

[mooseman76]

16 hours ago, jjfcpa said:

 

The Ping G425's would be my second choice so far, but the ability to combo the Apex DCB and Apex standard is probably the right combination (no pun intended) for me, in spite of the price.

 

What shaft did you go with in the G425's?

I was thinking the same thing about the Apex line and I had the specs all lined up more than once. I just couldn’t do it, lol, don’t blame anyone who does though. I really like the looks of them. I went with Project X Lz shafts in the G425’s. 

[iNeedMoreGolf]

Im not really impressed but they allways make solid products. Just more of the same to me peeformance wise. Looks wise i feel is a downgrade but not the worse.

[caniac6]

They look good, but I’d have to hit them better than my irons to be impressed.

[Mustard_Tiger]

43 degree PW?

 

Hard pass.

[gregh729]

I want to check them out, but the price is probably out of my league. i love the pics of the DCB.

[Tiptx1122]

The Apex Pro look nice but they are hollow and they look like TM P 790's so nothing to drawl about. 

 

[forrester_fire]

I'm more excited over Mizuno and Srixon offerings, personally.  I've never been especially fond of the look or feel of Callaway's irons, and these (in looks) are no different.  I'm not especially fond of hollow iron construction.

Edited January 15, 2021 by forrester_fire

[randytrevor]

33 minutes ago, Tiptx1122 said:

The Apex Pro look nice but they are hollow and they look like TM P 790's so nothing to drawl about. 

 

 

IMO, I think they look more like Adams CMB. If I were in the market I would definitely give them a shot. 

[jjfcpa]

Watched a comparison video and there wasn't much distance different between the standard Apex and DCB, but the DCB is probably more forgiving because of the some what larger head and a little more offset.  Combination is definitely something I need to look at closely.

[NRJyzr]

On 1/15/2021 at 7:53 AM, Tiptx1122 said:

The Apex Pro look nice but they are hollow and they look like TM P 790's so nothing to drawl about. 

 

 

I was thinking they looked like Maltby TS-1 with the notch turned upside down.  <shrug>

 

[BostonWRX]

On 1/15/2021 at 8:53 AM, Tiptx1122 said:

The Apex Pro look nice but they are hollow and they look like TM P 790's so nothing to drawl about. 

 

Huh? Apex pro are smaller then 770s. Apex pro have always been hollow 

 

D8CEAECA-9D18-45D9-8B9A-7E27EC289323.webp

Edited January 16, 2021 by TrueWRX

[OhYeahPlayer]

I'm not... but, only because I have the standard CF19s and I'm not seeing a ton of improvement. I'm not sure if I'd play the Apex Pros, but they are really pretty.

 

Not sure if this is the place for this question but I'll try anyway - Ian from TXG mentioned on their live fitting of these that the standard Apex, he'd fit down to about a 5 handicap. I know there are no hard and fasts on this (and please for god's sake do not turn this into a GI vs blade debate) but is anyone playing CF16/CF19/considering CF21 at a 5 handicap or below? I'm starting to see some wonky stuff with my CF19s in indoor sim sessions (variable spin/ball speed rates, too low spin/height in the longer irons) and curious if anyone else is seeing this/turning them off from the standard Apex. 

[jjfcpa]

I had some of these inconsistencies with the CF19's which is why I went to the T300 from Titleist, but I'm going to take a chance on a combo set of the Apex and DCB's.  I saw that review on TXG and can't really see a 5 handicap playing the standard Apex.  

[ShAMbotay]

I'm unimpressed with the specs. the lofts are super low at a 43*pw and a 48*gw. I get that the low CG makes it okay, but then the loft gaps from iron to iron are weird, and the X-Forged seems out of place now.

[ThinkingPlus]

5 minutes ago, ShAMbotay said:

I'm unimpressed with the specs. the lofts are super low at a 43*pw and a 48*gw. I get that the low CG makes it okay, but then the loft gaps from iron to iron are weird, and the X-Forged seems out of place now.

Have you seen information which documents the CG?

[ShAMbotay]

I have not, but I assume that the CG has to be low to accommodate the low lofts and still be playable.

1 minute ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Have you seen information which documents the CG?

 

[ThinkingPlus]

3 minutes ago, ShAMbotay said:

I have not, but I assume that the CG has to be low to accommodate the low lofts and still be playable.

 

The Apex line has never had low CG in any iteration.  I would be surprised if this most recent iteration had low CG, but it is possible.  We will probably have to wait until Maltby publishes measurements of the 2021 heads later this year.

[ShAMbotay]

I've seen that the CG changes to go higher as the lofts get higher, but that makes even less sense for a low lofted PW and GW to have a high CG relative to a higher lofted PW and GW. Am I confused on something here?

[ShAMbotay]

13 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

The Apex line has never had low CG in any iteration.  I would be surprised if this most recent iteration had low CG, but it is possible.  We will probably have to wait until Maltby publishes measurements of the 2021 heads later this year.

never heard of Maltby and just looked them up. how frequently do they update that list, and why are there some companies with some irons measured, and others not? PXG's 2019 0211's are missing, and so are a bunch of their other models.

[jbrunk]

I haven’t seen the new models up close yet.  But it’s safe to say my 2018 X-Forged/Apex MB combo is staying put.

[ThinkingPlus]

8 hours ago, ShAMbotay said:

never heard of Maltby and just looked them up. how frequently do they update that list, and why are there some companies with some irons measured, and others not? PXG's 2019 0211's are missing, and so are a bunch of their other models.

Usually they update once a year, but I have seen more than one update a year a few times.  I don't completely understand why some models and OEMs are missing.  I suspect some of it has to do with cost.  It may also be related to which OEMs will send them heads only.  They might pull the shafts, but you really are incurring extra time and cost going through that mess.

[ThinkingPlus]

8 hours ago, ShAMbotay said:

I've seen that the CG changes to go higher as the lofts get higher, but that makes even less sense for a low lofted PW and GW to have a high CG relative to a higher lofted PW and GW. Am I confused on something here?

The design thoughts behind higher CGs is the following (I think - just my opinion, no inside info). Most OEMs want to maximize MOI and lower loft because that will produce a longer club no matter where you hit it on the face.  They also tend to build wider soles and more bounce into the clubs because most folks in this country play on thick, lush turf where forgiveness to hitting fat is important.

 

Maxxing MOI, however, has consequences.  Moving mass to the periphery of a clubhead raises the CG.  A higher CG clubhead is harder to get decent launch on firmer turf because the clubhead CG is near or even above the mid-point of the ball.

 

So, to me, it comes down to where you play and what kind of player you are.  If you have very high swing speed, the higher CG helps to keep balls from ballooning.  If you primarily play on thick lush turf and need help, the MOI benefits could outweigh the slightly lower launch if it happens at all (hitting slightly fat with wide soles and lots of bounce would still drive the CG below the ball's mid-point).

[bladehunter]

7 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

The design thoughts behind higher CGs is the following (I think - just my opinion, no inside info). Most OEMs want to maximize MOI and lower loft because that will produce a longer club no matter where you hit it on the face.  They also tend to build wider soles and more bounce into the clubs because most folks in this country play on thick, lush turf where forgiveness to hitting fat is important.

 

Maxxing MOI, however, has consequences.  Moving mass to the periphery of a clubhead raises the CG.  A higher CG clubhead is harder to get decent launch on firmer turf because the clubhead CG is near or even above the mid-point of the ball.

 

So, to me, it comes down to where you play and what kind of player you are.  If you have very high swing speed, the higher CG helps to keep balls from ballooning.  If you primarily play on thick lush turf and need help, the MOI benefits could outweigh the slightly lower launch if it happens at all (hitting slightly fat with wide soles and lots of bounce would still drive the CG below the ball's mid-point).

10000 % correct.   I found the exact same thing with apex snd ping i500 and i210.  500 being the worst in long irons.  
 

and to show your point.  The i500 and apex set I owned , I loved both in a sloppy rain.  More mud the better.  Why ?  The craved that sloppy strike high on the face.  And the mud let the wide sole get down there to it.  Hot garbage for my swing and normal hard playing conditions. 
 

I came to the same conclusion you have. These irons are designed for the person hitting it fat , on lush fairways and rough.  They’ve figured out how to make that strike be the “ flush “ contact zone.