Maltby TS2

[SE Gamer]

17 minutes ago, Therty said:

I had a lot of fun with the Graffaloy ProLaunch Blue 45, also.

 

Yeah, that one was on my radar. Until I realized the MPF that comes in the standard pack is the UL model. 

[Mako J]

Perhaps I’m reading the specs incorrectly but all these comparison photos seem to show the TS3 is significantly larger than the TS1 and TS2. Yet the specs show blade length and toe height are less or roughly equal to. The heel height is higher however. Is that what is driving the larger look?

[Popeye64]

16 minutes ago, Mako J said:

Perhaps I’m reading the specs incorrectly but all these comparison photos seem to show the TS3 is significantly larger than the TS1 and TS2. Yet the specs show blade length and toe height are less or roughly equal to. The heel height is higher however. Is that what is driving the larger look?

They are definitely not larger. In person other than difference in top line, size wise they are all really close. 

You may be seeing a difference in finish that is making it look larger??

[Gdashoff]

29 minutes ago, Mako J said:

Perhaps I’m reading the specs incorrectly but all these comparison photos seem to show the TS3 is significantly larger than the TS1 and TS2. Yet the specs show blade length and toe height are less or roughly equal to. The heel height is higher however. Is that what is driving the larger look?

I think in Colej's photos it's the angle. The TS3 does look huge in the 3rd photo but it's in the foreground. In that picture it looks like it has a lot longer hosel but it clearly doesn't from the second photo. 

Edited February 24, 2023 by Gdashoff

[ode1]

4 minutes ago, Gdashoff said:

I think in Colej's photos it's the angle. The TS3 does look huge in the 3rd photo but it's in the foreground. In that picture it looks like it has a lot longer hosel but it clearly doesn't from the second photo. 

Some of pics with the ts3 toe hanging open on the right/top side of the pic (looking at the screen) and the other heads to the left/bottom of it with the angle being more straight down and/or the heads sitting without the toe hanging open and the appearance that they are bigger.  Example 👇

Reverse the order and set them in the same positioning and it would give a different perspective.  You can see the loft on the ts3 and the PTM and less so down the line.  That being said it's all relative.  Not much you can do about "blades" people.  I'm used to more of GI/SGI look so they are going to look good to my eye and not big.

[Bryceslu]

1 hour ago, Mako J said:

Perhaps I’m reading the specs incorrectly but all these comparison photos seem to show the TS3 is significantly larger than the TS1 and TS2. Yet the specs show blade length and toe height are less or roughly equal to. The heel height is higher however. Is that what is driving the larger look?

I was thinking the same thing with all the photos posted. Specs and people are saying otherwise but to my eyes they are screaming big ol shovels haha. 

[Nideda24]

1 hour ago, Mako J said:

Perhaps I’m reading the specs incorrectly but all these comparison photos seem to show the TS3 is significantly larger than the TS1 and TS2. Yet the specs show blade length and toe height are less or roughly equal to. The heel height is higher however. Is that what is driving the larger look?

I think the more rounded top line of the TS3 makes it look like there’s more surface area there than there really is which it’s ultimately making it look larger. 
 

While it’s noticeably larger, it’s not by much. Personally, I thought the TS-1s in the 4-7 irons were always a little small (read not confidence-inspiring) for my liking and I welcome a bit larger visual in the TS3. 

[ChaosTheory]

The score lines area of the TS3 looks like it extends closer to the hosel.  This is causing an illusion of larger size, I think.

 

[ChaosTheory]

Am I the only person who couldn’t care less if one head is a millimeter bigger than another?  Not that there’s anything wrong with that!

[SE Gamer]

58 minutes ago, Snowman9000 said:

Am I the only person who couldn’t care less if one head is a millimeter bigger than another?  Not that there’s anything wrong with that!

 

For me, I don't necessarily care about the measurements on paper. It's more how the club visually sets up. How a club suits your eye arguably plays one of the bigger roles in confidence with any given club.

 

[Thornbrugh]

I want to try out the DBMs. I have a .370 shaft that was pulled from an Apex TCB (maybe a 7 iron). It measures 35.25. If I was to install this in a DBM what would be the playing length? I see the DBM bore depth is 1.25" and I saw on the Maltby site that Britt said the bottom of bore to heel dimension for the TE is .58." Would the playing length calculation be 35.25+1.25+.58 or ~37"? I believe that is the "standard" playing length for a 7 iron and would make sense. Apologies if this is the wrong Maltby thread for my questions.  

[Popeye64]

36 minutes ago, Thornbrugh said:

I want to try out the DBMs. I have a .370 shaft that was pulled from an Apex TCB (maybe a 7 iron). It measures 35.25. If I was to install this in a DBM what would be the playing length? I see the DBM bore depth is 1.25" and I saw on the Maltby site that Britt said the bottom of bore to heel dimension for the TE is .58." Would the playing length calculation be 35.25+1.25+.58 or ~37"? I believe that is the "standard" playing length for a 7 iron and would make sense. Apologies if this is the wrong Maltby thread for my questions.  

See Klubsters post. I was wrong he is right. 

Edited February 24, 2023 by Popeye64

[GolfinEngineer]

1 hour ago, ode said:

Some of pics with the ts3 toe hanging open on the right/top side of the pic (looking at the screen) and the other heads to the left/bottom of it with the angle being more straight down and/or the heads sitting without the toe hanging open and the appearance that they are bigger.  Example 👇

Reverse the order and set them in the same positioning and it would give a different perspective.  You can see the loft on the ts3 and the PTM and less so down the line.  That being said it's all relative.  Not much you can do about "blades" people.  I'm used to more of GI/SGI look so they are going to look good to my eye and not big.

That my picture ill try to reverse the order and snap another. I think they were all closer then hand position resting them up against a glass window. Its hard to get a comparison photo like this without distortion of angle. I'll see what I can come up with later today.  

[ode1]

8 minutes ago, pozzit said:

That my picture ill try to reverse the order and snap another. I think they were all closer then hand position resting them up against a glass window. Its hard to get a comparison photo like this without distortion of angle. I'll see what I can come up with later today.  

No need.  Thanks for the pic that you posted it's fine.  I don't think there is anything that could be said or shown to convince the folks that aren't used to a generous forged CB.  They'll need to order a single head and demo for themselves.  Using the TE as a reference is good for most as it's been around for a long time and is ~similar in size, retains clean lines, and not chunky top line.  If the TE is "too big" then that's all one needs to know (IMO🙃)!

Edited February 24, 2023 by ode1

[Klubster]

14 minutes ago, Thornbrugh said:

I want to try out the DBMs. I have a .370 shaft that was pulled from an Apex TCB (maybe a 7 iron). It measures 35.25. If I was to install this in a DBM what would be the playing length? I see the DBM bore depth is 1.25" and I saw on the Maltby site that Britt said the bottom of bore to heel dimension for the TE is .58." Would the playing length calculation be 35.25+1.25+.58 or ~37"? I believe that is the "standard" playing length for a 7 iron and would make sense. Apologies if this is the wrong Maltby thread for my questions.  

I do not think you want to add that bore depth to your calculation.  Unless you are measuring to the bottom of the ferule rather than shaft length, you will be closer to a 36" playing length.  Of course, you can add a butt extension if needed.

[Spinozist]

1 hour ago, Nideda24 said:

I think the more rounded top line of the TS3 makes it look like there’s more surface area there than there really is which it’s ultimately making it look larger. 
 

While it’s noticeably larger, it’s not by much. Personally, I thought the TS-1s in the 4-7 irons were always a little small (read not confidence-inspiring) for my liking and I welcome a bit larger visual in the TS3. 

The 5 and 4 in the TS1s are too small for me. The four especially but the 5 too. 

[Popeye64]

Delete.

Edited February 24, 2023 by Popeye64

[gioreeko]

13 hours ago, Cwebb said:

 

In short, the owner had too many issues going on and communication became very difficult.  Golfworks was patient, but then decided to move on

ahh, makes sense, thanks

[Mako J]

50 minutes ago, ode said:

No need.  Thanks for the pic that you posted it's fine.  I don't think there is anything that could be said or shown to convince the folks that aren't used to a generous forged CB.  They'll need to order a single head and demo for themselves.  Using the TE as a reference is good for most as it's been around for a long time and is ~similar in size, retains clean lines, and not chunky top line.  If the TE is "too big" then that's all one needs to know (IMO🙃)!

I agree that there’s no need to post another picture. I understand the camera angles are playing tricks and I was hoping those with the head could confirm.

 

I played the DBM for two years. Then went to the PTM specifically for the sole/bounce. I like both but prefer the look and strike feel of the DBM and the turf interaction of the PTM. I was hoping the TS3 would be a perfect blend of the two. Got a little concerned when the pics made the TS3 look larger than the PTM. 
 

Appreciate the responses. 
 

I’m holding out for TS4 feedback and reviews before diving in!

[ode1]

14 minutes ago, Mako J said:

I was hoping the TS3 would be a perfect blend of the two.

Me too.  I really liked the PTM and although the TE retains the best feel, the sharp leading edge was no bueno for me.  I suspect the ts3 would be close to what you are looking for!

16 minutes ago, Mako J said:

I’m holding out for TS4

Looking forward to this as well....an improved sole MMB is very tempting!

[Cwebb]

1 hour ago, Thornbrugh said:

I want to try out the DBMs. I have a .370 shaft that was pulled from an Apex TCB (maybe a 7 iron). It measures 35.25. If I was to install this in a DBM what would be the playing length? I see the DBM bore depth is 1.25" and I saw on the Maltby site that Britt said the bottom of bore to heel dimension for the TE is .58." Would the playing length calculation be 35.25+1.25+.58 or ~37"? I believe that is the "standard" playing length for a 7 iron and would make sense. Apologies if this is the wrong Maltby thread for my questions.  

 

A true Bottom of Bore to Ground Measurement, is done to the lowest touch point of the sole, which is generally the center of the sole on modern irons that have radius from heel to toe.  So it's a bit more than the .58" "heel" quote.  Not sure why he gave you that number

 

 

[Gdashoff]

1 hour ago, Mako J said:

I agree that there’s no need to post another picture. I understand the camera angles are playing tricks and I was hoping those with the head could confirm.

 

I played the DBM for two years. Then went to the PTM specifically for the sole/bounce. I like both but prefer the look and strike feel of the DBM and the turf interaction of the PTM. I was hoping the TS3 would be a perfect blend of the two. Got a little concerned when the pics made the TS3 look larger than the PTM. 
 

Appreciate the responses. 
 

I’m holding out for TS4 feedback and reviews before diving in!

That sounds like what the TE+ will be but that's another year out. 

[Taylormadegack]

On 2/23/2023 at 7:49 PM, Popeye64 said:

Those two irons should match up very well. Very close in loft and overall size. I believe the Ping may have a bit more offset. From what I remember the i210 does not have as soft a feel as the TS3. It's been about 6 months since I've hit those. Both are in that Players cavity role with some extra forgiveness sprinkled in. 

Sorry to bring this up again but I'm a little confused on the i210 vs TS3 being close the same category. I know Maltby MPF isn't everything but the TS3 MPF rating is 849 and the I210 MPF is 338. To me that seems like there would be a large difference in forgiveness???   

[Popeye64]

8 minutes ago, Taylormadegack said:

Sorry to bring this up again but I'm a little confused on the i210 vs TS3 being close the same category. I know Maltby MPF isn't everything but the TS3 MPF rating is 849 and the I210 MPF is 338. To me that seems like there would be a large difference in forgiveness???   

As far as head to head forgiveness goes you would have to go back to back over a few buckets of balls to make the determination of forgiveness. Do they play similar. Yes. Are the built in a similar way, Yes. Do your own head to head and see for yourself. It was 6 months ago when I had an i210 for 9 holes. 

I don't know what to tell you. Draw your own conclusions. 

[gioreeko]

15 minutes ago, Taylormadegack said:

Sorry to bring this up again but I'm a little confused on the i210 vs TS3 being close the same category. I know Maltby MPF isn't everything but the TS3 MPF rating is 849 and the I210 MPF is 338. To me that seems like there would be a large difference in forgiveness???   

I play i210's right now, and they're really forgiving, that number seems really low. I'll get a TS3 soon to try out, but I'm guessing the forgiveness to be pretty similar. 

[Popeye64]

I've seen a few references to 'shovels', but even in joking, the TS3 heads are nothing of the sort. 

Here is a look at the size difference between a PTM and the TS3. Toe height is a big visual and well as blade length. The hosel of the TS3 is also shorter by a good bit. 

The sole width is on the healthy side but very close to the PTM. The 'muscle' area is fairly well pronounced so I guess that's where people are seeing a 'size' difference. 

The PTM was one of my all time favorites and a run away best seller even when offered head to head with the TS-1 and TS-2. It was at least 3 to1 in favor of the PTM. 

The back side of the PTM is more gradual as it meets the sole. The TS3 takes all that space for its own. 

I'm really starting to itch on getting these outdoors. 

[Cwebb]

25 minutes ago, Taylormadegack said:

Sorry to bring this up again but I'm a little confused on the i210 vs TS3 being close the same category. I know Maltby MPF isn't everything but the TS3 MPF rating is 849 and the I210 MPF is 338. To me that seems like there would be a large difference in forgiveness???   

 

The biggest difference is the Actual Vertical COG or height of the sweet-spot.  Keep in mind that the center of a golf ball sitting on a tight lie is .840"....and pure contact requires that the force path of the AVCOG arrives under the center of the ball.

 

The Ping i210 was measured at .913" (very high)

 

The Maltby TS3 was measured at .693" (Low)

 

The TS3 will be an easier to hit head design for most players especially from normal to tight lie conditions, because there is more room to work with in order to get the AVCOG under the center of the ball.  "more playable"

 

The i210 gets a low MPF score, because most players will have a difficult time hitting them completely solid from normal to tighter lies.  "less playable"

[Taylormadegack]

3 minutes ago, Cwebb said:

 

The biggest difference is the Actual Vertical COG or height of the sweet-spot.  Keep in mind that the center of a golf ball sitting on a tight lie is .840"....and pure contact requires that the force path of the AVCOG arrives under the center of the ball.

 

The Ping i210 was measured at .913" (very high)

 

The Maltby TS3 was measured at .693" (Low)

 

The TS3 will be an easier to hit head design for most players especially from normal to tight lie conditions, because there is more room to work with in order to get the AVCOG under the center of the ball.  "more playable"

 

The i210 gets a low MPF score, because most players will have a difficult time hitting them completely solid from normal to tighter lies.  "less playable"

Thank you for the explanation appreciate it that make sense. Just couldn't wrap my head around the large MPF difference thank you for helping!!  

[NRJyzr]

1 hour ago, Taylormadegack said:

Sorry to bring this up again but I'm a little confused on the i210 vs TS3 being close the same category. I know Maltby MPF isn't everything but the TS3 MPF rating is 849 and the I210 MPF is 338. To me that seems like there would be a large difference in forgiveness???   

 

Final MPF score isn't a measurement of the forgiveness of that clubhead, it's a rating that tells you how close that design is to Ralph Maltby's design principles.  Which are a low CG that's as far away from the hosel as possible.

 

If you want to look at forgiveness, look at the MOI measurement in the MPF data.  

 

Side note: the i210 scores low in MPF because it has a high CG, above the centerline of the golfball. (I see CWebb beat me to it 🙂)

 

 

Edited February 25, 2023 by NRJyzr

[Gdashoff]

Anyone hit the new TC max driver? I need to upgrade from my cheapo Tommy Armour TA1 which I spray all over the fairway.