Wilson Calls Out TaylorMade on "new" RocketBladez Technology

[KYMAR]

[quote name='jholz' timestamp='1351136048' post='5842459']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1351132264' post='5842181']
LOL well if you could read you would note that the "seems" he used referenced the "every year" and not the claim of 15 yard gain. Otherwise, there would be zero need to reference the 15 yard gain not showing up in players stats. Clearly, he expected to see it based on a false belief that that's what they told him to expect. So, if someone is going to make a statement criticizing what they say. They can at least get the claims correct. Are you all that familiar with what they claim? I must admit to being skeptical when you call the above quoted post as "fairly accurate" There is nothing accurate about the part I bolded. How much more substance do you want? I have ZERO allegiance to any OEM. I do however have an allegiance to truth. And the amount of untrue statements about what they have actually said far outnumber the true ones.

And as i said, there is plenty to criticize TM for (the ATV wedge comes to mind imo) Hate how they pay players? Criticize and boycott! Don't like the white? Blast away! Hate the name Rocketballz? Make [i]another[/i] post about how stupid it is, Think the Adjustable sole plate on the R11 is a pure gimmick? CRUSH 'em for it! Think the updated sole plate on the R11S is even MORE of a gimmick? Hang the designer in effigy!! At least those are [i]actual things[/i] you can be mad at. Being mad at fiction is what is really ridiculous.
[/quote]

You are parsing the sentence in a manner that gives it a meaning that is contrary to its construction. Maybe you can read the OP's mind and assume that he intends to say something that he actually isn't. If the OP had really intended to apply the "it seems" preface to only part of the sentence, he probably would have split the statement into two sentences, something like "TM claims 15 yard gains and yet the stats do not bear this out. It seems like they make this claim every year." But, this isn't what the OP wrote. The writing he supplied indicates that the "it seems" must be applied to the entire first clause of the compound sentence construction. Grammar is not something that we simply make up as we go along.

Beyond this, I do agree with you on a certain level concerning the nature of this particular line of criticism that is often leveled at TaylorMade. It is the kind of criticism that could, indeed, be leveled at any and all manufacturers of golf equipment. Every company claims that every new product cycle will provide greater distance and accuracy. The thing that generally separates TM from these other companies is not their claims. It is the frequency and volume with which TM dispenses this message. TaylorMade also often forwards this message coupled with chimeric and gimmicky technological innovations that the vast majority of serious golfers don't take very seriously. It isn't all about what someone or some company materially does or does not do. It also has to do with what those companies say and what those words represent. Clearly TaylorMade represents something that a lot of golfers find irritating. That thing that people find irritating about TaylorMade might be simply representative of a larger character within the golf industry as a whole (if not all industries), but TaylorMade is most certainly the poster-child for that kind of marketing within the golf industry. Thus, TaylorMade becomes a whipping boy of sorts and they clearly both invite and deserve this.

While you may disagree with this position, it is nonetheless a reasonable and reasoned position. As such it cannot be simply dismissed by claiming that people who hold that position are simply too stupid to understand. Clearly they do understand. You choose not to.
[/quote]

There is no way you can read that sentence, grammatically correct or not, and determine that he meant anything other than he feels lied to because there is no statistical data supporting a 15 yard gain. And that is a claim that they have never once made. It's inaccurate, false, untrue. With that in mind, your statement "The thing that generally separates TM from these other companies is not their claims. It is the frequency and volume with which TM dispenses this message" is unsupported. He is CLEARLY criticizing the claim itself. You are fine with it because the spirit of the criticism is in line with your personal dislike for their business model and therefore total inaccurate criticism is really just an annoyance that's easy to overlook. "Well, no they really never said [i]that [/i]but it's kinda, sorta the same" You want me to believe that's some higher level of understanding, i just call it hate induced self deception.

And I love how you accuse me of trying to read his mind yet in the very next sentence you willingly said " he probably would have split the statement into two sentences...." Are you serious?

[LittleBigDog]

[quote name='lunny' timestamp='1351135061' post='5842377']
Wilson needs to make those irons again!!!!!
[/quote]
I think they are calling them the Wilson ShizzleStikz

[guisician]

[quote name='LittleBigDog' timestamp='1351139999' post='5842625']
[quote name='lunny' timestamp='1351135061' post='5842377']
Wilson needs to make those irons again!!!!!
[/quote]
I think they are calling them the Wilson ShizzleStikz
[/quote]

Heard they were changing the company name to "Wilzon."

[Rustynuts]

Come on give Taylormade designers a break, it's obvious they have been in Home Depot too!

[Wooderson]

What I want to know is why do I want a low face hit to have higher ball speeds? When I catch one low it becomes a low screamer that goes farther than I originally wanted. This slot will make that worse.

[RookieBlue7]

After speaking with someone who's actually hit them, and has posted Trackman numbers versus their Miuras, I've seen that what TMag is marketing is accurate. His distance dispersion was 5 yards max with these irons versus 25 yard dispersions with his Miuras, and he was hitting a 7 versus a 6 in the Miuras (after hitting 7 vs 7). That's the loft difference, but doesn't change the fact that when hitting the same loft club, the dispersion was much wider with Miuras vs RBladez. He's not switching but the marketing is on solid ground.

[ChipDriver]

[quote name='RookieBlue7' timestamp='1351163566' post='5843111']
After speaking with someone who's actually hit them, and has posted Trackman numbers versus their Miuras, I've seen that what TMag is marketing is accurate. His distance dispersion was 5 yards max with these irons versus 25 yard dispersions with his Miuras, and he was hitting a 7 versus a 6 in the Miuras (after hitting 7 vs 7). That's the loft difference, but doesn't change the fact that when hitting the same loft club, the dispersion was much wider with Miuras vs RBladez. He's not switching but the marketing is on solid ground.
[/quote]

Good info - thanks for posting.

[Sean25rp]

[quote name='Wooderson' timestamp='1351162419' post='5843079']
What I want to know is why do I want a low face hit to have higher ball speeds? When I catch one low it becomes a low screamer that goes farther than I originally wanted. This slot will make that worse.
[/quote]

It's only present in the long and mid irons, not the short irons where this would be more of an issue.

[TheDarkOne]

Hard to imagine what other OEM companies would give to have this many people talk about their products at every release.

[cxx]

[quote name='RookieBlue7' timestamp='1351163566' post='5843111']
After speaking with someone who's actually hit them, and has posted Trackman numbers versus their Miuras, I've seen that what TMag is marketing is accurate. His distance dispersion was 5 yards max with these irons versus 25 yard dispersions with his Miuras, and he was hitting a 7 versus a 6 in the Miuras (after hitting 7 vs 7). That's the loft difference, but doesn't change the fact that when hitting the same loft club, the dispersion was much wider with Miuras vs RBladez. He's not switching but the marketing is on solid ground.
[/quote]

Sarcasm doesn't work well on forum posts. Might have to highlight it with some kind of emoticon.

I don't see how anyone could think of Taylormade as anything but an excellent marketing machine. They make some good clubs, primarily drivers, but the marketing is superb. The groundbreaking white headed driver, with their visible tour presence and unmistakable visibility at the local course illustrated who was playing the latest. It was like a storm of white surging across golf bags. As with any marketing based company, you have to be a little skeptical of any claims and find the good in the sea of products released.

[PrO_D_BoMbEr]

[quote name='J13' timestamp='1351095686' post='5839241']
So when Nike came out with slot technology in the driver then TM followed and sold a ton of Rocketballz 3 wood why would Wilson not jump on the bandwagon and create a new version of irons?
[/quote]

The compression slot in the Nike stuff was a gimmick, they didn't have the technology as Adams and TM did, and didn't produce the ball speed gains that the Rocketballz did.

Just because someone is first to do something, doesn't mean it was best..........didn't cobra repaint the ZL to have the first white driver since the White Whale.......that worked out for them! They showed TM something!

[danimal]

[quote name='Fore_Man' timestamp='1351122341' post='5841427']
Seriously!?
[/quote]

Seriously!!

[Arafel]

[quote name='danimal' timestamp='1351227748' post='5848249']
[quote name='Fore_Man' timestamp='1351122341' post='5841427']
Seriously!?
[/quote]

Seriously!!
[/quote]

seriously....

[hoganfan924]

Part of good engineering is re-discovering old ideas and improving upon them. Part of it is evaluating your competition and improving upon [b][i]their[/i][/b] ideas. Part of it is combining the "best practices" of your and your competitors product into your newer product. It's done everywhere in all industries. Every product manufacturer has a "competitive evaluation lab" where competitors equipment is purchased, torn down and analyzed by their engineers. Every manufacturer also monitors patent applications from competitors, technical presentations done by competitors, trade shows, message boards, et. al. They also study design from unrelated industries for inspiration and technical advantage (such as TM developing it's poly insert material with 3M). It's good engineering and good business, as long as it doesn't infringe on existing patents. Seems to me that some of you are trying to make a mountain out of a (30+ year old) molehill.

[kygolfer81]

[quote name='displayname' timestamp='1351095302' post='5839209']
TM has amazing marketing, and it's hard to deny it.
[/quote]

I don't know if I'd consider what TM does as "amazing" marketing? It seems all they do is release multiple versions of their clubs each year and by doing so, their equipment is always in your face in the form of new ads claiming that these new drivers/woods/irons are the longest that they've ever produced and that you'll gain as much as 15 yards, etc. It's all fluff meant to appeal to the 30 handicap golfer who thinks that the newest equipment will surely help him get to scratch quicker than his previous equipment which isn't even two years old yet. After all, the new stuff is the LONGEST EVER!

I recognize that TM is a good brand and puts out quality stuff, but I just don't buy into their bullxxxx and it's the main reason I don't buy TM equipment. Now... they were paying me, I think about it.

[Titleist87]

Well, people are certainly talking abut the new TM irons. I think that is what TM wants.

[TomWishon]

[quote name='ShortSticks' timestamp='1351096133' post='5839291']

I would love to hear Tom Wishon's take on this one.
[/quote]


I remember the original Wilson Reflex iron very well. It was intro'd in the early 80s and the claims as you see in the copy of their old add were to say the slot behind the face allowed there to be some trampoline effect to hit the ball longer. Plain and simple, this Reflex iron technology did not work as Wilson claimed - for several reasons.

One, the heads were cast all from stainless steel. The yield strength to modulus ratio of the castable stainless alloys simply do not allow the face to flex enough to increase the COR of the face, and with it, the smash factor of the head. Second, Wilson put a firm rubber material in the slot so this had the effect of bracing the face - even if the face had been made from an alloy with a higher strength to modulus ratio that could have resulted in a flexing of the face, this firm compound would have restricted that action.

All this being the case, it still should be noted that Wilson's Reflex iron technology most definitely can be considered to be a first move into TRYING to use a slot behind the face to enhance the ability of the face to flex inward and from it, increase the smash factor of the shot. So while Wilson's slot really did not increase the COR and smash factor, they at least had the thought to move in this direction. And with that if they feel that TM is claiming originality for their slot technology, Wilson at least has a point that they thought of going this way first.

I should also say that this slot technology used by Adams and then TM is simply another way to get to the goal of making the face more active so that the smash factor of the shot can be higher to result in more distance. It's been proven several times that the same thing can be achieved by choosing the right alloy with a high strength to modulus ratio to make the face and making it thin enough that the COR can be high while face durability is still good. The difference is only that high COR thin face designs do not have the "visible technology" that the slots in the head have - but the outcome in terms of the shot results are the same.

I've always chosen to probe these areas of using alloys with high strength to modulus ratio when I made my first high COR iron in 2000, my first high COR fwy wood in 2004 and my first high COR hybrid in 2006. So when TM and Adams chose to go the route of the slot(s) in the front of the body to increase face flexing, the result was the same as any of us who have chosen to use alloys with high strength to modulus ratio and making them very thin.

TOM

[DC300]

Tmag didn't start the adjustable driver either, they just had the money to push it past the USGA. Several smaller companies were on this earlier, specifically SMT who had a whole kit to make ANY driver adjustable, well before TM marketed it.[quote name='topekareal' timestamp='1351125520' post='5841641']
Right...the marketing piece is always very interesting to me...don't get me wrong, there are wonderful and creative new ideas in the golf industry each year...but those true breakthrough type introductions are not the norm...

what will be really interesting to see is if other companies follow suit as they did with the adjustable driver, which imo, is one of the only significant product releases in the last 10 years...
[/quote]

[BirdieBob]

[quote name='displayname' timestamp='1351095302' post='5839209']

[attachment=1395021:Reflex.JPG]
[/quote]



TaylorMade responded to a guy that posted that pic on their facebook page.....
Quote:

[size=3][i]The Wilson Reflex iron was introduced more than 30 years ago. Iron design has progressed significantly from that time. The Reflex incorporates a slot that enhances face flexibility to increase COR (a term that wasn’t used back then). All iron heads back then were rigid, with a COR measuring around .760. The Reflex measured around .800. RocketBladez COR is about 20 points higher.
Also, the Reflex didn’t have enhancements like the RocketBladez’ complex face design, Inverted Cone, high MOI and low and centered CG location. The Reflex had a constant face thickness of about 3mm, while RocketBladez’ varying face thickness is 1.6 mm at its thinnest. The Reflex’s vertical CG was relatively high, about 20 mm above the ground, and the set didn’t employ progressive head design in terms of topline, sole width and MOI.[/i][/size]

[displayname]

[quote name='TomWishon' timestamp='1351529089' post='5862401']
[quote name='ShortSticks' timestamp='1351096133' post='5839291']
I would love to hear Tom Wishon's take on this one.
[/quote]


I remember the original Wilson Reflex iron very well. It was intro'd in the early 80s and the claims as you see in the copy of their old add were to say the slot behind the face allowed there to be some trampoline effect to hit the ball longer. Plain and simple, this Reflex iron technology did not work as Wilson claimed - for several reasons.

One, the heads were cast all from stainless steel. The yield strength to modulus ratio of the castable stainless alloys simply do not allow the face to flex enough to increase the COR of the face, and with it, the smash factor of the head. Second, Wilson put a firm rubber material in the slot so this had the effect of bracing the face - even if the face had been made from an alloy with a higher strength to modulus ratio that could have resulted in a flexing of the face, this firm compound would have restricted that action.

All this being the case, it still should be noted that Wilson's Reflex iron technology most definitely can be considered to be a first move into TRYING to use a slot behind the face to enhance the ability of the face to flex inward and from it, increase the smash factor of the shot. So while Wilson's slot really did not increase the COR and smash factor, they at least had the thought to move in this direction. And with that if they feel that TM is claiming originality for their slot technology, Wilson at least has a point that they thought of going this way first.

I should also say that this slot technology used by Adams and then TM is simply another way to get to the goal of making the face more active so that the smash factor of the shot can be higher to result in more distance. It's been proven several times that the same thing can be achieved by choosing the right alloy with a high strength to modulus ratio to make the face and making it thin enough that the COR can be high while face durability is still good. The difference is only that high COR thin face designs do not have the "visible technology" that the slots in the head have - but the outcome in terms of the shot results are the same.

I've always chosen to probe these areas of using alloys with high strength to modulus ratio when I made my first high COR iron in 2000, my first high COR fwy wood in 2004 and my first high COR hybrid in 2006. So when TM and Adams chose to go the route of the slot(s) in the front of the body to increase face flexing, the result was the same as any of us who have chosen to use alloys with high strength to modulus ratio and making them very thin.

TOM
[/quote]

Thanks Tom. That completely made sense. We appreciate the input, and as many have said before, it's a shame the real originators of these types of technology seem to get get side stepped by bigger R&D departments and marketing machines.

[mweaver84]

[quote name='TheDarkOne' timestamp='1351164769' post='5843145']
Hard to imagine what other OEM companies would give to have this many people talk about their products at every release.
[/quote]

That's the saying... "Any publicity is good publicity"

I still don't like idea behind these irons and wouldn't be caught dead using them. Never did like TM irons. I like the woods though (not the RBZ ones) But if they work good for people more power to them!

[Locked]

Thanks Tom... so if I'm reading that response correctly it is that the RBladez tech has some merit to it, but its not the only way to create the same effect. I can live with that.

[lettucebcereal]

I'm glad Wilson called them out, and I hope more people take a notice at Wilson's stuff. Love their FG Tour irons and fybrid series.

Also, this is off subject, but wouldn't Taylormade be diluting their stuff by always throwing out something new almost every few months?

[iteachgolf]

What are they throwing out every couple months? Currently they have two lines and the life cycle has been a year on the last two releases. The MC and MB irons have been out for two years and the MC is just now being replaced with the MB still in lineup. A one to two year product cycle is standard across the industry.

[SurfinTurf]

I recently switched to a magnesium bronze Anser with a sound slot and I'm just CRUSHING my putts. This technology is no joke.

[lettucebcereal]

[quote name='iteachgolf' timestamp='1351539159' post='5863299']
What are they throwing out every couple months? Currently they have two lines and the life cycle has been a year on the last two releases. The MC and MB irons have been out for two years and the MC is just now being replaced with the MB still in lineup. A one to two year product cycle is standard across the industry.
[/quote]

I guess I should rephrase. It seems like they're always throwing something out every few months, or have a shorter product life cycle. Where else, when I look at Titleist or Callaway, it seems like they stick to a much longer product life cycle.

[iteachgolf]

[quote name='lettucebcereal' timestamp='1351539937' post='5863379']
[quote name='iteachgolf' timestamp='1351539159' post='5863299']
What are they throwing out every couple months? Currently they have two lines and the life cycle has been a year on the last two releases. The MC and MB irons have been out for two years and the MC is just now being replaced with the MB still in lineup. A one to two year product cycle is standard across the industry.
[/quote]

I guess I should rephrase. It seems like they're always throwing something out every few months, or have a shorter product life cycle. Where else, when I look at Titleist or Callaway, it seems like they stick to a much longer product life cycle.
[/quote]
Titleist yes with two year life cycle. Callaway not so much. Released RAZR Fit same time TMAG did R11s. Now they are doing RAZR Fit Extreme. Callaway like TMAG has longer product cycle on irons but they release drivers on a yearly cycle. Ping and Titleist are on a 2 year cycle.

[lettucebcereal]

[quote name='iteachgolf' timestamp='1351540997' post='5863481']
[quote name='lettucebcereal' timestamp='1351539937' post='5863379']
[quote name='iteachgolf' timestamp='1351539159' post='5863299']
What are they throwing out every couple months? Currently they have two lines and the life cycle has been a year on the last two releases. The MC and MB irons have been out for two years and the MC is just now being replaced with the MB still in lineup. A one to two year product cycle is standard across the industry.
[/quote]

I guess I should rephrase. It seems like they're always throwing something out every few months, or have a shorter product life cycle. Where else, when I look at Titleist or Callaway, it seems like they stick to a much longer product life cycle.
[/quote]
Titleist yes with two year life cycle. Callaway not so much. Released RAZR Fit same time TMAG did R11s. Now they are doing RAZR Fit Extreme. Callaway like TMAG has longer product cycle on irons but they release drivers on a yearly cycle. Ping and Titleist are on a 2 year cycle.
[/quote]

I guess it seems drivers are usually on shorter life cycles for OEMs than most clubs, right?

[iteachgolf]

Except for Ping and Titleist yes. But Ping released I20 and G20 last year and Anser driver this year. Two year cycle but making it so you have a new driver released ever year by having multiple lines of clubs. Titleist has a true 2 year cycle between launches as they release both lines at same time

[Super Tuna]

[quote name='iteachgolf' timestamp='1351540997' post='5863481']
Titleist yes with two year life cycle. Callaway not so much. Released RAZR Fit same time TMAG did R11s. Now they are doing RAZR Fit Extreme. Callaway like TMAG has longer product cycle on irons but they release drivers on a yearly cycle. Ping and Titleist are on a 2 year cycle.
[/quote]

Pings moving to a 18 month time frame instead now, but yes, still longer then standard.