Brooky03

The "jewelry grade" bit is throwing me off. That would speak to the looks of a club more than the performance. Kind of like how a $15 Casio will tell time more accurately than a $5,000 Rolex. Generally, you don't buy a Rolex because it tells time better than anything else. You buy it because you appreciate the craftmanship and/or want something that looks nice and will start a conversation. While I think Honma clubs have performed well, or well enough, over the years and that has been covered on MGS, they haven't had any breakthrough performance tech that I'm aware of. They're more or less in the same boat as the other manufacturers. As others have noted, they have a small footprint in the US and aren't a value play either. Aside from the big names in golf clubs, MGS tends to focus on performance and value.

More play = more ball marks. There does exist the possibility that the percentage of golfers who don't repair ball marks hasn't increased much, but the number of golfers playing has. Better irons for bad golfers could also contribute to more ball marks, total, repaired or unrepaired. Previously, bad golfers would hit irons lower, without a lot of spin. Those types of shots were less likely to make a ball mark when they landed. Irons have gotten much better at helping bad golfers hit shots much higher, with steeper descent angles. Those shots are going to be more likely to mark up the green. So, perhaps some golfers weren't apt to fix their ball marks but they weren't making many ball marks to begin with. Now, those golfers are no more likely to fix their ball marks, but they're making more ball marks.

Cleveland 588 3wood: released ~ 2014. Mine since 2016 Cleveland RTX- CB wedges: released ~2016. Mine since 2016 Adams Pro hybrid: released ~ 2014. Mine since 2021 Adams XTD Ti hybrid: release ~ 2014. Mine since 2021 Mizuno JPX-825 irons: released ~ 2013. Mine since 2022

If I was replacing clubs every few years with brand new clubs, I'd likely sell them or trade them in. The value at that point should be decent. I generally play the same clubs for a long time, though, and stick to used clubs when I upgrade. So, I lean toward handing them down to friends or family. Any club I replace will be old enough that there's practically no chance I'd put it back in play.

Occasionally, I'll play with some guys from work who play music. It doesn't bother me at all. It's never loud enough to be distracting. The times I've heard it from other groups on the course, the volume has always been respectful. You're really not going to be close enough to the group in front of you or behind you during a round to notice it, in my experience. You shouldn't be bumping into each other at the tee box or near the green. The only time I can think of where it would happen is waiting on the first hole to tee off and then maybe if you're playing adjacent holes and near each other somewhere in the middle of each. If you're at least 100yds apart, which you should be for 95% of a round, you shouldn't be able to hear the music. If you can, or it's more than a faint noise, then the music is too loud. On a side note, I like to listen to music or podcasts through earphones when I play solo rounds. Yeah, my chances of hearing somebody shout, "fore!" diminish, but I'm not too worried about it.

The greatest amount of energy that can/will go into the ball is when it's struck by the club. Anything it hits after that, even a concrete wall, can't/won't result in a greater transfer of energy. This is my understanding of physics, at least. So, no, I don't think hitting a tree could knock a ball out of round if hitting it with a club can't. My guess is a crack or scuff. Something caused by the roughness and hardness of the tree.

Water and a Snickers. Maybe a hotdog and soda at the turn. Or, depending on playing partner, a bunch of beers.

I haven't bothered to calculate my handicap and probably never will. So, it's just raw score for me.

Romanian deadlifts and hang cleans

It depends how far away my putt is.... lol. Generally, I'm lenient. Inside 3ft, probably.

I was referring to MGS staff testing. I had assumed OP wasn't talking about forum members getting their hands on clubs pre-release. That's just not something that can happen. If it can happen, refer to my other point about it being too late in the process for any feedback to change the club in any kind of way. There would be no tangible benefit over post-release reviews/testing. As for MGS getting clubs pre-release, you might've misunderstood what I was saying or I didn't say it clearly. Those were 'and' statements; meaning MGS couldn't get the clubs pre-release AND share them with the public. Yes, club reviewers get clubs before they're released. We all know that. They get the finalized clubs and can't share information with the public until the embargo date, which you mentioned. I was saying that there isn't an opportunity for MGS to get the club, share the club with the public/forum members, and give any kind of feedback the manufacturer can do anything with that would be any different than post-release.

MPF overvalues COG. The idea is that a low COG must be more playable than a high COG because it will help get the ball up in the air. It ignores other technologies in irons, especially these days, that necessitate a comparatively high COG because everything else the club is doing is designed to get the ball up in the air. If the COG was placed lower in some of those irons, even a weekend hacker would be putting shots up into the clouds. Like others have said, the actual measurements are useful. The MPF number is less useful.

There is a differentiation between MGS's testing and club reviews. It seems like you might be putting both in the same bucket. If you're referring to MGS's articles when a club is released, that is separate from their 'Most Wanted' testing. As for the pre-release stuff, I doubt there is any opportunity for MGS to; test a club before it hits the market, share that testing data with the public, and/or have the manufacturer do anything with that feedback before releasing the club. Any club early enough in development to allow for feedback to change the club design is not going to be made available for testing and public feedback. There's just no way a manufacturer could let that happen. Any club late enough in development to potentially allow for that is too far along in the process to be changed in any significant way (and has already undergone in-house testing). It would be the same kind of testing we see post-release, just a little sooner.

It matters in the context of knowing your carry distances and having them be consistent. But there could be a dozen different golf balls that perform, more or less, the same for you. If you grab some Callaway Supersofts from Target one round and then some Taylormade Speedsofts the next, it’s unlikely you’ll notice any difference. If you add some Srixon Soft Feel’s and some Maxfli Softfli’s to the mix, too, paint over the logos, jumble them all up and hit 48 shots, I’d bet money you wouldn’t be able to tell which was which or even that any are different. The same goes for balls typically branded as ‘fast’ or ‘feel,’ etc. On a simulator, they might have numbers that look different - like, ‘omg this one is 3 yards longer than the rest! - but you probably won’t notice it on the course. I’d suggest finding a TYPE of ball you like and not worrying about the exact brand/model too much… Unless you want to; then, do that.

This is somewhat like driving in the left lane on the highway. It doesn't really matter what the speed limit is (to an extent), if the car behind you is driving faster, you're expected to get over to the right lane when you can. The group behind you shouldn't have hit into your group, of course. That's terrible. As for the way the course handled the back nine, I'm slightly confused. The course told you to go out there ahead of the group(s) you were going to let play through? That's an odd choice, to say they least.

I live in NY and struggle to recall many summer days that have hit triple digits. I know that golf in the mid-high 90's is pretty close to as hot as I'm willing to bear, though, so I'll say 100+ is 'too hot.' That said, any kind of heat up here is almost always accompanied by high humidity. I'd imagine that number could go higher, for me, on a low humidity day. 105 in Arizona doesn't sound unappealing. 115 anywhere sounds terrible; I better be inside next to A/C or outside next to a pool. However, I wouldn't cancel a tee time due to heat. I just wouldn't schedule one. If I've committed to a tee time and my playing partners are game, I'm game. I'm young enough and somewhat fit enough that heat stroke or anything dangerous like that isn't really in play, just my enjoyment of the round.

Finger blisters from incorrect grip pressure, especially early in the season. Other than that, I've only aggravated injuries from something else, rather than actually injuring myself on the golf course.

For long hosel irons, CG is more towards the heel and also much higher than you'd want. In comparison, shorter hosels move CG down and toward the toe, but also free up mass to put where you want it without increasing the weight of the head.

My guess is that the longer hosels limited shaft breakage, especially with hickory shafts. They shortened over time because shafts got stronger, I'd assume the epoxies got better, and - most importantly - that much weight in the hosel is a tremendous waste of mass.

I'll go occasionally in the months when golf isn't possible (winter+); not enough to keep my swing in good shape. It's mostly a social thing for me. For somebody who goes to a simulator often in the offseason, I could see one thing about simulators that could mess with your swing on the course. It's the turf interaction on balls not hit from tees. Hitting on artificial surfaces is usually easier than grass. You can get away with slightly fatter strikes. Also, simulator feedback isn't perfect. That baby fade on the sim might've actually been a slice. If the feedback the computer is spitting out doesn't match what the ball actually did, you're not going to adjust accordingly.

Disclaimer: I'm no expert. I'm not close to an expert. I'm barely a novice when it comes to club building. That said, if dispersion is a problem, I'd imagine you'd want a stiffer tip. If you trim less off of the tip (so, leave it long), that would increase overall shaft flex (I think). Would it make more sense to buy a shaft that's on the soft side for you, do all/most of the trimming at the tip to make it stiffer and then extend the butt if you need to? I'm sure kick point and torque and other stuff comes into this that I'm not remotely qualified to assess. As for swingweight (again, I'm not well-versed), it seems like each half inch you add will add 3 points to swingweight. I don't think that whether that comes from the tip or the butt will matter much because I don't think there is a big difference between the weight of the tip and the butt, inch for inch. So, the only change to swingweight comes from the change in overall length/weight of the shaft. Assuming the tip is roughly 60% the diameter of the butt and the wall thickness is the same, 1 inch of shaft at the butt might weigh 3 grams when 1 inch at the tip might weigh 2 grams, roughly. So, depending on what you do, you're only moving around a gram or less of weight. I think, though, that shafts have thicker walls at the tip, so that would effectively negate the weight difference between the ends, inch for inch. It's maybe also worth mentioning that I'm slightly confused by the comments that you're making the irons a half inch longer each, but also that you're making a one-length set. Are you actually making a one-length set - that is also a half-inch longer than a typical one-length set - or are you making an otherwise normal, progressive length set, that's just a half inch longer across the board?

Essential: Towel (one dry towel is enough for me) Nice to have: Divot tool and first aid kit/athletic tape. In-between: Club brush and ball marker (depends on a few things. A tee works well enough 99% of the time for both). Some of the other stuff that has been listed I wouldn't consider golf accessories, like sunglasses and sunscreen. But yeah, you'd want those with you.

Gabby Golf Girl and Hailey Ostrom are really solid female golf channels that focus on golf, not looks.

I missed these if they were mentioned, but for YouTube Shorts (or TikTok or IG or whatever) St. Andre Golf is unmatched. Seriously creative and funny stuff. Mood Swings Golf is a good watch, too.

Good Good is my go-to. I used to watch equipment reviews a lot when I first got into Youtube golf. Rick Shiels, Mark Crossfield, Peter Finch. I've moved away from those guys as I've moved away from being interested in Youtube golf equipment reviews; they don't have what I'm looking for in terms of entertainment for the non-review stuff. I like some of Borgmeier's stuff. I've started getting into Bob Does Sports a bit more. Me and My Golf is my resource for swing tips. One channel that I've always enjoyed but it just never gained the traction it deserved is Fried Eggs Golf (NOT Fried Egg Golf). There is/was some genuinely interesting and creative content on there.