dorkman53

I got a 17, 20, and 23. The verdict is in on the 17; it's a keeper. It's very long, easy to get in the air (but not ballooning), and dead straight. It's better for me than my Hogan 17 degree, a previous Callaway Heavenwood, or a Nickent Genex 3DX 17 degree in terms of accuracy, distance, and ease of hitting. I still have to do a few more range sessions on the 20 and 23 vs. my Hogan CFT 21 and 24's before I'm ready to make that call for sure.

They arrived today (17, 20, and 23 with Nippon shafts). I actually had to start my round without even warming up or hitting any of my clubs due to the need to get started so I wouldn't run out of daylight. I had the chance to play each of them a few times. I'll post a more complete evaluation after I've had more time with them, but my first reaction to today's play is a hearty "YEEHAW, YAHOO!!" The faces feel very hot, the shafts have a great feel, and they just want to go dead straight whevever I aim them. I think they are going to play 1/2 to 1 club longer than my Hogans, so I'll have to get them dialed in a bit more accurately soon. I'm VERY impressed so far, though.

Mine are on their way from Japan as we speak. I hope they are here by this weekend. I'm really looking forward to hitting these.

If your having problems doing the "submarine" work on your ball striking. It is common knowledge that a shallow face will produce a higher ball flight over a deep face. In my experience I need the ball to go higher when in the ruff. I think we are probably visualizing different levels of rough depth. In light to moderate rough, submarining isn't an issue anyway, so neither a shallow nor a deep face hybrid is going to submarine without a really poor swing. In heavier, deeper rough, I think I would be just trying to punch it out with an iron anyway. When I have seen people (self included) get into trouble with submarining, it's usually in the scenario of trying to hit a low faced club out of moderately deep rough where an iron might have been a better choice anyway.

I currently have both in the bag so I hope this helps. The ViQ's face is shallow when compared to the UX2, making it fly higher and land softer IMO. The feel of the ViQ seems softer at impact and overall the club feels both loud & mute/soft. I desire the feel of a perfectly struck shot with the ViQ over the UX2. The UX2 is more accurate IMO and tends to fly straighter and lower probobly due to its deeper face. The head feels heavy, solid and one piece to me. I use it from just about every lie with good results, if the rough is deep I would choose the ViQ. I am just curious; if the ViQ has a shallower face than the UX2, why would it be preferable from deeper rough? I'd think that a shallower faced club would be more likely to "submarine" and hit a pop up shot than a deeper face. What am I missing here?

I just made the plunge and ordered some MP UX 2's with the Nippons from Chris. I hope they live up to their rave reviews. I've been playing the Hogan CFT's, and believe them to be really fine hybrids. I'm hoping to move from very good to outstanding. We'll see........

Dont know to be honest, I would guess the same as most hybrids on the market. I'm pretty sure it would be .355" taper. I think the Nippon shafts only come in taper, unless something has changed with them in the last several months.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but aren't they about the same as the CB part of the Bridgestone J33 Combo sets? If so, they are great in the mid and longer irons, but I wouldn't know how the short irons play

I have seen it described on "another board" as like a lighter weight 757. That's all I know.

But why would you need to Sanitize them? Did you hit them in a cow pasture? :laugh:

Did you mean .355" taper or .370 parallel?

I can't compare to that flex of DG, but I've had DG S-3's, and currently have Tour Concepts, though in R3 flex. My take; the Tour Concepts are smoother; a silky feeling. Dynamic Golds are not as smooth, and have an odd vibration on certain hits that I don't find with the Tour Concepts. The Tour Concepts are also flighted, so I find it easier to hit long irons with them vs. Dymamic Golds. Price? DG's are very nicely priced. You'll pay a premium for Tour Concepts.

The more I play them, they just go from "betterer" to "bestest".

Well, I've had my new J33 Combos long enough to report my impressions without it being an "I got them yesterday, hit them on the range and once on the course and they are the greatest thing since sliced bread" review. Paul at Shreveport Golf fixed me up with these beauties and put True Temper Tour Concept shafts on them. This combination is perfect in my hands. I previously had Bridgestone/Tourstage TS 202's in Rifles, and they were great clubs. I wanted something with a little thinner sole and more bladelike in the shorter irons. I looked at all sorts of options and combos, but the Bridgestones looked the best to me, and I had hit an X Blade CB once and really liked the feel. They are quite compact for a CB, and have very low offset as well. The topline is as thin as many blades out there, so they set up beautifully. The leading edge relief makes it easier to hit knockdowns. The feel is very solid and sweet. The Tour Concepts feel great; I can feel them load, yet they are very controllable and precise feeling. I feel they are about as accurate as DG's, but feel better than either Rifles or DG's. The flighted nature of their flex pattern definitely makes long irons easier to hit. My iron accuracy from the tee and fairway has improved with these clubs. In short, these are great sticks and will be in my bag for a good long time. My TS 202's had previously set the longevity record for this club ho; I suspect the J33's will exceed that duration.......

I've hit both, but the Project X was in a slightly stiffer flex than the Tour Concept. The Tour Concepts feel silky smooth, yet firm and controllable. The Project X seemed like it really needed to be loaded by hitting down aggressively and taking a robust divot. If the Project X shaft is hit less than flush, it does feel quite boardy, IMHO. Hit it flush, and it feels great, too. Personally, I prefer the Tour Concepts, but I am more of a sweeper than a digger.

Project X's are great shafts, all right. But to get the best action out of them, you should be one who takes substantial divots and really hits down on the ball. If you are a sweeper, they will feel relatively harsh and not play as well.

I went through a "graphite phase" in iron shafts, and was quite pleased with both the GAT's and the Apache/MCC MFS 115's. They're definitely a bit easier on the elbows and wrists than steel.

I sent my Scratch wedges back to Ari for a Tour Concept reshaft. They perform great; they have a nice controlled kick on full shots, and great feel on touch shots. I liked them so much that I'm going to get them in my Bridgestone J33 Combos Paul at Shreveport Golf will be building for me as soon as the heads arrive.

Somebody may have "bored them out" to .370". They should play fine, and you'll have a wider selection of available shafts in the future.

Somebody forgot to remind him about the lid on the 1000 cc driver. He'd forgotten that he had put a sandwich, a bottle of Gatorade, and a sleeve of golf balls inside the head before he swung it.........

I just soak the heads in tap water for a minute or two, then use a nylon bristle brush to get the crud out of the grooves, then wipe them dry with a towel. It just takes a few minutes to do this, and it is my "labor of love." I do this after just about every round or range session.

The J33 Combos are based on the X Blade CB's, at least for the longer and mid irons. Here are the offset figures. http://www.bridgestonegolf.com/en/prodj33combo.aspx When worked out converting the mm into inches, the 3 iron has only about 1/8" offset and the PW has only 1/16". That's pretty low offset for cavity backs, and is comparable to many sets of blades out there.

I'm pretty sure that all Bridgestone/Tourstage irons are .355" taper. Does anyone have information otherwise? Are you the only owner of the Z101's? Could a prior owner have had them bored out to .370" parallel? If you are the only owner, did you get them from an unimpeachable source, or is it possible they are counterfeit? The Rifles also come in .355" and .370". Is it possible that there is confusion on that end. I'm just asking questions, not drawing any conclusions. The reason why I'm a little bit wary about accepting things at face value is that I have a set of TS 202's that I sent to an apparently highly regarded internet clubmaker (NOT a sponsor on this board) to reshaft these in a high end graphite shaft. He told me he was going to bore them out to .370" so he'd have more flexibility in getting his specs on the shaft flex profile just right. He charged me more for the "extra work". Later, I decided to go back into steel shafts, and ordered .370" Rifles for the job from a highly reputable internet shaft vendor. I took them to my local clubmaker, and he called me and told me that the parallels didn't fit, and that the hosels were .355". He was right. I had a .355" "known" shaft sitting around at home, and I took it and tried it and it fit perfectly in the Tourstage hosel. The guy who did the previous work had overcharged me. My point of this ramble is that sometimes you're not sure about the hosel configuration even when you "know" what it is. There can be factors beyond your control that can lead to confusion and misunderstanding about the geometry of either the shafts or the clubhead. Using a "known" .355" and .370" shaft to figure out the geometry of the hosel for absolute certainty should settle most of the questions. Good luck.

They definitely have a bit of Tourstage/Srixon flavor as far as styling is concerned. Very attractive and clean lines.

I'm still passionately enjoying my Scratch wedges. They're the oldest thing in this club ho's bag. Thanks for the Tour Concept reshafts, Ari.