Best Player’s Irons 2024 Test Results

[Cliffy2020]

So I don’t think I can link the article from Your Golf Secret Agent (MGS) but I’m genuinely interested in how they calculated their “Accuracy” score.

 

I read, re-read & then read the article again.  What I don’t understand is how they calculated the Strokes Gained for “Accuracy”?  Accuracy was the most weighted score and testers were hitting off mats and into a screen on GC Quads.  

 

Distance - least weighted (as it should)  carry & total, I get it.

 

Forgiveness - highly weighted and all about the Deltas produced on GCQuad also knows as Std Deviations, I get it.

 

Accuracy - Highest weighting, based solely on Strokes Gained, I DON’T get it?  

 

What am I missing here?  Thanks. 

 

 

[BlueDragonKorea]

Strokes gained is basically just going to be proximity to the hole for approach play. Strokes gained is a fancy way of saying how many additional strokes would it take you to finish out the hole given the result of this previous shot? If you hit an iron shot to 3 feet, you'll gain a stroke since you'll likely make that 3 footer. If you hit an iron shot to 25 feet, you might be no strokes gained, since you'll likely 2 putt from there. If you hit it to 60 feet (or wherever a 3 putt range is), then you'll likely lose a stroke since you're most likely to 3 putt.

 

Then you basically just do that on some kind of sliding scale. 15 feet? Maybe you average 1.7 putts. 30 feet away? Maybe you'll average 2.3 putts, etc.

[Climbhard]

What I don't get about their testing in general is how often "accuracy" is uncorrelated to "forgiveness".  I mean isn't that what forgiveness is all about?  Making the ball go where its expected (accurate) when you don't strike it as well (forgiveness)???

[Cliffy2020]

I understand Strokes Gained but don’t understand how you set that up with 20 testers hitting 19 different sets of clubs on a simulator especially since all the clubs go different distances for different players?  Really curious what their methodology was here?

Edited Wednesday at 06:31 PM by Cliffy2020

[Cliffy2020]

I’ve reached out to them twice via their Comment section.  Both times it goes to moderation for approval but gets cut without explanation?  Here’s my latest attempt:

 

[Cliffy2020]

20 minutes later - she gone???
 

 

[Cliffy2020]

With a score leaps & bounds above everybody else, I think an explanation is in order.

 

[chisag]

1 minute ago, Cliffy2020 said:

ith a score leaps & bounds above everybody else, I think an explanation is in order.

 

 

... I always enjoy reading these "tests" for informations sake but they are pretty close irrelevant for any individual other than obvious things like low spin, high launch or relative forgiveness that may or may not apply to our swings. One of my playing pards and I have similar swing speeds but have very different swings. I play a lot of 3/4 and 1/2 short iron shots with a lower trajectory and a one hop, and just a little trickle and stop ending up around 3 feet of my ball mark. He plays full swings and imparts a ton of spin with a very high launch and inconsistent results that may hop and stop or spin back 6 feet or more. Averaging our two swings and results would give you a number, but helps nobody because how our swings match up with equipment would be very different. I imagine 20 golfers would all be similar with different swings where one has shaft lean and the other flips through impact creating radically different numbers. 

... Putter tests are even more silly as strokes are much more diverse. 🫣 And while you have to start somewhere Driver tests use a specific shaft flex, AOA and loft for High/Mid/Low swing speeds. If you don't fall into those parameters of lower loft for high speed and higher loft for lower speeds with a radically different AOA, the test is basically useless. But still fun to read. 

[Cliffy2020]

And with some quick calculations.  20 golfers hitting 57 different clubs (3 clubs from 19 different manufacturers)and using 15 balls per club = 17,100 shots

[PNW]

34 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

 Averaging our two swings and results would give you a number, but helps nobody because how our swings match up with equipment would be very different. I imagine 20 golfers would all be similar with different swings where one has shaft lean and the other flips through impact creating radically different numbers. 
 

 

Exactly my thoughts on these tests. I work in data insights for a research company and am well accustomed to understanding sampling and projection methodologies. I tried to read into their test methodology a couple years ago and decided that there's too much noise in the data and how they collect it (such as described above) to get any meaningful info out of them, which I find a bit ridiculous considering how they portray themselves. It's really no better than GD Hot List which they LOVE to hate. 

 

@Cliffy2020 I've found them doing the same 'moderating' comments fairly heavy handed. They had an IG post in the last year with some bogus claim from one of their 'scientific' tests which I rather politely questioned. Their Social manager (you see her nearly all videos) quickly started attacking me and others who were asking the same. I just find the whole organization unprofessional. They tend to lean into provocative click-bait content to drive eyeballs for ad $$. There's so much more that can be understood about clubs from folks on here WRX boards than from them. 

[jblough99]

You can't really take these tests seriously.  Compare the 2024 test to the 2023 test to see what I mean.  2023 JPX 923 tour overall score of 97 with 1st in accuracy and forgiveness, P7MC overall score of 84 with 6th in accuracy and 7th in forgiveness.  Fast forward a year to 2024 with the exact same 2 irons and all of the sudden JPX Tour overall score is 73 with 4th in accuracy and 3rd in forgiveness and the P7MC overall score is 92 with 1st in accuracy and 2nd in forgiveness.  

 

Amazing how much the P7MC improved and how much the JPX Tour dropped even though they are the same identical iron in both test.

[CasualLie]

So if I got this right...about 400 balls into my session, you want to know if I find club #27 forgiving?  And even if it was spread out over multiple days, golfers are not robots so the data is pretty much useless.

 

 

[nosil]

3 hours ago, Cliffy2020 said:

I understand Strokes Gained but don’t understand how you set that up with 20 testers hitting 19 different sets of clubs on a simulator especially since all the clubs go different distances for different players?  Really curious what their methodology was here?

 

Driving range with specific distance for each tester to accommodate how far each tester hits the 5, 7, and PW.  

 

3 hours ago, Climbhard said:

What I don't get about their testing in general is how often "accuracy" is uncorrelated to "forgiveness".  I mean isn't that what forgiveness is all about?  Making the ball go where its expected (accurate) when you don't strike it as well (forgiveness)???

 

Accuracy is dispersion circle that includes short, long, left, and right.  Forgiveness is short to long variation. 

[nosil]

9 minutes ago, CasualLie said:

So if I got this right...about 400 balls into my session, you want to know if I find club #27 forgiving?  And even if it was spread out over multiple days, golfers are not robots so the data is pretty much useless.

 

 

You have it wrong,  not done in one session, done over weeks.  

[CasualLie]

6 minutes ago, nosil said:

You have it wrong,  not done in one session, done over weeks.  

 

Days / weeks; what difference does it make? Regular golfer testing is unreliable.  Any table showing the P7MC as highly rated in accuracy and forgiveness is suspect.  How can it be so high when the Maltby PF has is near the bottom of the list?  That's a pretty big discrepancy.

[nosil]

1 minute ago, CasualLie said:

 

Days / weeks; what difference does it make? Regular golfer testing is unreliable.  Any table showing the P7MC as highly rated in accuracy and forgiveness is suspect.  How can it be so high when the Maltby PF has is near the bottom of the list?  That's a pretty big discrepancy.

 

Just answering your question.   All I can tell you is it is based on the data captured on the GC Quad.  MPF is a value based on a formula and not people swinging the club.  

[ghostrunner33]

I think the Cool Clubs reviews are a pretty good baseline to get an idea of how a club performs. Videos are very quick as well. 

Iron Reviews | Cool Clubs

[Wardonation]

7 minutes ago, ghostrunner33 said:

I think the Cool Clubs reviews are a pretty good baseline to get an idea of how a club performs. Videos are very quick as well. 

Iron Reviews | Cool Clubs

I agree these guys are the "Gold Standard" by far.

[PearSorbet17]

As worthless as the Golf Digest awards. 

[C_rad]

I mean, i get what they are trying to do. But an example of something weird is the ping I230. Everyone is praising their forgiveness and bam, these guys said they are pratically less forgiving than the p7mc

[Red4282]

Mgs=the new golf digest

 

Their one ball test they did with a robot was fantastic (not the one where they were trying to find out how many “bad” balls there are in a dozen- the whole callaway ball thing went to their head). But just to know whats fastest, what spins with what and at what speeds was great. Their driver COG data and test they did was great too. They got away from that and just stuck people in a launch monitor whackin balls. 

Edited Thursday at 12:49 AM by Red4282

[nsxguy]

3 hours ago, nosil said:

Accuracy is dispersion circle that includes short, long, left, and right.  Forgiveness is short to long variation. 

 

Perimeter weighting definitely offers side-to-side forgiveness as well as distance.

[miasanmia88]

they tested the ping i230 and TM P7MC in last years best players iron award and the ping was ranked higher than the P7MC, same identical irons, MGS is a crock of s***

[miasanmia88]

17 hours ago, jblough99 said:

You can't really take these tests seriously.  Compare the 2024 test to the 2023 test to see what I mean.  2023 JPX 923 tour overall score of 97 with 1st in accuracy and forgiveness, P7MC overall score of 84 with 6th in accuracy and 7th in forgiveness.  Fast forward a year to 2024 with the exact same 2 irons and all of the sudden JPX Tour overall score is 73 with 4th in accuracy and 3rd in forgiveness and the P7MC overall score is 92 with 1st in accuracy and 2nd in forgiveness.  

 

Amazing how much the P7MC improved and how much the JPX Tour dropped even though they are the same identical iron in both test.

damn, beat me to it

[TheBear95]

37 minutes ago, miasanmia88 said:

they tested the ping i230 and TM P7MC in last years best players iron award and the ping was ranked higher than the P7MC, same identical irons, MGS is a crock of s***

 

It is pretty hilarious what they have become. 

[jt2gt]

16 hours ago, ghostrunner33 said:

I think the Cool Clubs reviews are a pretty good baseline to get an idea of how a club performs. Videos are very quick as well. 

Iron Reviews | Cool Clubs

Yes...i only wish they would do more.  Even just looking at the graphic they put together is better than MGS and Maltby.  

[Cliffy2020]

54 minutes ago, TheBear95 said:

 

It is pretty hilarious what they have become. 

Like mentioned earlier 

 

Golf Digest Hot List 2.0

 

Sad, I really liked them.

[Hougz79]

I sincerely applaud what they are "trying" to get after over on that site.  For at least 20 years the GD Hot List has just been an advertisement for the new clubs with little substance or critique.

 

So in that lens I really applaud that they are trying to help golfers out, and more importantly; can be critical of the OEMs.

 

The test results are not robotic tests, they are tests with real golfers.  So their results will always be a product of the swing their testers brought to the bay that day.  I've seen same product variability in other tests as well over the years (where a same model either jumps or drops year to year).   

 

This year's Player CB test is a throw away though.  I gamed P7MCs for 3 years.  They are amazing. I also gamed i230 for 1/2 a year. In no universe is the P7MC more forgiving than the i230.  Sorry, it's not. In my experience they were indeed highly accurate irons; but not forgiving. They were exactly as good as the swing I put on the ball that day.  

 

The robotic club tests run by the other big site are more accurate as to the "performance characteristics" of the club with the human factor taken out.  The M G S tests will always be a product of the quality of their testing pool for that year.  Which is not always a bad thing, as how a golf club plays can be a highly personalized experience.  It is at least data to read and understand. and maybe cause you to test hit a product you previously wouldn't; but it's certainly not gospel. 

[me05501]

The methodology is based around clicks, not strokes. Hope this helps. 🙂

[cardia10]

It always amazes me how they get bashed while NO ONE ELSE even attempts to do testing to this scale. If it were easy or simple, every website, forum and magazine would jump to do it. I applaud their effort and while I don't always agree with all the data points, it is the best we have available.