Titleist/Mizuno

[mtnbiker5]

New irons coming this Sept 2021!   Curious see how Mizuno will improve MP20 with MP22.   Titleist same with their line.

[btyh]

2 hours ago, mtnbiker5 said:

New irons coming this Sept 2021!   Curious see how Mizuno will improve MP20 with MP22.   Titleist same with their line.

Other than the hollowed irons or forged with tungsten then only thing that is going to change is the looks. These big distance irons aren't doing anything but making lofts stronger. I think traditional 8 iron lofts are now the current pitching wedge. Lol 

[lordemsworth]

What would actually be a good thing on Titleist part  - would be if the decided to just keep the 620 MB/CB as is for another cycle and iterate the other irons as necessary.

 

There is probably something they can do so that they don’t have the T100 / T100S thing happen - but not sure they can do much to the T200 / T300.  No opinion on the T400.

 

I am probably in the minority, but I actually think they have too many irons,  let’s see what happens.

Edited February 21, 2021 by lordemsworth

[zdtallan]

I think they can clean up the aesthetics on the 200/300 series but agree they should do something with the 100/100s situation. Personally I think the MB’s and CB’s work together perfectly as a stand alone series.

[CW13]

Im crossing my fingers for an updated HMB that has a thinner topline so it isn’t as bulky at address. 

[lordemsworth]

I mean even Mizuno has some overlap across their JPX and MP lines in terms of perception.  

 

What does the market need if they cover all golfers:

 

1.  SGI (T400 / Hot Metal Pro)

2.  GI (T300 / Hot Metal)

3.  GI Distance iron (could be hollow body) (?/ ? )

4.  Players distance iron (T200 TMB / HMB JPX 921 Forged)

5.  Players multi-material (T100 T100S / MMC)

6.  Players cavity (620 CB / JPX 921 Tour)

7.  MB (620 MB / MP 20 MB)

 

so, maybe some overlap, but not as much as I thought.  Titleist has at least two Irons too many, and Mizuno may have at least 1 with crossover.   I don’t think the HMB qualifies as a GI distance iron - it is spec’d more like a players distance iron.

 

I have one category that I don’t think either fill - but it would be the Callaway Apex competitor - so not sure what truly fits there.

Edited February 21, 2021 by lordemsworth

[Zonazoo]

1 hour ago, CW13 said:

Im crossing my fingers for an updated HMB that has a thinner topline so it isn’t as bulky at address. 

Yeah I think mizuno will likely be updating the HMB too

[2bGood]

Sad reality is CB and MB lines could go 5 or 6 years before they need updating. 

[iNeedMoreGolf]

Anyone think mmc gets a update? I have mmc 20 and its hard to imagine imporving these suckers.... saying that in yo samity sam voice.

[Red4282]

Wouldnt mind seeing titleist do something different from their norm on the cb/mb line and take a page from the rev33 irons with some milling or a different finish. Other than that not much you can really do to “improve” them. Just subtle branding or visual changes.

[QuigleyDU]

31 minutes ago, iNeedMoreGolf said:

Anyone think mmc gets a update? I have mmc 20 and its hard to imagine imporving these suckers.... saying that in yo samity sam voice.

That can for sure improve. How? I have no idea. I am not that smart..

[MPAndreassi]

3 hours ago, lordemsworth said:

Wha5 would actually be a good thing on Titleist part  - would be if the decided to just keep the 620 MB/CB as is for another cycle and iterate the other irons as necessary.

 

There is probably something they can do so that they don’t have the T100 / T100S thing happen - but not sure they can do much to the T200 / T300.  No opinion on the T400.

 

I am probably in the minority, but I actually think they have too many irons,  let’s see what happens.

I don’t think the T100/T100s is a negative issue for Titleist. I’d imagine them moving forward with something similar to these. 

[lordemsworth]

18 minutes ago, MPAndreassi said:

I don’t think the T100/T100s is a negative issue for Titleist. I’d imagine them moving forward with something similar to these. 

That may be true from a success standpoint, but they are the only OEM to offer two players multi-material irons, that are almost identical except for lofts.  I know they moved the weight around in the S to support the loft change - but still.  
 

To be honest, I prefer they did it this way, rather than move to five degree lofts as they moved into the scoring irons - but again, no one else has done this.  
 

I’m not really sure what the right answer is - it seemed to have work for them - but no one has copied them, either.  

Edited February 21, 2021 by lordemsworth

[MPAndreassi]

14 minutes ago, lordemsworth said:

That may be true from a success standpoint, but they are the only OEM to offer two players multi-material irons, that are almost identical except for lofts.  I know they moved the weight around in the S to support the loft change - but still.  
 

To be honest, I prefer they did it this way, rather than move to five degree lofts as they moved into the scoring irons - but again, no one else has done this.  
 

I’m not really sure what the right answer is - it seemed to have work for them - but no one has copied them, either.  

From a business standpoint I hope that Titleist would realize this as well, and capitalize on another year or two without any competition in that market. I would think the other manufactures are watching to make sure it wasn’t a one off occurrence before diving in. It’s kind of like Titleist created its own segment with them. 

[lordemsworth]

17 minutes ago, MPAndreassi said:

From a business standpoint I hope that Titleist would realize this as well, and capitalize on another year or two without any competition in that market. I would think the other manufactures are watching to make sure it wasn’t a one off occurrence before diving in. It’s kind of like Titleist created its own segment with them. 

Yeah, I think that’s right - a players iron with stronger lofts, but consistent spin and gapping without any hollow-body / cup face.  

Edited February 21, 2021 by lordemsworth

[CW13]

4 minutes ago, lordemsworth said:

Yeah, I think that’s right - a players iron with stronger lofts, but consistent spin and gapping without any hollow-body / cup face.  

Completely agree. I imagine a 620 MB “s” would sell like crazy. Basically a blade for the aging low handicapper or for slower swing speeds. 

[bleda2002]

2 hours ago, lordemsworth said:

I mean even Mizuno has some overlap across their JPX and MP lines in terms of perception.  

 

What does the market need if they cover all golfers:

 

1.  SGI (T400 / Hot Metal Pro)

2.  GI (T300 / Hot Metal)

3.  GI Distance iron (could be hollow body) (?/ ? )

4.  Players distance iron (T200 TMB / HMB JPX 921 Forged)

5.  Players multi-material (T100 T100S / MMC)

6.  Players cavity (620 CB / JPX 921 Tour)

7.  MB (620 MB / MP 20 MB)

 

so, maybe some overlap, but not as much as I thought.  Titleist has at least two Irons too many, and Mizuno may have at least 1 with crossover.   I don’t think the HMB qualifies as a GI distance iron - it is spec’d more like a players distance iron.

 

I have one category that I don’t think either fill - but it would be the Callaway Apex competitor - so not sure what truly fits there.

Mizuno doesn't actually have a sgi. The hot metal is the closest to a sgi/gi distance but it's not that much of a shovel. The hot metal pro is more of a gi/players distance iron with it having less offset than the forged but stronger lofts and a faster face.

 

The jpx line has a lot of overlap with the hot metal in the most gi, the tour in the better players, and the hot metal pro/forged blending the gi and players distance categories.

 

Edited February 21, 2021 by bleda2002

[iNeedMoreGolf]

4 hours ago, bleda2002 said:

Mizuno doesn't actually have a sgi. The hot metal is the closest to a sgi/gi distance but it's not that much of a shovel. The hot metal pro is more of a gi/players distance iron with it having less offset than the forged but stronger lofts and a faster face.

 

The jpx line has a lot of overlap with the hot metal in the most gi, the tour in the better players, and the hot metal pro/forged blending the gi and players distance categories.

 

I disagree. I realized after gaming player irons this year that gi irons are for the most part... very much sgi irons. When i look at the irons i play now vs the irons i use to play... im stunned. The thickness of some of my old irons from top to bottom is crazy and i use to think... oh these arent shovels and they are not that big. Oh yes they were. That being said i think anybody who plays gi irons are justified. Its crazy to look down at such a small iron and expect great results but the truth is their are some irons that tiny that are very forgiving. In fact i dont see a huge difference from gi to players irons im playing now... if anything... i know im playing better now and cant and wont game bigger irons ever again. The companys have most ppl thinkin they cant game smaller irons when you very much can if you have a decent swing. Gi irons are sgi and most ppl just dont realize it. Look at sgi irons and what are they? They are basicaly hybrids... most gi irons are very thick... mizuno hot metals are huge. It doesnt get decently smaller until the forged and they are still a touch thick imo.

[bladehunter]

12 hours ago, CW13 said:

Completely agree. I imagine a 620 MB “s” would sell like crazy. Basically a blade for the aging low handicapper or for slower swing speeds. 

Why ?  Serious question. I don’t get this. Why would you need to strengthen an mb? Just hit more club.  
 

and I’m playing the T100. And do not get the t100s.  Again.  Just hit the 6 instead of the 7. 

[lefty1978]

1 hour ago, bladehunter said:

Why ?  Serious question. I don’t get this. Why would you need to strengthen an mb? Just hit more club.

Exactly correct. Also, how would taking loft away help a slower swinger?

[toddyc]

16 hours ago, 2bGood said:

Sad reality is CB and MB lines could go 5 or 6 years before they need updating. 

You could play MB or CB 710s and not give up anything to 620s. Just about keeping something fresh out there I think

[Red4282]

16 hours ago, lordemsworth said:

That may be true from a success standpoint, but they are the only OEM to offer two players multi-material irons, that are almost identical except for lofts.  I know they moved the weight around in the S to support the loft change - but still.  
 

To be honest, I prefer they did it this way, rather than move to five degree lofts as they moved into the scoring irons - but again, no one else has done this.  
 

I’m not really sure what the right answer is - it seemed to have work for them - but no one has copied them, either.  

The t100 and t100s are identical except for lofts. No weight was moved around. Its just a gapping option nothing more. 

[Red4282]

1 hour ago, lefty1978 said:

Exactly correct. Also, how would taking loft away help a slower swinger?

It wouldnt. If you are losing speed, when you get below 35 degrees, launch becomes an issue and should start looking at lower cg irons. 

[Aviador Naval]

3 hours ago, bladehunter said:

Why ?  Serious question. I don’t get this. Why would you need to strengthen an mb? Just hit more club.  
 

and I’m playing the T100. And do not get the t100s.  Again.  Just hit the 6 instead of the 7. 

Don’t understand the ‘strengthened MB’ concept either but I will tell you why a T100/T100S combo was in the early running as I just went through an iron search...

 

I can play, and enjoy, more traditional clubs - right up until I can no longer launch them high enough to maintain good yardage gaps.  I realize there are ways around this such as skipping an iron and bending the lofts.  However, that can have bounce/offset implications if taken too far.  Therefore, for me, a T100S 6i and 7i and T100 8i-PW would have worked out great with minimal loft tweaking.  So ultimately, it’s not about hitting any one club a certain distance - it is about preserving yardage gaps as the lofts get lower...

 

Regarding Titleist overall, I think they have compressed the T100/CB/MB too much basically squeezing CB out of the market.  I LOVE the 718 CB.  The sole was a bit more generous.  They’ve made the sole on the CB barely different than the MB so there is now very little reason to choose it over MB or to not play T100 if you want CB characteristics.  I know most folks consider the T100 an upgrade over 718 AP2 but the AP/CB/MB progression made more sense in the 718 line.

Edited February 21, 2021 by Aviador Naval

[Carolina Golfer 2]

43 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

The t100 and t100s are identical except for lofts. No weight was moved around. Its just a gapping option nothing more. 

FYI 
 

There is a small difference between the T100 and T100S. The T100S irons are 2-degrees stronger than the T100 irons. The T100S also have a thinner club face for more ball speed. The weight placement was adjusted to decrease the center of gravity to ensure enough height on iron shots.

[lordemsworth]

16 minutes ago, Carolina Golfer 2 said:

FYI 
 

There is a small difference between the T100 and T100S. The T100S irons are 2-degrees stronger than the T100 irons. The T100S also have a thinner club face for more ball speed. The weight placement was adjusted to decrease the center of gravity to ensure enough height on iron shots.

Thankfully I’m not losing my mind.  I had the same thought as Red4282 and a couple of posters explained the other tweaks in the 100S design.

Edited February 21, 2021 by lordemsworth

[lordemsworth]

31 minutes ago, Aviador Naval said:

Don’t understand the ‘strengthened MB’ concept either but I will tell you why a T100/T100S combo was in the early running as I just went through an iron search...

 

I can play, and enjoy, more traditional clubs - right up until I can no longer launch them high enough to maintain good yardage gaps.  I realize there are ways around this such as skipping an iron and bending the lofts.  However, that can have bounce/offset implications if taken too far.  Therefore, for me, a T100S 6i and 7i and T100 8i-PW would have worked out great with minimal loft tweaking.  So ultimately, it’s not about hitting any one club a certain distance - it is about preserving yardage gaps as the lofts get lower...

 

Regarding Titleist overall, I think they have compressed the T100/CB/MB too much basically squeezing CB out of the market.  I LOVE the 718 CB.  The sole was a bit more generous.  They’ve made the sole on the CB barely different than the MB so there is now very little reason to choose it over MB or to not play T100 if you want CB characteristics.  I know most folks consider the T100 an upgrade over 718 AP2 but the AP/CB/MB progression made more sense in the 718 line.

I agree with that, too.  The T100 basically combined the 718 CB and AP2 into one club, and that club is actually more of a successor to the 718CB - the T100 kept the same low offset design of the CB.

 

By removing the tungsten in the 5, 6, 7 irons, the CB moved back to a 714 CB design.

 

In the same vein, that is probably ok.  There is a market for a players single piece forging - which is what the 620 CB is.  There were many complaints on this board when Mizuno didn’t replace the SC in the MP20 line.

 

Callaway no longer offers a single piece forging.  Taylormade does with the P7MC.  Mizuno does with the JPX 921 Tour (but no MP model).   

Edited February 21, 2021 by lordemsworth

[Carolina Golfer 2]

5 minutes ago, lordemsworth said:

Thankfully I’m not losing my mind.  I had that the same as Red4282 and a couple of posters explained the other tweaks in the 100S design.

Glad I could restore your sanity.  
 

I had the conversation with a friend at Titleist before i ordered my T100S!  There iid also a bit of preworn leading edge on the S.  

[Red4282]

1 hour ago, Carolina Golfer 2 said:

FYI 
 

There is a small difference between the T100 and T100S. The T100S irons are 2-degrees stronger than the T100 irons. The T100S also have a thinner club face for more ball speed. The weight placement was adjusted to decrease the center of gravity to ensure enough height on iron shots.

Would you like to link your source? We know where center of gravity is because its provided to us with mpf data, and the t100s does not have a lower cg, so that is false. The t100s will have faster ball speeds but thats due to the stronger lofts not the face being thinner. Bend it 2 deg  week or bend the regular t100 2 strong and it will produce exactly the same ball speed, launch and spin, as was done in a TXG video.

Edited February 21, 2021 by Red4282

[bladehunter]

T100 or t100s don’t have a cup face. So thickness doesn’t enter into it. No spring at all.