NEW CLEVELAND LAUNCHER CBX IRONS REVIEW – RICK SHIELS
NEW CLEVELAND LAUNCHER CBX IRONS REVIEW – RICK SHIELS
►Become a FREE SUBSCRIBER to RICK SHIELS now
http://bit.ly/SubRickShielsGolf
►GolfWRX Featured writer
http://www.golfwrx.com/
►Golf Monthly Top 25 Golf Coach
http://www.golf-monthly.co.uk/news/notice-board/new-golf-monthly-top-25-uk-coaches-list-revealed-89709
►Official Resort Partner: Lumine
http://www.Lumine.com/
► Official Apparel and footwear partner: Nike Golf
http://www.nike.com/golf
———————————————————————————–
►My Links:
Facebook ► http://bit.ly/RickShielsFB
Twitter ► http://bit.ly/RickShielsTwitter
Instagram ► http://bit.ly/RickShielsIG
Vine ► http://bit.ly/GolfProVine
Web ► http://www.rickshielsgolf.co.uk/
———————————————————————————
Rick, I was staffed by Cleveland/Srixon and I will say this much about them, you need to look into the right shafts. I have Cleveland irons from a few years ago and was only hitting an 8 iron about 140. New shafts, 155 with more spin. Cleveland is a touchy brand don't get me wrong but seems like for a lot of people iron shafts don't get looked at as much as driver shafts. The stock shafts on the CBX's are a lighter, faster, cheaper Dynamic Gold. Put your KBS's or Project X's in them or whatever you hit and I'm sure you will get more consistence out of them. Great looking clubs they have come out with and great feeling, just with these I believe, need to have a better shaft in them.
Rick, when you hit a 34-35 degree players 7-iron and it spins 6500 it's good spin, and a 34 degree GI 8-iron at almost the same spin rate it's low spin? That doesn't seem to make sense to me
I like them purdy CBX arns. Rich Shields can kiss my az with his retarded gripes about spin. We don't need out-of-touch pro players to review game improvement clubs for us normal people. Stick to talking about your pompous blade irons, that's all you know. Don't pretend you can relate to us so you can get more subscribers.
I'm a fan of your videos, Rick. I appreciate the effort you put into editing and polishing them. But your take on modern GI irons has become repetitive, and honestly it seems like you're missing the point. These irons have low lofts because they launch the ball super high. With lower lofts come lower spin numbers. But since the launch is high, the stopping power will presumably still be robust, especially for the distance that the ball is traveling. The 8 iron = 8,000 / PW = 10,000 formula doesn't work for modern GI irons, nor should it.
Your audience isn't dumb (for the most part). We can handle some discourse about descent angle, spin in relation to loft, and overall stopping power relative to distance. Those are the relevant issues here, in my opinion.
Just curious, but would it not be more correct to reference the spin numbers to the loft rather than the club number(i.e. 7 iron)?
Good to see cleveland making clubs again, I loved my Launcher DST Driver
Please review the CBX wedges!! Thanks
Rick,
If anything you've taught us to well my friend. Regardless of what the number is on the bottom of the club those spin numbers are pretty good for a 34 degree club. Tighten the club reviews back up man. This seems like a lazy one.
Spin is pretty impressive considering it's basically a 7 iron with 8 on the bottom. Good performing clubs IMO!
Our other friend Mr Crossfield tested these in America and found the spin to be impressive….is it just strike strike and strike that makes the difference….Rick hit a lot of inconsistent strikes in this video….and Cleavland have been putting the lofts on some of their iron sets for a long time
Problem with putting lofts on the clubs – which has been a problem with wedges forever – is adjustments to loft at fitting nullifies that number. Bugs me, at least, that the number is then incorrect.
Presently Ben Hogan is putting the club number on the hosel and the loft on the sole
Like the loft as well as the number. But this review is far too whingy with all the complaining about lack of spin. The spin correlates well with the loft when considering they are coming in steep. They do exactly what they need to do for their intended market. They are not bladed irons for PGA Tour pros.
I really dont like how irons' lofts have gotten stronger. I love my Ben Hogans.
34 degree for 8? Pitch is 44… then 10 degree gap 9 iron both way? 40yrd gap between 8 to pitch is useless? 9 iron to over 40 yards 135 to 175 most common second shot… absolute joke of a "set"
Rick I really love your channel, but you do frustrate me when doing these tests and ignore the loft and base your comments on the number of the iron. This "6 iron" is a equal to your Wilson V6 5 iron. You know this. So please stop with the "low spin for a 6 iron" comments. I just watched Mark Crossfields review of these Clevelands and it made your review look rather silly. It does make you look like you are anti Srixon/Cleveland as other posters have commented.
your saying the spin is low yet your striking very high on the face. stop hitting on a mat and get on some grass. mat so song its like hitting out of the first cut
Been looking for a game improvement iron with a big head but very little offset. Seems like they all force you to play with an offset. I never did like the look of the "offset". The CBX looks great but looks like it has too much offset for me. Please let me know if anyone knows of a game (or super game) improvement iron with a larger head but with minimal offset. Thanks..
Best looking irons
Agree with other comments about spin… also think it's funny how the brushed finish on these is "smart and lovely" but when it's on a titleist 718 AP1 it's dreadful….
Please Rick have a think about your comments on spin, the old cliche of it should be 7000 for a 7 iron is only true of blades and players irons.
well at least he's no MC gets the talking points out first and the hitting later ?mind grooves are ball eaters lol
Cleveland has for many years still been making irons i.e the Cleveland Black forged, which was available up until a couple of months ago/ since the introduction of the CBX.
I find it interesting to have both numbers on the club but it would be even more effective if all manufacturers did it. Then you can compare different clubs accurately without having to check the specs first.
Rick it's funny becuase you always compare distance with loft, e.g. "I'd expect a 34 degree to carry 167" however you then always compare spin with the number on the bottom of the club. Now surly if you was to compare distance to loft (which you have been doing well) but then to compare spin with distance and the number on the bottom of the club is really just how easy or hard they are to hit ? hope you get an opportunity to ready this comment
On average when you use 7 irons that are standard lofts at 34 degrees you spin them at around 600- 6500. So this 34 degree 8 iron isn't really a 8 iron. It's a 7 iron. So yes the spins are good. You just have a bias
I agree about liking the lofts on the irons. My current set is Cleveland's CG16 irons and they put both the club number and loft so this is something Cleveland likes to do. These are a little stronger lofted than the CG16s but that is just the trend now with clubs. Will have to give these a look when I get fitted for new irons.