2022 Most Wanted-Players Iron

[Golfspy_CG2]

The results are in.   Discuss your thoughts here.

 

https://mygolfspy.com/2022-most-wanted-players-iron/

[RickyBobby_PR]

Interesting to see i59 finish second. There are mixed reviews around the interwebs on them.

 

[russtopherb]

Interesting to see New Level and Fourteen ranked so well. And that's a pretty sizeable gap from 1st to 2nd.

[GolfSpy_APH]

Very interesting overall. Far fewer of the larger OEMs, but based off the comments they didn't run all of them based off last years testing the way I understand it? Cool to see more DTC brands involved as well. I know that some of the most wanted testing in the past only had clubs that were provided by OEMs and in the past some companies haven't been able to provide them in time and so on. Either way interesting results for 2022!

[PMookie]

i never understand how one wins over another in the Most Wanted…

[fixyurdivot]

I've never heard of New Level and, given the hell PING has been going through (perhaps the worst), as a result of the pandemic, I'm very happy to see the i59's take runner up. I had a chance to hit the i59's a couple months ago.  Not a design that fits my game/ball striking but they looked great. 

Anyone on the forum (except Rob) own/play New Level?

[hartrick11]

29 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Interesting to see i59 finish second. There are mixed reviews around the interwebs on them.

 

From what I have read, watched, and tested for myself, Ping accomplished exactly what they set out to accomplish in making a small, consistent, *relatively* forgiving players iron, they just did it at a price point that shocked many of their prospective buyers, including me as I couldn't get past the price. I think a lot of the commentary gets clouded by the fact that they are so expensive... I found that once I sifted through the muck online, along with my own testing of the 7i I was able to come away with a really good impression even if I didn't think they were worth the price premium with so many great options out there.

While I will never fully understand the MGS testing parameters I know what they are doing is objective and it's nice to see the i59 score well. I also need to apparently give New Level a try...:)

[PMookie]

I’ve always been a fan of Fourteen from a distance. I love the way their clubs look and they’ve always seemed to perform under previous ownership. What they’ve put-out since the change have looked great as well, I’ve just never been anywhere to be able to test them. I’d be up for it for sure!!!

[RickyBobby_PR]

23 minutes ago, hartrick11 said:

From what I have read, watched, and tested for myself, Ping accomplished exactly what they set out to accomplish in making a small, consistent, *relatively* forgiving players iron, they just did it at a price point that shocked many of their prospective buyers, including me as I couldn't get past the price. I think a lot of the commentary gets clouded by the fact that they are so expensive... I found that once I sifted through the muck online, along with my own testing of the 7i I was able to come away with a really good impression even if I didn't think they were worth the price premium with so many great options out there.

While I will never fully understand the MGS testing parameters I know what they are doing is objective and it's nice to see the i59 score well. I also need to apparently give New Level a try...:)

I’ve hit them and have them on my ponder list. But there are several pros who had them in the bag and took them out, there’s some good golfers on other forums that didn’t like them. 
 

No knock on the testers because I don’t know how many are low or just shy of being what most consider mid handicaps but based on my perception the level of tester isn’t in the better player category and there’s some better options imo opinion than the i59. Not knowing what’s in the testing this year it’s just surprising to see these make second 

[bens197]

Far from what I expected to see this year.  

[fixyurdivot]

For grins, I just priced out a set of the New Level with the Recoil ES780 shafts (close #2 from my fitting).  Just under $1000 including shipping for and 8 piece set .  I also noted that you can just order the heads only... for us DIY club builders.

[cnosil]

1 hour ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

No knock on the testers because I don’t know how many are low or just shy of being what most consider mid handicaps but based on my perception the level of tester isn’t in the better player category and there’s some better options imo opinion than the i59. Not knowing what’s in the testing this year it’s just surprising to see these make second 

There were 20 testers and I am pretty sure all the testers were sub 10 handicap.   i59s are good clubs;  I just didn't like them for personal subjective reasons.

[RickyBobby_PR]

12 hours ago, cnosil said:

There were 20 testers and I am pretty sure all the testers were sub 10 handicap.   i59s are good clubs;  I just didn't like them for personal subjective reasons.

Again not knocking the testers but sun 10 is just a data point with no context. I’m sub 10 and an ok iron player. Doesn’t tell us what type of courses they play, if they are good with irons or not, what type of irons they current play. This isn’t a knock on you but you’ve posted a lot recently about your struggles/inconsistency and you are sub 10.

The i59 while on my ponder list but they are still a blade like club and while forgiving aren’t as forgiving as a players distance and there are clubs like zx7, 921 tour and 770 that are better in performance. 

So not knocking the testers or the clubs but just surprised a club that even pros have somewhat moved away from would finish second in a most wanted test of average golfers with so many other options out there

[cnosil]

54 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Again not knocking the testers but sun 10 is just a data point with no context. I’m sub 10 and an ok iron player. Doesn’t tell us what type of courses they play, if they are good with irons or not, what type of irons they current play. This isn’t a knock on you but you’ve posted a lot recently about your struggles/inconsistency and you are sub 10.

The i59 while on my ponder list but they are still a blade like club and while forgiving aren’t as forgiving as a players distance and there are clubs like zx7, 921 tour and 770 that are better in performance. 

So not knocking the testers or the clubs but just surprised a club that even pros have somewhat moved away from would finish second in a most wanted test of average golfers with so many other options out there

I don’t take it as a knock on the testers or on me.   Performance is personal as well. I personally put the performance of the i59 over the 921 tours;  I don’t like Mizuno irons since they don’t work well for me.  I like the Wilson’s in this category but they aren’t the longest so people generally won’t consider them.   no matter what data points are made for the testers it will be irrelevant as the most wanted club for each could be completely different.  Most wanted goes across all of the testers to see what club could work best for the largest percentage of those golfers that walk in off the street and buy off the rack.  The test is not about what is popular or what people think should do well

 

we all have our biases on what clubs we think should or shouldn’t perform and that influences how they perform when we put them in our hands.  Obviously, whenever something like this comes out there are going to be discussions on the validity of the info.  The results of these tests are pieces of information that people can use however they want including completely dismissing.   As one of the testers,  I can say that while the most wanted winner in any category performs pretty well but it probably wouldn’t be the club I would choose and it isn’t always the best club for me personally.  

[fixyurdivot]

1 hour ago, cnosil said:

I don’t take it as a knock on the testers or on me.   Performance is personal as well. I personally put the performance of the i59 over the 921 tours;  I don’t like Mizuno irons since they don’t work well for me.  I like the Wilson’s in this category but they aren’t the longest so people generally won’t consider them.   no matter what data points are made for the testers it will be irrelevant as the most wanted club for each could be completely different.  Most wanted goes across all of the testers to see what club could work best for the largest percentage of those golfers that walk in off the street and buy off the rack.  The test is not about what is popular or what people think should do well

 

we all have our biases on what clubs we think should or shouldn’t perform and that influences how they perform when we put them in our hands.  Obviously, whenever something like this comes out there are going to be discussions on the validity of the info.  The results of these tests are pieces of information that people can use however they want including completely dismissing.   As one of the testers,  I can say that while the most wanted winner in any category performs pretty well but it probably wouldn’t be the club I would choose and it isn’t always the best club for me personally.  

I wish there was a way to have a true "blind test".  I've mentioned before the similarity in the MGS tests and those done with fly rods (my other passion/hobby). They have the annual H2H tests but have been able to mask the make/model. Prior to that, personal bias greatly influenced rankings. I wonder how these results might differ if all the hitting/ball flight data was done incognito, and then the shiny metal is revealed for the aesthetics based feedback.  Another way to do this, and serve as a control, would be to also capture hitting performance with the robot.  Maybe select the average swing speed and other clubface at impact parameters of the testers?

[ChitownM2]

I'm a little surprised to see them removing a lot of the data from the article this year.  The chart showing the performance of the long/mid/short irons is gone and so is the chart with the specs for each club model. 

Whenever they comment about distance (like in the i59's case) I would immediately scroll down to that specs chart and to my surprise it wasn't there.  3 google searches later and I realized (as is usually the case) that the club they are saying is shorter than the competition (i59) is actually way down in loft compared to the others.  In this case, the i59 7 iron is basically an 8 iron in most of the other sets.  I wish MGS would address that in these articles as I feel like it's a very important factor that they continually ignore.  It's a huge disservice to anyone reading when they say the Ping (or any other club since this happens all the time with the iron testing) isn't as long as the competition when the club is in fact way down on loft.  In this case, Ping offers a power spec version that I would have liked to see compared against the other options to see an actual distance comparison as I bet it would have been very close or better.  The whole point of these articles is for quick info for people who are going to buy off the rack and when you say straight up a club is short that is going to eliminate it for a lot of readers who won't dig deeper.

[cnosil]

41 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

I wish there was a way to have a true "blind test".  I've mentioned before the similarity in the MGS tests and those done with fly rods (my other passion/hobby). They have the annual H2H tests but have been able to mask the make/model. Prior to that, personal bias greatly influenced rankings. I wonder how these results might differ if all the hitting/ball flight data was done incognito, and then the shiny metal is revealed for the aesthetics based feedback.  Another way to do this, and serve as a control, would be to also capture hitting performance with the robot.  Maybe select the average swing speed and other clubface at impact parameters of the testers?

Yep, there are lots of ways we all believe the tests could be improved.   I personally try to avoid looking at the model of club I am hitting during the testing.  Sometimes you can avoid, sometimes you can’t.  In players irons, looking  at them at address they all pretty much look the same; and that was part of my feedback when asked because I couldn’t tell them apart.  After the days testing I have a difficult time recalling which clubs hit unless something stands out.  I have suggested turning off the screen we hit into but we would still see the information on the computer monitor when we switch clubs and work through the protocols….There isn’t enough staff to switch for us.   If you put my swing parameter in a robot it should get the same results.  The problem trying to be resolved it how does a clubs visual appearance influence my swing.  For example in yesterdays testing there where 3 clubs that were so visual different that it did influence my swing.  One had significant offset, one was very long heel to toe and one had kind of a player iron look that was just a little fatter.   I struggled switch ball position on the second because center of the face was hard to identify on the long club face.  I could fee difference so even if I did t see the visual I am making mental adjustments.  

8 minutes ago, ChitownM2 said:

The whole point of these articles is for quick info for people who are going to buy off the rack and when you say straight up a club is short that is going to eliminate it for a lot of readers who won't dig deeper.

With or without the article, the average golfer will walk into a store,  maybe hit it on a launch monitor, and if it isn’t longer than their club or the other club they are hitting then it goes back on the shelf.  Loft, shaft, etc are ignored by 99% of golfers. 

[ChitownM2]

18 minutes ago, cnosil said:

With or without the article, the average golfer will walk into a store,  maybe hit it on a launch monitor, and if it isn’t longer than their club or the other club they are hitting then it goes back on the shelf.  Loft, shaft, etc are ignored by 99% of golfers. 

That's the whole point of the article though right? To educate those golfers before they go into the store.  In this case, telling the reader that if distance is a concern for them they should hit/buy the power spec version since this club has less loft than the competition in it's standard config.

[GolfSpy MPR]

DISCLAIMER for those who don't know: although I'm a mod, I have nothing to do with the testing facility, Most Wanted Testing, etc. These are my thoughts, not those of MGS, etc.:

A bit of philosophy and then relating it to Most Wanted Testing:

There are two related problems of philosophy that have bearing on the value of something like Most Wanted Testing: the problem of induction and the problem of the one and the many. The basic issue is that, the closer you examine the question, the harder it is to define why groups of things belong together. Making generalizations from particulars is something that we all do naturally and intuitively, but it is extraordinarily difficult to justify and give account for.

So many discussions go around in circles because of these problems. Consider the always entertaining "swing your swing" vs "model swing" debate. Intuitively, again, I think most people understand the core point each side is making. In general, swings within certain parameters have greater expectations of acceptable results. But there are outliers that are very effective. Most people with unorthodox swings would be improved if they moved more toward the middle of the bell curve. Some people with orthodox swings should not change, because they would get worse.

Because there is no way to make a single universal statement here, we end up going round and round. We always will on topics that involve making generalizations from whatever volume of specific data.

I think it's possible to believe two things:

• You should seek to find the best club setup that produces the best results for you as a particular individual.
• If a bunch of people hit lots and lots of shots, patterns emerge that suggest that different clubs have different tendencies, and some of those tendencies produce good results for a broad range of golfers.

The truth of the second observation does not preclude the importance of the first. The "Most Wanted" club might be awful for you.

So why do Most Wanted at all? I would again liken it to swing instruction. Can you get better following generic swing instruction online? Yeah, you likely can, if you know how to listen and implement what's being said. But most people would get better faster if they got individual lessons. But there will always be way more people reading golf tips in magazines and watching YouTube videos than there will be getting lessons.

Most Wanted (and other ways of giving "overall" club ratings) have real usefulness. They are not a replacement for individual fitting. But for a lot of people who won't be fitted, they remain a way to maximize chances of finding something that is likely to work for a lot of people (hopefully, including the purchaser).

[KC Golf]

I totally agree that the Most Wanted list is a great place to start your fitting.  It’s really worked well for me with my Driver and putter, etc.  I have tried 4-5 of them in each category and narrowed down to the one that worked the best for me.  

I believe what is under appreciated is that being an MGS tester is not easy, and is an under appreciated service for all of us who benefit from their insight.  So Thank You to all of the club testers!

[fixyurdivot]

29 minutes ago, GolfSpy MPR said:

The truth of the second observation does not preclude the importance of the first. The "Most Wanted" club might be awful for you.

[chisag]

1 hour ago, GolfSpy MPR said:

DISCLAIMER for those who don't know: although I'm a mod, I have nothing to do with the testing facility, Most Wanted Testing, etc. These are my thoughts, not those of MGS, etc.:

A bit of philosophy and then relating it to Most Wanted Testing:

There are two related problems of philosophy that have bearing on the value of something like Most Wanted Testing: the problem of induction and the problem of the one and the many. The basic issue is that, the closer you examine the question, the harder it is to define why groups of things belong together. Making generalizations from particulars is something that we all do naturally and intuitively, but it is extraordinarily difficult to justify and give account for.

I think it's possible to believe two things:

• You should seek to find the best club setup that produces the best results for you as a particular individual.
• If a bunch of people hit lots and lots of shots, patterns emerge that suggest that different clubs have different tendencies, and some of those tendencies produce good results for a broad range of golfers.

The truth of the second observation does not preclude the importance of the first. The "Most Wanted" club might be awful for you.

Most Wanted (and other ways of giving "overall" club ratings) have real usefulness. They are not a replacement for individual fitting. But for a lot of people who won't be fitted, they remain a way to maximize chances of finding something that is likely to work for a lot of people (hopefully, including the purchaser).

 

... Great observations and well stated. Obviously personal preference plays a huge roll in our individual choices. But in the end, the more knowledgable we are concerning golf equipment, the more these tests may not apply to us. But as always they are at least a good starting point, at least when it comes to equipment. Some categories like shoes are just so very personal a Most Wanted has virtually zero relevance. That isn't even considering one looks at any given golf shoe and sees ugly and the next sees style. One player likes pillow softness when they walk and the next prefers a firmer base. Pronation, Supination and just our individual idea of what comfort means to us, makes it impossible to recommend any given shoe. But all in all as a golf nut and equipment geek, I always enjoy at least reading Most Wanted. 

[cnosil]

1 hour ago, ChitownM2 said:

To educate

I think @GolfSpy MPRsummed it up very well but wanted to add one more point related to you comment.   Education is a very broad term.  There is educate the consumer on what testing was done and what fits the broad bell curve group of players.  That IMO is the intent of Most Wanted.  MGS does further things like lab tests, product spotlights, we tried it. and other educational articles on shafts, putter design characteristics, etc that are designed to educate people about golf equipment.  I completely agree that educating the consumer about power lofts and other options would give additional information to the consumer that could be beneficial in club selection but is most wanted the place to do that?  I can see valid reasons for both sides if that discussion.   Having seen and talked with some of the testers,  they don’t even have the knowledge level about equipment that most of the regular posters on this forum have.  We are truly in the minority when it comes to even wanting to know about those options.  Would be a great discussion to have with the HQ team about why the do and don’t do certain things…..and it would be the first time that Adam told me I was too far into the weeds for what they generally cover.  

[03trdblack]

19 hours ago, hartrick11 said:

From what I have read, watched, and tested for myself, Ping accomplished exactly what they set out to accomplish in making a small, consistent, *relatively* forgiving players iron, they just did it at a price point that shocked many of their prospective buyers, including me as I couldn't get past the price. I think a lot of the commentary gets clouded by the fact that they are so expensive... I found that once I sifted through the muck online, along with my own testing of the 7i I was able to come away with a really good impression even if I didn't think they were worth the price premium with so many great options out there.

While I will never fully understand the MGS testing parameters I know what they are doing is objective and it's nice to see the i59 score well. I also need to apparently give New Level a try...:)

 

I love Ping as a company and the products they make but the prices they've decided to go with have rubbed me the wrong way a bit.  Not necessarily because they are more expensive but because they are so backed up with current orders and getting customers the products they already ordered.  I feel it's a bit of a kick in the nuts as a consumer to not only have a 2-3 month waiting period (or more) because you can't get inventory in/out but ALSO to then hike up prices such a large amount.  They even raised the price of the G425 driver up $50 in its second year.  What company in the world raises the price of their current inventory before replacing it with something else?  People were still waiting on their orders for the 410 product line when the 425 line was announced and went on sale. 

I'm sure they've been trying to normalize things at Ping and maybe they figure the higher prices will deter some people from placing orders for a while so they can get caught back up but I'm certainly in the camp of not wanting to pay a LOT more money to also have to wait a LOT longer to get it.

[RickyBobby_PR]

33 minutes ago, 03trdblack said:

 

I love Ping as a company and the products they make but the prices they've decided to go with have rubbed me the wrong way a bit.  Not necessarily because they are more expensive but because they are so backed up with current orders and getting customers the products they already ordered.  I feel it's a bit of a kick in the nuts as a consumer to not only have a 2-3 month waiting period (or more) because you can't get inventory in/out but ALSO to then hike up prices such a large amount.  They even raised the price of the G425 driver up $50 in its second year.  What company in the world raises the price of their current inventory before replacing it with something else?  People were still waiting on their orders for the 410 product line when the 425 line was announced and went on sale. 

I'm sure they've been trying to normalize things at Ping and maybe they figure the higher prices will deter some people from placing orders for a while so they can get caught back up but I'm certainly in the camp of not wanting to pay a LOT more money to also have to wait a LOT longer to get it.

They have a higher price than “normal” on 1 line of irons. That’s nothing new from companies. The i525 are inline with every other brand right now.

Have you been shopping for any product lately, the price on every product has gone up even while it sits on shelves because it costs more to make and deliver. Why do people think golf manufacturers are wrong for doing anything that’s normal in consumer pros it’s, whether that’s yearly releases, raised costs, delays due to supplies and so on

[ChitownM2]

46 minutes ago, cnosil said:

I think @GolfSpy MPRsummed it up very well but wanted to add one more point related to you comment.   Education is a very broad term.  There is educate the consumer on what testing was done and what fits the broad bell curve group of players.  That IMO is the intent of Most Wanted.  MGS does further things like lab tests, product spotlights, we tried it. and other educational articles on shafts, putter design characteristics, etc that are designed to educate people about golf equipment.  I completely agree that educating the consumer about power lofts and other options would give additional information to the consumer that could be beneficial in club selection but is most wanted the place to do that?  I can see valid reasons for both sides if that discussion.   Having seen and talked with some of the testers,  they don’t even have the knowledge level about equipment that most of the regular posters on this forum have.  We are truly in the minority when it comes to even wanting to know about those options.  Would be a great discussion to have with the HQ team about why the do and don’t do certain things…..and it would be the first time that Adam told me I was too far into the weeds for what they generally cover.  

I agree with what you are saying and most wanted definitely isn't the place to be doing a deep dive on a technology related feature or the like, but I do think that it is appropriate (and necessary) to provide context when you start making specific statements about one club vs another.  This is especially true when it comes to statements regarding distance because of the oversized influence that one aspect has on consumer decisions.  In this case it's the i59 being called out as being shorter than the competition, all I would say is they should add on context to make sure the reader gets the full picture.  The sentence could read "Fourteen’s TC-7 and Mizuno’s Pro 223 are notable for the extra bump in distance they provide while the PING i59 is a bit shorter than the field, although this is likely attributable to Ping choosing more traditional lofts that are closer to the distance leader's 8 irons. A Powerspec version is available for those seeking stronger lofts and greater distance."

With the way it is written in the article, my opinion is that most readers would assume that the Ping irons face isn't as "hot" as the others or that their new tech doesn't "work" since the clubs are shorter than every other manufacturer. You're definitely correct that the overwhelming majority of golfers have no idea what the specs are for any of these clubs and most probably couldn't even tell you what each brand's product offering within each category is.  Hell, I'd be surprised if 40% of golfers could even tell you what the 4 main categories of irons even are.

I would also like to sit in on the why they do and don't do certain things with testing, but my assumption (guess) is that they test the clubs that they are provided by the manufacturer.  They asked to test i59 irons and Ping sent them the standard i59 lofts.  There is not much MGS can do about that, which is why it's important to add some context to help the average golfer who doesn't spend 10+ hours a week on a golf forum. 

It essentially boils down to the same loft jacking conversation that happens on repeat every 3 months.  I remember a few years ago a Tommy Armour iron was the distance winner in the GI category and it was because their 7 iron was a 6.  Again, nothing MGS can do about that because it is what it is, but pointing it out to the reader when it's happening is important, imo.

[03trdblack]

1 hour ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

They have a higher price than “normal” on 1 line of irons. That’s nothing new from companies. The i525 are inline with every other brand right now.

Have you been shopping for any product lately, the price on every product has gone up even while it sits on shelves because it costs more to make and deliver. Why do people think golf manufacturers are wrong for doing anything that’s normal in consumer pros it’s, whether that’s yearly releases, raised costs, delays due to supplies and so on

I was just pointing out that Ping has decided to increase price the most even though they have been one of the most notorious when it comes to wait times to get products. 

The i525 and i59 are priced at $250 per iron. Yes, most prices have increased for sure but there isn't another company out (besides PXG and some of the JDM based lines from some companies) that are charging that much for any new iron lines.  Most other brands' new iron lines are somewhere between $165-$185 per iron  All of the other Ping iron lines are approaching a few years old at this point and are going to be replaced at some point.  

Sorted by price, high to low on the Golf Galaxy website.  Ping i59 and i525 sits right behind the Epic Star, XXIO and Rickie Fowler limited edition irons.  All other brands' come next at around $185/iron.  

[Golfspy_CG2]

22 minutes ago, 03trdblack said:

I was just pointing out that Ping has decided to increase price the most even though they have been one of the most notorious when it comes to wait times to get products. 

The i525 and i59 are priced at $250 per iron. Yes, most prices have increased for sure but there isn't another company out (besides PXG and some of the JDM based lines from some companies) that are charging that much for any new iron lines.  Most other brands' new iron lines are somewhere between $165-$185 per iron  All of the other Ping iron lines are approaching a few years old at this point and are going to be replaced at some point.  

Sorted by price, high to low on the Golf Galaxy website.  Ping i59 and i525 sits right behind the Epic Star, XXIO and Rickie Fowler limited edition irons.  All other brands' come next at around $185/iron.  

I don't know where you're getting $250 for the I525.   They are $187 for steel and $200 for grpahite.   B

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, 03trdblack said:

I was just pointing out that Ping has decided to increase price the most even though they have been one of the most notorious when it comes to wait times to get products. 

The i525 and i59 are priced at $250 per iron. Yes, most prices have increased for sure but there isn't another company out (besides PXG and some of the JDM based lines from some companies) that are charging that much for any new iron lines.  Most other brands' new iron lines are somewhere between $165-$185 per iron  All of the other Ping iron lines are approaching a few years old at this point and are going to be replaced at some point.  

Sorted by price, high to low on the Golf Galaxy website.  Ping i59 and i525 sits right behind the Epic Star, XXIO and Rickie Fowler limited edition irons.  All other brands' come next at around $185/iron.  

You didn’t even read the picture you posted. The i59 are listed at $175-200 and the i525 are at the bottom of the picture and they retail $187. Not to mention Titleist, Mizuno and Taylomade are in the $185-187 range except for the 620 series from 2 years ago which the first release of the T series irons were the same price as the 620s are listed for.

Apparently you haven’t followed the TaylorMade delays or the fact that all brands have had long delays for anyone ordering Nippon and kbs shafts and to an extend DG

[GolfSpy_BNG]

6 hours ago, GolfSpy MPR said:

DISCLAIMER for those who don't know: although I'm a mod, I have nothing to do with the testing facility, Most Wanted Testing, etc. These are my thoughts, not those of MGS, etc.:

A bit of philosophy and then relating it to Most Wanted Testing:

There are two related problems of philosophy that have bearing on the value of something like Most Wanted Testing: the problem of induction and the problem of the one and the many. The basic issue is that, the closer you examine the question, the harder it is to define why groups of things belong together. Making generalizations from particulars is something that we all do naturally and intuitively, but it is extraordinarily difficult to justify and give account for.

So many discussions go around in circles because of these problems. Consider the always entertaining "swing your swing" vs "model swing" debate. Intuitively, again, I think most people understand the core point each side is making. In general, swings within certain parameters have greater expectations of acceptable results. But there are outliers that are very effective. Most people with unorthodox swings would be improved if they moved more toward the middle of the bell curve. Some people with orthodox swings should not change, because they would get worse.

Because there is no way to make a single universal statement here, we end up going round and round. We always will on topics that involve making generalizations from whatever volume of specific data.

I think it's possible to believe two things:

• You should seek to find the best club setup that produces the best results for you as a particular individual.
• If a bunch of people hit lots and lots of shots, patterns emerge that suggest that different clubs have different tendencies, and some of those tendencies produce good results for a broad range of golfers.

The truth of the second observation does not preclude the importance of the first. The "Most Wanted" club might be awful for you.

So why do Most Wanted at all? I would again liken it to swing instruction. Can you get better following generic swing instruction online? Yeah, you likely can, if you know how to listen and implement what's being said. But most people would get better faster if they got individual lessons. But there will always be way more people reading golf tips in magazines and watching YouTube videos than there will be getting lessons.

Most Wanted (and other ways of giving "overall" club ratings) have real usefulness. They are not a replacement for individual fitting. But for a lot of people who won't be fitted, they remain a way to maximize chances of finding something that is likely to work for a lot of people (hopefully, including the purchaser).

This is a very well thought out and written post. Bravo Michael!