The taylormade burner 2.0 irons consists of irons individually engineered, resulting in the enhancement of multiple club properties that promote distance, uniform distance-gaps, increased playability and better sound and feel. A multi-functional sole lowers the center of gravity and reduces turf-drag to make it easy to launch shots high and long, while the inverted cone in each clubface is strategically sized and shaped center of gravity location in each head is precision-placed to optimize long-, middle- and short-iron flight; high-coefficient of restitution faces promote fast ball speed for long distance in the long-irons.
The faces of the burner 2.0 Irons are thinner than the faces of the original Burner long-irons, which should help golfers to create more ball speed and distance. The weight saved by making the faces thinner has been redistributed to the lower section of the clubs, near the heel and toe areas, which Wahl says should make them more forgiving too.
The same time, the faces of the short irons are thicker than the original Burner's, and the heads are smaller and feature thinner top lines. Doing this puts a greater emphasis on accuracy and control at address, but also puts more weight directly behind the ball to enhance feel.
Except for the different face, the golf set has a different shaft tip to help increase distance. One of the other differences between the burner 2.0 Irons and their predecessor is that the 2.0 irons have more defined gaps between each iron, one of the big complaints against the first iteration (of course your pitching wedge will be longer if you make the shaft an inch longer and it's only 44 degrees).
As a player, I'd love to be able to hit my 9I from 160. I feel more comfortable and my accuracy is better with that club. If TM can give me that same confidence with a 9I from a distance of 160, sign me up. The assumption is that adding distance comes necessarily at the cost of accuracy. Do we know this is the case for the new irons? Why can't I have both?