Best Player’s Irons 2024 Test Results

[Chopper Dave]

20 minutes ago, Avidswampthing66 said:

I don't buy into their content and I'm not a fan of their almost snobbish slightly defensive approach to information.  

This. As soon as someone else has findings or methods different to theirs they really do go out of their way to be jerks about it.
 

Best example was mgs vs golf_ball_guts.  Long short of it was MGS declare pro v1x best ball - almost perfect.  GBG cuts open said ball and finds poor quality from various batches and various plants.  MGS gets huffy and slam GBG’s cutting methods with a pvc pipe cutter is moving the core etc etc etc. Everyone that points out the MGS use the exact same cutter in their promotional material for their ball testing gets promptly blocked.

 

For those that don’t know GBG, he’s just a random guy on instagram that cuts open balls for fun and gives a few comments on what he sees inside the ball

[robbie91]

The Blueprint S get a 9.1 forgiveness score and I230 gets an 8.8. How are they calculating that? 

Edited Sunday at 04:38 AM by robbie91

[MiloMalt]

1 hour ago, robbie91 said:

The Blueprint S get a 9.1 forgiveness score and I230 gets an 8.8. How are they calculating that? 

"In total, our team spent more than 320 hours collecting and analyzing data from a test pool of 20 avid golfers just like you. To identify the best player’s irons, we considered a variety of distance, accuracy and forgiveness metrics. We looked at averages while also seeking to identify which player’s irons were among the very best for each of our testers...

 

For player’s irons, we have 20 testers. Since player’s irons are marketed to highly skilled or low-handicap golfers, our testing pool includes golfers who fall under this demographic. Due to the scale of this test, each tester committed to 16 appointments to complete the player’s iron test. All 20 testers hit the pitching wedge, 7-iron and 5-iron of each participating iron model. There were 19 iron models in total."

 

Specifically your forgiveness question

 

"Forgiveness

We label forgiveness as how consistent a player’s iron is at producing consistent shot outcomes. For our forgiveness category, we asses three specific metrics:

• Carry Distance Deltas – The difference between the longest and shortest carry distance for a given player’s iron.
• Ball Speed Deltas – The difference between the fastest and slowest ball speed for a given player’s iron.
• Backspin Deltas – The difference between the highest and lowest backspin for a given player’s iron.
• Dispersion – Previously called Shot Area, dispersion is a measurement (yards/squared) of the elliptical distribution of a series of golf shots."

[zap311]

At the end of the day, my problem with M G S is that they represent this data as completely reliable and statistically significant, when it is directional and qualitative (20 golfers out of 25M in the U.S.)
 

To build on the point that was made earlier, they are taking averages of results for the golfers in this test and I don’t believe they should portray the results of this sample of 20 golfers with quantified forgiveness ratings, etc.

 

I personally don’t put an ounce of faith in this test, but the reality is that their site attracts a lot of less knowledgeable golfers who are looking for guidance on equipment. For this reason, I feel the criticism shared here is justified. I am less concerned about the actual results of the test, but I take issue with how they represent their findings as conclusive results (which they are not) to those who don’t know better.

[coops]

On 6/28/2024 at 2:06 AM, 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.

 

 

They were mentioned above - the Cool Clubs testing.

Usually they'll test using two 'styles' of strike to give a good representation of a low handicap/pro club response to a more mid/high handicap strike... seems actually useful and interesting dispersion differences from the various strike points they cover over the face.

 

The Miura TC-201 is startling (I don't own or play Miura 😉 )

 

 

 

 

[jblough99]

3 hours ago, coops said:

 

 

They were mentioned above - the Cool Clubs testing.

Usually they'll test using two 'styles' of strike to give a good representation of a low handicap/pro club response to a more mid/high handicap strike... seems actually useful and interesting dispersion differences from the various strike points they cover over the face.

 

The Miura TC-201 is startling (I don't own or play Miura 😉 )

 

 

 

 

Cool clubs robot reviews are really the only thing I consider reliable/accurate testing in the golf world today.  They take out all the human variables and display the data in a meaningful yet simple way.  I also like the Maltby charts, not for the MPF rating, but just the raw data they provide.

[HeftyLefty5]

100% a cool clubs fan over all others!

[blades_are_life]

10 hours ago, robbie91 said:

The Blueprint S get a 9.1 forgiveness score and I230 gets an 8.8. How are they calculating that? 

tbh the Blueprint is absurdly forgiving for what (I always go back to the 200yd toe strike I got on the original Blueprint 4I) so its not impossible to believe

[Mobert19]

10 hours ago, coops said:

 

 

They were mentioned above - the Cool Clubs testing.

Usually they'll test using two 'styles' of strike to give a good representation of a low handicap/pro club response to a more mid/high handicap strike... seems actually useful and interesting dispersion differences from the various strike points they cover over the face.

 

The Miura TC-201 is startling (I don't own or play Miura 😉 )

 

 

 

 

now I want to try these, ugh

 

edit: they don't make them for LH thank goodness

Edited Sunday at 06:56 PM by Mobert19

[sociojeje]

14 hours ago, robbie91 said:

The Blueprint S get a 9.1 forgiveness score and I230 gets an 8.8. How are they calculating that? 

At least Maltby would agree with the statement (i230's vcog is super high and that of BPS is quite low for Ping). Regardless, I didn't feel i230 was particularly punishing for a shallow strike... 

[Pnwpingi210]

On 6/27/2024 at 1:49 PM, Kale_m said:

Playing apex cb right now and really like them.

 

had zx7mkii/zforgedii combo 

 

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

How would you say these compare to p7mc?  

[Kale_m]

12 hours ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

How would you say these compare to p7mc?  

Similar. Also played the 7mc all last year. Really enjoyed those as well. Apex cb feel Softer though 

[AusGolf22]

Have enjoyed some of the back and forth over the merits of these lists etc. in this thread to be honest. I do agree that Em Gee Ess can come off as a little holier than thou at times, but I still enjoy their stuff on a superficial level generally. 
 

Regarding this actual list - I recently got fitted into the Cobra Tours and these are beautiful irons indeed. Never been able to dial my carry numbers so quickly with a set of irons, they feel like little metronomes 

[mitchdoc]

Lots of points in this thread. I will say that I always look at articles like these regardless of what site they come from with a bit of skepticism.

 

I prefer to look less at their ratings and look more at the objective data that is often included. 

 

One of the problems is that we don't know how our swing compares to the specific testers of a given club. It could be that some of the testers who have a similar swing profile to ours in terms of speed loading of a shaft angle of attack etc did well with a certain club and that is what I would like to know as that data might pertain better to what works for me. 

 

Additionally as mentioned before these were clubs that were hit off of matts. It's possible that certain irons that would maybe not perform as well on grass to well on mats because they have little narrower soles and a sharper leading edge that perhaps allowed for a better contact off the mat then something that had perhaps a wider soul with more bounce.

 

So I will give a bit of a pass and look more at the individual data and see which irons launch and spin and have dispersion characteristics that make sense for me in general. 

 

All that being said there are a couple of things that seem strange to me. One of them was looking at the rankings of the apex pro versus the Cobra tour. The apex pro seem to be better than the Cobra Tour in all three categories yet was ranked lower in the overall section which made no sense.

[Jeff58]

Accuracy = Average deviation from target.

 

How calculated - An accuracy equation based on the ball’s final location. It doesn’t take into account how the ball arrived there, or the actual location. They are calling this “strokes gained”, which isn’t exactly correct. In order to be strokes gained, the target would need to be specific.
 

 

Forgiveness = Range of data.

 

How calculated - Per their explanation, this may be raw data, eg maximum spin shot - minimum spin shot, or a combination of the max-min with dispersion, which is effectively the standard deviation. If the latter is the case, it’s actually a fairly enlightened approach. What we see here is high forgiveness generally corresponds to low distance, which generally is the case. What we would generally want is both, with the ZX7 being a good example.

 

It’s unfortunate and as far as I can tell unnecessary for M G S employees to attack those who question and obfuscate their test and calculation methods. They don’t appear baseless and describing them isn’t rocket science.

[BigtimeHC]

+1 for the Cool Clubs fan bandwagon!

 

In summary, the MGS article looks cool and has lots of numbers. But your best bet is to.....GO GET FIT! 👍

[Pnwpingi210]

9 minutes ago, BigtimeHC said:

+1 for the Cool Clubs fan bandwagon!

 

In summary, the MGS article looks cool and has lots of numbers. But your best bet is to.....GO GET FIT! 👍

The 923 tour had a just plain nasty good dispersion on the cool clubs data

Edited Monday at 03:50 PM by Pnwpingi210

[cardia10]

If I swung like a perfect robot 100% of the time like the majority of golfers, I could buy into the cool clubs data more. Golf is built on averages, not perfection.

[grochol17]

1 hour ago, Jeff58 said:

Accuracy = Average deviation from target.

 

How calculated - An accuracy equation based on the ball’s final location. It doesn’t take into account how the ball arrived there, or the actual location. They are calling this “strokes gained”, which isn’t exactly correct. In order to be strokes gained, the target would need to be specific.
 

 

Forgiveness = Range of data.

 

How calculated - Per their explanation, this may be raw data, eg maximum spin shot - minimum spin shot, or a combination of the max-min with dispersion, which is effectively the standard deviation. If the latter is the case, it’s actually a fairly enlightened approach. What we see here is high forgiveness generally corresponds to low distance, which generally is the case. What we would generally want is both, with the ZX7 being a good example.

 

It’s unfortunate and as far as I can tell unnecessary for M G S employees to attack those who question and obfuscate their test and calculation methods. They don’t appear baseless and describing them isn’t rocket science.

 

In the context of irons, I really feel like these two categories should be one in the same.  The point of an iron shot is to hit a specific target as often as possible.  So, if an iron is forgiving (that is, having the smallest standard deviation on distance and dispersion) then it should also be the most accurate because it would also keep the ball closest to the target. 

 

On their website they say that accuracy is about hitting the ball close to your target.  For forgiveness they talk about a dispersion ellipse being part of the calculation, which is pretty much the same thing as accuracy in my mind.  The only way I can figure that these aren't the same thing is if MGS picked an arbitrary target that didn't reflect the average of how each individual hit the ball.  For example, if they defined accurate as 165y and dead straight with a 7i, but someone consistently hit the ball 160y with a 5y fade, then you would have a club that is considered forgiving because every shot flew the same without it being accurate because it missed the target.  In that case I'd say their definition of "accurate" is flawed because on course the golfer would account for their own average distance and shot shape and start knocking down flags with their forgiving iron, making them annoyingly accurate to any opponents.

[Jeff58]

 

1 hour ago, grochol17 said:

In the context of irons, I really feel like these two categories should be one in the same.

They agree with you. They just don’t communicate that at all well.  Their “Forgiveness” category would be more accurately called “Variation of impact characteristics on shot response”, but of course virtually no one would either understand that or attempt to apply what they’re presenting in a real world context. These characteristics do represent some of the effects of what we typically term Forgiveness, and again they likely believe that presenting some form of singular summary statistic (without telling you how they derived it) would be more useful to the average player.

[underwater]

On 6/29/2024 at 12:01 PM, nosil said:

 

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

 

Then you probably should get into a different club category rather than players irons.  The PING i230's are know to have the tightest front to back dispersion in all clubs throughout the set.  TXG/Club Champion found the PW that we are discussing, to have the smallest carry and total yds standard deviation of any club they have tested in the last few years.  In fact they concluded that aspect to be freaky.. The 4 irons had a 4 yard standard deviation!

 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 03:11 PM by underwater

[erock9174]

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.

To be fair, they often change their testing criteria and methods year over year.  So the same club could rank high one year and not the next is not impossible if you are now benchmarking it differently.  

[nosil]

1 hour ago, underwater said:

 

Then you probably should get into a different club category rather than players irons.  The PING i230's are know to have the tightest front to back dispersion in all clubs throughout the set.  TXG/Club Champion found the PW that we are discussing, to have the smallest carry and total yds standard deviation of any club they have tested in the last few years.  In fact they concluded that aspect to be freaky.. The 4 irons had a 4 yard standard deviation!

 

What if fitting has shown they are the best category for me?  I simply don’t always hit the center..  why should what TXG found be relevant to me?  

 

with the TXG test you have a specific standard deviation number, how far behind numbers wise was the i230 when compared to the other irons in the MGS test?  Maybe some of the testers didn’t hit the i230 very well because of the shaft or how it felt in their swing.   

[Pnwpingi210]

If the i230s fit you, they are so consistent in yardage and dispersion that’s it’s hard not to hit the same number over and over.  Swing softer and the ball comes out a little lower and with less spin than stock and carry’s the same.  Swing harder and it spins up and flys higher, but not farther. 

 

that being said the soles are pretty big for the category and I can see where that might not be great off from turf for all players.  Zx7 is another iron with unique soles and can create low point problems for some players.

 

P7mc,  jpx tour, blueprint s etc all have a little more universal sole for the masses.  Agreed they are more demanding, but probably a little more universal in design.

Edited 22 hours ago by Pnwpingi210

[MiloMalt]

8 hours ago, nosil said:

why should what TXG found be relevant to me?  

It shouldn't unless you have similarities to Ian or whoever was hitting these in their testing. Which is exactly the issue I have with MGS testing.

 

Outside of testing yourself the most relevant data is from someone who is most similar to you which still could be very different to what actually works for you.

[nosil]

7 minutes ago, MiloMalt said:

It shouldn't unless you have similarities to Ian or whoever was hitting these in their testing. Which is exactly the issue I have with MGS testing.

 

Outside of testing yourself the most relevant data is from someone who is most similar to you which still could be very different to what actually works for you.

 

 

Basically my point.    With this response you are essentially saying the MGS test is no worse than the TXG, cool clubs, WRX, or any other place that tests clubs.  As you mention you need to actually hit the clubs to see what works for you; unfortunately the majority of golfers don't do this they just walk in and buy off the rack.  At least with the MGS test they are testing across a pool of testers and attempt to present what works for a variety of swing types.  

[MiloMalt]

11 minutes ago, nosil said:

 

 

Basically my point.    With this response you are essentially saying the MGS test is no worse than the TXG, cool clubs, WRX, or any other place that tests clubs.  As you mention you need to actually hit the clubs to see what works for you; unfortunately the majority of golfers don't do this they just walk in and buy off the rack.  At least with the MGS test they are testing across a pool of testers and attempt to present what works for a variety of swing types.  

Not quite. I am saying any test in which we know who is testing is better than tests where we do not know who is testing. If I feel I am exactly the same as Rick Shiels in body type, swing characteristics the way I deliver the club etc. then his tests are better for me than watching Paige Spiranic test clubs. Now how a club performs and feels for Rick may be different to me so it is more likely to be better data than vs Paige but truly I would still need to test myself to confirm for myself.

 

My issue with MGS is we do not know the testers and they are averaging them all out so I cannot filter the data to suit myself and I feel it is actually worse because of that.

 

The MGS data would be superb if we had info on each tester and was able to filter by individual so I can filter out all of the testers that have no similarities to myself.

 

 

[nosil]

6 minutes ago, MiloMalt said:

Not quite. I am saying any test in which we know who is testing is better than tests where we do not know who is testing.

 

 

 

 And I feel the opposite way;  I prefer seeing numbers across a variety of players since it gives me an idea of what works across a variety of player types.  

[Carolina Golfer 2]

5 minutes ago, MiloMalt said:

Not quite. I am saying any test in which we know who is testing is better than tests where we do not know who is testing. If I feel I am exactly the same as Rick Shiels in body type, swing characteristics the way I deliver the club etc. then his tests are better for me than watching Paige Spiranic test clubs. Now how a club performs and feels for Rick may be different to me so it is more likely to be better data than vs Paige but truly I would still need to test myself to confirm for myself.

 

My issue with MGS is we do not know the testers and they are averaging them all out so I cannot filter the data to suit myself and I feel it is actually worse because of that.

 

The MGS data would be superb if we had info on each tester and was able to filter by individual so I can filter out all of the testers that have no similarities to myself.

 

 

My understanding is the test results aren’t to show any specific tyoe of player whats best for him/her but what club performed best for the largest percentage of testers

 

So it can be w starting point for someone going into a big box store and choosing off the rack, which is still the way most clubs sre purchased. 

[MiloMalt]

Just now, nosil said:

 

 And I feel the opposite way;  I prefer seeing numbers across a variety of players since it gives me an idea of what works across a variety of player types.  

But you are not a variety of player types. You are yourself.