Adam Scott - New Irons

[Drew9281]

Not try to thread jack but did anyone notice on Titleist Instagram he had tsi2 driver

[Nard_S]

On 4/6/2021 at 5:30 PM, uscgolfguy said:

These seem to be VERY CRISP, PRECISE and forgiving enough to know where you are hitting the ball and what you did with your swing...

 

 

These are purty. Love it.

[MK7Golf21]

Try to hit a shank on your range warm up before a round. Guaranteed to shank proof your round because most won’t be able to hit one on demand

[speeder757]

3 hours ago, Drew9281 said:

Not try to thread jack but did anyone notice on Titleist Instagram he had tsi2 driver

 

I saw that too. Seems like a strange change from the TSi4 to the TSi2 

[MattyO1984]

On 4/6/2021 at 7:21 PM, Golfingfanatic said:

Shaft change aswell from KBS Tour 130x to PX LZ.

 

Sure that he has, in the past used the PX LZ’s but certainly interesting to see him go back that way.

[pgarob]

Almost his entire bag is different this week compared to Riv. New driver, new loft on his fairway wood, new irons and shafts, back to the K grind lob wedge, and on his 3rd putter of 2021. So much going on for someone who historically doesn't change much.

[youngun87]

2 hours ago, MattyO1984 said:

 

Sure that he has, in the past used the PX LZ’s but certainly interesting to see him go back that way.

Probably to get the launch windows back where he wants them with the new iron heads. He’s talked about that being the most important thing for him over feel with his irons 

[mistaklavin]

On 4/6/2021 at 11:21 AM, Golfingfanatic said:

Shaft change aswell from KBS Tour 130x to PX LZ.

 

Yeah, just saw the LZ's on the broadcast. I wonder if hes playing the 7.0 to maintain the same shaft weight, or in the 6.5.

[Golfingfanatic]

Check out the latest episode of the Fairgame podcast with Mr. Scott. Good insight in his current set up.

[tsecor]

On 4/6/2021 at 2:58 PM, ThinkingPlus said:

If they are one off customs with that kind of huge design difference then it would be pretty disingenuous of Titleist to market them as a 620.

Companies do this all the time......Nike didnt "make" some of Tigers irons.....they just badged them like that. Same when he played Titleist Irons.....they were Miuras with Titleist badging..... rumors also suggest Rory's Nike blades were produced by Miura but that is not confirmed. 

 

the average consumer doesnt get a lot of the same irons the high level pros play.....

[ThinkingPlus]

1 hour ago, tsecor said:

Companies do this all the time......Nike didnt "make" some of Tigers irons.....they just badged them like that. Same when he played Titleist Irons.....they were Miuras with Titleist badging..... rumors also suggest Rory's Nike blades were produced by Miura but that is not confirmed. 

 

the average consumer doesnt get a lot of the same irons the high level pros play.....

I guess the point I was trying to make is that the design between the clubs is dramatically different.  Having a sexier manufacturer for the pros is fine, but the 620 is a traditional old school high CG blade design whereas the 680 was a relatively forgiving low CG modern blade.  Totally opposite design goals.

[Skipperation]

25 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

I guess the point I was trying to make is that the design between the clubs is dramatically different.  Having a sexier manufacturer for the pros is fine, but the 620 is a traditional old school high CG blade design whereas the 680 was a relatively forgiving low CG modern blade.  Totally opposite design goals.

 

Not sure anyone has ever described the 680 as a "forgiving low CG modern blade" before. They have the highest CG* of virtually any mass production blade Titleist have ever made and are probably the lowest launching. Going off Maltby VCOG numbers as a single determining factor for launch is debatable given Maltby has the Titleist 822 OS big game improvement irons that 100% launch higher than 680 as having a higher VCOG.

 

*You might want to re-check your Maltby numbers as they aren't comparing apples to apples, the 680 number is from a 5 iron vs 620 from a 6 iron.

[ThinkingPlus]

5 minutes ago, Skipperation said:

 

Not sure anyone has ever described the 680 as a "forgiving low CG modern blade" before. They have the highest CG* of virtually any mass production blade Titleist have ever made and are probably the lowest launching. Going off Maltby VCOG numbers as a single determining factor for launch is debatable given Maltby has the Titleist 822 OS big game improvement irons that 100% launch higher than 680 as having a higher VCOG.

 

*You might want to re-check your Maltby numbers as they aren't comparing apples to apples, the 680 number is from a 5 iron vs 620 from a 6 iron.

Did you read all posts in this thread?  My caveats vis-a-vis the Maltby numbers were provided in an earlier post. VCOG and loft (as far as clubhead is concerned) are essentially the only determiners of launch.  Both are easily measurable.

[Skipperation]

Yes and I'm basically saying that determining the expected launch based of a single measurement of two different lofted clubs (and therefore designed differently despite being both blades) is no way of comparing how sets perform. The 680s have been around for almost 2 decades and it's well established that they are a high muscle, pretty low launching and fairly unforgiving club. The 690s were their easier to hit, longer blade length and higher launching brother, whilst the 670's had the shorter blade and squarer look.

 

I'm pretty certain the 620 and 680 are fairly similar other than some small shape refinements and the lack of offset in the 620 which is the main reason Scott has said he hasn't moved to them before. This is from about 2 weeks before the tournament by the sounds of it, but he states pretty clearly offset has been the issue;

 

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/whats-in-the-bag-masters-edition/id1561187537?i=1000516390670

 

 

[tsecor]

these blades are not "forgiving" in the sense of the definition we have all come to be brainwashed with.  

[Pepperturbo]

On 4/6/2021 at 6:48 PM, elcgolf said:

Everything about that iron is PERFECT except the toe. I feel like Titleist has designed a beautiful blade but forgotten to address the end of it. It’s not rounded like a Srixon, boxy like a TM, or squared off like a Wilson. Instead, it’s an oblong mess with a bulbous lower half and incongruous top. #PleaseFindDonWhite

I stand over 620s all the time and don't see what you're attempting to point out as a design flaw.

 

I have 670MBs and MacGregor MBs, but never any Srixon.  What Srixon model are you referring to?  You may be seeing the offset difference.  Srixon's closest MB is Z-Forged; it's 6i is 107" while 620MB 6i is 0.75".  That can affect how the toe appears, least to me.  More offset would make it appear a bit more closed.  Even the 620 CB 6i offset is .098; converted from mm.

 

When the blade is behind the ball it's squared quite nicely to the target-line.  However, after I align the face I then slightly aim it to the right of the target line.  Helps me to take the club head away more on the inside and deliver it back on the inside to out, then back in.  What surprises me is Titleist made CB series so much like MBs, it's amazing.

[jeffersonseven]

He had the LZ in a few years back, so that's not surprising. And has used older D2 drivers at various times. Just interesting to see all the changes at once...

[Mitchell]

On 4/9/2021 at 7:59 AM, tsecor said:

Companies do this all the time......Nike didnt "make" some of Tigers irons.....they just badged them like that. Same when he played Titleist Irons.....they were Miuras with Titleist badging..... rumors also suggest Rory's Nike blades were produced by Miura but that is not confirmed. 

 

the average consumer doesnt get a lot of the same irons the high level pros play.....

We all know were forged by Hatori Hanzo, c’mon man! Tiger’s Titleist irons were not Miura, were from another Japan forging source, according to Larry Bobka, who should know. As far as the Nike stuff, there was indeed a select group of forgings that started out from Miura, before being modified to player preferences by Mike Taylor. Lots of so-called Miura stuff isn’t, yet is Viragetech.

[Bdmac79]

1 hour ago, Mitchell said:

We all know were forged by Hatori Hanzo, c’mon man! Tiger’s Titleist irons were not Miura, were from another Japan forging source, according to Larry Bobka, who should know. As far as the Nike stuff, there was indeed a select group of forgings that started out from Miura, before being modified to player preferences by Mike Taylor. Lots of so-called Miura stuff isn’t, yet is Viragetech.

I think that Tiger's were forged by Endo. 

[taylor2325]

Death, Taxes, and nearly every bladed iron related thread on WRX devolving into "Tiger's Titlest/Nike irons were just _______ with different badging" 😂

[Yoshifan151]

Larry Bobka said in an interview Tiger's irons were Hoffman and Endo Forgings and people still circlejerk that Miura forged his irons lmao.

[taylor2325]

All joking aside, I'd love to see how different the 620s look with the offset bent into them, as Adam mentioned he had worked with Titleist to accomplish. 

 

I'd also think that Adam has been playing weaker lofts since the 680 heads are a little weaker any way? Might be easy to bend the offset in just by weakening them?

[Mitchell]

2 hours ago, taylor2325 said:

All joking aside, I'd love to see how different the 620s look with the offset bent into them, as Adam mentioned he had worked with Titleist to accomplish. 

 

I'd also think that Adam has been playing weaker lofts since the 680 heads are a little weaker any way? Might be easy to bend the offset in just by weakening them?

In actuality, weakening lofts decreases offset and increases bounce- a compound bend can be done to increase offset without decreasing loft, just takes quite a bit of skill and experience to do so in order to not look “off” to a player with strong visual preferences.

Edited April 28, 2021 by Mitchell
Autocorrect error

[Valtiel]

On 4/9/2021 at 6:37 AM, ThinkingPlus said:

I guess the point I was trying to make is that the design between the clubs is dramatically different.  Having a sexier manufacturer for the pros is fine, but the 620 is a traditional old school high CG blade design whereas the 680 was a relatively forgiving low CG modern blade.  Totally opposite design goals.

 

On 4/9/2021 at 7:59 AM, Skipperation said:

Yes and I'm basically saying that determining the expected launch based of a single measurement of two different lofted clubs (and therefore designed differently despite being both blades) is no way of comparing how sets perform. The 680s have been around for almost 2 decades and it's well established that they are a high muscle, pretty low launching and fairly unforgiving club. The 690s were their easier to hit, longer blade length and higher launching brother, whilst the 670's had the shorter blade and squarer look.

 

I'm pretty certain the 620 and 680 are fairly similar other than some small shape refinements and the lack of offset in the 620 which is the main reason Scott has said he hasn't moved to them before. This is from about 2 weeks before the tournament by the sounds of it, but he states pretty clearly offset has been the issue;

 

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/whats-in-the-bag-masters-edition/id1561187537?i=1000516390670

 

 

I agree with ThinkingPlus here. You say it is "well established that they are a high muscle, pretty low launching...." but based on what? Very low CG blades were common in the early/mid 2000's, and if you go back further to the mid 90's and the Mizuno MP-14 you'll have one of the lowest CG blades ever made. The basic blade recipe of thin topline and concentrated weight via muscleback makes low CG pretty simple. The 680's have a much more rearward CG as well, likely due to the offset. This also explains why the last Titleist blade that he played for any meaningful amount of time was the 710 MB, a blade with a similar deeper RCOG and lower(ish) CG. Every subsequent 700 Series blade was higher and further forward CG, which was ostensibly what he did not like/want. The 620 is the highest and furthest forward CG of any blade they have made, so it seems unlikely that he stays away from that design for 18 years just to switch the most extreme example of it. So either they are tweaking it heavily for him, or he just gave the 620 a little advertising facetime and will return to the 680. 

[Skipperation]

6 hours ago, Valtiel said:

 

I agree with ThinkingPlus here. You say it is "well established that they are a high muscle, pretty low launching...." but based on what? Very low CG blades were common in the early/mid 2000's, and if you go back further to the mid 90's and the Mizuno MP-14 you'll have one of the lowest CG blades ever made. The basic blade recipe of thin topline and concentrated weight via muscleback makes low CG pretty simple. The 680's have a much more rearward CG as well, likely due to the offset. This also explains why the last Titleist blade that he played for any meaningful amount of time was the 710 MB, a blade with a similar deeper RCOG and lower(ish) CG. Every subsequent 700 Series blade was higher and further forward CG, which was ostensibly what he did not like/want. The 620 is the highest and furthest forward CG of any blade they have made, so it seems unlikely that he stays away from that design for 18 years just to switch the most extreme example of it. So either they are tweaking it heavily for him, or he just gave the 620 a little advertising facetime and will return to the 680. 

 

 

 

 

It's getting abit boring now but see above. Either way Adam states on the record, he doesn't think much about the design/CG, it's aesthetics, offset etc.

 

If you're getting really ana!, if they have bent offset into the 620 for him, it's likely the loft will decrease so he may be playing what was designed as a 8i as his 7i for instance. The lower irons will have been designed with a higher CG to control flight so the CG/launch of his irons maybe higher CG-lower launch than a standard set.

I play a set of MP14 irons and disagree on the low CG as they are definitely lower launching than many other blades I've tried. I'd say they were somewhere in the middle of the park these days. At the time they were probably lower CG and higher launching than some of the competition but not compared to modern blades. The MP29 are probably lower CG as the heads were slightly shallower but both sets of long irons are very hard to elevate in comparison to more modern blades that have a more graduated CG through the set in my experience. Yes there were low CG/higher launching blades in the 680 era as it was the start of a newer development of blades with the introduction of CAD but the 680 was 100% the lowest launching (likely highest CG) of the series of blades that Titleist brought to the mass market at the time that was the 660/670/680/690.

 

[bladehunter]

8 hours ago, Valtiel said:

 

I agree with ThinkingPlus here. You say it is "well established that they are a high muscle, pretty low launching...." but based on what? Very low CG blades were common in the early/mid 2000's, and if you go back further to the mid 90's and the Mizuno MP-14 you'll have one of the lowest CG blades ever made. The basic blade recipe of thin topline and concentrated weight via muscleback makes low CG pretty simple. The 680's have a much more rearward CG as well, likely due to the offset. This also explains why the last Titleist blade that he played for any meaningful amount of time was the 710 MB, a blade with a similar deeper RCOG and lower(ish) CG. Every subsequent 700 Series blade was higher and further forward CG, which was ostensibly what he did not like/want. The 620 is the highest and furthest forward CG of any blade they have made, so it seems unlikely that he stays away from that design for 18 years just to switch the most extreme example of it. So either they are tweaking it heavily for him, or he just gave the 620 a little advertising facetime and will return to the 680. 

Exactly.  I learned the game on late 90s early 2000s titleist blades.  Custom grinds and 681 -680 variants.  And I always laughed when someone called them low launching.  They have all the meat down low. And do not launch low.  Same for mizuno mp14 29 68 and 33.  These aren’t low launching irons.  It’s a myth that needs to die.  Most of that due to the dynamic gold shafts that most came with.   

[Valtiel]

12 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Exactly.  I learned the game on late 90s early 2000s titleist blades.  Custom grinds and 681 -680 variants.  And I always laughed when someone called them low launching.  They have all the meat down low. And do not launch low.  Same for mizuno mp14 29 68 and 33.  These aren’t low launching irons.  It’s a myth that needs to die.  Most of that due to the dynamic gold shafts that most came with.   

I mean, it makes sense for the ball of that time period, yeah? We're talking about the transition period between the Tour Balata and the Tour Professional and then the Professional to the ProV1. The former being obviously much higher spinning and lower launching balls, so a lower CG blade makes sense. 

[bladehunter]

2 minutes ago, Valtiel said:

I mean, it makes sense for the ball of that time period, yeah? We're talking about the transition period between the Tour Balata and the Tour Professional and then the Professional to the ProV1. The former being obviously much higher spinning and lower launching balls, so a lower CG blade makes sense. 

Oh yea.  For example. The 680 is lower Vcog than the T100 I’m playing now.  And it’s much lower than the 710 and up titleist MB.  

[TLUBulldogGolf]

MP-22 Thread: Mizuno needs to go back to a classic blade, the top line is too thick, head is too big, too much offset.

 

This thread: Titleist blade lengths have gotten too short, offset is too low.

 

I'm starting to think y'all don't really know what you want..

Edited April 29, 2021 by TLUBulldogGolf

[tsecor]

On 4/27/2021 at 9:09 PM, Mitchell said:

We all know were forged by Hatori Hanzo, c’mon man! Tiger’s Titleist irons were not Miura, were from another Japan forging source, according to Larry Bobka, who should know. As far as the Nike stuff, there was indeed a select group of forgings that started out from Miura, before being modified to player preferences by Mike Taylor. Lots of so-called Miura stuff isn’t, yet is Viragetech.

Miura-San would tell you otherwise. I had the pleasure of meeting him at an event in NY and he spoke directly to the small crowd about Tiger and hs irons.  It was a big secret for a long time and many people still deny it.  Doesnt matter either way if you or anyone else believes it....but to the point of the discussion....Nike didnt make anything for certain players