2020 Official Member Review: Sub 70 699 Pro irons

[GolfSpy MPR]

2 minutes ago, Thin2win said:

What about these is the improvement over the G700's that you would rather game them? 

A couple things:

• I prefer the size and shape. The G700s are very, very large and feature quite a lot of offset. These a simply better looking, in my opinion.
• Practically, the smaller head (especially heel-to-toe) is not as difficult to hit from the rough. This was one of my complaints with the G700; it has a lot of face area, and seems to struggle to rip through taller grass.
• The sound is much better. At best, the G700s have a loud crack at impact. The 699 Pros have a much more solid, muted sound.

There is a point that, if the goal is a lower score, the objective performance numbers have to trump everything else. But as I said, all else being equal, I like the 699 Pros more.

[revkev]

A couple things:

• I prefer the size and shape. The G700s are very, very large and feature quite a lot of offset. These a simply better looking, in my opinion.
• Practically, the smaller head (especially heel-to-toe) is not as difficult to hit from the rough. This was one of my complaints with the G700; it has a lot of face area, and seems to struggle to rip through taller grass.
• The sound is much better. At best, the G700s have a loud crack at impact. The 699 Pros have a much more solid, muted sound.

There is a point that, if the goal is a lower score, the objective performance numbers have to trump everything else. But as I said, all else being equal, I like the 699 Pros more.

I play in a regular 4 sone with a guy who games G700’s. I hate the sound. In fact they always sound like he’s hitting a hybrid IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[fixyurdivot]

20 hours ago, GolfSpy MPR said:

A couple things:

• I prefer the size and shape. The G700s are very, very large and feature quite a lot of offset. These a simply better looking, in my opinion.
• Practically, the smaller head (especially heel-to-toe) is not as difficult to hit from the rough. This was one of my complaints with the G700; it has a lot of face area, and seems to struggle to rip through taller grass.
• The sound is much better. At best, the G700s have a loud crack at impact. The 699 Pros have a much more solid, muted sound.

There is a point that, if the goal is a lower score, the objective performance numbers have to trump everything else. But as I said, all else being equal, I like the 699 Pros more.

Great candid feedback.  I think most all of us are guilty (perhaps a poor description) of allowing vanity drive what should be the absolute measure... ball flight data and scoring.  I'll bet there are a lot of sticks being bagged that are hindering player performance.  I'm really interested in a PD category iron but heck, who knows, perhaps I should test the G700's?

[Tom the Golf Nut]

9 hours ago, fixyurdivot said:

Great candid feedback.  I think most all of us are guilty (perhaps a poor description) of allowing vanity drive what should be the absolute measure... ball flight data and scoring.  I'll bet there are a lot of sticks being bagged that are hindering player performance.  I'm really interested in a PD category iron but heck, who knows, perhaps I should test the G700's?

At this point in my testing, I agree with the potential of clubs hindering player performance.  I always played the game improvement irons until now. I was always content with a mid to high single digit handicap using those irons. But now after seeing the results from the player distance clubs (699 Pros) I'm singing a different tune.  I started off this season at a 3.5 only because I started off well. Last year at this time I was a 4.3  As of this week a 1.3. The only difference has been the change in irons. If my darn hybrid would cooperate it could be better. I pulled the Cobra from the bag last Sunday and I put in a Mizuno JPX Fli-Hi that I won in a tournament. Let's see how that goes tomorrow. To move that much in a short time I wouldn't have thought possible. I really think it is due to the clubs having less offset which helps me in the set up and getting a better ball flight.

[fixyurdivot]

4 minutes ago, Tom the Golf Nut said:

At this point in my testing, I agree with the potential of clubs hindering player performance.  I always played the game improvement irons until now. I was always content with a mid to high single digit handicap using those irons. But now after seeing the results from the player distance clubs (699 Pros) I'm singing a different tune.  I started off this season at a 3.5 only because I started off well. Last year at this time I was a 4.3  As of this week a 1.3. The only difference has been the change in irons. If my darn hybrid would cooperate it could be better. I pulled the Cobra from the bag last Sunday and I put in a Mizuno JPX Fli-Hi that I won in a tournament. Let's see how that goes tomorrow. To move that much in a short time I wouldn't have thought possible. I really think it is due to the clubs having less offset which helps me in the set up and getting a better ball flight.

Would you characterize your ball strike zone as consistent and largely centroid?  I think that is the key measure/difference in being able to successfully use PD and certainly player category irons.  I test hit Blueprints at the same demo I hit I201's and i500's.  I hit them great... every third shot. Short of some divine intervention be it other worldly or a huge investment in time and money with a teaching pro, I have no illusions of ever bagging players irons.  I think the PD category may offer some help, but I'm going to me really deliberate in making that decision.

[Tom the Golf Nut]

3 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

Would you characterize your ball strike zone as consistent and largely centroid?  I think that is the key measure/difference in being able to successfully use PD and certainly player category irons.  I test hit Blueprints at the same demo I hit I201's and i500's.  I hit them great... every third shot. Short of some divine intervention be it other worldly or a huge investment in time and money with a teaching pro, I have no illusions of ever bagging players irons.  I think the PD category may offer some help, but I'm going to me really deliberate in making that decision.

I would say yes I'm pretty consistent in hitting the center of the club face. If I were to guess I'd say between 90 and 95 percent of the time center club face. My miss would be toward the toe. These toe shots have still been very straight just come up short by about a club.  Front pin locations and a toe hit aren't a good combination if there is a bunker in the way. 

[fixyurdivot]

34 minutes ago, Tom the Golf Nut said:

I would say yes I'm pretty consistent in hitting the center of the club face. If I were to guess I'd say between 90 and 95 percent of the time center club face. My miss would be toward the toe. These toe shots have still been very straight just come up short by about a club.  Front pin locations and a toe hit aren't a good combination if there is a bunker in the way. 

That's what I would expect from low single digit players.  It would be fun to have a launch monitor system to play with and see just how consistent I am through the bag.  Just basing on between shots and post round club cleaning, I hit the center pretty consistently.  I just purchased some foot spray to see my driver, 3w and 5w strikes.  Kind of interested in whether the shorter shaft length on the driver many are praising will be a benefit for me as well.

[Smellis745]

I’ll finally get some actual launch monitor data on 9/4.  Unfortunately, it’s the earliest I could get in that fits with my work schedule.

[Tom the Golf Nut]

I focused today on hitting out of the rough to see if I would get any fliers as Smellis745 noted. I also practiced chipping from out of the rough and from the fringe. I tried to hit my driver toward the edge of the fairways looking to get a hop or roll into the rough. I was pretty successful with leaving many  just off the fairway. I had enough to get a good sampling and then did more testing from the side of the driving range and from our chipping practice area. 

The AW, PW, 9 and 8 irons performed the same with no fliers out of the rough and stopped pretty well on the green. My first attempt was with the AW and I left the ball 8 inches from the hole. The others were within 8 to 10 feet so the putts were makeable. The 7 and 6 irons did not cooperate as well with the majority going long with a lower trajectory than normal with additional roll out. I would expect this out of the rough though. I also want to note that the grass still had morning dew. 

I did not have any toe hits today I attached a photo of my general strike locations on the 7, 6, and 5 iron. For the chipping I use the AW I chipped from the fringe and from the rough from about 30 feet from the pin. The photo below was a combination of both locations with all shots easily a one putt from the flag. Obviously I did get more roll out of the rough but easily adjusted for this.

With playing at least 50% of the time out of the rough today I still scored well. One bogey and two birdies for a 70.  All in all I think that the testing went very well. I will have to work harder on the 6 and 7 iron from the rough to get a better handle on what to expect.  

[Tom the Golf Nut]

PS: I do clean my clubs after every shot. I left this on for strike location identification. It was killing me. Also note that once you wipe off these clubs you can not see the strike locations. Seems to be very good in comparison to what I see from the photos of the black finish. I think if they could make these clubs in black with the exception of the grooved strike area being the satin finish that might look real good.

[GolfSpy MPR]

This'll be fun: looks like the guys at TXG are going to be giving their opinions on the Sub 70 line, including the 699 Pro:

EDIT: YouTube link is already up. Watching it now:

 

[Smellis745]

I don't have a lot else to update at this point.  Is there anything else anyone would like to know?

[ncwoz]

1 minute ago, Smellis745 said:

I don't have a lot else to update at this point.  Is there anything else anyone would like to know?

Have you had any overcooked "jumper"-like shots that you've felt like went a lot further than you were expecting? Maybe an overcooked draw that got overcooked? Or have they been pretty consistent for you so far?

[Vegan_Golfer_PNW]

2 hours ago, GolfSpy MPR said:

This'll be fun: looks like the guys at TXG are going to be giving their opinions on the Sub 70 line, including the 699 Pro:

EDIT: YouTube link is already up. Watching it now:

 

Yes!!! i have been waiting for them to do a video on these!

[xOldBenKenobiX]

On 7/24/2020 at 12:59 PM, GolfSpy MPR said:

Let me kick things off here. First, I'm really excited about this test for reasons over and above the cool feeling of getting new clubs. Jason Hiland, the founder of @GolfSub70, has been part of my golfing life nearly since I really got sucked into the game 8 or so years ago.

I've always been in the "not rich guy playing a rich guys' sport" end of things, and so I was delighted to find one of Jason's earlier companies, Diamond Tour Golf. They make a variety of clone clubs, and I've built multiple sets from them for a fraction of the cost of the big OEMs. Diamond Tour not only sucked me deeper into playing golf, but into the joys of tinkering and club work. And they still provide what might be the best bargain in junior golf: I basically build Kirke a custom set of their junior clubs each year.

So for me, testing Sub 70 is like coming back to an old friend, even though Sub 70 is a relatively new company. For me, they start with a leg up: I know firsthand that Jason is capable of putting out quality components that don't have the same costs as the big OEMs.

_______________________

Some about me stuff: I've written a lot of this in other threads here, so I'll keep this short. I'm a perfectly mediocre golfer. Driver swing speed in the mid-to-upper 90s. Handicap (as of this morning) around 11. I make lots of bogeys, a few pars, and that summarizes most of my rounds.

As of now, my short game and putting have continued to get better and better; that is now the strength of my game. The biggest weakness is driving. In between is my approach play. I tend to hit my irons well, but on my home course, that's not enough: the greens are exceedingly tiny, and so increasing my GIRs has been a struggle for me.

_______________________

Why I'm interested in this test: my PING G700s and I have had a nice run. But a few months ago, I listened to a podcast with one of PING's engineers, and he was talking about the effects of blade length on player consistency. Check out an excerpt from that here:

Fascinating, no?

Considering that those are my irons he's holding as examples of the biggest irons, I really wanted to see if I might see some improvements in my game going back to a smaller iron.

But...who wants to give up the distance gains of an iron like the G700s? Enter the players-distance category iron! In this category, we have irons like some of the PXG flagships, the PING i500s, and the TaylorMade P790. Generally compact heads, most often hollow and then filled with some substance to make them sound less offensive. These seemed right in the sweet spot of what I would desire most. Except the price: yikes! Not even counting PXG doing PXG things, the price of this kind of manufacturing is almost certainly higher than a standard iron.

So the idea of Sub 70, a company that I already have a soft spot for, putting out an iron in the class of irons that I'm interested in: yep, count me in.

So what do I want to see with this test?

• How much distance drop-off is there going from an SGI iron like the G700 to the 699 Pro?
• Is there a compensating increase in control, both laterally and in consistent distance?
• I'm at the higher end of the recommended handicap for these irons: are they too much for me?
• And bottom line: are these going to help me with my long-running quest to break into a single-figure handicap?

Very nice

[Tom the Golf Nut]

2 hours ago, ncwoz said:

Have you had any overcooked "jumper"-like shots that you've felt like went a lot further than you were expecting? Maybe an overcooked draw that got overcooked? Or have they been pretty consistent for you so far?

From my perspective it is easy to overcook a draw. I set up from the fairway with an 8 iron and drew it into the green and was flag hunting without any issues. The issue came when I did the same thing out of the rough with a 7 or 8 iron. The ball seemed to draw more and went further. Still very playable for a chip and putt. It just did more than I was expecting it to do. 

[Smellis745]

4 hours ago, ncwoz said:

Have you had any overcooked "jumper"-like shots that you've felt like went a lot further than you were expecting? Maybe an overcooked draw that got overcooked? Or have they been pretty consistent for you so far?

I've had some fliers out of the rough, especially in the longer irons and a couple with a short iron in hand.  Even when clubbing down because I'm expecting a flier, the ball still went further than expected.  I've also had one shot in particular where I had an uphill approach from the rough that was in the mid 190s.  That is normally a solid 6.  I hit the ball and made good contact, but the ball didn't get 30-40' in the air, flew 170ish, but rolled 25 yards past the pin.  I'm going in for an iron gapping next week so I'm interested to see if this can be replicated at all there.

 

I'm not one to hit many draws anyhow as most of the time mine turn to hooks.

[Smellis745]

To add to my above comment, I think these irons are just lower spinning, at least for me.  I'll have some validated numbers this Saturday.  Had an opening come up and changed to then from next Wednesday.

[Tom the Golf Nut]

It was nice to see TXG have good results and positive comments. Kind of validated what I have been seeing. Just wish I could hit as far as they do!

[MattF]

7 hours ago, Tom the Golf Nut said:

Just wish I could hit as far as they do!

Me too. 200+ with a 7 iron!

[Tom the Golf Nut]

Got another 18 in today and the clubs are still performing well. Or should I say we are performing well together. My pattern is the same. Very consistent scoring since they went in the bag.  If you want to call it boring golf its OK with me. Drives in the fairway  12 out of 14 .  On the green and 2 putt for the most part. Two one putts for birdies. Three short of the green with good chips and one putts, one sand save. One of the chips was from  my hybrid coming up short. One was trying to be like the guys from  TXG , yup I knew I couldn't hit it 200 yards but I think I can hit my 7 iron 180 yards. Not the case,  came up 10 yards short. I normally hit it 160. 

35 on the front and 34 on the back for a 69.  

Probably going to get another round in tomorrow morning. 

[Megah1tz]

On 8/11/2020 at 8:33 PM, TBT said:

 

MPR I know you said originally that you were on the high side of the handicap range for these irons....how do you feel these will play for a higher handicap player?

I’m playing to a 16-17 at this point but these really have me intrigued.

A few years ago I played a set of Bridgestone J40 DPC’s which I think lean more towards players irons than GI irons.

I’m so close to pulling the trigger on these!


Sent from my iPad using MyGolfSpy

 

I was a 19.7 when I ordered my 699 Pro's and currently down to 17.2 (dropping quickly) and the reason I'm dropping quickly is because these irons are both predictable and forgiving! Predictable in that they want to go high and straight... yes, I can turn one over left (normal for me) but I have to get "handsy" and forgiving in that shots out towards the toe are not losing huge amounts of distance nor going offline! The suggested handicap for the 699 Pro's is 3-13 (of which I'm not) but it's just making the assumption that players in that range "tend" to strike the ball better... I am/was a 19 because I duck hook off the tee into trouble, couldn't control the draw on my old irons, short game is a nightmare because I'm frazzled by the time I have to use it (working on refining it), and putting is very hit miss (grainy greens or slow ones kill me). I say all this because if your ball striking is reasonably sound, there should not be much concern but only under the assumption you don't need help getting the ball airborne (the reason there is offset on irons and more so with game improvement ones - use the 699's for that)!

[Smellis745]

I was able to get on the Trackman Saturday and here are the average numbers...

Srixon Z965 - KBS Tour 130X

Club / CHS / Ball Speed / Launch / Spin (rpm) / Height (feet) / Carry (yds)

5 iron / 96 / 138.3 / 11.9 / 4787 (deviation 55 rpm across 5 shots) / 96' / 206.5

7 iron / 94 / 132.3 / 18.4 / 6139 (deviation 64 rpm across 5 shots) / 126' / 183.1

9 iron / 90.5 / 115.9 / 23.2 / 7401 (deviation 90 rpm across 5 shots) / 116' / 155.6

PW / 88.3 / 107.9 / 24.6 / 8135 (deviation 113 rpm across 5 shots) / 105' / 141.2

 

Sub 70 699 Pro - KBS Tour 130X

Club / CHS / Ball Speed / Launch / Spin / Carry

5 iron / 98.1 / 137.8 / 9.5 / 4879 (deviation 257 rpm across 5 shots) / 76' / 203.1

7 iron / 95.3 / 125.5 / 13.9 / 6149 (deviation 909 rpm across 5 shots) / 87' / 178

9 iron / 90.3 / 104.8 / 22.3 / 8325 (deviation 48 rpm across 5 shots) / 88' / 137.7

PW / 90.4 / 102 / 23.7 / 8507 (deviation 578 rpm across 5 shots) / 88' / 133

 

So a few disclaimers, it wasn't my best of swinging days, it was miserably hot and humid, but the biggest things I noticed are:

A) The Srixon Z965 irons are definitely more consistent in spin and carry distances.  These irons launch higher, are actually longer, and I hit the center of the face much more consistently.

B) The Sub 70 699 Pro irons are definitely more consistent in flight windows.  The peak heights were very consistent across the board, yet these launch lower.  This is mostly due to my attack angle being steeper with these for some reason.  My AoA was almost 2.5 degrees steeper with these clubs which is interesting in itself.  With the 7 iron that spun much less than average, it carried 12 yards longer.  I did see a 9 yard hot shot with the lowest spinning PW shot as well.   

 

I was hitting off a mat on grass but these numbers don't seem to match up with what I've seen on the course with the 699 Pros.  On the course, they have been about a 1/2 to 3/4 club longer, launch higher, and spin less.  It's an interesting comparison in a static environment though, but shows the importance of hitting clubs on real turf and getting fitted there if possible.

[Tom the Golf Nut]

On 8/31/2020 at 12:14 PM, Smellis745 said:

I was able to get on the Trackman Saturday and here are the average numbers...

Srixon Z965 - KBS Tour 130X

Club / CHS / Ball Speed / Launch / Spin (rpm) / Height (feet) / Carry (yds)

5 iron / 96 / 138.3 / 11.9 / 4787 (deviation 55 rpm across 5 shots) / 96' / 206.5

7 iron / 94 / 132.3 / 18.4 / 6139 (deviation 64 rpm across 5 shots) / 126' / 183.1

9 iron / 90.5 / 115.9 / 23.2 / 7401 (deviation 90 rpm across 5 shots) / 116' / 155.6

PW / 88.3 / 107.9 / 24.6 / 8135 (deviation 113 rpm across 5 shots) / 105' / 141.2

 

Sub 70 699 Pro - KBS Tour 130X

Club / CHS / Ball Speed / Launch / Spin / Carry

5 iron / 98.1 / 137.8 / 9.5 / 4879 (deviation 257 rpm across 5 shots) / 76' / 203.1

7 iron / 95.3 / 125.5 / 13.9 / 6149 (deviation 909 rpm across 5 shots) / 87' / 178

9 iron / 90.3 / 104.8 / 22.3 / 8325 (deviation 48 rpm across 5 shots) / 88' / 137.7

PW / 90.4 / 102 / 23.7 / 8507 (deviation 578 rpm across 5 shots) / 88' / 133

 

So a few disclaimers, it wasn't my best of swinging days, it was miserably hot and humid, but the biggest things I noticed are:

A) The Srixon Z965 irons are definitely more consistent in spin and carry distances.  These irons launch higher, are actually longer, and I hit the center of the face much more consistently.

B) The Sub 70 699 Pro irons are definitely more consistent in flight windows.  The peak heights were very consistent across the board, yet these launch lower.  This is mostly due to my attack angle being steeper with these for some reason.  My AoA was almost 2.5 degrees steeper with these clubs which is interesting in itself.  With the 7 iron that spun much less than average, it carried 12 yards longer.  I did see a 9 yard hot shot with the lowest spinning PW shot as well.   

 

I was hitting off a mat on grass but these numbers don't seem to match up with what I've seen on the course with the 699 Pros.  On the course, they have been about a 1/2 to 3/4 club longer, launch higher, and spin less.  It's an interesting comparison in a static environment though, but shows the importance of hitting clubs on real turf and getting fitted there if possible.

Very interesting. I used my Mevo for side by side testing before I ever went to the range or the course. Since the lofts were the same between sets and the data showed the same I wasn't all that excited. The range and the course showed something completely different.  So I just dropped the data collection and reported actual playing characteristics. So again it is interesting to see you experienced differences between data and actual on course performance as well. 

[GolfSpy MPR]

Haven't checked in here in a bit; the last couple of weeks have involved a chunk of traveling and a little less playing. But I got out for a nine hole round this afternoon, and also decided to take a quick look at where things stand with my on-course performance with the 699 Pros.

I'm using the old Arccos system numbers here, because it's easier to use the web dashboard rather than the app when compared date ranges. I'm finding that in the new system, my overall handicap is slightly higher and my approach handicap is somewhat lower. But the numbers here should just be compared relatively.

Here's my overall handicap for this season before getting the 699 Pros, when I had the PING G700s in my bag:

And here's the rounds since I got the 699 Pros:

As I said in an earlier post, all else being equal, I'd rather have the 699s in my bag than the G700s. They're a pleasure to hit and they look great. That topline number suggests that perhaps all else is about equal.

But let's dig a level deeper and check the shot dispersion patterns before and after. Here's the before (limited to yardages that I'm likely to use my 5-PW):

And here's the rounds with the 699 Pros:

So there's an incremental gain in GIRs. Still nothing good there, but an increase is better than the alternative. What I'm more impressed by is the 8% drop in approaches short of the green, with those misses either hitting the green (2% more) or missing left and right, but still the correct distance (6% more).

I'm not quite sure why that wouldn't translate into a better overall approach handicap in Arccos, but that seems like a small but genuine improvement. At this point in my testing, the 699 Pros have won the subjective contest in a landslide, and they're beginning to pull ahead in the objective, statistical categories as well.

EDIT: I'll add here one picture from the new app. It shows my Strokes Gained: Approach trend line for my past 25 rounds. I think there is noticable improvement here as well.

[THEZIPR23]

3 hours ago, GolfSpy MPR said:

Haven't checked in here in a bit; the last couple of weeks have involved a chunk of traveling and a little less playing. But I got out for a nine hole round this afternoon, and also decided to take a quick look at where things stand with my on-course performance with the 699 Pros.

I'm using the old Arccos system numbers here, because it's easier to use the web dashboard rather than the app when compared date ranges. I'm finding that in the new system, my overall handicap is slightly higher and my approach handicap is somewhat lower. But the numbers here should just be compared relatively.

Here's my overall handicap for this season before getting the 699 Pros, when I had the PING G700s in my bag:

And here's the rounds since I got the 699 Pros:

As I said in an earlier post, all else being equal, I'd rather have the 699s in my bag than the G700s. They're a pleasure to hit and they look great. That topline number suggests that perhaps all else is about equal.

But let's dig a level deeper and check the shot dispersion patterns before and after. Here's the before (limited to yardages that I'm likely to use my 5-PW):

And here's the rounds with the 699 Pros:

So there's an incremental gain in GIRs. Still nothing good there, but an increase is better than the alternative. What I'm more impressed by is the 8% drop in approaches short of the green, with those misses either hitting the green (2% more) or missing left and right, but still the correct distance (6% more).

I'm not quite sure why that wouldn't translate into a better overall approach handicap in Arccos, but that seems like a small but genuine improvement. At this point in my testing, the 699 Pros have won the subjective contest in a landslide, and they're beginning to pull ahead in the objective, statistical categories as well.

EDIT: I'll add here one picture from the new app. It shows my Strokes Gained: Approach trend line for my past 25 rounds. I think there is noticable improvement here as well.

Your percentage of approaches that go long is admirable. I play a course that 17 of 18 holes long = bogey and I still am at 5% long. 

The SG over the last 25 is an awesome trend. 

[golfingbrock]

18 hours ago, GolfSpy MPR said:

Haven't checked in here in a bit; the last couple of weeks have involved a chunk of traveling and a little less playing. But I got out for a nine hole round this afternoon, and also decided to take a quick look at where things stand with my on-course performance with the 699 Pros.

I'm using the old Arccos system numbers here, because it's easier to use the web dashboard rather than the app when compared date ranges. I'm finding that in the new system, my overall handicap is slightly higher and my approach handicap is somewhat lower. But the numbers here should just be compared relatively.

Here's my overall handicap for this season before getting the 699 Pros, when I had the PING G700s in my bag:

And here's the rounds since I got the 699 Pros:

As I said in an earlier post, all else being equal, I'd rather have the 699s in my bag than the G700s. They're a pleasure to hit and they look great. That topline number suggests that perhaps all else is about equal.

But let's dig a level deeper and check the shot dispersion patterns before and after. Here's the before (limited to yardages that I'm likely to use my 5-PW):

And here's the rounds with the 699 Pros:

So there's an incremental gain in GIRs. Still nothing good there, but an increase is better than the alternative. What I'm more impressed by is the 8% drop in approaches short of the green, with those misses either hitting the green (2% more) or missing left and right, but still the correct distance (6% more).

I'm not quite sure why that wouldn't translate into a better overall approach handicap in Arccos, but that seems like a small but genuine improvement. At this point in my testing, the 699 Pros have won the subjective contest in a landslide, and they're beginning to pull ahead in the objective, statistical categories as well.

EDIT: I'll add here one picture from the new app. It shows my Strokes Gained: Approach trend line for my past 25 rounds. I think there is noticable improvement here as well.

Good to see GIR's go up, but no shots long means you should probably take a little more club to get your shot pattern more centered. Maybe long is dead and short is better, but you should be missing at least some long.  No doubt the Sub70's are great! I feel like I'm getting my 639CB's dialed in now too.

[GolfSpy MPR]

14 hours ago, THEZIPR23 said:

Your percentage of approaches that go long is admirable. I play a course that 17 of 18 holes long = bogey and I still am at 5% long. 

The SG over the last 25 is an awesome trend. 

 

3 minutes ago, golfingbrock said:

Good to see GIR's go up, but no shots long means you should probably take a little more club to get your shot pattern more centered. Maybe long is dead and short is better, but you should be missing at least some long.  No doubt the Sub70's are great! I feel like I'm getting my 639CB's dialed in now too.

Yep, @golfingbrock's reply is something I was going to say in reply to @THEZIPR23. My "no long" miss pattern is very common among the high-to-mid handicap crowd, because we all (hand raised) have a tendency to pick clubs based on "if I hit this properly."

I'm not even here talking about the guy who chooses his clubs based on "that one time when I was downwind of a cyclone on a fairway as baked out as Willie Nelson" distance. But it's very clear that I don't center my dispersion pattern over my target, which would lead to better scores.

[THEZIPR23]

35 minutes ago, GolfSpy MPR said:

 

Yep, @golfingbrock's reply is something I was going to say in reply to @THEZIPR23. My "no long" miss pattern is very common among the high-to-mid handicap crowd, because we all (hand raised) have a tendency to pick clubs based on "if I hit this properly."

I'm not even here talking about the guy who chooses his clubs based on "that one time when I was downwind of a cyclone on a fairway as baked out as Willie Nelson" distance. But it's very clear that I don't center my dispersion pattern over my target, which would lead to better scores.

Haha ok I thought it was intentional. 

So if that is the case while testing just take your normal yardage and add 1 club and see what the difference is. 

Raising GIR % is fastest permanent path to lowering handicap. 

As far as your dispersion pattern, to me it is not that far off. Moving the circle 5 yards longer would make a difference. But in reality only 9 of your 51 approaches fall outside 30 yd circle short. 

[GolfSpy MPR]

1 hour ago, THEZIPR23 said:

Haha ok I thought it was intentional. 

So if that is the case while testing just take your normal yardage and add 1 club and see what the difference is. 

Raising GIR % is fastest permanent path to lowering handicap. 

As far as your dispersion pattern, to me it is not that far off. Moving the circle 5 yards longer would make a difference. But in reality only 9 of your 51 approaches fall outside 30 yd circle short. 

I've noted elsewhere on the forum that my GIRs are suppressed a bit by the tiny greens on our course (they average just over 3,000 sq ft, so about 18x18 in yards). This reality also likely inflates my putting stats a bit, as it's very rare to be faced with a 50' putt on our course.