Modern fairway metals

I have the new Titleist 910 F-d 3-wood.

I really like it.

You can flatten out the lie angle, of course not nearly as much as you can with persimmon.

To me the issue with modern fairway woods is that the lie angle can’t be adjusted and the clubhead design has been poor. The started out with the CoG’s too high when titanium fairways were first made. Now I’ve found they have gone the opposite direction and made the heads too shallow. So it becomes more difficult to hit them off the tee or if you get that ball fluffed up in the rough.

I think the Titleist 910F-d has done a good job of addressing those issues from the perspective of modern equipment design.


Any chance you can snap a pic for us to see?

Here it goes from www

i posted before about these fairway metals from Wishon Golf ( … dType=wood) and it looks like they can be adjusted more than 4* flat to 6*. i did not know that was possible when i bought it so i only went to 4*. if you go to the max 6*, the lie of the 3 and 5 wood would be 52* and 53*.

For the life of me I cannot understand why my older ‘modern’ Callaway Steelhead III (3w) is literally my best club in my bag. Only sense I can make out of it is because it is one of last fariway woods made that you could get steel shaft for. Despite it being a “uniflex” shaft (and I swing fast with strong tempo, fitted for xx-flex), I hit this so good I have fear of ever breaking it. Playing partners tell me to stop being cheap and finally get a MODERN 3w… But shut up when I use it. Sick. I hit this better than my PW for petes sake… Straight and long {enough}

Clubfitter and my local Golf Galaxy said it is because it is HEAVIER (gee, where did I hear that before) with its 110g steel shaft and steel head (no Ti). I have even contemplated picking up a used Driver of same model of the bay but everyone keeps saying I’ll lose distance compared compared to graphite. And modern graphite is so good now-a-days some say better than steel in spec/testing with tour pro’s. REALLY? Ask Tiger if he misses the rest of PGA using steel shaft drivers so he too could still use his and hitting 300yds with it and IN PLAY…

This club of mine seriously almost verifies, to me, what Lag/Two preach. But my conscious does wrestle with the fact steel shafted woods are nearly extinct and must be for a reason and I just need to learn to hit graphite.

I really think we are going to see golf fracture into two different sports within the next ten years.

No doubt there are courses designed for persimmon play and other newer ones designed for titanium. No different than Indy vs Nascar tracks, or drag strips vs Grand Prix layouts.

Humans are smart enough to figure this out over time.

It’s time for golf to get modern and fracture like every other sport has.

Since I’m getting into MOI matching of golf clubs, one of the things I’m very interested in seeing is how well it works with the fairway woods. I measure the MOI of my current modern 3-wood, and it came in at 2,655 kg/cm2, even though it measured in at D-1 to D-2 swingweight. It should be more like 2,820 kg/cm2.

I think with MOI matching it will help the fairway woods and long irons the most becasue it keeps the amount of force required to swing the club the same. I have yet to officially fit myself for MOI, but I have the MOI matching in all of my irons and have already seen the benefits.


I think you’re right. I haven’t even been into persimmon for a year, and I am already disinterested in the modern game to an extent. I have also had a lot of discussions with people on the range that see the persimmons and want more information as to the reason I’d use seemingly inferior equipment to practice. It is surprising how many people dislike the modern game yet don’t know what to do about it. If a viable alternative is provided, people will undoubtedly flock to it over time. I’m just lucky I am figuring this out now at my age (17) when the rest of my generation hasn’t been exposed to it. Between learning a more sophisticated approach to the golf swing, training with persimmon, and working on my own equipment (which I had been doing with my dad for years with the exception of persimmon), I have a huge leg up on the rest of the world if persimmon golf continues to grow.

I am looking into purchasing a new 3 wood don’t give me the lecture about get a 4 wood instead i hit the ball consistently high with a high club head speed and want a 3 wood I currently play the older Taylormade R5 dual i love this club it has just lost some of its pop and I am considering a stiffer shaft who is the top of the market in fairway metals today?

Can anyone confirm whether the original PT’s 92 - 95 have a number quoted at the end e.g. 970F, 980F, 904F or are these the later (bore-through) models?

Trying to locate an original pro trajectory on eBay and would like some clarification beforehand.

Thanks in advance.


Titleist has a pretty nice section on their website that details the history of their clubs.

There are some nice pictures you can use for identification.

Titleist did make it pretty confusing with with the naming of their fairway metals.

The term “Pro Trajectory” appears on a number of models.

The original “Pro Trajectory” (“PT”) woods were made from 92-95 and were NOT borethrough and do NOT have a model number. The starting lie on these clubs is 54 and can be bent easily down to ABS specs.

When Tiger was with Titleist they made him a version of the PT that was borethrough. In 2001 the Tiger-borethrough model was released to the public. The only different between the 92-95 version and the 2001 version was the 2001 version was borethrough.

The 970 was the “tour” version of the PT.

Between 1999 and 2003 the 975F was produced. The words “Pro Trajectory” is present on the soleplate. This is the first instance of the combination of the words “Pro Trajectory” and a model number.

Next came the 980F fairway woods. These came in two versions. Borethrough and non-borethrough. The non borethrough has the term “Strong” above the loft on the club. Both versions have the words “Pro Trajectory” on the soleplate.

Then came the 904F series. These were borethrough with “Pro Trajectory” on the soleplate.

The 906 versions had “PT” on the toe and was borethrough.

The 909s do not have any references to “Pro Trajectory” and are NOT borethrough. The 909s can be flattened quite a bit; however, with a starting lie of 57 they have a long way to go to get to an ABS lie.

The 910s have the adjustable hosel and can only be flattened 3/4 of one degree.

I hope that helps! Here is a link to Titleist’s historical archive: … .asp?cat=d

Thanks foreleft, very informative and helpful.