| |
Main
Date: 22 Nov 2006 06:05:10
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Thoughts on a TM Burner 420
|
Found a driver head with a broken shaft today. It's a TM Burner 420. The
head looks fine, so either someone really hated the damn thing, didn't know
how easy it is to reshaft one, or was trying to generate sympathy from the
mrs. so close to christmas.
The question is, is it worth slapping a $20 dollar shaft on? What's the
dope on this driver?
Scott
|
|
| |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 14:22:34
From: Brian Foster
Subject: Re: Thoughts on a TM Burner 420
|
The head is old technology. If you're throwing a cheap shaft on it for
practice or just for grins then that's fine. If you're looking for a new
weapon to put in the bag then you should keep looking.
"S McFarlane" <spam@nothanks.com > wrote in message
news:qMR8h.3555$yV.1844@trnddc07...
> Found a driver head with a broken shaft today. It's a TM Burner 420. The
> head looks fine, so either someone really hated the damn thing, didn't
> know how easy it is to reshaft one, or was trying to generate sympathy
> from the mrs. so close to christmas.
>
> The question is, is it worth slapping a $20 dollar shaft on? What's the
> dope on this driver?
>
> Scott
>
|
| | |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 18:06:32
From: David Geesaman
Subject: Re: Thoughts on a TM Burner 420
|
Brian Foster wrote:
> The head is old technology. If you're throwing a cheap shaft on it for
I define 'old' as lacking in performance compared to new technology.
Considering it will reach maximum legal COR as easily as the latest
overpriced toy, I completely disagree.
If you fit this clubhead with a shaft that makes for a good fit to the
golfer, it will be as excellent as the most expensive new thing out
there. And testing will prove that, again and again.
Dave
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 22:00:35
From: MoiMoi
Subject: Re: Thoughts on a TM Burner 420
|
In article <ek2l5n01aq5@news2.newsguy.com >, dgeesamanIHateSpam@yahoo.com=20
says...
> Brian Foster wrote:
> > The head is old technology. If you're throwing a cheap shaft on it for=
=20
>=20
> I define 'old' as lacking in performance compared to new technology.
>=20
> Considering it will reach maximum legal COR as easily as the latest=20
> overpriced toy, I completely disagree.
>=20
> If you fit this clubhead with a shaft that makes for a good fit to the=20
> golfer, it will be as excellent as the most expensive new thing out=20
> there. And testing will prove that, again and again.
>=20
> Dave
Well said, methinks...
I've got one, and hit it well enough that I see no reason to seek "newer=20
technology"...cost me $99 bucks at Sam's couple of years ago (9.5=B0 with=
=20
stock Burner R graphite).
I also have a "newer edition" Billy Club driver in reserve, which I was=20
hitting pretty much as long, but with perhaps a little less=20
accuracy...maybe. It cost a whopping $49.50 new and one of my playing=20
companions at the time (who beat me regularly) shelved his $400 Titleist=20
and bought one also.=20
"Newer technology" might benefit better golfers than moi (I've been an=20
8), but for most of us, past a certain point, well ....
MM
|
|
