2015 Most Wanted Game-Improvement Irons
Irons

2015 Most Wanted Game-Improvement Irons

Support our Mission. We independently test each product we recommend. When you buy through our links, we may earn a commission.

2015 Most Wanted Game-Improvement Irons

What are the qualities of a great game-improvement iron?

Distance? Accuracy? Forgiveness? We believe the best game-improvement irons offer an outstanding balance of the three – and their performance is consistent with every iron in the bag.

As it turns out, finding a set of irons that does exactly that is no easy task.

Most-Wanted-Game-Improvement-Irons-1

Defining the Game-Improvement Category

This year we put ten of the top game-improvement irons to the test. The irons we tested, while not the absolute most forgiving in most manufacturer’s lineups, are generally well-suited for the average golfer.

The target handicap range for these products is generally ranges from the high single-digits to upwards of 20 (and sometimes beyond). These designs feature wider soles, thicker toplines, a fair amount of offset, and comparatively larger blades. They’re designed to be easy to hit (easy to get in the air), and very forgiving.

They are among the most popular iron designs on the market today.

how-we-test-banner-irons

For full details of our test conditions, see our How We Test Irons Page (coming soon).

  • 20 Testers took part in this season’s iron tests.
  • Our panel consisted of golfers with a wide variety of swing speeds and launch conditions. Handicaps ranged from the high single-digits to eighteen.
  • Golfers were asked to hit a series of shots with the short, middle, and long irons in each set.

  • All irons were tested in their stock configurations with manufacturer’s standard length and lie.
  • Golfers were fit into the appropriate flex.
  • In the majority of cases, test sets were supplied by the manufacturer. Titleist and Callaway declined our invitation to participate. Our AP1 and XR sets were obtained from retail sources.

About the Data

Here’s what you need to know in order to interpret our basic data and rankings. Launch monitor data along with the radial distance, shot area, and consistency calculations shown in each chart can be found on our 2015 Most Wanted Game-Improvement Iron data page.

  • Distance (yards) is the average distance (regardless of left/right dispersion) for each iron.
  • Radial Distance (distance to the pin) is shown in feet.
  • Shot Area is a measure of the dispersion or consistency of each iron. It provides the size (yards squared) of a 90% confidence ellipse (the area in which 90% of shots can expected to fall). A smaller value should be regarded as better.
  • Carry Consistency is how we quantify forgiveness. The value presented is the standard deviation of carry distance (regardless of left/right dispersion). Once again, a smaller number is better.

The Test Results

Irons were evaluated for distance, accuracy, forgiveness, and consistency. Key data points and rankings for each iron tested are provided below in the sections below.

mwgiiron-2015-1st

Overall #1 in short, middle, and long irons, TaylorMade’s RSi1 iron basically annihilated the field. In terms of pure performance, it’s unquestionably the best in class.

Testing Notes:

  • Most forgiving in the long iron category
  • Extremely consistent and accurate in middle iron testing
  • Very strong performer throughout the set

TaylorMade-RSi1-Chart

mwgiiron-2015-2nd

A strong, and likely surprising result from a company whose irons don’t generally get top billing, Cobra’s FLY-Z is a compelling alternative for those not moved by the RSi1.

Testing Notes:

  • Long irons are both long and forgiving
  • Outstanding forgiveness throughout the set
  • Well above average accuracy

cobra-fly-z-chart

mwgiiron-2015-3rd

A game-improvement iron for golfers who don’t like game-improvement irons, Srixons Z545 offers outstanding performance from a forged iron.

Testing Notes:

  • Forged head offers outstanding feel
  • Overall good results, with exceptionally good long iron performance
  • Dynamic Gold shaft should appeal to quicker, more aggressive players who struggle with lightweight shafts

Srixon-Z545-Chart

mwgiiron-2015-4th

Overall an above average performer, Callaway’s XR is well-suited to golfers looking to maximize distance.

Testing Notes:

  • #1 or #2 overall for long and middle iron distance
  • Some question marks around accuracy and dispersion (particularly at middle iron distance)
  • While XR’s outstanding short iron consistency is easily quantifiable, testers commented that the long irons are among the easiest to hit

callaway-xr-chart

mwgiiron-2015-5th

A steady, though seldom standout performer, PINGs G30 was among the most consistent iron sets we tested.

Testing Notes:

  • Similar performance at all distances
  • Accuracy and dispersion at scoring distance is compelling
  • The shortest iron tested

ping-g30-chart

mwgiiron-2015-5th-1

An almost predictably steady offering from Titleist, the AP1 offers steady performance in a no-nonsense package that should appeal to golfers who prefer a more traditional aesthetic.

Testing Notes:

  • Short irons were longest tested, but hot spots are a concern
  • Though shorter than average, long irons are among the most accurate
  • All-around solid performer that shows Titleist is more than just a ball company

titleist-ap1-chart

mwgiiron-2015-7

While the it doesn’t grab the attention of it’s forged brothers, Mizuno’s JPX-850 was a favorite among several of our testers.

Testing Notes:

  • Consistently the highest launching/highest trajectory set tested
  • Not exceptionally long, and generally average for the key performance metrics we consider

mizuno-jpx-850-chart

mwgiiron-2015-8

One of several sets where testers opinions changed with the various irons in the set, Bridgestone’s J15 Cast misses the mark.

Testing Notes:

  • Short iron performance may be intriguing
  • Accurate though inconsistent long iron performance

bridgestone-J15-Cast-Chart

mwgiiron-2015-9

Though there were a few bright spots during testing, Nike’s Vapor Speed produced generally sub-par results.

Testing Notes:

  • Like XR, testers found the long iron easy to hit
  • Testers struggled to hit it consistently well

nike-vapor-speed-chart

mwgiiron-2015-10

A curious offering from Tour Edge, testers feedback suggests a lack of continuity throughout the set.

Testing Notes:

  • Above average distance from long and middle irons
  • Among the largest heads in this category

touredge-e8-chart

Rankings

The chart below shows where each iron ranked for each of the four performance metrics we considered for long, mid, and short irons. To see more launch monitor data, please visit the 2015 Most Wanted Game Improvement Iron data page. We’ve broken our rankings out by category to allow you to isolate the performance characteristics that are most important to you.

Note: There are separate tabs for long, middle, and short iron performance.

Support Unbiased Club Testing:

We’re not lying when we say that we refuse to take advertising from the biggest names in golf. We truly believe it’s the only way to remain above the influence, publish real results based on real data, and continue to provide honest opinion and commentary about what’s happening inside the golf equipment industry.

If you found this report useful, meaningful, or just interesting, please consider making a donation to help support MyGolfSpy’s independence.

We accept credit cards through PayPal. A PayPal account is not required in order to donate.

If you need even more help in finding the right equipment, explore our other product reviews, or our buying guides. Get the greatest gear for the greatest game ever played.

[donation-can goal_id=’fund-the-revolution’ style_id=’mgs’ show_progress=false show_description=false show_donations=false show_title=false title=”]

For You

For You

Golf Shafts
Apr 14, 2024
Testers Wanted: Autoflex Dream 7 Driver Shaft
News
Apr 14, 2024
A Rare Masters ‘L’: Day Asked To Remove Sweater
Drivers
Apr 13, 2024
Testers Wanted: Callaway Ai Smoke Drivers
MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

Our mission is #ConsumerFirst. We are here to help educate and empower golfers. We want you to get the most out of your money, time and performance. That means providing you with equipment reviews you can trust, as well as honest reporting on the latest issues affecting the game today. #PowerToThePlayer

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

Driver Ping G30 Hybrids PXG 0317
3/4 IRON PXG 0311XF 5-GW Srixon Z 565
SW PXG 0317 LW PXG 0311
Putter EVNROLL  
MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy





    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

      cpn_golf

      8 years ago

      Great to see the RSi1 coming out on top. I switched from Callaway X-20 uniflex to RSi1 with regular graphite and the it’s been great. Very consistent, great sound, and awesome trajectory. I will say the metrics used by the manufacturers are a great marketing ploy to be careful when getting your fit test with distance. My X-20 were shorter hitting, yes. However, the RSi1 3-iron, which I can his 200 to 220 yards is 17 deg loft whereas the 2-iron for X-20 which I did not even own had 18 deg loft. The X-20 3-iron is a full 3 deg loft MORE than the RSi1.

      Distance is over-rated IMO anyway to be a good golfer, but still interesting to explore all this.

      Reply

      BB

      8 years ago

      I hit the RSi’s on a monitor, just to look at my numbers, but not to look at any clubs in particular.. It just happened to be the 7-iron I grabbed..
      Anyway, my 90% dispersion was average 210, with shots from about 197-225, most falling in 205-215 range, with a pretty narrow window off-center.. Maybe 13 yds left to 7 yds right.. Even hulked up on one that went 250.. Yes, a 250 yard 7-iron.. My driver swing speed is in the 120’s and my 7-iron was in the mid-upper 90’s.. Could’ve just been the sensors, monitor, etc for some of this, but there’s no denying these clubs are long and straight.. I also really liked the shaft offering.. The Callaway with the new graphite shaft was awful imo

      Reply

      Bullwinkle Moose

      8 years ago

      To me the single most fascinating thing is Nike Irons. I bought a one year old Covert 2.0 forged and hit them in steel better than I hit my old Callaway X2 graphite. When I tested the new Nikes they were incredibly bad, not just for me but a friend tested them too. Why would a company discontinue a good product for new paint on old pigs? I do not think the Covert 2.0 would have won the Iron contest, but I guarantee they wouldn’t have been in the bottom 3. I’m not a Nike player usually first Nike Irons ever, but they best this and last years Mizuno’s for me. I don’t think I’ll be changing irons anytime soon, Nike must have let a good set through their quality control and I’ll just keep them.

      Reply

      NevinW

      9 years ago

      When are you going to do this kind of testing on the RSI2 category irons?

      Reply

      doug

      9 years ago

      in my way of thinking, 20 handicappers involved in testing and rating game improvement irons is a waste of time. scratch players hitting the same clubs would yield a much better opinion of which brands were # 1 – 9. anybody agree ?

      Reply

      jwb

      9 years ago

      I have to disagree Doug. The scratch player hit the clubs more centered at a relative high swing speed and therefore create more similar results with different clubs. The results will be more close to each other.
      Whereas with higher handicapper (80% of the golfers?) you will see more mishits and dispersion on the face of the clubs. And then the true performance of a golfclub will stand out, how forgiving is it really? when being mishit, with a lower swing speed?
      In my opion when testing regular irons (not CB or MB’s) you should use a broad range of golfers. Similar to the real world distribution of golfers…low (5-10%) mid (10-40%) high (50%) handicappers as test golfers.

      Reply

      Steven

      9 years ago

      Are any additional results from this test in the works? I would like to see:
      — the performance of the irons by handicap and by swing speed.
      — how much the shot area varies by handicap and by swing speed.

      If you are not going to do the analysis, is there any chance that I could get the data from you and do the analysis?

      Thanks

      Reply

      Steven

      9 years ago

      Reply

      Steven

      9 years ago

      Thoughts about distance:
      • MyGolfSpy wanted to include distance into the ratings because that is how iron sets are marketed and how some consumers evaluate iron sets. I am not one of those consumers, but I understand why they wanted to include it. So, what is the best way to use distance in ranking these irons? One could look at the distance of the short irons (111-119 yards), but I don’t know anyone who is looking for more distance in their short irons. One could look at the distance of the mid irons (150-154 yards), but they are so similar that there isn’t really a meaningful difference. Here are two proposals for how distance could be used in the rankings, especially given that shot area is the more important statistic. Both of them use distance as a separate dimension for rating irons:
      o One could look at the distance of the long irons, which is where most golfers looking for distance probably want it, and use it in conjunction with the shot area to evaluate the irons. I would create a scatter diagram with distance of the long iron on the horizontal axis (164 to 174 yards) and average Z score for the mid and long iron shot areas on the vertical axis (-2 to 2). Doing this would allow golfers to select an iron with the most important attributes to them. For example, if someone wants the longest iron that also has a small shot area they could look at the irons that are low on the vertical axis that are also as far right (long) as possible (Cobra FLY-Z). If someone didn’t want distance out of their irons, they could look at the irons that are low on the vertical axis that are also as far left (short) as possible (AP1). A graph like this shows that the Z 545, G30, XR, and FLY-Z are all pretty similar in their shot area but differ more on the distance of their long irons.
      o The other option, which I favor, would be to calculate the difference between the short iron and long iron for each set and use that on the horizontal axis (46 to 59 yards) and average Z score for the mid and long iron shot areas on the vertical axis (-2 to 2). Golfers who are not long hitters have short distances between their irons (i.e. tight gapping). They would want to look at iron sets that have small shot areas (low on the vertical axis) and toward the right side of the horizontal axis (larger difference between the short iron and long iron distance). Examples include the RSI1, FLY-Z, G30, and XR. Golfers who are long hitters have longer distances between their irons (i.e. large gapping). If they wanted to have smaller gapping they could look at irons that have small shot areas (low on the vertical axis) that are toward the left of the horizontal axis (smaller difference between the short and long iron distance). Examples include the AP1 and Z 545 (closer to the middle, but still shorter than average on this measure).
      o It would have been easier to upload my graphs than to explain it in writing, but I couldn’t do it. I hope this made sense. What I think it accomplishes is that it allows golfers to decide how big a factor distance is in their selection of an iron set.

      Reply

      Steven

      9 years ago

      A few more thoughts about the data:
      • I am still convinced that the Shot Area (90% confidence ellipse) is the most important statistic for judging iron sets. Hitting irons to predictable distances with a tight dispersion is key to shooting a good score.
      • As Hippocamp pointed out, there isn’t a meaningful correlation between the shot area of the short irons and the mid irons or long irons. This might be because the sample size is small, or because the data isn’t normally distributed, or because there is too little variability in the scores of the short irons, or last but not least, because there is no relation between the performance of short irons and mid or long irons in the same set. I don’t know what the answer is, but here is the analogy that I suggested previously, but perhaps better stated. In putting, there is very little difference in the performance of tour players for putts of less than 3 feet. The real difference in performance is on midrange putts. I would extend the analogy to equipment also. Inside of 3 feet, it almost doesn’t matter what putter you use because you can make the vast majority of putts. It is on the midrange putts that the putter could make a big difference. The same could be true for iron sets as well. Perhaps there is very little difference in the performance of tour players for short irons and that there is very little difference in the performance of short irons. The biggest differentiation could be in the ball striking ability and club performance of mid and long irons.
      • I am reluctant to throw out the shot area scores for the short irons, so here is another approach. The correlation coefficient relies on the pattern between all of the scores. For one or more reasons, there isn’t a correlation. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t interesting things going on in the data. What I did was to look at the Z scores to see how irons performed. In this case, negative Z scores indicate that an iron had a smaller than average shot area, which is a good thing. There were a few irons that were consistent performers. The RSI1 had small Z scores for short, mid, and long irons (-.98, -1.88, and -.98). Two other iron sets had negative Z scores or close to zero across the board: the G30 (-1.18, .06, and -.40) and the Z 545 (-.01, -.11, and -1.05). Everything else had mixed performance except for the E8, which had high Z scores across the board (.39, 1.49, and 1.58).
      • If you did throw out the short iron shot areas, I would calculate the average Z score for the mid and long irons. The RSI1 is the stand out, but there are others that do quite well and three that don’t. Here are the average Z scores for the mid and long irons. Again, negative Z scores mean a small shot area.
      Average Z Score Rank by Average Z Score
      TaylorMade RSI1 -1.43 1
      Titlest AP1 -0.87 2
      Srixon Z545 -0.58 3
      Cobra FLY-Z -0.31 4
      Callaway XR -0.25 5
      Ping G30 -0.17 6
      Nike Vapor Speed 0.08 7
      Mizuno JPX-850 0.61 8
      Bridgestone J15 Cast 1.37 9
      TourEdge Exotics E8 1.54 10

      Reply

      jwb

      9 years ago

      Thanks Steven!

      It is a good thing to look at the results in multiple ways.

      And i think the results speak for themselfes. In the last couple of weeks i have been trying out new irons myself, because i want a new set. I have hit these;
      Cobra Z and Z+, Titleist AP1 and AP2, Callaway Apex, XR and XR pro, Taylormade RSI 1 and 2, Mizuno MP25 and JPX850 forged, Ping G25 and G30 and i-series.

      The clubs that performed well for me where;
      Callaway XR Pro
      Taylormade RSi1
      Titleist AP1 and AP2
      (and your results support this quite well)

      THe clubs i expected more of where the Cobra’s and Mizuno’s. I have Mizuno wedges and they are brilliant. But the Mizuno irons need hard work from me and don’t perform well for me. This was quit an eye opener for me but your results support this! Also my swingspeed dropped mare than 10Mph with the Mizuno’s. I regularly have an iron swingspeed of 89Mph and with the Mizuno’s only 78Mph… even a different shaft did not make a change in that, hoe strange.

      Currently i have a set of Taylormade irons, but the thing for me is that the face slots (and bottom slot) put me off. I find them ugly and it hinders my thought and focus. Therefore they are not for me, sorry Taylormade.

      The best performer in ease of hitting, precision and consistancy for me is the Titleist AP2.
      The AP1 performs equal but with the AP2 I am able to shape the shot a bit more.
      So I am currently shopping for AP2’s with KBS Tour shafts (R/R+). (714 or 716 model)

      Reply

      wayne

      9 years ago

      Callaway are the worst hitting irons made. Taylormade feel like toys when you hit them.
      I would never buy either. I dont understand why golfers like these clubs. 85% of the pros would buy Mizuno if they werent given clubs buy these companies. They give the pros these clubs because they wouldnt play Callaway or Taylormade otherwise.

      Reply

      Jeff H

      9 years ago

      TM has lost sight of the importance of fan loyalty.

      Now that they are possibly being dumped by Adidas after TWO horrendous losing seasons (- 28%) they sell off their “old” stock at dirt cheap outlet prices and come on with the perfect irons we all thought we were buying in FIRST PLACE!!

      Nothing has changed… They are still going down with the same “Big” business corrupt market manipulation practices they have always used.

      I will not forgive them for that and for what they did to Adams golf.
      If you can’t beat’em, acquire them and then destroy them.

      TM is one of the biggest reasons the small business pro shops are dying as well as forcing Big Dick’s firing of 500 golf pros.

      I am totally in favor of capitalism/competition, but not at the expense of morals and ethics which are the ONLY things that can save TM now.

      Reply

      Bullwinkle Moose

      8 years ago

      Jeff that was very well said and I pretty much agree. I once played Adam’s woods and hybrids and Taylor Made irons. Now I have only a TM putter from that company, not because of quality but their business practices. You are only the 3rd person I’ve ever heard express that opinion, besides myself and a fellow golfer.

      Reply

      golfercraig

      9 years ago

      I like these tests. But i like the comments even more. What a group of 3rd graders.

      Reply

      Simon-Marc Brendling

      9 years ago

      Specology not technology… TM and Callaway :)

      Reply

      Martin Smith ‘Shorty’

      9 years ago

      Note Jaco Faulconer, the taylormade 6 iron that you were hitting how may yards on the simulator. Open the site to see the results……..

      Reply

      Martin Smith ‘Shorty’

      9 years ago

      238yds = + – 220mt, not bad for a 6 iron ne’…..

      Reply

      Jaco Faulconer

      9 years ago

      Not bad for a rookie I guess

      Reply

      Neil Cameron

      9 years ago

      Whos going to buy Tm now Adidas is pulling the plug.Are they profitable as a stand alone company?

      Reply

      Scott Kerruish

      9 years ago

      Pretty easy to make an irons go farther….just decrease the lofts and lengthen the shafts….like most (but not all) of them. Good luck to any 20 handicapper trying to hit a 20 degree 4 iron!!

      Reply

      Gil Leonard

      9 years ago

      Not a TM fan………

      Reply

      Jeff H

      9 years ago

      TM has lost sight of the importance of fan loyalty.

      Now that they are possibly being dumped by Adidas after TWO horrendous losing seasons (- 28%) they sell off their “old” stock at dirt cheap outlet prices and come on with the perfect irons we all thought we were buying in FIRST PLACE!!

      Nothing has changed… They are still going down with the same “Big” business corrupt market manipulation practices they have always used.

      I will not forgive them for that and for what they did to Adams golf.
      If you can’t beat’em, acquire them and then destroy them.

      TM is one of the biggest reasons the small business pro shops are dying as well as forcing Big Dick’s firing of 500 golf pros.

      I am totally in favor of capitalism/competition, but not at the expense of morals and ethics which are the ONLY things that can save TM now.

      Reply

      Glenn Beardsall

      9 years ago

      Children’s toys next to a set of Mizunos.

      Reply

      Tom

      9 years ago

      Would be nice if you also listed what shaft was in the irons tested. I know when I got fit the shaft made more difference than any club head. There was a difference in the club heads I tried but the shaft made more difference and not just what flex but it’s weight and bend profile.

      Reply

      Guanto

      9 years ago

      I believe it states in the article that they were all stock steel shafts.

      Reply

      Tom

      9 years ago

      Yes, but that means one has to look them up on the web to see them.

      Hippocamp

      9 years ago

      One thing you have to worry about with these tests is that the results are just due to random differences for the particular shots that were hit.

      A way to test this is to look at the correlation between performance for the different iron types (short, mid, long). Since these were presumably different clubs and different shots, if the overall results reflected random chance, there should be no relationship between the performance ratings for short irons compared with the mids, for the mids compared with the longs, etc..

      I looked at the “Shot area” data as the best measure of accuracy and consistency and therefore the most important statistic (see Steven’s comment, above).

      For shot area, there is absolutely no correlation between accuracy of the short irons and accuracy of the mid and long irons… So, the models that do well and badly for the short irons have no relationship with the models that do well and badly for the mid and long irons.

      HOWEVER, there is a moderate correlation between shot area for the mid irons and long irons (r = .58, p = .07). So, the models that tended to do well and badly for the mid irons also tended to do well and badly for the long irons.

      Takeaway: We can have moderate confidence that there were REAL differences between the accuracy of the different models and that those differences were most consistently observed for the mid and long irons. The clubs with best shot area results for mid and long irons were: 1) TM RSI1, 2) Titleist AP1, 3) Srixon Z545,

      Reply

      Steven

      9 years ago

      Hippocamp,
      I like the idea of calculating correlations. Here are a few thoughts about doing so.
      • First, it is a very small data set. One of my professors would be unhappy about doing a correlation on such a small data set.
      • Second, one of the assumptions of the Pearson r is that the data is normally distributed. That isn’t true for any of the Shot Area scores (short, mid, or long irons).
      • Third, there is little variability in the short iron scores while the mid and long irons have similar, and much larger variability. (See the standard deviation in the table below.) One of the reasons that there may not be a correlation between short irons and mid or long irons is that there is relatively little variability in the short iron scores. That is, there isn’t much differentiation between their performances. Put another way, from 115 yards (the average distance of the short irons) competent users can probably hit most of the irons into a fairly small area (a 14×14 yard area is close to the average). If you make a scatter diagram with a similar range for short irons (0-500 on the X axis) and mid irons (200-700 on the Y axis) you will see that the short iron scores are relatively close together compared to the mid iron scores.
      • From the perspective of strokes gained, the short irons aren’t where people are going to make up strokes against the field because there isn’t much differentiation in performance. This is true of tour players, but it may also be true of clubs as well. Longer approach shots is where dominant players typically have the greatest strokes gained. Caveats about doing a correlation aside, if we do a correlation between the mid and long irons it does show something interesting. I am glad that you did it. (Note that the correlation isn’t statistically significant because of the small sample size, but r is also an effect size, and this qualifies as a large effect size [r = .585, p = .076].) An iron set that produces a smaller Shot Area in the mid and long irons is arguably the most important criteria for a set of irons, assuming that the short irons aren’t substantially worse than other iron sets.
      • I will update with another post tomorrow or Friday.

      Iron Type Mean Standard Deviation
      Short Iron 190.07 36.36
      Mid Iron 489.17 123.11
      Long Iron 786.61 127.00

      Reply

      Jim

      9 years ago

      Great review as is typical for MGS. Interesting to find the TM iron at the top. However I’m curious as to why this review is happening now? Alot of these irons are likely to be replaced in the very near future with the 2016 models so why test them now versus waiting for the next models or even performing this this test last spring? Great review and very informative and look forward to more similar reviews.

      Reply

      Miguel Hinojosa

      9 years ago

      8 HCP. Very pleased with RSi 1 performance and feel.
      I Tried XR since my old set was X-Hot. RSi 1 are the best!

      Reply

      dr. bloor

      9 years ago

      As an addition to next year’s test, it would be interesting to put the irons through the paces on real turf, preferably with a variety of lie conditions. Golfers in the handicap range of interest here are often hitting second and third shots off of non-optimal lies, or simply don’t play courses with fairway conditions that mimic the Real Feel golf mats. YMMV, although I’ve hit about a third of the sets in the test, and the sole/turf interactions varied considerably.

      Reply

      Shahrul Nizam

      9 years ago

      ???????

      Reply

      Sean

      9 years ago

      Is it possible that the manufacturer supplied a set of clubs hand picked. We all know cast club lies can be all over the place due to manufacturing tolerances. It’s in their interest to supply a set. Unless the are confident of their product.

      Reply

      KFlare

      9 years ago

      Tell me more about what “we all know” about cast clubs, because the manufacturing tolerances can be just fine. Plus, most playability variation will come during assembly.

      Reply

      Sean

      9 years ago

      Sorry maybe it was an assumption, I work in manufacturing and all specifications have upper and lower limits. If not all the clubs and their specs would have to be tested individually difficult to do and costly if you want to mass produce. Let’s say a 9 iron lie angle is 64* + or – a degree (I’m being generous). Your clubs may need to be adjusted after you buy them and with some cast clubs that can be very difficult.
      My point was if the manufacturer gives you clubs for a review you better believe they’re they checked the quality and specs of that set. Maybe the same can’t be said for buying off the retailer hence a more real test.
      I had a bad experience with a set of JPX800 irons now I game forged irons so I can check and adjust myself.

      KFlare

      9 years ago

      Got you, I understand your point. With most modern clubs, both cast and forged, loft and lie are dialed in during assembly by bending the hosel (or banging the head with a mallet). So, they should be adjustable aftermarket. I’ve had the opportunity to adjust Ping clubs (they were cast 17-4 stainless) and they told me that it takes a huge adjustment (~10 deg) to risk cracking the hosel.

      To your point, might be interesting to see verification of club specs for these tests. I think MGS did a tolerance check of suppliers recently. Or did I make that up?

      Mael Komeng

      9 years ago

      Shahrul Nizam…. Tak sangka pulak

      Reply

      John Cole

      9 years ago

      The best…

      Reply

      jw

      9 years ago

      Teaj, look for Mizuno’s. The are not specifically long but the most accurate and best “feeling” irons, especially the forged one’s (my opinion of course)

      Reply

      paul

      9 years ago

      I enjoy your comparison reviews.

      Reply

      Adam Hubbard

      9 years ago

      Not Marketing its word of mouth now a days. And I can honestly say being in the Golf business XR out sold RSi almost everytime I put into a customers hands. Rsi is a great iron and performs great don’t get me wrong, but Callaway Golf killed it with XR line this year.

      Reply

      Stu

      9 years ago

      Great test as usual Golf Spy. Thanks for all the hard work.
      As a side who makes TM stock iron shafts (True Temper?)

      Also i find it a little amusing is that TM gets beat up so much on
      their marketing, more distance, constant release of new better clubs, etc but obviously they make a great product or at least a great game improvement iron.

      Reply

      Steve

      9 years ago

      I don’t agree with your testing and here’s why. Everry one of your testers knew what brand of club he was hitting before he swung once. Every one has a built in bias for or against each brand. Golf is a game of confidence, and if you don’t like your club’s manufacturer, you won’t pull off your best swing.

      Personally I’ve played AP1s for 3 years. Apart from the best sound and feel, which weren’t tested, your data is wrong. According to MGS, the AP1 midiron hits 90% of the time to an area 405 sq. yds, or 20×20 yard square. No way were my AP1s ever off more than 10 yards on a mishit, and usually within 5yds or less. I am talking short or long, not offline. AP1s are the most forgiving and consistent clubs out there.

      A great percentage of the golf population loves TM, and have favorable bias towrds TM. As you mentioned in a post, TM’s slots have no solid feel at impact. I sold my RBladez after 1 1/2 rounds because I couldn’t stand the KLACK sound and vibration.

      Reply

      GearHead

      9 years ago

      Steve, to be fair a great percentage of the golfing population also has a negative impression of TaylorMade. They’re controversial. Now, it’s great that the AP1s work for you, but you’re also an anecdotal sample of one person and you bring your own biases to the table. Data is not ‘wrong’ — it simply doesn’t match what you expect. Data is data. The only way it’s ‘wrong’ in a statistical sense is if MGS manipulated the results by adding, removing, or modifying shot results, which I highly doubt.

      Reply

      Steve

      9 years ago

      Of course I’m biased. That proves my point. By the data being wrong, I mean an error was made in collecting or transcribing it. As mentioned above, the AP1 data falls outside the normal distribution by about 4 standard deviations, not two, basef on my 3 years of data collection.

      Steve

      9 years ago

      A truly unbiased test would be conducted as a double blind, where neither the swingers nor the test admistrators know which brand of club is being tested. This could be accomplished by tape-masking or other means. Otherwise, the biases of both the test subjects and the administration could influence the results.

      Joe

      9 years ago

      This post has to be nominated for the most clueless “golfer”!

      Reply

      Steve

      9 years ago

      No need to resort to name-calling, even if you cannot contribute to the discussion.

      Andrew

      9 years ago

      I think your second statement kinda proves your first. You like titleist, ok, you’ve had great results with titleist, super. But this is a test of averages for many folks with many clubs. The data are real, and you dont seem to like that. Try them all if you can, but if not, here is a good place to start.

      Reply

      Steve

      9 years ago

      “The data are real”!? Oh Ye of blind faith! See above.

      Sharkhark

      9 years ago

      Are you for real? You think brand bias is enough to change results? Your a hot mess.
      You go on to say ap1 are hands down the best?
      I sold off my ap1 712 after less than a season. Muted feel at impact, dull sound.
      Etc
      I now play Nike covert 2.0 forged irons that I love.
      But to each his own would I claim mine are best in the world?
      Uh no.
      To each his own.
      You want them to test sound & feel? Huh?
      Who cares about that more than distance & accuracy? Answer?
      Only u.
      Sheesh….! I appreciate mgs

      Reply

      Kix Porkie Alba

      9 years ago

      I am using RSi 2 Irons and lower my handicap by 4 strokes.

      Reply

      Bill Standley

      9 years ago

      See you on Tour soon?

      Reply

      Steven

      9 years ago

      I would love for someone to convince me otherwise, but as far as I can tell, the only statistic here that really matters for most golfers is the Shot Area, i.e., “the size (yards squared) of a 90% confidence ellipse (the area in which 90% of shots can expected to fall).” I think that the most important thing for a set of irons is to know how far you hit each iron in your set, to hit it that distance with some consistency, and not too far to the right or the left. That is the Shot Area. Another way of putting this is, who wants to end up close to the target (flag, green, layup, etc.) that they are trying to hit?

      Assuming that you buy a set of irons (instead of random irons) and that your set has appropriate gapping, the distance of one model versus another should be a minor consideration for most golfers. I would exclude distance as a criteria for all but the most distance-challenged golfer. Radial Distance correlates strongly with Shot Area, but is less helpful since outliers can have a larger effect. Carry Consistency is less informative since it doesn’t include the distance offline. Golfers who have specific concerns about ball height or run out could consider the Peak Height and Descent Angle statistics, but otherwise we are back to the Shot Area statistic.

      I calculated the Shot Area Z score for short, mid, and long irons. I would argue that the average of these is the best measure of these irons.
      Here are the average Z scores and rank.
      Z Score Rank
      TaylorMade RSI1 -1.28 1
      Ping G30 -0.51 2
      Srixon Z545 -0.39 3
      Callaway XR -0.36 4
      Cobra FLY-Z -0.22 5
      Titlest AP1 0.05 6
      Mizuno JPX-850 0.31 7
      Nike Vapor Speed 0.61 8
      Bridgestone J15 Cast 0.62 9
      TourEdge Exotics E8 1.16 10

      If you don’t use long irons, the average of the short and mid iron Z scores changes the ranks.
      Z Score Rank
      TaylorMade RSI1 -1.43 1
      Ping G30 -0.56 2
      Cobra FLY-Z -0.50 3
      Mizuno JPX-850 -0.19 4
      Srixon Z545 -0.06 5
      Callaway XR -0.02 6
      Bridgestone J15 Cast 0.35 7
      Titlest AP1 0.59 8
      Nike Vapor Speed 0.88 9
      TourEdge Exotics E8 0.94 10

      Reply

      Steven

      9 years ago

      I should have said this at the outset–Great job MyGolfSpy!. I love the tests, the fact that the methodology is evolving, and the fact that you give us data to look at. Keep up the good work.

      Reply

      Andrew

      9 years ago

      Good analysis, but two things- some of the tester comments mentioned discrepancies between short/middle/long irons, so this is a concern for ranking the SETS. Also, golf club s played one shot at a time, so outliers SHOULD be a factor. Make no mistake, i do appreciate your insight here…

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      9 years ago

      Steven – Thanks for taking the time to do and post the results of your own analysis. THIS is EXACTLY why we share our data.

      When we considered how GI irons were marketed (and what the average consumer actually considers when purchasing), we didn’t think we should exclude distance from our rankings. Radial accuracy was a bit of an obvious ‘we should look at this’ data point, and the standard deviation of ball speed and/or carry yards is something manufacturers look at when they talk about forgiveness (or I suppose the manifestation of MOI in the real world).

      With all of that said, I personally like the 90% confidence ellipse as a measure of total performance. As you point out, there is a correlation with radial accuracy. There’s certainly some correlation with consistency (carry yards), and when you consider that different manufacturers have different definitions for standard when it comes to length and lie, it takes some of the fitting concerns out of the equation as well.

      For example, if a golfer is CONSISTENTLY slightly left with a given iron, we have to wonder if that’s simply a matter of an iron being slightly too upright. Radial accuracy is OK…dispersion is excellent…carry consistency is good….even if distance is average or slightly below, that’s a damn good iron.

      As we always do, we considered the data a number of ways and tried to find a balance between how the consumer thinks and how we THINK he should think, to that end, we couldn’t completely eliminate distance (though it’s weighted less in our equations).

      Callaway (as one of their employees pointed out) is the #1 iron company in golf right now. Based on our results, we believe XR is an above average iron (it certainly doesn’t suck), which has the benefit of being backed by a superior marketing effort. Even in the iron space, it’s much easier to sell obscene distance than it is RIDONKU-TIGHT dispersion. Harry Arnett and his team understand this, and have done an excellent job transforming the brand based on that reality.

      Our tests don’t consider marketing, or much of anything subjective for that matter…only performance. Within that scope, and within this category, our tests results suggest it’s RSi1 and then everything else.

      Reply

      Steve

      9 years ago

      Steven, Agree 100%. My first reaction to all these numbers was to try to figure out dispersion consistency. MGS could have simplified the presentation by using graphics, rather than number charts.

      Reply

      Steve

      9 years ago

      Also not mentioned are FEEL and SOUND. I owned a set of RocketBladez and got rid of them after 1.5 rounds because they had a loud CLACK sound at impact and vibrated like a bass drum. Not to mention they were cranked down in loft by one club each, making a 7i into a 6i loft. TaylorMade.

      Reply

      Steve

      9 years ago

      All this data, but MSG doesn’t define “short, middle, or long” irons!? I could guess, but why should i? What shafts were tested? Stock shaft for each model, or same shaft for each? That would greatly impact results. For all the data shown, dispersion is the most critical. Not distance. Was this a robot swinging, or human testers? How do we know the true left/right propensity?

      Reply

      Marc

      9 years ago

      Settle down, Francis.

      Reply

      Steve

      9 years ago

      Don’t call me Francis. My name is Psycho.

      David

      9 years ago

      Jesus, you do bang on a bit dont you. I find it amusing that you have an issue with TM coming out on top in this test rather than the brand you play. Get over it…

      Reply

      Ahmed Hassouna

      9 years ago

      Thoughts on Nike? I was fitted for the Covert 2.0s last year; seems like everyone raves about them. I still love them. Is the Vapor line a step backwards?

      Reply

      Max

      9 years ago

      I had the XR and thought they were very good. Never really have been a TMAG guy. Can’t hit their drivers. I agree that lofts have had to decrease because of design improvements. A couple of years ago I began to toy with Japanese clubs. Started with a driver and never looked back until the XR family debuted. Loved it. At first that is. Driver, FWs and hybrids. Even a Cally staff bag. After a month or so my mind began to wander. There are a lot of JDM brands and I’ve tried most. I change clubs like socks. I have however always liked a boutique brand called RomaRo. Expensive. They came out with a new line called Alpha. Bought a 9 wood for grins(never owned one). Came with an upgraded shaft. I bought it used on a golf site I never heard of. Seems in Japan Yahoo is their Ebay. Since most of us don’t understand Japanese characters there are intermediary companies that take a percentage. I used one called Rinkya. That’s not important. There are others. Best to buy more than one item. They accept delivery then repack and ship. Got it, loved it and then bought the irons. I have since bought the irons, forged. Everything
      is forged in Japan. I re shafted everything with my R flex Tour AD shafts. Now I have the driver 3 FWs and HY as well as irons. Very high, very long. I’ll challenge all comers. You can hit mine. The gap is 48 and the pitch is 43. As the other poster and I said. The lofts had to come down. One issue. 4 wedges. You have to forget the letter on the club. The Driver and FWs are sensational

      Reply

      Bryan Ramsey

      9 years ago

      Very long and very straight. Feel lousy and sound terrible.

      Reply

      Connor Crail

      9 years ago

      The golf consumer strongly disagreed with your assertion this year. TM lost significant iron share this year while Callaway experienced “domination” with XR in the iron share category. It isn’t even close.

      Reply

      MyGolf Spy

      9 years ago

      We care about performance, not marketing.

      Reply

      Matt Wiseley

      9 years ago

      Golf spy-
      I purchased the XR Pro’s this year. Would you consider these irons GI? They certainly are not as offset as the XR regulars and I can flight them way better than my old Cobra amp cell iirons.
      Thanks- great work as usual

      leftright

      8 years ago

      That is why I won a set of TM RS1. I think they are a very good iron. I buy my clubs based on My Golf Spy data, usually looking at the single digit guys and how they do. I’ve found it to be extremely accurate.

      leftright

      8 years ago

      “Own” not won

      Steve Daniel

      7 years ago

      Ralph Maltby’s golf head ratings would tend to agree with the overall rankings for 2015, but they would also suggest that it would be better to buy some 10 year old itons and re-shaft them. What is your opinion on the merits of this if you are only interested in performance.

      GearHead

      9 years ago

      Interesting to see that Callaway’s National Account Mgr (via LinkedIn) feels the compulsion to turn this into a sales discussion. Must be a slow work day.

      Reply

      Rodney Hickman

      9 years ago

      Well rsi sucks too

      Reply

      Gil Bloomer

      9 years ago

      It looks like the next greatest set in a long line of proven irons.

      Reply

      Phil McKeown

      9 years ago

      I tried them and didn’t like them

      Reply

      Marko Hribar

      9 years ago

      Simply the best

      Reply

      ryebread

      9 years ago

      Good test. I enjoyed it.

      No comments on lofts as they relate to distance, other than to say for me that length isn’t important in irons. If I know I need to go 160 yards and with one set I need a 6 and one set I need a 5, then so be it. I just need to know which one to pull, and testing will help me decide that. It’s all about the dispersion numbers, both laterally and more importantly length wise.

      I’d like to be able to run the calculation at the end with the first column removed and with the long irons removed (because I’ll likely play hybrids there). I can do it myself, but it’d be interesting to let people manipulate the factors themselves and come to their own end conclusion. The RSI’s, Cobra and Ping offerings still look like the top 3 though.

      I will say that I played a rental set of RSIs. I fall into the SGI category on iron selection so I thought I’d struggle. They were amazingly easy to hit and I hit some great shots (for me) into par 3s. They were way, way better than the last set of TM irons I’d owned. I was impressed.

      Reply

      Stoffel

      9 years ago

      Have been playing the original Tommy Armour 845’s, reshafted w/ sensacore shafts for twenty years. Scorgolf wedges, Ping G25 Driver, 4W and 3 & 4 Hybrids. HC is solid 6.5. For an “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” kind of guy, this iron test is exactly what I’ve been waiting for. TM RSi1’s will get a long look from this player.

      Reply

      HarryB

      9 years ago

      In the last two years I’ve been searching for the holy grail of irons. Originally I bought a set of RocketBladz that were second edition, 2014s. Sold them and boight the SpeedBladz but we’re so-so. The ball had too much dispersion. Almost done, bought a set of Nike Covert 2.0 most of the time the ball melted across the face (forged), but the misfit it felt like a shank, unnerving. Finally I found a set of the first set mentioned for $249.00 free freight and no tax. So my handicap, a 6 is heading down so the holy grail is still out there.
      Then I tried

      Reply

      Raj LP

      9 years ago

      Please Please Please do a comparison of the Rsi1’s to the Rsi2’s.

      Reply

      Hula_Rock

      9 years ago

      Mizuno 850’s in 7th place ? WOW

      Reply

      David Bernstein

      9 years ago

      What about a comparison of the “best” hybrids, vs. the “best” irons? As a relatively healthy 78 year old, I’m told that hybrids are better for us older guys, longer hits, easier to get off the fairways, etc..

      Reply

      doug

      9 years ago

      low single digit ( 0-5 ) players seem to be ignored for club testing. how about giving us a whirl too ?

      Reply

      Regis

      9 years ago

      They’re game improvement irons. Nothing wrong with a 0-5 hcp playing them but including them in the testing would mean nothing for the market for which these irons are intended. By the way I’ve gamed Ping , Cobra , Tour Edge, Callaway and TMAG and to me TMAG were the best but that being said, the Callaway XR’s were very close. That was because the XR’s came with Recoil shafts as a standard option. Never a fan of Ping stock shafts (at least in graphite). Anyway my suggestion is to demo the clubs for feel , setup and look and then buy them based upon the available shaft upgrades

      Reply

      Manetti

      9 years ago

      Yes, the TMs are good… and the others in the top 6 or 7 are damn near as good. I think the average player would have difficulty distinguishing among these excellent irons.

      Hit with all of them and pick the one that works for you… platitude here.

      Reply

      Ken

      9 years ago

      Awesome test!

      Is there a Player’s iron test coming?

      Reply

      Dormie5

      9 years ago

      Two points not addressed in the testing description provided;
      1. FIT – Did all of the club’s tested meet the testers/swingers fit/specs? It would be VERY surprising if all the swingers had the same specs. Hope all the swingers didn’t swing/test the same clubs.
      2. Type of shaft – Conventional info is that graphite goes further than steel, but isn’t as consistent. Since consistency is SO much more important to scoring, me thinks steel should have been tested, but there are those who want distance regardless. Couldn’t the steel shafts of the various brands be a factor?

      Reply

      Manfred Alt

      9 years ago

      Callaway – Nothing else!

      Reply

      Bart

      9 years ago

      Anyone know how the RSi1 compares to TM’s Speedblade?

      Wondering how they match up.

      Reply

      Lou

      9 years ago

      I’ve swung both and would take the speedblades over the Rsi’s. They were filthy long and felt better imo.

      Reply

      Bart

      9 years ago

      Thanks Lou. I bought the speedblades in January (big GolfTown sale and had gift cards). I kept wondering if I should have waited for the “next big release” when the RSi’s would drop in price. I am liking them, but still keep wondering.

      ROBO

      9 years ago

      These comparos are like crack to me … I LOVE them. LOVE !!!!!!!

      I WISH !!!! the public TRUELY understood why the lofts are getting stronger from a physics point of view. IT IS NOT !!!!! because they are trying to fool you into “thinking” that you hit your irons longer. IT IS NOT !!!! to make an 8 go as far as a 7 etc etc etc … It is actually a testament on the precision and ability of the modern OEM to relocate mass in a “low / back” CG position in an iron head. It is a confirmation of engineering. If (in the modern era) if OEMs used standard or “normal” lofts of the good ole’ days – with the CGs they are creating – and DIDN’T get the loft stronger and make the iron a little longer .. the ball flights would all spin like tops and go 8 miles in the air – straight up !!!! Loft is almost incidental when comparing modern irons .. when you see lower loft – for the most part in 2015+ – what you should be saying to yourself is “wow they moved the CG even lower and rearward to give me an even more forgiving longer iron” .. In 2015 with the CGs these guys are inventing – a “jacked loft” 8 iron is TRULY more forgiving / hotter / lower spin and just plain easier to hit than a 7 iron from just a few years ago

      WELL DONE !!! MGS …

      Damn … I own the COBRAs and the Callys … no way I can leave that nugget out there. Hate leaving money on the table … I’ll DEF look at the new PS TMAGs .. Kills my soul … but I will ;)

      Reply

      golfercraig

      9 years ago

      Robo? The one who used to call me at my shop in MO to discuss clubs?

      Reply

      Joe

      9 years ago

      I bought a set of rsi 1’s back in February after trying 4 others which are included in this test. They really are fantastic clubs all the way through the set and performance is awesome. There not big and bulky like some others and the wedges are a traditional shape that offer a bunch of forgiveness to. Hearing the crap about face slots is such bs, you don’t even notice them after a few shots and they flat out help. Rick Sheids also had put these in first place among many other websites that do reviews. Most people who bash taylormade in general do so because they think it’s the cool thing to do imo. Can’t lie about real facts but of course there will be some hurt feelings lol.

      Reply

      John K

      9 years ago

      Just bought a set of RSi 1 to replace Callaway XHot and am very impressed. They are probably giving me about 5 yards extra distance but the accuracy is unreal. They just seem to go straight to where you aim, it’s like having a golf club version of a laser guided missile. When you add in how easy they are to hit and the confidence they give you it’s a wonderful package. I play off 24 so am not used to this but I am looking forward to getting my handicap down.

      Reply

      SJ

      9 years ago

      You’ll excuse my scepticism, but if you hit these like a golf club version of a laser guide missile, why on earth do you play off 24?

      I have played with people off single figures that don’t hit their irons like laser guided missiles.

      Reply

      Steve Buckingham

      9 years ago

      Question on the iron testing. What shaft were used for the testing, steel or graphite? Thanks

      Reply

      dr. bloor

      9 years ago

      Article states that stock steel option for each manufacturer was used for each set.

      Reply

      Jaroonroj Jeenasiri

      9 years ago

      Rsi1. Very good

      Reply

      Teaj

      9 years ago

      would love a game improvement iron that does not go as far but is consistent and has very little offset. everything is pushing the need for distance but there are some of us, maybe not a lot but there are some that just need the forgiveness. I guess the masses want distance so de-lofting and adding length to the shafts is what we get.

      Reply

      Fred

      9 years ago

      Teaj: while distance is the primary concern of a lot of amateur golfers, I’ve always believed that accuracy is what produces the best rounds. Just a thought.

      Reply

      Andrew

      9 years ago

      I agree. I just want to know how far its going to go, not that it will go farther (further?) than anything else. I am not particularly distance challenged, so… I do like a little help directionally, though. I game Ci7’s, and generally love them, but for a few niggles. The thing is not everyone who needs directional help is a slicer. I personally find many otherwise great sets to be hook monsters, and wish manufacturers would offer GI and even SGI sets with less offset.

      Reply

      John Dunworth

      9 years ago

      Callaway all day. I don’t game the xr irons, but a play the apex pros. I am interested to see a comparison between the new M1 and the Big Bertha. I wanna try the M1 for myself.

      Reply

      Elie Anquetil

      9 years ago

      RS1, cause the shadow you sent yeasterday had the same neck!

      Reply

      Lou

      9 years ago

      Very surprised that the TourEdge offering wasn’t any higher. Was looking at the exotics cb proh irons for a while there.

      I hit the Rsi’s and was not impressed by them. The feel of the Rsi2’s were horrible compared to the Wilsons I used to play. I actually hit the AP1, Z545 too and thought they were very nice and even better than the Rsi’s but can’t argue with numbers I guess….

      Reply

      Marty

      9 years ago

      Agree Lou, these TM irons feel like your catching everything high in the face. There is no feeling of solid contact anywhere on the face. It’s probably due to the slots. I will say this though, these TM irons go a mile. A buddy can hit his RSi 3 iron farther than I can hit my Miura hybrid.

      Reply

      Dave S

      9 years ago

      Another example of why people should stop piling on TM about their marketing or their product releases. When the new PSi’s come out later this year, you’ll be able to get your hands on the RSi’s for much cheaper. I’ve hit these on a monitor and nothing can compare. Can’t wait to see how the RSi2’s stack up in the next test.

      Reply

      Gil Bloomer

      9 years ago

      Interesting stuff.

      Reply

    Leave A Reply

    required
    required
    required (your email address will not be published)

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

    Golf Shafts
    Apr 14, 2024
    Testers Wanted: Autoflex Dream 7 Driver Shaft
    News
    Apr 14, 2024
    A Rare Masters ‘L’: Day Asked To Remove Sweater
    Drivers
    Apr 13, 2024
    Testers Wanted: Callaway Ai Smoke Drivers
    ENTER to WIN 3 DOZEN

    Titleist ProV1 Golf Balls

    Titleist ProV1 Golf Balls
    By signing up you agree to receive communications from MyGolfSpy and select partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy You may opt out of email messages/withdraw consent at any time.