Are you getting the "shaft" when you buy a club? - Part 1, sorta

A little on shafts ... just a little

There has been a lot of things circulating lately about shafts and how they affect performance.  One noted reviewer did a small study where he hit an X flex and senior (A) flex of shaft and noted that on the monitor there was no difference between the performance of the shaft, only the feel between the two.   Another is adamant that the performance of the golf club comes primarily from the shaft. Both are very well known and have massive followings - but who is correct?

The only way to settle this, unfortunately, is to draw your own conclusions. Good thing is, I can give you the knowledge and steer you in the right direction to do so.  I can tell you without a doubt that shafts absolutely make a difference. Why then, when you go to the box stores and try all the different clubs from different manufacturers, with different shafts do they all go about the same for you. Well, that's the rub. The shaft has to be a match for the swing and head that is being used. We've all heard big OEMs say "high launch and low spin is optimal for maximum distance".  That is true, in a vacuum, which is why there are so many shafts out there - what's good for one person to get high launch and low spin is not good for others!




Case A:  I took a tip-stiff shaft -  very little action, high kick point and low spin/launch. Put that in a low spinning head with a low loft and hit it. I put the best move I could on it, hit it in the dead center of the face. This was my ball flight.  Note the carry distance, total, and spin number.



I took the same shaft, in a lighter flex, which had higher launching properties than the original, and a slightly softer tip. This is pretty standard across the board, as shafts get lighter in flex, the launch properties change.  This is what the result was:



Note how higher spin and higher launch got me more distance - not an incredible amount...but that goes against the High/Low that is "optimal". The reason is because everyone swings differently. I have a slightly negative attack angle so i put a little more spin on the ball than usual and the effective loft that I deliver is low, which is why I launch a 10.5 driver at 10 degrees and less... Now, what happens if i put the 2nd shaft on the first head? Glad you asked:



In this scenario, the higher launch, but lower spin head really negated the more active tip section but my total distance still fell short by a yard or so. Carry distance suffered 4 yards. Not a huge deal, and i'd take either one of these two combinations, but it does show - if not slightly - that high launch and low spin aren't universally better depending on what you want. On a standard surface it's less roll, but if i'm trying to carry a creek or get over a hill, i want to maximize carry. Hard pan will roll just fine. Know this - if one of these shafts was included in the build and the other was $200 more? which one do you think I'm getting? So what does this mean?

It means that shaft absolutely matters. Flex absolutely matters. Is one shaft better than the other? That's subjective, but if you're getting the same numbers and performance with two different flexes, there's something about your swing that's changing to compensate - wether it's tempo, release, or speed -- and honestly a shaft that's a good fit for you should complement how you swing and you shouldn't have to change for it or any piece of equipment for that matter.  The other side of that coin is that shaft type and flex doesn't necessarily matter as much as some people think.  Barring COMPLETELY improper flex (having a super stiff low launching X when an Lflex is needed), I've never had a fitting where someone increased distance 40 yards just by changing shaft brand or flexes.  You can easily gain 5 to 15 yards, but that's about max on average. More important is the DISPERSION benefit from the proper shaft ..... and a GOOD shaft at that. Distance doesn't matter when you're hitting out of the trees.

What makes a shaft good... and why are some so expensive... and WHICH SHOULD I CHOOSE?

Shafts, when swinging, are under a pretty hefty load sometimes. Even if you're not a big swinger and have a light flex, that sucker is still going to flex a good 5 or more inches off it's base line. This stores the energy of the swing and releases it (hopefully) at the right moment to power that ball down the fairway (or into the woods, depending on who you are).  Shafts have areas of stiffness, areas of flex, and different torque - all dependent on how they are wound and layered by the manufacturer. With new technologies and materials, shaft makers can even change flex properties according to where and how much heat/pressure is applied to the fibers. It's really amazing!!! 

In my world, a shaft is "good" if it flexes predictably in all rotations. Or at least fairly so. Just last night i showed a client of mine what happens when you horizontally load a shaft and release it. We did it first with a high end OBAN Devotion.  Rotating the shaft, it was noticeably better and more consistent in one area than it was in all others - Good enough to get some performance out of but not absolutely necessary. We then did it with a $15 budget stick. We aligned the spine and it flexed just as repeatably as the Oban, but when we turned it off that axis..... oh lord. Like a drunk etch-a-sketch, that tip was all over the place, flexing and oscillating. How is that supposed to deliver the club to the ball consistently? No way i would install that shaft without FLO - and i don't. But that's the point.  At a price point over 10x what the budget shaft was, the Oban was much more suited to a driver where the adjustable hosel will be rotated and changed. The performance won't necessarily suffer if settings are changed. Put the budget one in a club like that and good luck, pal.  That is why when you buy an OEM driver, they have a BUNCH of high end shafts available - some for an upcharge and some not.... The upcharge are (normally) more consistent in their manufacture. The tolerances are tighter and it will perform better in just about any orientation. Making these shafts costs $$$$$ so that's why there are $1000 shafts out there. Believe me, you'll feel the difference.  The question is - do you need it? Unless your name is on the leader board every weekend, probably not. And no, having a $1000 shaft isn't going to put you there either. 

So what am I supposed to do!! 

Supposed to do? See a pro about your game. Get better.  What SHOULD you do?  Take better care of your equipment. When you buy that club, it's got a great shaft in it. Don't abuse it, don't break it - because to get one that's as good, it's going to cost you.  There are great shafts from yester-year out there. Old designs that were good in the day and can be had for a fraction of what a new one costs. Remember this though --- there are no caps on shaft performance. While heads are limited and new ones come out every year with a new gimmick, there's no way they can "out perform" a head that has been maxxed to USGA specs. There are NO SUCH SPECS for shafts. They need only be straight (except putter flanges) and of a certain length. Energy transfer, torque, flex, materials, diameter and the like are not regulated by the USGA. Look at the DG spinner wedge shaft... Weird right? It may very well bring your wedge game where it's never been before - all because of the design.  Manufacturers make shafts to do good things. This tech is growing and becoming better understood each year. Fujikura has taken millions of data points to create it's XLR8 line with specific properties to maximize loading and energy transfer. Same with Project X and their LZ series and HZRDUS line. Matrix improves on their designs (and graphics) each year and a number of boutique manufacturers are coming up like Veylox and OBAN.  Be aware as well when getting a high end "free" upgrade from an OEM. Make sure it's the version you think you're paying for. I know for certain that some big names are "giving" the HZRDUS black as a no upgrade. It is different than the "Handcrafted" version you see on tour and available for aftermarket purchase. Due diligence.

If you have the chance - get fit for a shaft. You'll be glad you did.  Hit everything they have to offer if you need to go to a box store, and for goodness sake - if you break a shaft don't just put any old crap in there. Make sure to go to a competent repair and fitting shop and talk through it with them. Don't skimp out on the price either. You get what you pay for. If you use an adjustable driver, you need to put that money back into the club if it breaks - look for someone selling their shaft, or get a proper quality one put in. 

My time with the M2 6iron - Part 2

As you may or may not have read in Part 1, I had the lovely fortune of getting a Taylormade M2 6 iron in the mail. I detailed it's specs there, which I will not go into again here, and came to the conclusion that something was up. Well... the problem is that NOTHING is up, except marketing budgets.

Before we begin, let me state some facts:  

The M2 is stock exactly as it came from Taylormade. I opened the box, examined it, and took it out to hit. 

Lofts of the irons are nearly identical. +/- about 1 degree.  Length varied with the M2 being 38" long, and the KE4 being 37" long physically. 

As previously stated in part 1, even though marked differently, the shafts in each club test the same flex, so regardless that the TM is labelled stiff and mine is a "regular" they are actually both the same flex.  See some of my other writings for why this happens and other things "They" don't want you to know.

I'm hitting the same types of balls with both clubs. I went through painstaking measures to sort through range balls and find the best balls, making sure they're all of the same type and removing all the non-range and/or any balls that don't seem right (a big "screw you" to all the people who bring their own garbage balls to hit at the range. Shame on you. Keep your top rocks to yourself nobody wants to hit your budget balls - even in practice. Do you understand the looks I got while sorting through all these range balls? DO YOU?!). Ok......

The weather has finally broken (again) here in Pennsylvania and I was absolutely itching to get out and play golf. Since there's no cream for that sort of itch, the only solution is to get out and chase a little white ball around in the sunshine.  As luck would have it, there was a scheduled demo day at Crossgates Golf Course in Millersville that I was due at with my Clubcrowns and Shaft wraps, and that means I would have some time (and free balls) to hit all the 6 irons my heart desired!! Well, it's time for the cold, hard truth.  Let me preface this and say that I was duly warm for this test. Having hit a bucket with each 6 iron before taking measurements. I wanted to be loose, and I wanted to make sure I had the feel of each club fresh before measuring shots. For each,  I took the best 8 shots - removing the worst and the best from the original 10 "pressure" shots.

I'll get right to it, then tell you why:
The M2 is not all it's cracked up to be. Not for me anyway. Funny I should have those choice in words because that's honestly what I felt like I was going to do to this 6 iron. Every shot felt like the club could shatter... and the sound. Oh god, the sound. I mean, I can't even describe it to do it justice. If you took about 5 of those cheap tupperware lids you find on Chinese take out now, stacked them up and hit a ball with them?  I think that would come close. It's a plastic "slap!" that does not instill confidence in me at all. I mean, I even absolutely MURDERED one - smash factor was almost up near my driver as far as energy transfer (which is a very good sign for this head mind you) and the thing still sounded and felt like the head was just going to fall apart. The grip being off-center didn't bug me as much as I thought it would but I could definitely feel it. Thing is, it SHOULD have helped me turn the ball over in a right to left draw, but it most certainly did not. The stiff shaft (which was actually regular) felt ok as far as flex and shock goes, but as we'll see in the flightscope data later, it was actually all over the place.

 I will concede that the longest shot of the M2 was longer than the longest shot of my own Maltby KE4. As stated previously in Part 1, this was fully expected considering that the shaft is a full inch longer than my current 6 iron. That being said, the SHORTEST of the M2 was Shorter than my KE4. If one is to believe the marketing, this should not be happening. So as things average out, the M2 still comes in longer than my current 6 by approximately 2 feet overall. Not exactly the gains promised by the manufacturer.  Something else I noticed, interestingly enough is that the M2 on average did NOT fly higher than my own 6 iron. Again, contrary to the marketing.

 Looking at the overall data, we can see a few things. First, the numbers for the M2 are slightly better in some areas. Total distance, is better by almost a yard, but strangely the carry distance is better on my original 6 iron by 1.1 yards. You can make your own inferences at what you want, but I'll mark this down as an original iron win. I want carry distance and stopping power in my irons. I could care less to hit my 6 iron 200 yards if 20 yards of that is roll. I want it to go high and come down soft. Isn't that what the M2 is supposed to do anyway?  The spin on the M2 did average higher- but you can see the minor outlier of 9080 RPM, and 8635 RPM of spin. That's high but since my metal on a stick got to nearly 7000 I didn't think it unfeasible that this new technology could achieve that. Hell, smash factor near my driver! Either way, since the Flightscope is on outdoor settings and tracks the ball to finish rather than calculating into a net, I kept them in for the overall data. All things considered, smash factor, spin, and ball speed were higher with the M2 - why didn't it fly farther though? I'm as stumped as you, but being there and seeing the ball flight and where the shots ended up, I can confirm the data.

Let's talk about clusters and accuracy. The M2 boasts more forgiveness than standard clubs. There's a speed pocket at the bottom and all manner of carbon plastic do-dads in the back and up the face that are supposed to help create more speed and forgiveness across the entire face. Remember before when I said that the longest was longer than my 6iron, but the shortest was shorter? Well, here's how it looks on the chart:


Looking at this chart, it maps out the shots as they landed and calculates standard deviations. The forward and back for the M2 are not to my liking, especially for all the promises made on keeping ball speed up with the pocket on low hits.  This basically means that I could hit a dead solid shot and and have it settle on the green, then drop another ball and have it come up with a difference of 15 yards. That's a club and a half!!! You'll have to take my word for it when I say this, but in all honesty these shots were not all that far apart on the face. It's not like one was 1/2 inch out on the toe and one was 1/2 inch on the heel. My ball striking is pretty good.  Talk about being in between clubs. The right to left deviation is another concern. It seemed like the iron didn't know which way it wanted to correct. Remember when I said I was being fair between the two clubs? Well, sorry KE4, I was on the side of the M2 for a lot of this....

Height and direction:

After hitting balls and warming up to get the feel for each club, I knew the M2 was not getting in the air for me. I watched as ball after ball was a line drive and just was not getting off the ground. I actually teed one up in the test below to make sure I would catch the ball perfectly on the club face and get the ball up (didn't do that with my 6 iron). Nope not at all - although it did give me a 184 yard bullet which was nice.  Both screens below are the best shot, distance wise, in the group. The M2 rolled out about 2 yards farther than the KE4 and definitely did not get as high. You can see also, that the correction of the M2 kind of left me with  two way miss. I'm a slight fade ball hitter. I can work the ball both ways if I want to (let me stop here and say that the M2 IS predictably workable when hit well) but my go-to is a little fade. Bad back and shoulders make that an easy shot. So why all the left on the M2?  Correction in that "forgiveness" category. It is workable, as I said, when you hit it well, but if you catch a little toe or a little heel, it tends to over correct for the shot, which left a few of the balls to the left, and one WAY out to the right. It's meant to hit the ball straight on off-center hits, but for it to correct and do that you have to deliver the club mostly square anyway. If you're an 18 handicap that has an open club face, it's not going to really do you much good -- then again, no club will. Sorry it's just the way it is. Lessons, folks.



Talking materials:
I think one of the last things we need to talk about here is quality of components. There are good metals and bad metals. Good graphite and bad graphite. Good build quality and bad build quality. If you take the time to know your product and put in the time to assemble it correctly it will treat you well.  Here's where the M2 gets some love. It COULD BE a good club. It really could. OMG could it be good. There's things that need to be addressed, however. First:  Lose the FST ultralight shaft. If you want light, use an MCI 80 graphite composite shaft. This stock shaft is not doing it for me, or most likely for anybody.  The two charts below show flex action for the two clubs. The orange line is the flex acceleration for the longest shot on each. The gray line are all the other shots. You'll notice that both of the longest and best shots came with a downward sloping profile. It's just what fits me the best as a golfer. The head actually isn't accelerating through the ball (even with my relatively low swing speed, I'm still a high-spin player) and it's allowing me to hit flush and keep the flight where it's optimal with my swing. Now, notice how the shaft on the left (incidentally, a Fujikura 95i Sflex graphite shaft, soft stepped) is relatively consistent in it's flexing along the swing. With both clubs I have a few crap shoots in there, but for the most part it is a very consistent grouping.  Now look at the FST in the M2. Not for me at all. Some times it kicks hard at the bottom, sometimes not. I'm not sure if this has anything to do with the hosel design, with the crazy air foils, or if it's just due to the shaft combo and length. I do know that it's not something I'm down with for anyone. Even with the most inconsistent swings, I want the shaft to perform predictably if not optimally.  That grouping at the top should be tighter as well as all the way through the middle of the swing.



FST makes some great shafts - The KBS Ctaper is phenominal, as well as the Tour90. Even the FST 115 and similar models can be great on a budget.... IF they're installed properly. This, in my opinion, could benefit from a FLO run. Very much like assembly lines though, this was more than likely pulled out of a pile and assembled, checking for length and weight, not much else.

So what have we learned from all this.... If you haven't fallen asleep or had your head explode looking at the photos and reading my terrible font, then you've probably come to the same conclusion I have.  The M2 is not a good stock club. It's just not. Off the rack, it won't really help you gain yards or accuracy unless you fit it perfectly as is.  The M2 head is subjective when it comes to sound and feel. If you're at all into the "THWACK" of a good hit, then the M2's is not for you. At best, a pure shot will leave you with an unsatisfying "click" sound and sort of a plastic resonance feel up the shaft. It can accurately be described as a toy sound and feel, not premium golf club feedback. It looks fancy, but doesn't deliver on the promises - even when the deck is stacked in it's favor with a longer shaft and slightly jacked lofts.  Still, it's a smart looking club. It really has a different back cavity look and even though the top line is thick, I don't really mind it in comparison to the thinner players clubs. it really instills confidence at address if not in performance.

.... and I thought Xfinity's appointment windows were bad...

After all this, I would urge you to give one a hit and see if you can tolerate it.  See what other shaft options they have as upgrades. With all of this technology that doesn't really seem to do much, I have to wonder if the upgrade would be worth it, though. You're paying more to get what the stock option should have delivered. With a pricetag of $800 average per set, it's not something that I would ever recommend to run out and buy sight unseen. A qualified builder could make you a set of component irons that out duel this badboy for less - plus they'll be everything you want and more as far as options. Example, Put a ProjectX 5.5 with new decade grips on these bad boys and you're looking at almost $1000.00. Oh, and apparently it'll ship between 2 days from now and next September?  Go out, look around and pay attention. Always ask "why" when you're getting fit and when someone wants to sell you something. Why do you need this? Why is it better? Why will it do what you say it will? Most importantly of all - is the investment worth the payoff? Is 5 yards worth $499?  Is a marginal improvement worth $1000? For me, no. This is just my experience though. You may crank these guys and if you do, I say drop that money and get them. It's about what works for you, and if you've read anything else I've written, you know that's the only thing you should worry about. Not name, not what flex you hit, and certainly not what some guy on the internet has to say. Get out there and get swinging!

Thanks for stopping by! Hope to see you again on the next post!

The Diluting of Our Golf Economy.....

The biggest complaint I hear about golf is that it's "too expensive".  I would agree to a point, which is why I started my own club building and repair business to keep costs down for all golfers that I can reach. I don't understand that sentiment though when people follow in the same breath with "What kind of driver is that?" When I answer, they just reply "oh". It's more about name than anything else and people are willing to pay for a name. This is not a post about clone clubs. Clone clubs are meant to look like a particular variety, not perform like it. Most are also illegal, not to mention they perform like crap. This is about off-brand names that do their own research and their own design and create a quality performance product. They don't pay pros millions so there's no need to have drivers that are $500. They rely on competent club builders to grow the name.

Still, I've heard more often than not that getting fully custom clubs are still too expensive.  One of the most common statements is "I can get a brand name set for that price".  Answer: Yes, yes you can, but it's going to be off the rack and it's going to be what the COMPANY wants you to play, not what you want to play.  Example: I went to a popular retailer and bought the cheapest set of clubs that I could. I didn't try to "match" sets, I used different OEMs just whatever was the most recent and cheapest - balanced.  I sacrificed a little "new box" factor for some savings.  I came up with Driver, 5W, 4-AW, SW, Putter for $854.83.  These are all stock shafts, no options, no swingweight options, no new grip options, no length or fitting options. The different OEMs offer different brands of shaft, but I'll assume they're relatively close in flex.  So you have a "good set" of big names for less than $900 before tax and buying a bag.  Remember also, that these are the CHEAPEST I could find. The ones marked $200 off, and $300 off, on the rack.  It does not take into account the up-charges to replace the OEM shaft with say a Dynamic Gold S300 from True Temper and does not allow for length adjustments.

I spec'd out a performance set of clubs using great components and came up with $868.44 after tax (if you're in PA). The head covers put me over, drat. Still, they all have matching grips, the driver and 3 wood have the same shaft profile. Oh wait, there's an extra wedge in there to round out your scoring clubs. Winner!  Believe me when I say there's some great components that are even more on the value pricing line as well that I steered clear of just to prove a point.  I didn't have to use Golfpride New Decade Plus 4 Grips *new for 2015*. Nor did Superstroke pay me to put their Mid-slim 2.0 on the putter rather than a stock paddle shaft. I certainly didn't have to use Fujikura EXS 6.0 graphite shafts *New for 2015* on the woods either but I did all that. Yes, I also find it somehow ironic that as you're reading this, there's Golfsmith ads on either side of the blog. Thanks, Google. Really.

See, here's the thing - there's money for the big names in "stock" clubs. By making a flashy club and touting some new technology, they are able to release a new club or set of clubs every 6 months. Sometimes even sooner!! It leaves you with the sense that what you have isn't good enough so you'll buy new - even if it's a new to you used club - and it's still stock garbage.  Most clubs rely on something called rack appeal.  That's when you look at a set of clubs and go "oh that's nice!!" without even hitting it. They look cool, different, shiny, black - you name it - and if it makes you buy the club then it's done it's job. I fell into this in my hay-day. I bought a big brand of clubs and got fit by the fitter. By the time I had them the way I was fit to them, I was well into $1000 JUST FOR IRONS!!!!!! That's no wedges, no woods, no putter!   Flash forward, I built a set of irons for myself using less flashy and less expensive components but to the same specs that I was fit for and they outplay my old clubs - no contest. You can read the first tests here and here and I was completely sold after that.  The USGA puts limits on clubs. It's what they do.  MOI, COR, Size, and Weight are all closely monitored. Clubs have hit a wall.  You're talking about differences of 1 or 2 points and flat out lies. You can't increase MOI by 15% every year. You can't, the limits don't allow it. If you DID then that means last year's model was crap or more than likely - you're being lied to.

Long story short, buying big names is stroking your ego. If you're the person who needs to have the name in the bag please go buy them. I have said it before, I want you to be happy and I want you to play what you want. Personally though, I take more satisfaction from absolutely destroying a golf ball down the middle of the fairway past my partners with my custom built "no name" than I do from someone saying "hey, I see you got that new (insert name) driver. Looks awesome".  I start conversations with my clubs now because they have Clubcrowns and Shaft wraps on them and they are badass. These days when people ask "what kind of driver is that" they're following it up with "I want one".

I trust what I sell and I play what I sell. Let me help you trust your clubs.

Your best golf... on the cheap: Part1

 Last month I blogged about a great cigar for not much money. They're around $2.50 each, depending on the size. I love cheap. Cheap is good. Cheaper is GREAT! The problem with cheap is that it's not very dependable. Quite often, it's inconsistent and in the end it's not really worth what I paid anyway. Thankfully those Casa de Garcias have broken that stereotype. Of course, thinking in these terms, in walks "Custom".  Custom tends to be the opposite of Cheap.  Custom is so nice and perfectly fit to whatever I need.  I paid big money (to me) for a set of custom golf clubs. Length, lie, shaft, grip, weighting and probably most of all -- NAME.

If you've ever bought a golf product, you're paying a lot for the name. A hand towel at Wal-mart is maybe 4 bucks(?) but if you put (insert mainstream golf company here)'s name on that it goes to $20 and sometimes $30.  So i thought "what if I took my specs and built my own clubs for cheap to mimic these big box brand name clubs".  Out comes my personal "Maltby" irons. When you hear the name you may think of Rodger the Golf Channel/ NBC on-course correspondent and, for you older chaps, multiple tournament winner on the PGA tour in the 70s and 80s.  When you READ the name Maltby, it may or may not bring to mind Ralph Maltby the club designer from golfworks.com. Sounds the same, but it's spelled different. (10 points to guess the movie).

Roger Maltbie (no relation)

Ralph Maltby

Ralph used to design clubs for Tommy Armour and is an all around fitting guru.  He developed the MPF or Maltby Playability Factor to rank clubs on how they will perform for different levels of players. With iron head price points at around $30 and shafts at about $10, I can build a set of custom golf clubs to my exact specifications for $300 or less, compared to the $1000 for the brand name clubs. I went ahead and ordered a Malby KE-4 hybrid iron and a Maltby MMB-17 8 iron to see if there was any confirmation to my thought process. Today I got them and decided to do a test against my current Titleist AP2 4 and 8 iron on the range for feel, playability, and general distance.

MMB-17 - 8 iron - 39* - 36.5"
True Temper Command Stiff

Maltby MMB-17

The 8-iron has a really nice look about it. Very "players club" with a chrome nickel plating and satin face area. Thin topline, thin sole. Turf interaction was stellar and it didn't dig as much as I originally thought it would. at 3 degrees of bounce, it actually scooped through the grass nicely! The ball came off cleanly with a much more crisp "click" sound and feel than my AP2 which is more of a muffled "thwack" with a solid but soft feel. I think I like the MMB feedback a little better because I can really tell when I hit it cleanly and when i hit it nearer the toe or heel which for me translates into MORE confidence if I miss a shot. At least I know why I missed it.

The shaft, a True Temper Command R/S flex (trimmed for Stiff), did leave a little bit to be desired. The shaft is designed for control and lower trajectory - and control it did. My shot dispersion was much tighter than my AP2, even on solid hits. I could also work the ball much more easily in both directions as well as up and down. The feel was somewhat looser than the S300 on my current 8 iron.  The Dynamic gold series have the shock absorbing "sensicore" inside. Basically it's a wire with foam wound up it in a spiral pattern. It's placed in the shaft and deadens any vibration coming from the head. I noticed it was missing when I hit one thin, but it wasn't as jarring as some would have me believe. I hit about 2 dozen balls with each and came to the conclusion that the only thing that MAY be missing is the distance factor. I hit my AP2 8 iron about 160.  I don't think I was hitting that all the time with the MMB. Still, I attribute that to the muscle back design. Traditionally, the forgiving zone on the face is only about the size of a dime or nickel whereas the AP2 irons are more like a quarter or half dollar because of the technology. I wanted a muscle back though because of the accuracy and I definitely got that.  When I get it on the course for part 2 and I'm really able to see the distance for myself instead of guestimating based on landmarks, then I'll be able to make a good decision.

Maltby KE4-Tour

KE4-Tour 4 Iron/Hybrid - 23*- 38.5"
Graffaloy ProCustom Stiff flex

The 4 hybrid iron is a very nice club in itself. This configuration beat out my current 4 in terms of feel and playability again. The graphite shaft absorbed the shock much better than the steel shaft even with sensicore (no surprise there really), but what really impressed me is the way the ball catapaulted off the face! Holy cow were my first words after one strike.  The ball flew higher and landed more softly than my current 4 iron for sure yet both have the same characteristics as far as length and swingweight. Judging by the flight, I will go out on a limb and say that the spin rate on the KE4 is much higher than the AP2 - which is exactly what I was looking to get for my long approach shots.  The KE4 has a wider top line and sole but the head is about that of a standard blade with very little offset. It's made to be a cross between iron and hybrid. I'm normally not a fan of "fat irons" but it really worked for my eye in this case and I think the shallow face helped that a lot. Turf interaction from the wider sole was really nice, regardless of the width and I didn't feel it digging in like my 4 iron usually does. I felt like it was much easier to hit than even my current 3-hybrid - which just seems too big to use in the rough or sometimes even from the fairway - so why bother having it? As for the Graffaloy shaft - it performed exactly as spec'd. Very light, stiff flex and high launch. I couldn't ask for much more --- but I did.  I demanded the ball do things that I normally have

trouble doing with my current players clubs. In control, the KE4 with Graffaloy Pro Custom out-performed my AP2 w/ DG S300 smartly.  I was able to work the ball in both directions at will and had an easier time feathering the ball with the KE4 than the AP2. Normally my 4 iron is draw, un-willing fade and big slice as far as shot choices. The Maltby 4 iron actually flew straight and accurate and when I wanted to move the ball, I was able to do so in small increments. 5 yards, 15 yards, feather it just a couple... the shots were there when I wanted them and I didn't feel like it was a "lucky strike" when I pulled them off.  Once again, when I get it on the course for part 2 then I can really say if it's all over better.  One thing I think I definitely dislike about this club is the anodized black finish. I have the same finish on my Taylormade R11, but that's a driver. I don't hit sandy balls that much with it.  With this being a utility iron, it's going to have a lot of turf interaction and that's going to take a toll on the finish, wearing out a hit groove.  After hitting only a few damp range balls it picked up a few marks on the face already. Love that sweetspot though!

Click here to check out Part 2!