Every iron has a different face thickness. The thinner the face, the more ball speed and distance the iron can produce – incredibly important for long irons. The Burner 2.0 irons have perfect distance gaps from one iron to the next, because we tuned the loft of every head and the length of every shaft for each individual iron. The irons have been uniquely tuned to produce a sound to match the power (feel) of each club. Every Burner 2.0 iron has its own weight distribution. And every club has been shaped differently, so we’ve repositioned and reshaped the Inverted Cone behind every face to maximize distance and forgiveness. Because every iron has a different task we have shaped each iron differently – larger heads for long irons, more compact heads for scoring clubs. The sole of each iron has been shaped to reduce turf resistance to achieve the perfect balance between sole geometry and performance. Lastly, every Burner 2.0 shaft has a different kick point – the longer the iron the lower the kick point.
With thoughts like these bouncing around in my head, I took the Burner 2.0s to Arizona recently not entirely convinced they would perform any differently to the multitude of other top-notch irons already on the market. And could it possibly be better than the original Burner?
Before you can measure performance, you need to assess the look of the club – if you don’t like the shape, color, or graphics, chances are it’s not going to work for you.
The Burner 2.0 is obviously a game-improvement model, but the R&D people did a good job fitting all the technology into what is actually a fine looking head. The blade devotee will likely baulk at the offset (1mm in the lob wedge up to 6.5mm in the 3-iron) and all the techy stuff going on round back, but the average golfer should feel comfortable with a Burner 2.0 up behind the ball.
The heads have a silver/gray face, and are black in the back, heel and toe which has the effect of making the clubhead look a little smaller than the corresponding iron in the original Burners – something that won’t appeal to everybody, but which undeniably gives the new club a smoother, sleeker finish.
My first shot with a Burner 2.0 was an uphill 6-iron from about 165 yards to a pin tucked behind a bunker short and right of the green. I made far from perfect contact but was pleasantly surprised to watch the ball rise and drop just the other side of the sand, about 30ft from the hole. I felt sure that wouldn’t have happened with my own set (Cleveland TA7s – yes a bit old, but I like them). At the 6th, I hit a 9-iron from about 135 yards (a few more than I would get from my own 9-iron) that stopped abruptly 15 feet right of the cup. At the 9th, a 200-yard Par 3 with the pin near the front, my not-quite-solid 4-iron came up a yard or two short of the green. This continued for the next three days – instances where I’d certainly be aware of a little extra yardage.
I’m probably too inconsistent a ball-striker nowadays to say much about whether or not the CG location made much difference, but I would say the 4-iron was pretty easy to get up in the air – not quite as easy as a hybrid club with similar loft perhaps, but markedly easier than my Cleveland 4-iron. The short irons did penetrate a little better because of the higher CG which I think is preferable to a high, floaty shot that’s at the mercy of the wind.
I had a little trouble hitting intentional hooks and slices when I landed behind a large saguaro, but minor fades and draws are certainly possible.
No doubt about it, the Burner 2.0 is a fabulous club. If I owned a set of Burners, I might not be in any great rush to upgrade, but if my existing set of irons was beginning to look a bit dated, I would hope there was enough cash left in the golf equipment budget to afford a set of 2.0s. Typically they are selling for $699.99 (steel shaft) which strikes me as a great deal for so technologically-advanced a club.
没有评论:
发表评论