EdStraker
New
Does anyone remember the Armour Ti100's? They were the size of small shovels.
I remember seeing them, I think those were the titanium head irons which were a big flop. That was the beginning of the end for Tommy Armour clubs.
Does anyone remember the Armour Ti100's? They were the size of small shovels.
Does anyone remember the Armour Ti100's? They were the size of small shovels.
You mean these beasts? I heard that they consumed all of the steel in Bolivia making 5 sets of these.
![]()
3JACK
taylormade 300's
....Taylor Made ICW 5 - I used these in HS and just hit them really, really well. I was deadly back then because I obliterated the 2-iron off the deck or on the tee. Get me on a very tight par-4 and I could just step up with the 2-iron, knock it about 230 off the tee (which was very long back then with balata golf balls) and dead straight down the middle. Struggled with the 9-iron and PW, but I think that was more due to some QC issues with the club. If we had the technology we have today, I could've been hitting them just as pure spending no more than $50.
3JACK
1963 -Ben Hogan British Open Winner.
Nope.
I think it has to do something with once a game improvement cast iron club with perimeter weighting is opened on the backswing, it is actually harder to square up than a blade. The weighting actually resists squaring. I think I have this right but Brian will correct me if not.
I have also heard Homer Kelly talking with Tomasello about centrifugal force and blade length, and how a longer face is easier to square.
Is this true? If the sweet spot is further from the shaft, it takes longer to square, offering a bigger window for controlling it?
In my experience I find blades easier to hit straight.
I loved my Eye 2s but felt I could hit a short blade with more accuracy when I was hitting it well, but worse when I missed.