Maltby TS2

[AZstu324]

12 hours ago, GQ0208 said:

I bought a TS1 IM 7 iron to try and really like it. My thought is that the TS4 would be a little more accurate in the scoring irons since it’s not injected. Also, the TS4 lofts would transition better to my 52 degree wedge. However, I am probably completely overthinking it. 

So I was thinking the exact same thing when I was looking for my new setup. In fact it was a TS1-IM/TS4 combo that I was interested in. I had inquired about the practicality of this setup on the Maltby forum. The response from Britt was more or less that it really wouldn't be any more beneficial to split either of these sets up with each other. Playability is nearly identical and not one model is easier or harder to hit, shape, or flight than the other. The only thing you're really getting is a different looking, sounding, and feeling clubs from one to the next.. but nothing in terms of forgiveness or playability. 

 

I took his advice and just stuck with a full TS4 setup and haven't looked back with any regret. Further more he elaborated further that the TS3 was a much better combo choice to accompany either the TS1-IM or TS4. 

 

If your more interested in the TS4's I wouldn't be concerned at all about the longer irons being more difficult to hit. I feel like I have as much confidence in my 5i as my PW just because of how well it plays. I would imagine the TS1's being very similar through the lineup. If anything, a split shaft setup to control the height and spin a little might work.. but then that's why flighted shafts were invented 😜 

 

 

Edited October 21, 2023 by AZstu324

[Cwebb]

2 hours ago, bgfgolf said:

I’m happy the new TE+ have proper lofts, but it just reinforces how upset I am that they took their most players style iron in the TE 4 and gave it such absurd lofts. 
 

I’d wager most players who want a blade want traditional loft gapping to match their traditional wedges - 60, 56, 52, 47/48, and on down by 4 degrees until the long irons.

 

the TE 4 lofts pretty much eliminate the possibility of me buying them despite the head being the most desirable for me.

 

You can easily have the lofts set to 2* or even 3* more than their standard spec.  I've done it many times and it works out just fine

[ThinkingPlus]

6 minutes ago, iamlowsound said:

Very true! Maltby is all in on low CG so even the higher ones are still low. I'd love to give the new TE+ a shot but my issue is I hit the ball too high so I don't think it will fit me very well. 

Keep in mind that high CG (somewhat subjective) is more like 0.8" or higher (you might categorize 0.78" to 0.82" as medium). Stupid high CG is above 0.84" (CG above the ball midpoint - you better be steep, leaned, and fast). There are players that benefit from that high of CG, but it is a smaller number than what most folks appreciate. 

[bgfgolf]

5 minutes ago, Cwebb said:

 

You can easily have the lofts set to 2* or even 3* more than their standard spec.  I've done it many times and it works out just fine

I don’t mind bending a degree, but I’d prefer not to throw off the offset and bounce by bending 2 or definitely 3 degrees.

[ThinkingPlus]

10 minutes ago, AZstu324 said:

So I was thinking the exact same thing when I was looking for my new setup. In fact it was a TS1-IM/TS4 combo that I was interested in. I had inquired about the practicality of this setup on the Maltby forum. The response from Britt was more or less that it really wouldn't be any more beneficial to split either of these sets up with each other. Playability is nearly identical and not one model is easier or harder to hit, shape, or flight than the other. The only thing you're really getting is a different looking, sounding, and feeling clubs from one to the next.. but nothing in terms of forgiveness or playability. 

 

I took his advice and just stuck with a full TS4 setup and haven't looked back with any regret. Further more he elaborated further that the TS3 was a much better combo choice to accompany either the TS1-IM or TS4. 

 

If your more interested in the TS4's I wouldn't be concerned at all about the longer irons being more difficult to hit. I feel like I have as much confidence in my 5i as my PW just because of how well it plays. I would imagine the TS1's being very similar through the lineup. If anything, a split shaft setup to control the height and spin a little might work.. but then that's why flighted shafts were invented 😜 

 

 

I agree. I am an old, fat lady and I hit the TS4 6 iron fine. Plenty high and solid. I won't play clubs I can't score with either. I could probably hit a 5 iron reasonably well also, but nothing is kicking my Apex Pro 5 hybrid out of the bag!

[Cwebb]

Just now, bgfgolf said:

I don’t mind bending a degree, but I’d prefer not to throw off the offset and bounce by bending 2 or definitely 3 degrees.

 

Many would prefer the slightly lower offset and increased bounce

[Cwebb]

54 minutes ago, iamlowsound said:

Very true! Maltby is all in on low CG so even the higher ones are still low. I'd love to give the new TE+ a shot but my issue is I hit the ball too high so I don't think it will fit me very well. 

 

It depends on what exactly is producing your high flight.  Is it simply from presenting more dynamic loft...or is it from driving the AVCOG further underneath the center of the ball, which would tend to also produce extra spin.

 

There are some picker/sweepers who present extra dynamic loft and produce a high flight, who also benefit from a lower AVCOG (sweet-spot), because their impact point tends to be lower on the face

 

 

[5 O'Clock Charlie]

1 hour ago, NRJyzr said:

Well....   robot testing has shown that blades produce a smaller dispersion pattern on good hits than CBs.

 

Yes! This was actually my point. Why introduce a polymer blend to the set when the OP's main concern was accuracy with irons.

[pjc]

OK, so has anyone found any problems with the TS3 irons who are not shallow, or a picker type of iron swing?  If one were to have a little shaft lean, and somewhat steep or digger type of iron swing, are they going to have problems with these irons?  It seems to me that all of these measurements on COG, VCOG are so small that the average amateur won't even notice, but that's just a general assumption.  I really like the specs, looks, etc..on the TS3's, but I have become apprehensive after reading a bunch of info on the internet...lol.

[Cwebb]

5 minutes ago, pjc said:

OK, so has anyone found any problems with the TS3 irons who are not shallow, or a picker type of iron swing?  If one were to have a little shaft lean, and somewhat steep or digger type of iron swing, are they going to have problems with these irons?  It seems to me that all of these measurements on COG, VCOG are so small that the average amateur won't even notice, but that's just a general assumption.  I really like the specs, looks, etc..on the TS3's, but I have become apprehensive after reading a bunch of info on the internet...lol.

 

Depends on your detailed tendencies.  Do you tend to produce a lot of spin with your irons?  If yes, then a design with a lower AVCOG can increase that to a point where flight is "too soft" or not as penetrating, especially with a breeze in your face.  The key word being "CAN",... not always will.

 

Also keep in mind that the TS3 is a somewhat progressive design, in that the short irons will have a slightly higher AVCOG than the longer half of the set.  The Golfworks states this...."Three unique progressive cavity designs in the set to position weight more towards the toe and lower in the long irons and centered and slightly higher in the short irons."

 

As far as noticing what seems to be small differences in these measurements, keep in mind that an iron head and a golf ball are rather small objects, so what makes a difference at impact can naturally be small.  For example, the difference between a "thin" strike and a solid strike, can sometimes be just 1-3 millimeters....or the difference between an OK strike compared to a pure one.

 

In a blind test, most players would find a lower AVCOG iron (all else equal) to have more solid feel and easier to hit solid a higher percentage of the time.  That alone is a positive for most.

 

The best way to proceed and find out for sure, is to order just one or maybe two clubs to do your own testing.  Finding out what zone for COG position works for us as individuals is one of the most valuable things we can do with iron details....and that can mean having to buy a few extra single test clubs.  Just comes with the process

[iamlowsound]

1 hour ago, Cwebb said:

 

It depends on what exactly is producing your high flight.  Is it simply from presenting more dynamic loft...or is it from driving the AVCOG further underneath the center of the ball, which would tend to also produce extra spin.

 

There are some picker/sweepers who present extra dynamic loft and produce a high flight, who also benefit from a lower AVCOG (sweet-spot), because their impact point tends to be lower on the face

 

 

I haven't been on a launch monitor that has AOA for a while but last winter I was reliability -4 to -5 with my mid irons. I'd call myself steep, not a picker/sweeper. If I really need to get extra height I can sweep one but that's not my usual swing. 

 

I'm also playing the Score LT cut a bit past stiff and I need a stiffer shaft now that doesn't launch as high since I've added a bunch of speed in the last year. I wouldn't say my spin is excessive or anything, 6,500-7,000 with a seven iron but our greens are super hard and I want the spin for stopping power. 

[iamlowsound]

38 minutes ago, 5 O'Clock Charlie said:

 

Yes! This was actually my point. Why introduce a polymer blend to the set when the OP's main concern was accuracy with irons.

Maybe the accuracy issue with long irons comes down to distance. Just needing a bit of help to get the distance needed. 

[Cwebb]

1 minute ago, iamlowsound said:

I haven't been on a launch monitor that has AOA for a while but last winter I was reliability -4 to -5 with my mid irons. I'd call myself steep, not a picker/sweeper. If I really need to get extra height I can sweep one but that's not my usual swing. 

 

I'm also playing the Score LT cut a bit past stiff and I need a stiffer shaft now that doesn't launch as high since I've added a bunch of speed in the last year. I wouldn't say my spin is excessive or anything, 6,500-7,000 with a seven iron but our greens are super hard and I want the spin for stopping power. 

 

I would definitely test a shaft with a stiffer tip section, as that can be the key for some players in being able to take advantage of a lower AVCOG iron design that's generally easier to hit and more forgiving in the vertical aspect of impact

[Cwebb]

2 minutes ago, iamlowsound said:

Maybe the accuracy issue with long irons comes down to distance. Just needing a bit of help to get the distance needed. 

 

Yeah, a potential benefit with a thinner somewhat faster face longer iron, is in maintaining yardage gaps where they can tend to compress a bit.  We all have some point of diminishing returns with lower loft

[Bryceslu]

35 minutes ago, Cwebb said:

 

In a blind test, most players would find a lower AVCOG iron (all else equal) to have more solid feel and easier to hit solid a higher percentage of the time.  That alone is a positive for most.

 

The best way to proceed and find out for sure, is to order just one or maybe two clubs to do your own testing.  Finding out what zone for COG position works for us as individuals is one of the most valuable things we can do with iron details....and that can mean having to buy a few extra single test clubs.  Just comes with the process

So is there a theoretical of where I would want the VCOG to be with an AOA of -2 to -3? I’ve got a solid swing of ball first then divot with roughly -2.5 or so (at least the last time it hit the LM). Where am I actually striking it on the face…does anyone know 😂 I guess that’s what face tape is for? I mean I guess face tape and a tape measure lol. My current irons have VCOG of .866 and I would say it feels like I can find the sweet spot easily enough. 

I’ve been pondering this with all the talk on here lately of what swing benefits from a lower COG. I mean is there a negative affect of too low of a COG for a good player?
The more I think about the physics of it…I guess you could be bringing a higher or lower part of the face to the ball with a negative AOA. Probably depends on how far/deep after the ball you start taking a divot?

I probably should just eat the cost and buy a 7i of TS1im, TS4, TS3 with FST125s (to save on $) and try em out.

I will say, maltby and this thread has had a major impact on how I think about equipment. 

[iamlowsound]

9 minutes ago, Bryceslu said:

So is there a theoretical of where I would want the VCOG to be with an AOA of -2 to -3? I’ve got a solid swing of ball first then divot with roughly -2.5 or so (at least the last time it hit the LM). Where am I actually striking it on the face…does anyone know 😂 I guess that’s what face tape is for? I mean I guess face tape and a tape measure lol. My current irons have VCOG of .866 and I would say it feels like I can find the sweet spot easily enough. 

I’ve been pondering this with all the talk on here lately of what swing benefits from a lower COG. I mean is there a negative affect of too low of a COG for a good player?
The more I think about the physics of it…I guess you could be bringing a higher or lower part of the face to the ball with a negative AOA. Probably depends on how far/deep after the ball you start taking a divot?

I probably should just eat the cost and buy a 7i of TS1im, TS4, TS3 with FST125s (to save on $) and try em out.

I will say, maltby and this thread has had a major impact on how I think about equipment. 

Foot spray, not impact tape. Dr Scholls oder foot spray. Spray on the face, drys white, clear where the ball impacts, wipes off clean. 

[iamlowsound]

1 hour ago, Cwebb said:

 

I would definitely test a shaft with a stiffer tip section, as that can be the key for some players in being able to take advantage of a lower AVCOG iron design that's generally easier to hit and more forgiving in the vertical aspect of impact

That's the plan. I'm going to get fit for a shaft in February or so, enough time to work on my swing more but still enough time to get used to new shafts before courses open in the spring. I'm guessing I'll be in a Project X 6.5 or an X100, not a lot of other low launch low spin steel shafts on the market and I don't want to drop $100/shaft on composite ones. 

[htaolx]

If anyone gets a te+ and has the ts3 I would love to see the size differences. I'm currently trying out the ts3 and ts1-im thanks to @Popeye64 and I'm really liking the ts3. 

 

To me the specs look very similar between the two clubs, I'm just a sucker for black finished irons.

[Bryceslu]

2 hours ago, iamlowsound said:

That's the plan. I'm going to get fit for a shaft in February or so, enough time to work on my swing more but still enough time to get used to new shafts before courses open in the spring. I'm guessing I'll be in a Project X 6.5 or an X100, not a lot of other low launch low spin steel shafts on the market and I don't want to drop $100/shaft on composite ones. 

You could try the modus tour 130 in X. There is also the kbs c-taper 130X.

The c-taper felt the stoutest to me fwiw if that is what you are after. 

[Cwebb]

2 hours ago, iamlowsound said:

That's the plan. I'm going to get fit for a shaft in February or so, enough time to work on my swing more but still enough time to get used to new shafts before courses open in the spring. I'm guessing I'll be in a Project X 6.5 or an X100, not a lot of other low launch low spin steel shafts on the market and I don't want to drop $100/shaft on composite ones. 

 

If you don't want as stiff of a butt section as those two, but want a very stiff tip section, then the DG 120 is a great option.  The PX 6.5 is an X+ bend profile and the standard X100 will be much stiffer in the butt and overall than what you're playing now in the Score shaft

[Cwebb]

2 hours ago, Bryceslu said:

So is there a theoretical of where I would want the VCOG to be with an AOA of -2 to -3? I’ve got a solid swing of ball first then divot with roughly -2.5 or so (at least the last time it hit the LM). Where am I actually striking it on the face…does anyone know 😂 I guess that’s what face tape is for? I mean I guess face tape and a tape measure lol. My current irons have VCOG of .866 and I would say it feels like I can find the sweet spot easily enough. 

I’ve been pondering this with all the talk on here lately of what swing benefits from a lower COG. I mean is there a negative affect of too low of a COG for a good player?
The more I think about the physics of it…I guess you could be bringing a higher or lower part of the face to the ball with a negative AOA. Probably depends on how far/deep after the ball you start taking a divot?

I probably should just eat the cost and buy a 7i of TS1im, TS4, TS3 with FST125s (to save on $) and try em out.

I will say, maltby and this thread has had a major impact on how I think about equipment. 

 

It definitely matters where your low point is.  Further forward and your contact point will be lower on the face, whereas closer to underneath the ball will produce a higher impact point on the face, with all else equal for angle of attack. 

 

The nice thing with a lower AVCOG (sweet-spot) is that it can promote a further forward low point, which is a positive for cleaner contact for most players.

 

To really do this right, you need to test one of the lower AVCOG designs to see what it does for you.  Otherwise you'll never know, and probably always wonder about it.  If you were to test a 7 or 6i and find that you're on the borderline for the flight you want, you could always decide to combo with the TS4 in the shorter irons to produce a more penetrating flight in the clubs where extra spin and height will be more pronounced.

 

So if it were me, I'd start with testing the TS3 or TE+ and then go from there.  Keeping in mind that any of these Maltby options are going to be easier to hit in the vertical aspect of impact vs what you're playing now with an AVCOG above the center of the ball (.840") at .866".  Even going to the TS4 or TS1-IM should provide you a real advantage in that regard

[iamlowsound]

1 hour ago, Bryceslu said:

You could try the modus tour 130 in X. There is also the kbs c-taper 130X.

The c-taper felt the stoutest to me fwiw if that is what you are after. 

KBS are way too over priced! I'd prefer something that doesn't feel like a piece of rebar. 

[iamlowsound]

1 hour ago, Cwebb said:

 

If you don't want as stiff of a butt section as those two, but want a very stiff tip section, then the DG 120 is a great option.  The PX 6.5 is an X+ bend profile and the standard X100 will be much stiffer in the butt and overall than what you're playing now in the Score shaft

My Scores are trimmed 1/2" past stiff, so about halfway between stiff and xstiff. But yes, both of those are much firmer. That's why I want to get fit for a shaft, see what performs and feels the best. My seven iron swing speed is 92-94mph so shaft fitting is very important. 

[ericft]

Might be a little off topic but the fst shaft has been brought up here. If One wanted to get a combination of the 3 weights to make it such that the trimmed weight of a standard set of irons 4-pw/gw would be similar shaft weights what would be way to do that? Using the fst 125/115/90 shafts? Looking at target weight about 95-100g

[Bryceslu]

3 hours ago, iamlowsound said:

KBS are way too over priced! I'd prefer something that doesn't feel like a piece of rebar. 

If you don’t want rebar…you probably wont like the project x either 😆

 

The DG120 feels much more lively of the bunch. The modus tour isn’t bad either. 

[Popeye64]

1 hour ago, ericft said:

Might be a little off topic but the fst shaft has been brought up here. If One wanted to get a combination of the 3 weights to make it such that the trimmed weight of a standard set of irons 4-pw/gw would be similar shaft weights what would be way to do that? Using the fst 125/115/90 shafts? Looking at target weight about 95-100g

The 125s in the wedges to maybe the 9. Then the 115 for the 7, 6, 5. Then the 4 and 5 with the 90, which actually weigh 100g according to the catalog.  Should be a fun set. I have been a proponent for a multiple weight set for a while. 

[ericft]

1 hour ago, Popeye64 said:

The 125s in the wedges to maybe the 9. Then the 115 for the 7, 6, 5. Then the 4 and 5 with the 90, which actually weigh 100g according to the catalog.  Should be a fun set. I have been a proponent for a multiple weight set for a while. 

No 8 iron🤔😜 I think you meant 115 in the 8/7/6. 90 in 4/5. That was what I was thinking. Even less flex in the 4/5 as the miss in long irons is usually and over fade. Thanks for the suggestions 

[Cwebb]

2 hours ago, ericft said:

Might be a little off topic but the fst shaft has been brought up here. If One wanted to get a combination of the 3 weights to make it such that the trimmed weight of a standard set of irons 4-pw/gw would be similar shaft weights what would be way to do that? Using the fst 125/115/90 shafts? Looking at target weight about 95-100g

 

All 3 of those shaft designs have different bend profiles from butt to tip...and the 90 is only available in "A/R" with the 125 only available in "S/X".  Those two won't match close enough, no matter what you do with the tip trimming,....but you could combo the 125 with the 115 in the "S/X", or the 90 with the 115 in "A/R"

[ericft]

My basic measurements of length to weight. Is it safe to assume that weight reduction is total weight/length to get a g/inch value? 
Do these shaft weights seem reasonable with the jump from 8 to 7 iron? 
 

FST shafts

125 2.9g/inch

115 2.67g/inch

 

Pw 34.75 125 100.8

9 35 125 101.5

8 35.5 125 102.95

7 36 115 96.12

6 36.5 115 97.45

5 37 115 98.79

4 37.5 115 100

Edited October 22, 2023 by ericft

[Popeye64]

6 hours ago, ericft said:

My basic measurements of length to weight. Is it safe to assume that weight reduction is total weight/length to get a g/inch value? 
Do these shaft weights seem reasonable with the jump from 8 to 7 iron? 
 

FST shafts

125 2.9g/inch

115 2.67g/inch

 

Pw 34.75 125 100.8

9 35 125 101.5

8 35.5 125 102.95

7 36 115 96.12

6 36.5 115 97.45

5 37 115 98.79

4 37.5 115 100

With the cost of those shafts it's certainly an experiment worth making. The 8 to 7 weight drop isn't massive. You could even close that gap when adding tip weights depending on how the swing weights look.