2020 Most Wanted Player's Iron Results

[ejgaudette]

Have been looking forward to seeing these results and interesting to see only one of the big 4 brands in the top 4, and a 2 year old model at that. Other thoughts is that we are seeing the blurring of the lines a bit between the players distance and players irons. With models like the P770, Mizuno HMB, New Level 902, Hogan PTx Pro, and more that are multi material and have been put in players distance category by some and players by others depending on who makes the list. I know many are making notes about distance and yes some are longer, some a bit shorter, but most have pretty standard lofts by today's standard. In fact P770 took a bit of a step back in lofts and still was the longest. With good gapping who wouldn't want to hit the ball further. PXG started much of it with its goo filled irons, but there must be something to it with so many following suit now, even in the much more traditional player shapes. I would imagine we will continue to see this trend, more and more smaller heads with lots of technology.

Anyone else have any thoughts, or have hit and of these? Many of these will indeed be on the list when looking at future options, especially as someone who wants to keep some distance with a good shape. Great work MSG team and testers.

https://mygolfspy.com/2020-most-wanted-players-irons/ 

[LIGHT THE CANDLE]

Sorry guys I can’t get past this so I’ll just say it. In my opinion a players iron should be come with traditional lofts and construction. Most of us playing these irons aren’t waving the magic want and asking for distance.It’s about consistency and control. I would almost bet that any fitter would not hand a 0-5 handicap a p770 after they just hit a 921 tour or T100. It would be a P7MC. Unless the player was looking for less spin and more.... distance. Why isn’t the P7MC on this list? A Stronger lifted hollow body speedfoam is most likely to get the most distance. No surprise there. With the modern lofts included in the test the is a fail for me. Am I way off guys??? 

[ejgaudette]

There is a bit more to it for that and actually the P770 is weaker lofted than most, with a 46 on the pitching wedge. The idea behind many of these irons is distance yes but maximizing this across the face, so you lose 5 yards on a mishit not 10. It likely is not that significant, but that is the idea. If dispersion is about that same and you gain 5 yards that is likely worth it. It all is player dependent and what does the club do for you. Distance, dispersion, spin, and so on. I am a big fan of TXG and when reviewing many of these irons like P770 that some feel are lower spin or other characteristics there are ways to help this between shaft and ball choice that can make it more than playable, but very good. As for the testing I know there are always clubs that get left out due to timing or securing the clubs needed for testing. There are testers as part of the forum that likely have more insight on that process such as @cnosil

[ncwoz]

I also would have liked to see how the P7MC did and I'd be curious about the Sub70 639s, but I get that getting clubs in for testing isn't always an easy process.

It did seem like the models were relatively close as far as performance goes which is interesting. I guess it makes sense, as there's less room to pack technology into the small space and probably harder to separate from the rest of the competitors. 

Good stuff, as always!

[cnosil]

Yes, I am one of the testers and can try to answer some of the process questions but remember I am not on MGS staff so what I say may not be 100% accurate.

First the approach to MGS testing is to test off the shelf configurations. This is because most golfers go in to a store, pick some clubs, and buy them. maybe they will try some different shafts but basically no fitting.

Gapping of Clubs and adjusting lofts is something each player should do in a proper fitting.

As for the clubs in the test,
COVID has impacted testing and while newer clubs were out, they were not available when testing starts.

Clubs in each category are provided by the manufacturer and I don’t know how much influence or decision making MGS has in the categorization.

Often MGS will buy other clubs that are of interest to players. COVID probably had an impact on this.

People are obsessed with distance so it is always something that is included in the results. If distance isn’t a priority for you pick what has the best dispersion for you.

If you don’t like loft Jacked irons, don’t buy them. This is what manufacturers make.

The winner may not be the best fit you; so you should try the clubs you are interested in to see if they work for you. This most wanted winner is the club that best fit the testers

Some of the manufacturers provide multiple sets with different shafts some don’t. So if the shaft doesn’t work for you it will impact performance.

Let’s look at PXG. The stock configuration often results in low
Hooks for me. These are great clubs and if properly fit I am sure I could find a configuration that works.

[Quigleyd]

On 10/26/2020 at 9:04 AM, cnosil said:

Yes, I am one of the testers and can try to answer some of the process questions but remember I am not on MGS staff so what I say may not be 100% accurate.

First the approach to MGS testing is to test off the shelf configurations. This is because most golfers go in to a store, pick some clubs, and buy them. maybe they will try some different shafts but basically no fitting.

Gapping of Clubs and adjusting lofts is something each player should do in a proper fitting.

As for the clubs in the test,
COVID has impacted testing and while newer clubs were out, they were not available when testing starts.

Clubs in each category are provided by the manufacturer and I don’t know how much influence or decision making MGS has in the categorization.

Often MGS will buy other clubs that are of interest to players. COVID probably had an impact on this.

People are obsessed with distance so it is always something that is included in the results. If distance isn’t a priority for you pick what has the best dispersion for you.

If you don’t like loft Jacked irons, don’t buy them. This is what manufacturers make.

The winner may not be the best fit you; so you should try the clubs you are interested in to see if they work for you. This most wanted winner is the club that best fit the testers

Some of the manufacturers provide multiple sets with different shafts some don’t. So if the shaft doesn’t work for you it will impact performance.

Let’s look at PXG. The stock configuration often results in low
Hooks for me. These are great clubs and if properly fit I am sure I could find a configuration that works.

Well said. I was surprised Mizuno was not in the top showing. They have been the best the 3 years previous right? 

 

One thing I would add is that as you said, the "most wanted" iron may not be best for you. I think it may also be best to not think of irons as sets anymore. Think of them as individual clubs. While most will be too anal to piece out a set of irons from a few different brands. I think it is time and we have the accessibility to pick each and every club in our bag to optimize that spot to "our" game. 

 

Get P770 long irons. Mizuno mid irons, and Homna short irons. Or even within a single brand you can really do something very similar many times. 

Look at Tommy Fleetwood's bag. It has like 6 different brands in it.. 

[dlow206]

41 minutes ago, Quigleyd said:

Well said. I was surprised Mizuno was not in the top showing. They have been the best the 3 years previous right? 

 

One thing I would add is that as you said, the "most wanted" iron may not be best for you. I think it may also be best to not think of irons as sets anymore. Think of them as individual clubs. While most will be too anal to piece out a set of irons from a few different brands. I think it is time and we have the accessibility to pick each and every club in our bag to optimize that spot to "our" game. 

 

Get P770 long irons. Mizuno mid irons, and Homna short irons. Or even within a single brand you can really do something very similar many times. 

Look at Tommy Fleetwood's bag. It has like 6 different brands in it.. 

It would be cool to have a mixed iron set across brands. I don't know of anywhere to go for a fitting that has a different iron other than a 6 or 7 iron for a fitting.

[Quigleyd]

1 minute ago, dlow206 said:

It would be cool to have a mixed iron set across brands. I don't know of anywhere to go for a fitting that has a different iron other than a 6 or 7 iron for a fitting.

That does make it a bit more difficult. 

[Nolan220]

Has anyone tried the New Level clubs ? I heard of them checked out their website a while back and that was it .. really surprised they were runner up. 

[bens197]

On 10/26/2020 at 11:17 AM, LIGHT THE CANDLE said:

Sorry guys I can’t get past this so I’ll just say it. In my opinion a players iron should be come with traditional lofts and construction. Most of us playing these irons aren’t waving the magic want and asking for distance.It’s about consistency and control. I would almost bet that any fitter would not hand a 0-5 handicap a p770 after they just hit a 921 tour or T100. It would be a P7MC. Unless the player was looking for less spin and more.... distance. Why isn’t the P7MC on this list? A Stronger lifted hollow body speedfoam is most likely to get the most distance. No surprise there. With the modern lofts included in the test the is a fail for me. Am I way off guys??? 

Sorry guys, I can’t get past the idea that a sports car should have a carburetor and a four speed manual transmission. 
 

“In the haphazard nature of science, it often produces results well in advance of understanding.”

[bens197]

8 minutes ago, Nolan220 said:

Has anyone tried the New Level clubs ? I heard of them checked out their website a while back and that was it .. really surprised they were runner up. 

I’m pleased for their success but I’ll never do business with them. Whatever the owner’s title is, his behavior on social media was off-putting to say the least.   

[Nolan220]

7 minutes ago, bens197 said:

I’m pleased for their success but I’ll never do business with them. Whatever the owner’s title is, his behavior on social media was off-putting to say the least.   

oh wow, care to share what the owner said ? 

[bens197]

Just now, Nolan220 said:

oh wow, care to share what the owner said ? 

I would rather not.  

[cnosil]

Has anyone tried the New Level clubs ? I heard of them checked out their website a while back and that was it .. really surprised they were runner up. 

They were definitely a solid performer during the testing. I was surprised at how solid they were. For a player looking for something affordable both new level and sub70 should be on your list.

People complain about the new level owners dialog on social media if you can get by that great if not that is fine too. But that doesn’t impact the quality of the club, only the appearance of the brand.

[Nolan220]

1 minute ago, cnosil said:

They were definitely a solid performer during the testing. I was surprised at how solid they were. For a player looking for something affordable both new level and sub70 should be on your list.

People complain about the new level owners dialog on social media if you can get by that great if not that is fine too. But that doesn’t impact the quality of the club, only the appearance of the brand.

Thanks Sub70 is on my list for when ever I decide to upgrade clubs 

[Kansas King]

I think it is important to remember that these club tests completed by MGS are more for entertainment and aren't scientific in any way. I enjoy reading them to see if there are any quirks with any particular iron. The amount of strokes gained for any club in this testing is probably within the margin of error of getting a proper fitting. 

I see lots of conversation above on what lofts and characteristics a "players" iron should have. Regarding lofts, I don't really care if the lofts are stronger. Stronger lofts are popular because they've essentially shortened the length of lower lofted irons. If everyone went out and cut 1/2" off their 4-iron, they would probably hit it with more consistency and accuracy. That is basically what most manufacturers have done but now they call it a 5-iron instead. Loft jacking is mostly irrelevant. The new Ben Hogan company was probably right to stamp the lofts of the irons instead of the numbers when they came out with Ft. Worth 15 irons for the first time. 

My concern with the design of "players" irons is more with how "hot" the face is. Distance control is difficult with several of the "player distance" and GI irons because they are typically designed for lower spin and have high COR or "hot" faces. This leads to longer irons but less control. A "players" iron should be designed to offer great distance and spin control. I don't know that there is any correct "players" club recipe regarding what herbs and spices every manufacturer uses. Some better players will need lower spinning designs as a result of how they swing and opposite is true for players that produce less spin. This is why fitting is the only correct answer as not every iron design can serve every golfer. Golfers should embrace variability in clubhead design because it will offer better fitting options to meet your needs. 

[ncwoz]

1 hour ago, Kansas King said:

I think it is important to remember that these club tests completed by MGS are more for entertainment and aren't scientific in any way.

...Not exactly sure how you're defining "scientific", but I'd wager anyone worth their salt in the golf industry would say how MGS is going at their tests is pretty darn scientific. Nobody is perfect, and no test is flawless. As with any set of science, it'd be a good idea to start off looking at the assumptions (which MGS does a good job of laying out if you read thoroughly, ie. only using stock shafts because the majority of purchases are done "off the shelf"). Also, I've never heard anyone endorse getting fit as much as MGS, both the company staff as well as folks on this forum. Curious what you mean saying that these tests aren't scientific "in any way"?

[THEZIPR23]

2 hours ago, Kansas King said:

I think it is important to remember that these club tests completed by MGS are more for entertainment and aren't scientific in any way. I enjoy reading them to see if there are any quirks with any particular iron. The amount of strokes gained for any club in this testing is probably within the margin of error of getting a proper fitting. 

 

I would say by definition that MGS tests following the scientific method to a T. 

Question: Best Players Iron

Test: 20+ normal golfers swinging clubs using measurable data points.

Analyze: Compare all data and see which performed best.

Communicate the results: 

 

[FrogginBullfish]

Completely agree. He's clearly managed to make a quality product at a really solid price point but I have no desire to ever do business with him because of how he's acted towards other companies on social media in the past.

I’m pleased for their success but I’ll never do business with them. Whatever the owner’s title is, his behavior on social media was off-putting to say the least.   

Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[null]

36 minutes ago, FrogginBullfish said:

Completely agree. He's clearly managed to make a quality product at a really solid price point but I have no desire to ever do business with him because of how he's acted towards other companies on social media in the past.

 

Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app
 

 

Same here. I get being passionate about your company, but he complains way too much. Just unbearable 

[FrogginBullfish]

I would suggest you give this a read before making such claims about MGS' club testing...

https://mygolfspy.com/how-we-test-and-rank-golf-clubs/

I think it is important to remember that these club tests completed by MGS are more for entertainment and aren't scientific in any way. I enjoy reading them to see if there are any quirks with any particular iron. The amount of strokes gained for any club in this testing is probably within the margin of error of getting a proper fitting. 
I see lots of conversation above on what lofts and characteristics a "players" iron should have. Regarding lofts, I don't really care if the lofts are stronger. Stronger lofts are popular because they've essentially shortened the length of lower lofted irons. If everyone went out and cut 1/2" off their 4-iron, they would probably hit it with more consistency and accuracy. That is basically what most manufacturers have done but now they call it a 5-iron instead. Loft jacking is mostly irrelevant. The new Ben Hogan company was probably right to stamp the lofts of the irons instead of the numbers when they came out with Ft. Worth 15 irons for the first time. 
My concern with the design of "players" irons is more with how "hot" the face is. Distance control is difficult with several of the "player distance" and GI irons because they are typically designed for lower spin and have high COR or "hot" faces. This leads to longer irons but less control. A "players" iron should be designed to offer great distance and spin control. I don't know that there is any correct "players" club recipe regarding what herbs and spices every manufacturer uses. Some better players will need lower spinning designs as a result of how they swing and opposite is true for players that produce less spin. This is why fitting is the only correct answer as not every iron design can serve every golfer. Golfers should embrace variability in clubhead design because it will offer better fitting options to meet your needs. 

Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[PMookie]

On 10/26/2020 at 10:03 AM, ejgaudette said:

Have been looking forward to seeing these results and interesting to see only one of the big 4 brands in the top 4, and a 2 year old model at that. Other thoughts is that we are seeing the blurring of the lines a bit between the players distance and players irons. With models like the P770, Mizuno HMB, New Level 902, Hogan PTx Pro, and more that are multi material and have been put in players distance category by some and players by others depending on who makes the list. I know many are making notes about distance and yes some are longer, some a bit shorter, but most have pretty standard lofts by today's standard. In fact P770 took a bit of a step back in lofts and still was the longest. With good gapping who wouldn't want to hit the ball further. PXG started much of it with its goo filled irons, but there must be something to it with so many following suit now, even in the much more traditional player shapes. I would imagine we will continue to see this trend, more and more smaller heads with lots of technology.

Anyone else have any thoughts, or have hit and of these? Many of these will indeed be on the list when looking at future options, especially as someone who wants to keep some distance with a good shape. Great work MSG team and testers.

https://mygolfspy.com/2020-most-wanted-players-irons/ 

I did a fitting late last year, and early this year, and then finished with my Honma fitting which was done with the rep, which was the second time I hit them in a fitting. The Honma, fitted to me, were head-and-shoulders better for me than any other clubs I tried. The only other brand that beat them head-to-head in my fittings were Vega irons. Vega were going to cost me almost $3,000, so there was no chance I was buying those. Fittings are HUGELY important. I found out this year that Nippon Modus 120X just wasn’t right for me, when it was a few years back in a different head. The best thing about the MGS Test is that not one manufacturer has an advantage. The clubs are all off the rack, and the array of handicaps of the testers is awesome!

Anyway, the TR20 V, combined with the Tour P, have been great for me this season.

[PMookie]

8 hours ago, Nolan220 said:

Has anyone tried the New Level clubs ? I heard of them checked out their website a while back and that was it .. really surprised they were runner up. 

They were part of my Club Champion fitting. I had good numbers with them, but I didn’t like the looks or feel. They were ok, but weren’t in my Top 3 for performance for me. Had some experiences with the owner, so it would be tough to buy their product, even if it were the best for me.

Their forged just didn’t have “that” feel...

[txgolfjunkie]

Last year the Ping i210s finished in the middle of the pack...this year they were top 3. The strokes gained numbers were very small from top to bottom. 

In other words, it appears that the difference between the winner and the loser is .250 of a stroke over a round of golf. To put that in perspective, the mallet test saw a different of over 2 strokes over a round of golf. 

[Kansas King]

20 hours ago, FrogginBullfish said:

I would suggest you give this a read before making such claims about MGS' club testing.

 

I know how MGS does testing and I'm not against what they are doing. However, if you were to do the test three times over with three different groups of golfers, you would likely get three different results. Being able to repeat results is an important element to validate testing and I don't think MGS tests would be repeated with the same results over and over again. I'm not trying to hate on the tests, I'm just trying to remind people that these tests aren't the gospel of club performance. I've said this in other posts but I will repeat that testing golf clubs is an inherently impossible thing to do. Personally, I think an interesting test would be to take the top and bottom players iron from the test and have them properly fitted for a few golfers and then redo the test with them to see where the strokes gained numbers fall. I think it would show that the difference between all the players irons in this test are probably within the margin of error for a proper fitting. 

I want to reiterate that I appreciate the testing MGS does. I think the testing is best to determine if there is any weird quirks with certain models of clubs. I always encourage people to keep their mind open when testing clubs because it's easy to get lost in the minutiae when comparing golf clubs or anything for that matter. 

[Shankster]

There is one thing that does not compare.  Miracle Whip is FAR better than Mayo.

[Sluggo42]

11 hours ago, Shankster said:

There is one thing that does not compare.  Miracle Whip is FAR better than Mayo.

is it? really? or is it just different, and not better/?

I used to love MW

 

[braincramp]

20 hours ago, Shankster said:

There is one thing that does not compare.  Miracle Whip is FAR better than Mayo.

Sorry, I feel the dispersion is better with Mayo. Consistency might be a bit better with Miracle Whip though.

[fixyurdivot]

20 hours ago, Kansas King said:

I know how MGS does testing and I'm not against what they are doing. However, if you were to do the test three times over with three different groups of golfers, you would likely get three different results. Being able to repeat results is an important element to validate testing and I don't think MGS tests would be repeated with the same results over and over again. I'm not trying to hate on the tests, I'm just trying to remind people that these tests aren't the gospel of club performance. I've said this in other posts but I will repeat that testing golf clubs is an inherently impossible thing to do. Personally, I think an interesting test would be to take the top and bottom players iron from the test and have them properly fitted for a few golfers and then redo the test with them to see where the strokes gained numbers fall. I think it would show that the difference between all the players irons in this test are probably within the margin of error for a proper fitting. 

I want to reiterate that I appreciate the testing MGS does. I think the testing is best to determine if there is any weird quirks with certain models of clubs. I always encourage people to keep their mind open when testing clubs because it's easy to get lost in the minutiae when comparing golf clubs or anything for that matter. 

Valid points.  I cannot speak for the other spies, but doubt many (if any at all) take these as the gospel on club performance.  Even the same group of testers would likely come up with some different outcomes on subsequent trials.  The iron set that they grooved last week might not feel as good a couple weeks later.  I also think you're correct in that the differences can be mostly be measured in seconds, not minutes.  And while the top pick decision is shot data performance based, I can't help but wonder what influence individual preferences for certain mfg's. plays into the results... they say at least 90% is between the ears .  While not possible, a blind test might produce different results.  I say this having participated in similar tests involving fly casting rods - which were blind - and produced some "wow, really" results. 

[Golfspy_CG2]

On 10/28/2020 at 12:21 PM, Kansas King said:

I think it is important to remember that these club tests completed by MGS are more for entertainment and aren't scientific in any way. 

 

I'm sorry!  But to call the Most Wanted Test, "entertainment and not scientific in any way", is a huge disservice to the testers who spend individually probably upwards of 50 hours or more testing as a 100% volunteer.  In addition to the amount of time and money Tony spends on analyzing the data and having it analyzed by data experts.  And if you knew anything about the background of MWT, you'd know it's highly endorsed by multiple R&D experts as many of the big and small companies. 

I've read several of your posts over time, that I believe are off base, but I don't comment on them as everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter who disagrees with it.  But you didn't  phase the above as an opinion, in fact you said quote  it is important to remember that these club tests completed by MGS are more for entertainment and aren't scientific in any way.  That is not an opinion, you are trying to state it as a fact.

I'm saying all this as a reader of the site, not so much as my role here.