TESTED: 2017 Mizuno JPX 900 Iron Lineup

Post image for TESTED: 2017 Mizuno JPX 900 Iron Lineup

When most of us think of the Mizuno JPX line, two words come to mind - game improvement.

Allow me to be the first (or maybe the second) to tell you that's not what JPX is about.  According to Mizuno, the JPX name is reserved for the company's more technologically advanced equipment. MP is classic; JPX pushes the envelope.

Think back to the 2014 release of the JPX 850 irons - the first ever clubs to utilize boron in the forging process.  Now consider the hyper-adjustability of the new JPX 900 metalwoods.

Let's look at it another way. Is there any way that the JPX 900 Tour fits comfortably in the game improvement space? It has nearly everything that elite players are looking for in a compact iron. It's practically a blade, but with its subtle perimeter weighting, it's the example that proves the rule.

If you've always considered JPX to be for average to below-average players, it's time to reset your expectations.


Three Clubs For All

The JPX 900 series includes three distinct, yet not totally dissimilar models designed to fit the needs of golfers across a range of ability levels.

The 900 Tour offers the smallest head Mizuno has ever produced in the JPX line. The compact profile boasts a shorter head length and a substantially larger sweet area over its in-class competitors.  From address, it could almost be mistaken for an MP blade, but turn it around, and you'll find a slight cavity which adds just that bit of forgiveness we all need.

Replacing the popular JPX 850 Forged, the 900 Forged is designed to be a balance between forgiveness, feel, and workability. The 900 Forged is constructed from 1025 Boron carbon steel, which is 30% stronger than traditional forging steel. This allows Mizuno engineers to thin the face and use discretionary weight elsewhere, without compromising feel and workability.

The 900 Hot Metal is where the technology of the JPX line really shines. These clubs utilize another tech advancement from Mizuno, Chromoly 4140m steel.  For anyone who isn't a machinist - Chromoly is a steel alloy containing chromium and molybdenum.  Plain and simple, these irons were built for speed.  Mizuno has gone as far to say these irons produce offensive ball speeds.

We'll try and keep this polite...

At MyGolfSpy, we think talk is cheap.  We put all three irons to the test to see if they can walk-the-walk as well as they talk-the-talk.  Here's what we found:



  • Three Mizuno JPX 900 iron sets were tested (Tour, Forged, Hot Metal)
  • Comparison testing was done with the 5-iron, 7-iron, and Pitching Wedge from each set.
  • Seven golfers with handicaps ranging from 0-15 and driver swing speeds between 90 and 110 mph participated in this test.
  • Each tester hit 12-14 shots for each club from every set (frequently rotating between clubs).
  • Gross mishits were eliminated and are not included in the shot counts.
  • Remaining outliers were identified using Median Absolute Deviation (both distance and offline), and dropped before calculation of the final averages.
  • All testers hit Bridgestone B330-RX Golf Balls.
  • Ball Data was recorded using a Foresight GC2 Launch Monitor.



In addition to our standard launch monitor data, we've also included down-rage dispersion plots of each tester; along with a composite average.

Pitching Wedge



  • Shots hit with the JPX 900 Hot Metal finished, on average, closest to the center line.
  • The Hot Metal also achieved the highest average spin rate across the testing pool; most likely attributable to its lower and deeper center of gravity and softer tipped shaft.
  • Delving further into the data, standard deviations for both ball speed and carry distance suggests similar consistency at PW length.
  • This is likely attributable to the shorter wedge shaft promoting more consistent contact and ultimately minimizing differences related to perimeter weighting/forgiveness.



Shot area is used as a measure of consistency in individual testers. We've also provided a composite average.

  • For all but two testers (DI and BH), the JPX 900 Tour produced the tightest shot area among the three clubs tested.
  • This is admittedly an unexpected result and may be a reflection of our testing pool and may not be relevant to higher handicap golfers.
  • The JPX 900 Forged produced the largest average shot dispersion among the testers; however much of that can be traced to testers AM and BH who produced significant left/right dispersion with the club.




  • The JPX 900 Hot Metal achieved the highest ball speeds, carry and total yards on average.
  • The JPX 900 Hot Metal 7-iron also produced the highest launch and the most spin among the tester pool.
  • Shots struck with the JPX 900 Tour finished, on average, two yards closer to the center line.
  • The JPX 900 Forged launched slightly lower with the least amount of spin. However, other metrics place it squarely between the 900 Tour and the Hot Metal.


  • While the JPX 900 Tour flew the shortest, more than half of the testers achieved their tightest dispersion with it.
  • While the JPX 900 Hot Metal produced the highest average carry distance, the average shot area was also the largest.
  • Using standard deviation of carry as a measure of forgiveness, the JPX 900 Tour produced the higher standard deviations suggesting an appreciable loss in comparative forgiveness.



  • At long iron length, we see significant differences in ball speed between the three models tested.
  • The JPX Hot Metal produced an average of 5 mph more ball speed. This is likely attributable to the hotter face and appreciably more forgiveness.
  • Again we find that the JPX 900 Tour finished closest to the center line. We've seen this in previous tests - more compact blades will incur a forgiveness and often a distance penalty; however, we often see shots finish, on average, closer to the centerline.
  • The Hot Metal 5 iron launched the lowest while producing the lowest spin rates among the tester pool; this is to be expected with lower lofted distance irons.
  • Although the Hot Metal was the longest, using yards from the centerline as the metric, it was the least accurate of the three irons.


  • While the Hot Metal produced the greatest average distances, using shot area as the metric, it was the least consistent at 5-iron length, primarily due to wide left/right dispersion.
  • While the composite average shows that the JPX 900 Tour had the tightest shot dispersion, on an individual basis, that holds true for less than 50% of the testers.
  • It is interesting to note that when using standard deviations (carry and ball) as a measure of forgiveness, numbers from the JPX 900 Hot Metal suggest less consistency. We suspect this is attributable to our testers making less centered contact with the game-improvement iron.



As we continue to refine out outlier detection methodologies, we stumbled on some interesting insights which provide a more complete picture of forgiveness and consistency.

  • At 5-iron length, we detected the highest number of outliers with JPX 900 Hot Metal (one more than the JPX Tour, and nearly double that of the JPX Forged.
    • While more detailed analysis is required, the suspicion is that in the case of Hot Metal, our testers were more inconsistent with respect to where shots were struck on the face.
    • In the case of the JPX 900 Tour, the higher number of outliers are likely a reflection of the design itself being less forgiving.
  • At 7-iron length, the JPX 900 Tour produced significantly more outliers.
    • We believe this is the most revealing bit of data as testers tend to be more comfortable at 7-iron length (relative to a 5-iron), but aren't inherently as consistent as they are with a wedge.
    • While further study is required, it' likely that middle iron lengths likely provide greater insight into forgiveness.
  • Across all three irons, the JPX 900 Forged produced the most consistent number of total outliers, with only two dropped shots separating the Pitching Wedge from the 5-Iron.
  • Across the entire test, the JPX 900 Forged produced the least amount of outliers; one less than the JPX Hot Metal, and nearly half the number produced by the JPX 900 Tour.


As you would fully expect, Mizuno has produced another in a long line of quality golf equipment. With the three models in the JPX 900 Series, the Hot Metal, Forged, and Tour, Mizuno has covered a wide range of golfers, while leaving enough overlap that personal preference shouldn't be totally ignored.

So which one is right for you?

While the inconsistencies shown by our data give us some pause at 5-iron length, we believe that for higher handicap golfers seeking greater distance with more forgiveness (7-iron and PW outlier counts were the lowest among the three irons), the JPX 900 Hot Metal is the clear choice.

Our lowest handicappers saw significant dispersion benefits with the JPX 900 Tour. It's not the longest, it's not the most forgiving, but it's not expected to be either. If you're looking for a compact iron with a bit of legitimate technology baked in, it's definitely worth a look, but understand that the forgiveness sacrifice is real.

We didn't discuss the JPX 900 Forged much, and that's largely because, more often than not, we found it fitting squarely in the middle (where it's supposed to be). While we sometimes flippantly throw around the phrase no compromise, compromise, there's certainly a bit of that in the JPX 900 Forged. There's enough of a compact player's look to satisfy those of us who don't love the bulk of a game-improvement irons, and yet it retains enough forgiveness that many of us won't notice what we gave up by not taking a harder look at the Hot Metal.

Based on the feedback we received from you in our recent surveys, our gut is that of the three irons in this test, the JPX 900 Forged is most likely to be in the wheelhouse of the majority of our readers.

About Sam Robinson

Sam is the Director of the MyGolfSpy Testing Facility. After receiving his B.S.B.A. in Marketing, Sam joined the MyGolfSpy team where he works day in and day out to bring you the most comprehensive and unbiased golf equipment test results.


Visit Website
View All Posts

Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)

Your Subject (required)

Your Message (required)


{ 49 comments… read them below or add one }

Mike December 27, 2016 at 7:23 pm

A question to all who read this to start, is face wear a concern on Mizuno irons? A friend says it is and we play or practice at least 4-5 days a week. Thoughts please.

Just returned from indoor testing/pre-shopping for new irons in Melbourne, Florida. Currently using TM RSi1, game improvements. Was thinking of replacing those, but not in a big hurry, until I noticed the face slots in 2 of the irons are chipping out, and not just a little. So I went to hit the Mizuno 900 forged and Hot Metals, along with Srixon Z745/765. The golf store stopped carrying the Srixon, not enough interest in the area, but those Mizunos are awesome. Trying to find someplace here that has the Z745/765 to compare, but it would be a difficult task to beat the 900 forged. Feel, distance, and sound were more impressive that expected. While there I noticed the PXG 0311/0311t/0311xf, so I switched the shaft from the Mizuno to the PXG 0311. The shaft was Project X 6.0. All the hype with the PXG, was drooling to try them, here was my chance, and was disappointed. Not impressed at all, imho the 900 forged crushed them. They are really cool looking, but not a fit for me, glad others find them amazing, and good luck to them. The Z745/765 has to be one heck of an iron to surpass the 900 forged, if it’s is, great, but I don’t see that happening. Just thoughts from a 48 year old 5.7 handicap. Sla’inte


Drew December 22, 2016 at 8:15 am

Why won’t MGS date their articles and reviews???? If you go to the review section you have no idea when a review was done unless you look at the dates of user comments. Is this intentionally left out to trick readers? Cmon MGS….evolve!


Bradley M. Smith December 20, 2016 at 3:21 pm

Check your Data! What is DI’s real driver swing speed. I’m positive it isn’t 82 as is shown. All of his iron distances are consistent with a driver SS that is much higher… for example, the data shows he hit the 5 iron 10 yards further than NC who is shown with a driver SS of 102.


Duccio December 20, 2016 at 3:19 am

I’m 56, 6 hcp, driver speed about 95 mph. I’m going to change my old MP52 with a new set of iron and till august I was convinced to buy the MP25.
I tried them and they fit well to me especially with the PX5.5 shaft. Then Mizuno launched the JPX900 tour with whom they want achieve more forgiveness not using boron but a more sophisticated head design.
Have you more information about the different performance of these 2 irons which seem addressed to a similar player range.
It could be very interesting, very datacratic, if You could perform a head-to-head test.
Best regards


Jim Hardin December 19, 2016 at 10:15 pm

If using Foresight GC2, why not use the HMT unit to very strike location and also provide dynamic loft angles at impact for better comparisons?


Tony Covey December 20, 2016 at 8:33 am

There’s some cool stuff in the works with Foresight that we hope to be able to leverage very soon, but that aside, we’re going to start using HTM on every test in the very near future.


Steven C December 19, 2016 at 10:11 pm

Great test. I really like how you have presented the results. These are some high performance irons. I can’t say that I was offended by the ball speed of the 900 Hot Metal, however. Then again, I don’t take offense easily Keep up the good work MyGolfSpy.


Scott Sagely December 19, 2016 at 10:47 pm



Peewee Lewis December 19, 2016 at 10:46 pm

them mizzys puttem to close to pins for them


Scott Sagely December 19, 2016 at 10:39 pm



Matt Hornsby December 19, 2016 at 10:16 pm

Cold blooded


John Turner December 19, 2016 at 10:02 pm

Aren’t the lofts stronger on the hot metal and 900 forged which might account for the loss of distance in the 900 tour


Nathan Murray December 19, 2016 at 9:40 pm

I bought the 900 tours and they are sweet!!! Love the different look. They feel great and are easy to work. Very happy with them. No up charge on shaft options and grip options.


Haig Hanessian December 19, 2016 at 7:05 pm

Great article. You just saved me a thou! Sticking to my MP-54s


Jerry December 19, 2016 at 1:42 pm

Can MGS explain or have a factory rep explain loft rationale? I know most game improvement irons are typically ‘stronger’ than their tour models. But consider the shaft length is usually shorter so wonder if that offsets any perceived advantages. It would be good to hear from mfg’s and club designers why they do the things they do.


Tony Covey December 19, 2016 at 7:56 pm

It’s twofold. Part of is has to do with gaining distance. There are some golfers who want to hit their irons farther, and decreasing loft is one way to make that happen.

The second consideration is that the differences in loft are to varying degrees offset by the design of the head itself. Comparing the Hot Metal to the Tour, the center of gravity in the former is lower and farther from the shaft axis, this promotes an increase in dynamic loft on a relative basis, which creates higher loft for loft launch.

Basically, if the Hot Metal was the same loft as the Tour we would expect it would launch appreciably higher with more spin. The manufacturer perspective is generally that loft for loft, high MOI/low & back CG heads would launch too high for most golfer and would ultimately costing distance.

Frankly, I think there’s far too much discussion around loft. It’s not that loft doesn’t matter, but there’s certainly no such thing as the right or wrong loft. It’s not all about distance. Consider that drivers come in a variety of lofts. For any given individual a driver may have more or less loft than is optimal. The same is true for irons. It’s about finding the loft composition that works for you. For some that’s reasonably traditional, for others that can mean so-called jacked lofts.

My advice, don’t over-think iron distance. Tight dispersion, landing/descent angles and spin that provides stopping power without ballooning are, I believe, far more important.


Uhit December 20, 2016 at 6:00 am

The point is:

if a blade like clubhead (900 Tour), with the same loft, and the same shaft, produces the same distance and a similar dispersion, like a game improvement hot cavity back iron (900 Hot Metal)…

…the consumer can go for looks and feel and bendability (forged for more easy loft and lie angle fitting), as buying decision…
…and things like useability in regard of easy to clean, like the 900 Tour without a maze on the backside and with dirt repelling coating.

Thus, a comparison between the 900 Tour 4 iron with the same loft as the 900 Hot Metal 5 iron (same shaft), would be very interesting.


Jerry December 20, 2016 at 10:30 am

I agree Tony. Very good comeback. This does lead then to the question, wait for it….if blades make for a tighter dispersion and are relatively as long as game improvement irons….well you get my drift. We’ve seen this debated here before. Perhaps your next big “test” should be to prove/disprove if game improvement is true or a myth. For my money I would say the path to lower scoring is learning to hit more compact irons. I’m not alone on this. Many teachers say you need to learn to hit the sweet spot to gain consistency and with larger more forgiving heads it retards the learning process because you lose”feel” and don’t learn the proper swing techniques. But maybe MGS could get a test panel of two teams of high handicap golfers or beginners and have one team hit tour model clubs and the other game improvement irons. Average the results of each team then swap and test again. Dunno, might be interesting to see those results? Be fun either way to see the outcome.


Tony Covey December 20, 2016 at 2:09 pm

We’ll test with a broader range of players early next year when we kick off our Most Wanted Testing, but I think the practical discussion is a bit more nuanced.

I’m personally not a fan of the learn to hit the sweet spot argument. The truth is that even the pros miss (and you should note a general progression on tour towards more forgiving irons). Much like “you need to hit down on the ball to make it go up”, there’s not much data to support it. Regardless of the iron in your hand, the swing technique is basically the same, consistency doesn’t magically appear because you choose to play a less forgiving iron.

As for the nuance piece…take all the legitimate physics and everything else and toss it. The most forgiving iron is the one you hit most consistently towards the sweet spot, but some will punish misses worse than others. Game improvement is a real thing, but it’s not for everyone.

Some of that is driven by the mechanics of the swing, but those bits don’t break down cleanly across ability lines. For some (myself included), game-improvement irons, even with the jacked loft, I hit them too high with too much spin. On more than one occasion it’s been suggested that I might want to bend already strong irons a degree or two strong.

By the same token, there are some good players who can’t hit blades/players irons high enough. Do you add static loft, or look for something that can add loft dynamically?

I’m a firm believer in getting the numbers (and by extension the ball flight) as optimal as can be. Worry about forgiveness later. While golfers tend to think about irons differently, it’s really not much different than it is with drivers – some guys fit well into back CG drivers and so they get the forgiveness that comes with that, others don’t and so they have to sacrifice a bit of forgiveness for better overall performance.

The industry rarely talks in terms of game-improvement drivers. I think we’d all be better served if phrases like that went away from the iron space as well. It muddies the waters and creates divides where they probably shouldn’t be.


Jerry December 20, 2016 at 5:48 pm

So is this Mizuno comparison an outlier or anomaly or does it make my point? That is, hitting a compact head forces the user to hit the optimal spot thus producing a tighter dispersion. I don’t disagree with your position, you obviously see more club tests than I do. But looking at the top ten Pro’s, half hit pure blades and the others hit a blade-like perimeter weighted compact head. None hit anything approaching a “game improvement” iron. Iron designs have incorporated muscle backs and CG placement changes and thin faces and perimeter weighting but better players all seem to wind up with compact head designs (compared to game improvement irons) with little to no offset because it would appear they help to force a more center hit as opposed to “allowing” a hit across a wider sweet spot. There is no doubt today’s tour model has a larger sweet spot than Ben Hogan’s 1-iron used to win the 1950 US Open at Merion. But I bet Hogan would argue his famous shot could only have been made hitting a spot with no forgiveness. Now if a golfer only plays once a month and is happy making one par in 18 holes, a large trampoline faced perimeter weighted iron with a huge offset with no feedback feel might be great. But for those wanting to improve you need to groove a good swing. The argument is what iron gets you there quicker? That is the test that would interest many I believe.


Tony Covey December 20, 2016 at 6:06 pm

Jerry – I think we’ve inadvertently stumbled into an unrelated discussion. Certainly, we do have some guys who hit tour/small irons better, but I believe it’s a reflection of the dynamics of the head design working better, not a case of being forced into hitting the sweet spot. You mention offset. Like many things, that’s not an absolute, it helps for some, not others.

Regarding the pros, yeah…the top (when last I checked anyway) is reasonably evenly split, which wasn’t the case just a few years ago. Spieth plays AP2s, TaylorMade’s guys have experimented with more forgiving irons, and then you have guys like Bubba whose sponsors have created a more forgiving blade. So I think the larger trend on tour is towards more forgiveness.

Within our own tests it gets tricky. How do you account for outliers is an effective manner. In this test, for example, we saw significantly more outliers with the Tour model. This coupled with wider deviations in ball speed suggests a legitimate penalty for missing. We didn’t include the outliers in our ellipses, but I think we’re going to start including everything but the most severe as we think it will paint a more accurate picture of the realities.

All of that said, and to bring this back around…some guys will absolutely be more consistent with more compact irons, but as I’ve said, that’s not about forcing the sweet spot, so much as finding a design spec that allows for consistent delivery. I suppose that’s a bit of the chicken vs. egg debate.


Jerry December 20, 2016 at 10:34 pm

There used to be a practice putter device that was essentially a steel ball on a shaft. The device forced the user to hit precisely square like a combo ball in shooting pool. There’s no room for error. The point is when you hit an iron the ball reacts and torques the face and a miss of fractions of inches can cause a bad shot. Thus mfgs try to widen the sweet spot and diffuse torque and lower CG, yadda yadda. The question is, does the golfer improve if he can slightly misshit his shot yet achieve the similar result of a ball hit with a blade’s smaller hitting area? That is the question I think?


Uhit December 21, 2016 at 4:50 am

I´m pretty sure, that you are (in principle) right…
…and that one should use (at least for training purposes) longer irons with less offset, a small head and a even, plane, surface with a true feedback, of what you have really put in with your swing (at least that is what I do…).

I also like clubs with a black finish, because I don´t need a face tape, to see, where the range ball was hit, due to the debris of the ball, still sticking on the face.
No need for a launch monitor, that tells you, where you have hit the ball…

Why not use unforgiving, black irons, and in addition, what ever forgiving club you like, when you think you need it?


Jerry December 21, 2016 at 3:37 pm

Not sure if you are being rhetorical but I do hit Mizuno 30/32 combo’s. But I am not suggesting I am the prototypical golfer here. I came to blades years ago because that’s pretty much all there was. My older brother switched to Cally’s a year ago that are a game improvement model with aerotech shafts. He is minimally a club longer now but he seems to be a little less accurate than before. Very anecdotal I agree. I am playing Rifle 6.0’s and if I wasn’t so cheap I’d reshaft with 5.0’s or something in between. But I have actually become much more accurate and think it’s because I am swinging slower and yes, hitting dead center on the face. I have found that center hit shots go straighter and are longer. When I do hit game improvement irons, like my bro’s Cally’s they just don’t transmit any feel. Again anecdotal. I think Tony should conduct a wider test and see if various handicappers hit better shots with compact heads or gamers. Frankly this Mizuno test would seem to say yes. The data looks pretty conclusive after all with tighter dispersion for the tour model. I don’t know if the MGS test had testers hitting at flags or not but the issue shouldn’t be how long a 7-iron goes but rather is a tour model better at getting the ball closer to the hole even if it takes one more club. If I have a 150 yd shot to a green would I rather hit a tour 6-iron closer the the hole or a game improvement 7-iron hole high but off the putting surface?


Uhit December 21, 2016 at 4:19 pm

I´m completely with you, and think, that it is no good advice, if someone forces a beginner into game improvement stuff.
I´m much more concentrated on the golf shot, since I use forged (nearly blade style) irons…
…they feel great, I have a true feedback, and I love it, when I hit the center.

I also think that the shaft makes a big difference.

I can only tell the people to try and to test and try again, because I am so excited about the feel and satisfying result on a good stroke, that I would belittle me, if I wouldn´t have tried tour style clubs with spring steel shafts.

Kenny B December 19, 2016 at 1:30 pm

The distances for DI and BS do not seem to correlate to their swing speed. Are they correct?

Very nice looking irons. Even though I am not in the market, I might have to give them a swing. Thanks!


Troy Vayanos December 19, 2016 at 1:08 pm

Great irons the Mizuno, bought my second set this year in May and got the MP-25.

The ball comes off great and I’ve never been disappointed with the quality of the irons.

Built to last!


James Dailey December 19, 2016 at 6:02 pm

Hit ’em and didn’t like them. The feel is sooo different compared to a traditional mizuno forged iron. Much more “clacky ” than that buttery smooth feel.


RollTheRock December 19, 2016 at 4:10 pm

Which is “em” because as an MP-4 player I thought the JPX Tour was amazing. Not hitting the toe is advised.


Duncan Castles December 19, 2016 at 1:00 pm

Brilliant. You go through the entire head-to-head test without pointing out that the Hot Metal and Forged 5 and 7 irons are a whole three degrees stronger in loft than the equivalent Tour irons. Hot Metal and Forged pitching wedge a degree stronger.


Uhit December 19, 2016 at 1:17 pm

…and if you consider that the 900 Forged and Hot Metal 5 irons have the same loft as the 900 Tour 4 iron (24 deg)…
…you would come to the conclusion, that at the same loft, neither ball speed, nor distance of the non tour irons, are bigger than with the 900 Tour irons…
…which is a clear win for the 900 Tour irons – in my book.


Mark December 19, 2016 at 12:41 pm

How do these compare to the srixon irons? One you post yards off line the other you posted shot area. Could you do it for both?


Darin Davis December 19, 2016 at 12:32 pm

I’m working with a fitter who suggested a mixed set, and that’s what I’m going with. P-8 JPX Tour, 5-7 Forged, 4-Hot Metal.


Jerry December 19, 2016 at 12:28 pm

Just played a round in Tx last Monday. I’m still playing MP30/32’s blended st with Rifle 6.0’s. Shafts are way too stiff for my now slower swing speed. “But” will attest that I’ve never hit a straighter ball. The obvious downside is now need 2 clubs more on most irons. It’s an interesting problem. My scoring is very consistent but must admit I miss hitting a long ball. The other downside is lower ball flight. Thus I tend to like a higher spin ball. Getting old presents problems but I do like hitting a straight ball. Your test is intriguing because I might face a similar decision I have now with my old Mizuno blades, that being go with the straighter but shorter Tour model or longer but less accurate gamers.


Ruben Acosta December 19, 2016 at 12:27 pm

I have wonder that as the clubs get larger then it sweet spot center also moves. Many irons do not have cg exactly in middle of face length. As this center moves testers may experience more variation than smaller blade designs.


Dave Hill December 19, 2016 at 12:27 pm

What are the in-class competitors for these irons? I’m similarly intrigued by this review and the recent Srixon iron reviews and want to make sure if I test them in a fitting, I do an apples to apples comparison.



Mark Boyce December 19, 2016 at 5:13 pm

How does this compare to the srixon z irons.


Donovan Childers December 19, 2016 at 5:54 pm

I tested 765’s against the tours. Both had similar distance, I preferred the srixions. Both tested with same shaft. You might find something different in your testing. Srixion is cheaper too.


Mark Boyce December 19, 2016 at 6:00 pm

I was leaning towards a srixon combo. It would be nice if they compared the dispersion the same way though.


Steven C December 19, 2016 at 10:04 pm

I have hit both and I prefer the Srixon Z 65 irons.


Roger Peters December 19, 2016 at 5:11 pm

I don’t see where you specified the shafts and lofts for each club tested??


Donovan Childers December 19, 2016 at 5:56 pm

Forged and hot metal are 3 degrees stronger in the 5 and 7 compared to tours. 1 in the pw


Roger Peters December 19, 2016 at 7:15 pm

Donovan Childers thanks, big Mizuno fan wish club mfgr’s would stick to standard lofting, all 3 clubs were using same shaft? I was curious, considering combo set options.


robin December 19, 2016 at 11:55 am

They say only 10 percent of the population breaks one hundred . So how many sets of tour blades does a company like mizuno usually make in a run ,or even sell to the public?


Massimo Sangiovanni December 19, 2016 at 4:48 pm

I just bought the Hot Metal, I can’t wait to try them on golf course !!!


Gary Dell'Abate December 19, 2016 at 11:44 am

I still play the 825 Pros from 3-4 years ago. 1 HCP, 115 mph swing speed. I took them in and tested against the new 900 Tours at GolfTEC with the same shaft (KBS C-taper X). With the 900 Tours, my dispersion wasn’t as tight and I was anywhere from 10-15 yards shorter. I know the lofts are different but to me the biggest difference was the feel. Tours felt clicky.

The forged now has my attention. Thanks for the testing!


MyGolfSpy December 19, 2016 at 11:48 am


Baba-booey to ya’ll. As you can tell from the GP2InBlackandGold chart of the review I think the 900 tours would be your best choice.

That way the next time you hit’em with the Hein you will most likely be splitting the fairways. Hey Fred.



Chris Peyton December 19, 2016 at 4:23 pm

8 sets in 17 years of marriage !!!!!


John McGovern December 19, 2016 at 3:30 pm

17 sets in 8 years of marriage!!!


Leave a Comment