Best Player’s Irons 2024 Test Results

[KGrinols]

5 hours 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***

Where's the logic in this conclusion?

 

Are you telling me, that if you tested the same 2 clubs back to back every day, month, year, you expect the same club to win, every single time, without fail?

 

If the same club finished in the same spot every year, you would all be here crying that it must be a pay off and there's no way the results could be the same every year.

 

No matter what the outcome is, the internet cries and will claim it's fake.

 

Real people, swung clubs, and they compiled the data.  That's it.  Not everything has to be a conspiracy theory.

 

Whether you believe that data is useful, is completely up to your interpretation.  But let's not pretend that the data is fake just because on any given day, any given golfer, with any given club, can have any given outcome.

 

We can't be on a forum where we all crowd source data from each other to form opinions, and then point to another website, that crowdsourced data for people to form opinions, and call it a crock of s***.

 

We see reliable sources get different results from the same club, all the time.  Any YouTuber who uses a bracket format, shows exactly how different sessions, different days, can have drastically different results.  And that's when you keep the same exact golfer.  Whereas I'm pretty sure MGS has a different group of people each year for their tests?  Don't quote me on that.  So maybe this year the handicap range was more biased one direction than the previous year.  Hell, ignore handicaps, what if this year's group of testors were (as a whole) 2 degrees steeper than last year's, favoring one club type over another?  Or they had more natural drawers, and that favored the TM more than the Ping, or heel vs toe strikes...

 

There are so many perfectly logical reasons why 2 clubs tested by 20 different people can have different results year to year.

 

You might as well call this forum a crock of s*** because the question you asked a year ago, got a different answer than the same question a different user asked yesterday.  Different people, sharing different answers, at a different time, doesn't mean it's all a lie.  Take the data for what it is, and put it into perspective.  It's not a big deal.

[Kale_m]

Playing apex cb right now and really like them.

 

had zx7mkii/zforgedii combo 

 

much prefer the apex cb. Better shape, better feel to me 

[Carolina Golfer 2]

23 hours 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.

Each category is done over weeks, and playes never swing the same club more than 5 times in succession, they switch models and rotate back and forth, so no club is getting hit only when they are fresih and one club being stuck at the end of the testing. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Hougz79 said:

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. 

You make a lot of really good points and I agree with the entire post. 

 

I'll just add that they have mentioned several times over the years, the reason they do human testing on clubs is that's what the OEM's use in their in house testing, as real golf shots are hit by humans not robots.   

[PedronNiall]

It's more than iffy, but the same can unfortunately be said for the equivalent WRX "hot list" that was posted here earlier this year. Very little info was given on how conclusions were drawn and none of the questions around it all or why so many brands were mysteriously absent were answered here on the forums. 

 

That site just like WRX makes a lot of its money off ad revenue. Having main site articles that get buzz is more likely to get them eyes on ads someone may click on or get people following the affiliate/tracking links in the articles. 

 

Business gonna business. 

[TheBear95]

4 hours ago, cardia10 said:

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.

 

Here's the thing... I'm not sure what they are "testing".

[TheBear95]

4 hours ago, cardia10 said:

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.

 

Here's the thing... I'm not sure what they are "testing".

[GDB67]

Never took the ol spy site that serious. It is what it is. DATA can be skewed to fit whatever… it’s all in fun though. Why we PLAY golf. 
like any “best” thread we wrx’s may start.. enjoy the show. Watch for trolls. And don’t forget to Pay right after the final hole. 💲😎🍻

 

[PNW]

1 hour ago, KGrinols said:

Where's the logic in this conclusion?

 

Are you telling me, that if you tested the same 2 clubs back to back every day, month, year, you expect the same club to win, every single time, without fail?

 

If the same club finished in the same spot every year, you would all be here crying that it must be a pay off and there's no way the results could be the same every year.

 

No matter what the outcome is, the internet cries and will claim it's fake.

 

Real people, swung clubs, and they compiled the data.  That's it.  Not everything has to be a conspiracy theory.

 

Whether you believe that data is useful, is completely up to your interpretation.  But let's not pretend that the data is fake just because on any given day, any given golfer, with any given club, can have any given outcome.

 

We can't be on a forum where we all crowd source data from each other to form opinions, and then point to another website, that crowdsourced data for people to form opinions, and call it a crock of s***.

 

We see reliable sources get different results from the same club, all the time.  Any YouTuber who uses a bracket format, shows exactly how different sessions, different days, can have drastically different results.  And that's when you keep the same exact golfer.  Whereas I'm pretty sure MGS has a different group of people each year for their tests?  Don't quote me on that.  So maybe this year the handicap range was more biased one direction than the previous year.  Hell, ignore handicaps, what if this year's group of testors were (as a whole) 2 degrees steeper than last year's, favoring one club type over another?  Or they had more natural drawers, and that favored the TM more than the Ping, or heel vs toe strikes...

 

There are so many perfectly logical reasons why 2 clubs tested by 20 different people can have different results year to year.

 

You might as well call this forum a crock of s*** because the question you asked a year ago, got a different answer than the same question a different user asked yesterday.  Different people, sharing different answers, at a different time, doesn't mean it's all a lie.  Take the data for what it is, and put it into perspective.  It's not a big deal.

 

 

The issue isn't that the results and data aren't real. The issue is that there isn't sound methodology in their 'research'. The inconsistences in the data findings that have been pointed out are a byproduct of this. 

[MerryTex]

There’s absolutely zero chance the P7MC scores that high on forgiveness. Below a lot of those irons and I’ve tested it against the likes of a T150, Pro 223, ZX7 II, P770, and Z Forged II. All those irons have better forgiveness so I don’t know how they calculated that. 

[gentles]

5 hours ago, cardia10 said:

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.

 

I disagree fully with this. The MGS testing is misleading and implies way more precision than is actually there. The reason no one else does it is because its not possible to definitively declare a single iron the best without factoring in any custom fitting. No data is better than this data IMO

 

The differences in scores is so small - grip size, shaft model, length, lie angle, ball used, simulator calibration, how you're feeling that day, turf conditions all would have a bigger impact on performance than the difference between their best and worst models, but they dont control or account for any of that and just get guys pounding 15 shots with an off the rack club into a screen and calling it science. 

[gentles]

4 hours ago, KGrinols said:

Where's the logic in this conclusion?

 

Are you telling me, that if you tested the same 2 clubs back to back every day, month, year, you expect the same club to win, every single time, without fail?

 

If the same club finished in the same spot every year, you would all be here crying that it must be a pay off and there's no way the results could be the same every year.

 

No matter what the outcome is, the internet cries and will claim it's fake.

 

Real people, swung clubs, and they compiled the data.  That's it.  Not everything has to be a conspiracy theory.

 

Whether you believe that data is useful, is completely up to your interpretation.  But let's not pretend that the data is fake just because on any given day, any given golfer, with any given club, can have any given outcome.

 

We can't be on a forum where we all crowd source data from each other to form opinions, and then point to another website, that crowdsourced data for people to form opinions, and call it a crock of s***.

 

We see reliable sources get different results from the same club, all the time.  Any YouTuber who uses a bracket format, shows exactly how different sessions, different days, can have drastically different results.  And that's when you keep the same exact golfer.  Whereas I'm pretty sure MGS has a different group of people each year for their tests?  Don't quote me on that.  So maybe this year the handicap range was more biased one direction than the previous year.  Hell, ignore handicaps, what if this year's group of testors were (as a whole) 2 degrees steeper than last year's, favoring one club type over another?  Or they had more natural drawers, and that favored the TM more than the Ping, or heel vs toe strikes...

 

There are so many perfectly logical reasons why 2 clubs tested by 20 different people can have different results year to year.

 

You might as well call this forum a crock of s*** because the question you asked a year ago, got a different answer than the same question a different user asked yesterday.  Different people, sharing different answers, at a different time, doesn't mean it's all a lie.  Take the data for what it is, and put it into perspective.  It's not a big deal.

 

"There are so many perfectly logical reasons why 2 clubs tested by 20 different people can have different results year to year."

 

is exactly why people say MGS is a crock for trying to claim their results as in some way scientific or authoritative. Its not possible for all the reasons you can list, but instead of listing the limitations or caveats they get defensive, block people and delete comments 

[Fairways_and_Greens]

MGS’ test is pretty meh. Look at the i230, ZX7, T100, and P7MB between last year and this year. It’s all over the place. 
 

At least they’ve backed off the “we’re doing science” shtick. Science is based on reproducibility and repeatability. Clearly their method isn’t reproducible or repeatable. 

[Fairways_and_Greens]

Here is what they said about the P7MCs last year, lol. 
 

[Sep]

I’ve been out on MGS ever since they started pounding the table that a lightly scuffed ball goes 25 yards shorter than a fresh one. 
 

Only thing I’ve ever noticed with a fresh ball’s flight is its uncanny ability to find the damn hazards. 

[miasanmia88]

18 hours ago, KGrinols said:

Where's the logic in this conclusion?

 

Are you telling me, that if you tested the same 2 clubs back to back every day, month, year, you expect the same club to win, every single time, without fail?

 

If the same club finished in the same spot every year, you would all be here crying that it must be a pay off and there's no way the results could be the same every year.

 

No matter what the outcome is, the internet cries and will claim it's fake.

 

Real people, swung clubs, and they compiled the data.  That's it.  Not everything has to be a conspiracy theory.

 

Whether you believe that data is useful, is completely up to your interpretation.  But let's not pretend that the data is fake just because on any given day, any given golfer, with any given club, can have any given outcome.

 

We can't be on a forum where we all crowd source data from each other to form opinions, and then point to another website, that crowdsourced data for people to form opinions, and call it a crock of s***.

 

We see reliable sources get different results from the same club, all the time.  Any YouTuber who uses a bracket format, shows exactly how different sessions, different days, can have drastically different results.  And that's when you keep the same exact golfer.  Whereas I'm pretty sure MGS has a different group of people each year for their tests?  Don't quote me on that.  So maybe this year the handicap range was more biased one direction than the previous year.  Hell, ignore handicaps, what if this year's group of testors were (as a whole) 2 degrees steeper than last year's, favoring one club type over another?  Or they had more natural drawers, and that favored the TM more than the Ping, or heel vs toe strikes...

 

There are so many perfectly logical reasons why 2 clubs tested by 20 different people can have different results year to year.

 

You might as well call this forum a crock of s*** because the question you asked a year ago, got a different answer than the same question a different user asked yesterday.  Different people, sharing different answers, at a different time, doesn't mean it's all a lie.  Take the data for what it is, and put it into perspective.  It's not a big deal.

Your points are well taken, and my crock of s*** comment was an unproductive comment, and I will bite my tongue.

 

What irks me about MGS is they way they present the test results, like they are peer reviewed and definitive.... with click baity titles and over encompassing statements about "what is best". If they published an article stating, "here are the results of our test pool of X type golfers hitting X club" then sure ...

 

and more importantly, how are their "tests" actually helpful to consumers if their recommendations could waver that drastically from testing identical clubs?

 

Edited Friday at 02:47 PM by miasanmia88

[puttingmatt]

4 hours ago, Sep said:

I’ve been out on MGS ever since they started pounding the table that a lightly scuffed ball goes 25 yards shorter than a fresh one. 
 

Only thing I’ve ever noticed with a fresh ball’s flight is its uncanny ability to find the damn hazards. 

This is a spot on observation that speaks the truth about golfballs.

[nosil]

11 minutes ago, miasanmia88 said:

 

 

and more importantly, how are their "tests" actually helpful to consumers if their recommendations could waver that drastically from testing identical clubs?

 

the intent is to try and provide assistance to the golfer that walks into the store and buys off the rack or what last weeks PGA tour winner played; not people that understand golf equipment or leverages some type of fitting.  
 

They have stared the winners are those that worked best for the largest percentage of testers and that when buying clubs here are some that may provide the best results for the off the shelf consumer.  They also recommend fitting of some type to find the clubs that work best since the most wanted winner may not be best for you.   
 

based on the comments most people make, you can tell they don’t read the material, understand the rating scales, and just decide to bash the results based on their personal experience or their opinions.   It is simply information that as a consumer you can choose to use or ignore.   It could be considered similar to the list of best clubs based on what club fitters have fit most people into….if they don’t swing like me, those results are meaningless too.   

Edited Friday at 02:59 PM by nosil

[Ghostdunc27]

20 hours ago, cardia10 said:

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.

That’s a very fair point. But they do deserve some of the criticism. The amount of ads in any given article you click clearly shows where the priorities lie. 
 

If someone were to go through the cost and effort to accurately test I would happily pay a fee for the access. I would think there could be a decent market for it among fitters, etc. But I may be wrong about that. 

[gators78]

On 6/26/2024 at 5:04 PM, 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.

 

I mean this is it right there.

 

I actually think MGS is helpful on some of the objective metrics in their data sets, like if you want to see the lowest spinning driver across certain swing speeds, highest launch angles etc. The comparison across all (or most) available heads is helpful if you’re looking for a certain performance characteristic.

 

Your example highlights a major issue. They HAD to have discussed this internally on how some club could drop ~15% and another one picks up 10% year over year. Mizuno JPX 923 was first in 2023 but somehow finishes 10th overall in 2024? I get there are different testers, different conditions, and totally reasonable the results could vary a few positions, but such a wide shift is extremely weird. Conversely, the King Cobra Tours, Ping i230, and Srixon ZX7s were fairly similar. So…what happened. 

[Fairways_and_Greens]

6 minutes ago, gators78 said:

 

I mean this is it right there.

 

I actually think MGS is helpful on some of the objective metrics in their data sets, like if you want to see the lowest spinning driver across certain swing speeds, highest launch angles etc. The comparison across all (or most) available heads is helpful if you’re looking for a certain performance characteristic.

 

Your example highlights a major issue. They HAD to have discussed this internally on how some club could drop ~15% and another one picks up 10% year over year. Mizuno JPX 923 was first in 2023 but somehow finishes 10th overall in 2024? I get there are different testers, different conditions, and totally reasonable the results could vary a few positions, but such a wide shift is extremely weird. Conversely, the King Cobra Tours, Ping i230, and Srixon ZX7s were fairly similar. So…what happened. 

They went through the mental gymnastics of “you need a robot to test a ball, and a person to test a club”

 

judging by the by their he ball speeds, there are a ton of hacks in the test to add even more variance. 

[KGrinols]

15 hours ago, gentles said:

 

"There are so many perfectly logical reasons why 2 clubs tested by 20 different people can have different results year to year."

 

is exactly why people say MGS is a crock for trying to claim their results as in some way scientific or authoritative. Its not possible for all the reasons you can list, but instead of listing the limitations or caveats they get defensive, block people and delete comments 

 

In today's world, you have to identify and separate facts from opinions.  I don't know what MGS says about their stats, or what they claim them to be.  I don't need a journalist who gets paid by the word to tell me what their interpretation of the data is.

 

I value MGS because I value the data.  Not what some writer interprets from the data.  Not what some salesman has to say about the data, and not what a group of grown men crying about how they would do it differently.

 

I click, I go to the data, and I analyze whatever results I deem beneficial to my personal shopping/research at the time.  I don't care what got 1st 2nd 3rd.  I don't care what tom dick or harry said about how the color made them swing it better.

 

I care about the distance.  Forgiveness. And on course impact of playing the club.  The rest is all just noise.

 

I've been on the internet long enough to realize, no matter how well you think through and design a test, half the comment section will hate it and tell you why it's wrong.

 

So I definitely don't waste any time reading the comments sections of people who just want to complain.

 

1 hour ago, miasanmia88 said:

Your points are well taken, and my crock of s*** comment was an unproductive comment, and I will bite my tongue.

 

What irks me about MGS is they way they present the test results, like they are peer reviewed and definitive.... with click baity titles and over encompassing statements about "what is best". If they published an article stating, "here are the results of our test pool of X type golfers hitting X club" then sure ...

 

and more importantly, how are their "tests" actually helpful to consumers if their recommendations could waver that drastically from testing identical clubs?

 

 

As mentioned above, I guess I don't pay attention to the "presentation" or how they try to market their data.  In that regard, I have no support or defense of MGS.  Personally, I don't care how they present it, what they say about it, or how much click bait they use.

 

Is the test educational and beneficial to a person who wants to know which club (on average) goes further?  I think so.  Is the test educational and beneficial to a person who wants to know which club is more consistent?  I think so.

If you want to argue the real world application and accuracy of strokes gained vs standard deviation, or left/right dispersion vs shot area... I get it.  I think you are fully justified and that's a valid opinion to have.

 

For me... All clubs got tested up against the same criteria, so whether I fully agree with that criteria isn't extremely relevant.  Especially when the data is presented in a way, where I can completely ignore the aspects of data I don't feel are valuable.  They rank clubs, with data, in roughly 5 different ways I believe, right?  So skip the 'accuracy' ranking data if you disagree with shots gained.

 

Their tests are useful to the vast majority of golfers.  I know here on GolfWRX where everyone drives 300 yards with XFlex Shafts, and scratch or better golfers that you guys forget the reality of the golf course...  But the significant population of golfers in the world... Don't get fit.  They buy clubs off the rack.

 

So... You grab a pool of 20 golfers who range from 5 to 20 handicap, hand them 20 clubs to tests, and you see which clubs, were successful for the widest range of those players.

 

And we know that this is perfectly reasonable, because this is how manufacturers decide what shafts are their stock offerings.  "Well it's not perfect, but for about 80% of average Americans this staff will produce acceptable results".

 

You're just trying to hit the biggest market window you can.  We have to be realistic... Many of your complaints are valid... It's really not a great idea to base your buying purchase on the average of 50 people, of which only 5 probably swing like you.

But the same is true when I watch TXG videos.  Using Matt or Ian's swings to make club decisions for myself... Is absolutely useless, lol.  But I still value the data they present.  The same applies for most good YouTubers.  Their swings aren't similar to mine.

 

Getting an average of 20 people isn't beneficial to a golfer trying to identify what works best 'for a single golfer'.  Those people need to locate people with similar swings, or go get fit.

 

But for the average 30-40 year old, who wants to start playing golf, looking to find what the best starting place is... I think MGS hits that demographic really well.

 

Their tests aren't designed for WRXs who knows the ins and outs of club tech.  It's designed for guys like me, who 10 years ago just wanted to pick up the sport, just to spend time with my grandfather.  I wasn't going to get lessons, I wasn't going to get fit, I didn't know anything about anything... I found a test of 20 golfers, identified what the best performing club was 'on average' for the categories I needed to get started, I bought them, and started playing the game.

 

That's it.  Honestly it's no different than me making a thread on this forum. "Just starting golf, what are the most forgiving irons for a new player" and guess what, 20 different people, with 20 different answers.

 

That's just golf.  So why is a test with 20 people, any more or less relevant to that question, than 20 people sharing their personal experiences?  Realistically, the difference is the 20 guys in MGS tests, all actually hit 20 clubs, whereas very often around here, of the 20 responses you get on the thread, half of them are guys just posting what they use/own, who didn't have the time/opportunity to test the 19 other options.

 

That's nothing against WRX, it's just human nature.

We have to take the data with a grain of salt.  Just like you have to take the answers you get here with a grain of salt.  Perspective matters.  If MGS wants to sell it as gospel, that's on them.  I don't particularly care how they sell it, I only care about the numbers.  99% of the internet is click bait titles, with writing bias built in.  I've been conditioned to identify the data, and separate the opinion, to the best of my ability.  I still get wrapped up in hype machines from time to time, and marketing is so deep rooted into our world that it is extremely difficult to combat sometimes, but we try.

 

Enjoy your weekend!

Edited Friday at 04:04 PM by KGrinols

[jholz]

This information is utterly irrelevant for pretty much anyone. Makes good copy, but accomplishes nothing. 

 

It also helps if you throw a lot of "numbers" into the discussion. Helps it seem to be legit.

 

At the end of the day, find something you like and learn to hit it. Golf equipment has never changed anything of actual substance. 

[Carolina Golfer 2]

37 minutes ago, KGrinols said:

 

In today's world, you have to identify and separate facts from opinions.  I don't know what MGS says about their stats, or what they claim them to be.  I don't need a journalist who gets paid by the word to tell me what their interpretation of the data is.

 

I value MGS because I value the data.  Not what some writer interprets from the data.  Not what some salesman has to say about the data, and not what a group of grown men crying about how they would do it differently.

 

I click, I go to the data, and I analyze whatever results I deem beneficial to my personal shopping/research at the time.  I don't care what got 1st 2nd 3rd.  I don't care what tom dick or harry said about how the color made them swing it better.

 

I care about the distance.  Forgiveness. And on course impact of playing the club.  The rest is all just noise.

 

I've been on the internet long enough to realize, no matter how well you think through and design a test, half the comment section will hate it and tell you why it's wrong.

 

So I definitely don't waste any time reading the comments sections of people who just want to complain.

 

 

As mentioned above, I guess I don't pay attention to the "presentation" or how they try to market their data.  In that regard, I have no support or defense of MGS.  Personally, I don't care how they present it, what they say about it, or how much click bait they use.

 

Is the test educational and beneficial to a person who wants to know which club (on average) goes further?  I think so.  Is the test educational and beneficial to a person who wants to know which club is more consistent?  I think so.

If you want to argue the real world application and accuracy of strokes gained vs standard deviation, or left/right dispersion vs shot area... I get it.  I think you are fully justified and that's a valid opinion to have.

 

For me... All clubs got tested up against the same criteria, so whether I fully agree with that criteria isn't extremely relevant.  Especially when the data is presented in a way, where I can completely ignore the aspects of data I don't feel are valuable.  They rank clubs, with data, in roughly 5 different ways I believe, right?  So skip the 'accuracy' ranking data if you disagree with shots gained.

 

Their tests are useful to the vast majority of golfers.  I know here on GolfWRX where everyone drives 300 yards with XFlex Shafts, and scratch or better golfers that you guys forget the reality of the golf course...  But the significant population of golfers in the world... Don't get fit.  They buy clubs off the rack.

 

So... You grab a pool of 20 golfers who range from 5 to 20 handicap, hand them 20 clubs to tests, and you see which clubs, were successful for the widest range of those players.

 

And we know that this is perfectly reasonable, because this is how manufacturers decide what shafts are their stock offerings.  "Well it's not perfect, but for about 80% of average Americans this staff will produce acceptable results".

 

You're just trying to hit the biggest market window you can.  We have to be realistic... Many of your complaints are valid... It's really not a great idea to base your buying purchase on the average of 50 people, of which only 5 probably swing like you.

But the same is true when I watch TXG videos.  Using Matt or Ian's swings to make club decisions for myself... Is absolutely useless, lol.  But I still value the data they present.  The same applies for most good YouTubers.  Their swings aren't similar to mine.

 

Getting an average of 20 people isn't beneficial to a golfer trying to identify what works best 'for a single golfer'.  Those people need to locate people with similar swings, or go get fit.

 

But for the average 30-40 year old, who wants to start playing golf, looking to find what the best starting place is... I think MGS hits that demographic really well.

 

Their tests aren't designed for WRXs who knows the ins and outs of club tech.  It's designed for guys like me, who 10 years ago just wanted to pick up the sport, just to spend time with my grandfather.  I wasn't going to get lessons, I wasn't going to get fit, I didn't know anything about anything... I found a test of 20 golfers, identified what the best performing club was 'on average' for the categories I needed to get started, I bought them, and started playing the game.

 

That's it.  Honestly it's no different than me making a thread on this forum. "Just starting golf, what are the most forgiving irons for a new player" and guess what, 20 different people, with 20 different answers.

 

That's just golf.  So why is a test with 20 people, any more or less relevant to that question, than 20 people sharing their personal experiences?  Realistically, the difference is the 20 guys in MGS tests, all actually hit 20 clubs, whereas very often around here, of the 20 responses you get on the thread, half of them are guys just posting what they use/own, who didn't have the time/opportunity to test the 19 other options.

 

That's nothing against WRX, it's just human nature.

We have to take the data with a grain of salt.  Just like you have to take the answers you get here with a grain of salt.  Perspective matters.  If MGS wants to sell it as gospel, that's on them.  I don't particularly care how they sell it, I only care about the numbers.  99% of the internet is click bait titles, with writing bias built in.  I've been conditioned to identify the data, and separate the opinion, to the best of my ability.  I still get wrapped up in hype machines from time to time, and marketing is so deep rooted into our world that it is extremely difficult to combat sometimes, but we try.

 

Enjoy your weekend!

That was a longer read than the article itself 😉   J/k

 

But lots of good thoughts and comments. 

[Lobbing Iron]

MGS is annoying because they attribute a level of accuracy to their data that doesn't exist, they make meaning from noise.  If reminds me of Pro Football Focus, only worse.

[underwater]

I'll repeat what's been said here already;  the extreme variance year over year on the same iron models should simply not occur.  When I saw the i230, JPX 923, ZX7mkII, and P7MC place completely different than they placed last year, it voided the test altogether. There can be no excuse for this.

 

The MGS guys are all over the map.  Pitching wedge lack-of forgiveness on the i230?  How is this a thing?  What golfer in the "Player" classification misses the middle on a PW?  Let alone the largest PW in the test. "Our testers struggled to be consistent from a mat with an i230 PW."

 

 

 

 

 

Edited Saturday at 03:07 PM by underwater

[POKeefe]

I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but the timing is a bit… peculiar considering Taylormade is likely about to discontinue the P7MC for the P7CB. This would be an effective way to dump P7MC stock ahead of that.

[nosil]

3 hours ago, underwater said:

Pitching wedge lack-of forgiveness on the i230?  How is this a thing?  What golfer in the "Player" classification misses the middle on a PW? 

 

 

✋ I do and it causes a wide front to back dispersion pattern.  

[supdawgie]

Who cares about these tests. It’s all marketing and biased b.s.

Edited yesterday at 04:03 AM by supdawgie

[MiloMalt]

I don't believe anyone has explicitly said this yet as to why the data MGS has with these "player tested x" tests and why they are not good and why they differ so much each year with the exact same models is because they do not provide us any information as to each tester themselves.

 

Everyone has a different swing, skill level, age and body. In the data of these tests we do not know this information of the testers.

 

For a WRX'er that is somewhat knowledgeable on golf equipment, the data they provide is useless because we have an understanding of how different products are designed and what they "should" do. The testing does not really align with what each model should do and also doesn't align with the individuals on this forums who have tested those products.

 

For the masses of golfer that don't really know anything regarding equipment because they are new or don't care to invest time and interest, the data is also useless. What does this data show for the 6"6' ex college footballer in terms of products suited for them? what does it show for the 60 year old 2 handicap that has just had hip surgery? It shows nothing because the data is taking an average between those two testers and spitting out numbers that don't represent either. The more testers they include the more muddied the water gets.

 

One way to make their data actually useful to nearly everyone is to provide us information and data for each tester or 'similar group' of testers. Why would a 60 year old with movement issues want to know how an 18 year old hits a certain product and why would an 18 year old care to know how a product performs for a 60 year old with movement issues?

 

The potential data they have is great, but they are lacking key bits of information that allow the reader to dial in that data to get a better understanding of how the products 'might' perform for them personally based on sorting the data to show those with similar characteristics as them.

[Avidswampthing66]

I've gamed P7MC's and my goodness are they hard to please.  ZX7 are wayyyyyyy more forgiving.  I don't buy into their content and I'm not a fan of their almost snobbish slightly defensive approach to information.