I am using Honma TWX irons. I bought them off Ebay based on the MGS player distance iron review.
Best irons I have ever had. The feel is amazing. I can hit them straight and keep it high or low.
I had p790s fitted for me. All the would do is launch the ball straight and high. I had no feel with the short irons.
I am a Honma fan for life now.
Most dtc s will ship you a club for a nominal fee… you could also probably build a cheap second bag by ordering one off irons… if you know what shaft you want, you can pick up a single iron for $100… it’d be a very eclectic set…
I ordered a sub70 5 iron because I needed a five iron… now I want a whole set! I’ll probably get one next season, but I’m not sure.
I believe this is an industry “problem.” Clubfitters face a dilemma because they have to stock a lot of head/shaft combinations. The reps from the big OEMs will typically give them a decent amount of support, which is difficult to get from DTC companies because they have such lean operations. Also, they realize that a lot of golfers will come in there looking for certain brands.
So it’s difficult for them to feature clubs from lesser known brands, and I’m sure it’s challenging for the DTC companies to even get a lot of their clubs out. Either way, we’re starting to see some of the smaller DTC companies in the equipment category prove that they can make quality clubs that can compete with the bigger brands!
It’s a great problem to have! I love companies popping up that disrupt things and put out really good products. I’d love to support them. Just want the opportunity without blindly buying something. Hopefully the market can figure something out to truly be fit into these things.
I think that’s the main issue. How can golfers try them out at clubfitters? I know Sub 70 will send out demo clubs, or you can go to a fitter and send them your specs, but it won’t usually be based off their clubs.
However, I think the main issue will be margins. Clubfitters already are working on fairly slim margins with the major OEMs. There’s really not a lot of room for them to make money with the DTC clubs. Not sure how that problem gets solved.
OTOH the T300s were at the top of the GI irons test.
MGS does publish all the data they collect, along with their methodology, so anyone who wants to dig in and sort & select their own way are able to.
Seems like you could get pretty close by getting fit for length, lie, and shaft and then just pick the DTC head based off looks and performance characteristics and reviews. I agree it’s still sort of a gamble, but the more reviews come out the more confident you can be. Getting a whole set based off a demo 7 iron in a fitting bay on one day’s session is always a gamble to some degree anyway. But I agree it’s not ideal.
I feel like these lists are more about validation for the consumer for their buying decisions. For me, after look at address, it’s three swings with an iron and I know if it’s going to work. It’s all about feel, hitting my window and probable carry yardage through the set and bookend clubs for gapping. Then it’s in the hands of my fitter to dial them in.
Full disclosure: I’m one of the moderators of the MyGolfSpy Forums. I have zero direct connection to the content of the MGS main blog (including Most Wanted articles). I’ve never been to the testing facility (though I’d love to go some time). The Forum mods are part timers, just helping keep the Forum organized and behaving and set up the member testing, etc.
I can’t find a direct link to this, but MGS has stated before that Most Wanted testing should be viewed as a starting point for fitting, not the final word. Essentially, their testing would suggest that the highest ranked product is the one that had the best results for the greatest number of their testers.
It is never the right conclusion that it means that that club is right for you and your swing, or that another club (even way down the list) wouldn’t perform better for you than the Most Wanted club. It’s always going to be the case that for individual results will vary; there are all kinds of factors (some of which can be totally subjective) for why one particular person might get on well with a particular club.
For me, I’ve never been fitted for a set of irons. If I knew I wanted a certain category of irons, I’d use MGS testing to perhaps begin to narrow down options. Or, if I have some idea of the characteristics of my ball flight, the relative numbers become important (this head on average has a higher peak height but lower spin than that head, for instance).
One of the things I’m most struck by in diving into the numbers is the general closeness of the numbers. Take the MW Player’s Iron test results that were released this week. I’m looking at the mid-iron chart: the difference between the spinniest and least spinny iron is about 600rpm. There’s 6 yards of carry distance between the longest and shortest mid-iron. Literally every single iron in the test had a ball speed that was 111.xxxmph.
The range seems to be higher with drivers: most years, there are a few drivers in the test that are clearly niche products that perform awfully for the majority of testers. In this year’s driver test, the Mavrik SZ had a ball speed 1.12% faster than the average driver in the test, while the Wilson Launch Pad was 2.71% slower than the average ball speed. That translated into a nearly 10% distance advantage for the Mavrik over the Launch Pad.
Anyway, I’m rambling a bit. I’m glad that the testing exists, and the MGS seems willing to publish stuff that takes turns making them very unliked by the various OEMs. Again, I don’t think Tony or Adam or any of the other guys at MGS would tell you that just because a product was Most Wanted, you should buy it. But having the data is good for the consumer, I think.
I really like MGS and agree that they are a great resource before you buy clubs or other golf related products. Sort of like Consumer Reports for golfers. It’s a great resource, but probably shouldn’t be your bible.
I think their best work was the ball test and saying “soft is slow”. I’ve always prefered a softer feeling ball, but felt I lost significant driver distance with some balls especially if my A game (which is pretty poor) wasn’t there. That testing steered me to balls that worked better for me without my having to try a ton. I still had to try a few, but it was far easier using their results.
Thanks for the thorough post. It reaffirms, for me, that the performance margins are quite slim, and many of the irons within a category will perform basically the same. None of them will magically transform your swing, obviously. Find a set you like the looks of in your general category and then go get after it. Much more important to be fit for length, lie, shaft than head.
On a similar note, did you all see the TXG testing of the new TSi3 against the G410, Sim, and Mavrik? Results were basically the same for all of them. Just personal preference at this point.
Not to burst the bubble, but MGS is not totally unbiased as they claim. As one former tour pro (and others) said to me, when they receive so much equipment from so many OEMs and distributors, there is no way that consciously or subconsciously MGS will remain neutral. They’re human. If the pros can see it, why can’t we?
That said, I find their reviews very helpful and at times those reviews have resulted in Improvements by OEMs. For instance, when they discovered Callaway‘s golf balls needed better quality control, Callaway had to address the issue and take corrective action.
But realistically, they may favor certain brands and OEMs because their funding isn’t just from us. A lot of the equipment that they test is sent to them free of charge. Think about it.
Frankly, I trust this site more because Jon is upfront about his involvement in, and true feelings about, what he reviews. And to date Jon has never steered me wrong.
This site and Jon are both great, but he doesn’t do near the level of testing as mgs… that said, if he says a product is good, I know it’s because he believes it’s good.
Overall, testing and ratings from golf sites is far less important to me today than it was 10 years ago… any huge dud or hit is going to be widely known by the golf community pretty quickly (Kirkland balls are an example of this in both directions!)
For me, I’ll work to optimize driver and after that it’s more feel than anything else… I just ordered sub70 wedges because I wanted longer wedges, sub70 has great customer service and wedge design hasn’t changed a ton…
Honestly, my biggest purchase factor is I like supporting companies that support golf forums… sub70 and seemore have gotten my money this year.
Like @mpatrickriley, @cksurfdude, @davep043 and some of the other members here, I’m a forum member over at MyGolfSpy and have been fortunate enough to test some products and am currently testing the Spornia net.
I’m thankful to have found the forum here at Practical Golf, I’m finding the conversation on the mental aspects of the game to be very enlightening. I’m working on reading through Jon Sherman’s book that I received after buying the Divot Board and am so far enjoying and learning from it.
Haha, am I the only golfwrx member here?
I’m another one, although not as active there. I’ve learned a lot from their rules experts, but too often the threads there get way too argumentative for me to enjoy.
Oh that’s right, I’ve you seen you there, assuming you are dave pelz 4… I’m over there as myherobobhope
I use this same ID for all of my golf forums, I’d only confuse myself if I had different ones.
I’m actually a member there, but rarely log in. I’m on GolfBuzz.com a lot, but that’s less about golf these days and mostly a bunch of us leftover from FreeGolfInfo.com.
Whoa! Haven’t thought about FGI (or GolfBuzz, for that matter) in a long time. I became a member of FGI back in the day; I’m pretty sure it’s how I found out about Diamond Tour golf and started building my own clubs. I believe it was after the transition from FGI to GB that I started lurking at MGS. Thus concludes my golf forum use history 