Eguller
Being someone who plays the TS-1's, I can think of four things off the top-of-my-head which prevent these from being "interesting" to me:
- The offset figures in the 101 - both in terms of total amount in the long irons and degree of change from one head to another. There's 5 times as much variation from head-to-head as there is throughout the entire Maltby set. 201's do seem better in this regard.
- It might be more marketing ploy than real world results ... but these claimed to be geared toward those needing a higher launch. "Low launch" might have intrigued me!
- I don't mind jacked up lofts (at all), and these are within 1° of the TS-1's, but ... if you offer a 44° Pitching Wedge, IMO, you should offer a gap wedge to match the set. jmho
- There's nothing about the TS-1's, whether in terms of looks, distance, consistency, or dispersion I would want to change.
So, sure it would have been nice to have spent $7 less per head, but these, to me, seem to be, at best, a $300 expenditure for something which might end up being as good as what I already have. It would take a flood of rave reviews, including those from people who've used the Maltby's, to get the club-ho itch tingling.