Connect with us

Iron Reviews

Review: Mizuno JPX-EZ and EZ Forged irons

Published

on

Pros: The JPX-EZ and JPX-EZ Forged irons pull off a trifecta; they’re distance-oriented irons that offer exceptional forgiveness and better feel than similar irons in their respective categories. 

Cons: They won’t produce the awe-inspiring distance that more compact irons in their classes have accomplished. 

Who’s they’re for? Single-digit handicappers all the way to golfers trying to break the century mark. Mizuno’s new JPX line appeals particularly to those who want more forgiveness and distance than the company’s MP line offers, while still valuing clean looks and a solid, soft feel.

The Review

Can a golf equipment company make an iron that offers maximum forgiveness, big distance and still retains a soft, solid feel? Yes. Well, mostly yes. With the JPX-EZ and EZ Forged, Mizuno places an emphasis on giving players the best feeling, distance-oriented club on the market. 

Mizuno JPX irons at address

JPX-EZ (left) and JPX-EZ Forged irons at address.

The trouble with distance irons is that while they’re forgiving and engineered to produce a high and towering ball flight, they generally lack in the feel department. Both the JPX-EZ and EZ Forged tap into Mizuno’s heritage, and while no one will confuse them with a Mizuno MP iron, many golfers are going to be taken aback by just how good these feel.

Mizuno JPX EZ iron

JPX-EZ irons use “Power Frame” and “Dual Max COR Pocket Cavity” technologies.

Because there’s less mass directly behind the ball at impact, neither the EZ or EZ Forged felt quite as solid as Mizuno’s MP-5 and MP-25 irons. But it’s still impressive how good both irons felt. If your only metric is “feel,” the JPX line, and the EZ Forged in particular, should be on the top of your list of irons to try in the oversized players irons category. 

Some purists might label this as sacrilege, but in comparing the EZ Forged with the MP 25s (both forged out of 1025 Boron), “pured” shots were often indistinguishable. In fact, several of my mishits with the JPX-EZ and EZ Forged felt significantly less harsh than similar shots with the MP-25s. 

Mizuno JPX EZ Forged iron

Mizuno’s 1025 Boron is 30 percent stronger than the 1025E Carbon Steel used in previous irons.

Forgiveness is achieved by moving as much weight as possible toward the perimeter and away from the center of the club. Mizuno uses PowerFrame technology to stretch weight to the corners of the cavity, effectively enlarging the sweet spot. As long as I made reasonable contact, shots were true, dispersion was excellent and even with KBS C-Taper shafts the stock ball flight was high.

Mizuno JPX EZ vs. EZ Forged

JPX-EZ (left) and JPX-EZ Forged irons.

Extreme misses (severely toe side or high on the face) were punished appropriately, but if you can consistently make contact somewhere toward the middle of the face, both clubs will yield acceptable and consistent results. The wider sole on the JPX-EZ irons provides more margin for error and promotes cleaner turf interaction from all lies thanks to its Triple Cut Sole, which made turf interaction a breeze whether I was on the fairway or in the rough. Truly deep rough is not going to be any larger iron’s forte, but the JPX-EX seems wholly above average. 

Mizuno may not make the longest distance-oriented irons on the market, but they are among the most consistent. Compared to the MP-5s and MP 25s, the JPX were both about 0.5 clubs longer. But more importantly, I could hit the same number over and over.

Mizuno_JPX_EZ_Forged_Irons

On golf clubs, the color black is very slimming, and the finish gives the EZ and EZ Forged irons a compact appearance that isn’t gaudy.

Chances are, if you’re looking at a Mizuno iron, consistent performance is more important to you than maximum distance. These clubs are plenty long, but the ability to dial in distances — especially on less-than-full swings — gives them a leg up on competitors. Being able to say you carry a 9 iron 155 yards is a nice ego boost, but simply hitting your irons farther doesn’t mean you’re going to score better. That said, being able to hit your irons a consistent distance certainly will.

Mizuno JPX-EZ

The JPX-EZ are much larger than the EZ Forged, and use a cast construction to maximize forgiveness.

As one would expect, I had no problem moving the ball both directions on a mid/high trajectory, however, hitting low cuts and draws were a more arduous task. For most players, the lower center of gravity in the JPX line leads to a higher initial launch angle and increased distance. That’s the only opportunity cost here, which likely doesn’t apply to the target consumer for the JPX line. 

If you’re already a high launch or high spin player, but want more forgiveness, looking at an MP iron — such as the MP-H5 — might be a better choice. If you’re sold on your 6-PW, but looking for an easy to hit, high-launching long iron, don’t discount using either model at the bottom of your lineup.

The numbers: JPX-EZ and JPX-EZ Forged

To test the irons, I hit 10 shots with each club (4, 7, PW) and threw out any anomalies. All clubs were tested with KBS C-Taper Stiff shafts at 0.25 inches over Mizuno standard and measured on a Flightscope X2 Launch Monitor.

MizunoIrons_JPX

Imagine that; the JPX-EZ and EZ Forged had nearly indistinguishable numbers. My results are more likely the exception and not the rule, as I would expect more golfers to get more distance from the larger, cast JPX-EZ irons. So what these results speak to is just how good of an oversized forged iron Mizuno made in the JPX-EZ Forged.

Along with their performance, what really made an impact on me was how good the EZ Forged felt. It’s really the first distance iron from Mizuno that felt anything like an MP iron. Given the similarity in performance, you might be asking, “Does the EZ Forged feel $200 better than the JPX-EZ?”

As a long-time Mizuno player, I’d lean toward an emphatic, “Yes!”

Final Thoughts

Mizuno has never been about making the longest iron on the market — just the one that help golfers score the best. With the JPX-EZ and EZ Forged, the company continues to encroach on new territory by producing irons that target higher-handicap golfers and offer a lot of the game-improvement features this clientele will surely appreciate.

All that, and they wrap it up in a package that looks and feels great.  

[wrx_retail_links productid=”20″]

Related

Your Reaction?
  • 114
  • LEGIT22
  • WOW8
  • LOL3
  • IDHT1
  • FLOP3
  • OB6
  • SHANK16

I didn't grow up playing golf. I wasn't that lucky. But somehow the game found me and I've been smitten ever since. Like many of you, I'm a bit enthusiastic for all things golf and have a spouse which finds this "enthusiasm" borderline ridiculous. I've been told golf requires someone who strives for perfection, but realizes the futility of this approach. You have to love the journey more than the result and relish in frustration and imperfection. As a teacher and coach, I spend my days working with amazing middle school and high school student athletes teaching them to think, dream and hope. And just when they start to feel really good about themselves, I hand them a golf club!

11 Comments

11 Comments

  1. Pingback: Mizuno JPX-EZ & EZ Forged irons Reviewed | GolfJay

  2. ptat

    Nov 4, 2015 at 9:14 pm

    Those numbers are crazy! You must be a very consistent swinger.

    • Chris Nickel

      Nov 5, 2015 at 9:39 pm

      I guess I’m not sure the numbers are that crazy – but thanks…I think !

  3. Mats B

    Nov 4, 2015 at 4:27 pm

    I play the JPX 850 forged, they seem very similar to this EZ forged, same material 1025 steel with boron and from a design point of view they seem to have almost the same features, apart from 850 being in satin steel and the EZ in dark grey colour. My 850s are truely custom build fitted with non standard Nippon Modus 3 120S shafts en MOI matched throughout the whole set incl. my three Vokey wedges. How do these models compare to you? I changed from Titleist 712CB:s wanting something a bit more forgiving and I think I got what I was asking for. More forgivness, about 0,5 club longer, still with a forged feel and consistency. I have a hand full of friends who’s considering a change going in my direction next time. I play of hcp 3, EGA-norm.

  4. LB

    Nov 4, 2015 at 2:41 pm

    Nice review. The new EZ Forged do have a great sound/feel contrary to some of the talk on the forums! As far as the regular EZ’s they look pretty nice in hand for such an oversize design. Much better than previous EZ irons.

  5. BobP

    Nov 4, 2015 at 2:16 pm

    Nice review, but can’t help feeling it would have more relevance if the flightscope numbers came from an average Ss golfer. 188 7 iron, really! Some great striking there Sir, I commend you, but surely the average golfer would only hit a 7 iron 150/160 max. Can’t really see the benefit of using tour pro + swing speed models

  6. Chris

    Nov 4, 2015 at 1:20 pm

    137 with a 4 iron is not unreasonable. This is about my ball speed with a 4 iron, with about 97-99mph 4 iron ss. Also, yet’s remember that the loft on this 4 iron is 22*, which is basically a 3 iron. When you combine that with the hotter face of game improvement irons, 137 ball speed is not overly crazy. I think the point is just how much distance can be gained. The the average tour pro carries a 4 iron just over 200 yards (again average, not Rory and Dustin alone), but this tester, with probably a close to tour average ss carries this “4” iron 15-20 yards father. It’s just more ego boost irons to let local 19 handicaps (who should be 24 handicaps) hit their 8 iron (which is really a 6 iron) 150 yards. They realized they’re not going to get any better, but if they can get longer, at least they can feel good about themselves. I don’t see any point to putting number stamps on irons anymore. Why not just put lofts like they do with wedges?

    http://blog.trackmangolf.com/trackman-average-tour-stats/

  7. sk33tr

    Nov 4, 2015 at 12:37 pm

    I play the EZ Forged and absolutely love them. Reviewer was correct. Performance is extremely consistent. Literally point and shoot. I adjusted to gap change with no problem. It was unnoticeable.

  8. Mike

    Nov 4, 2015 at 11:56 am

    Ball speeds of 137 MPH with a 4i??! I’m not sure how to even evaluate this based on the review. Seems like who ever is doing the testing has PGA level swing speeds.

    • Chris Nickel

      Nov 4, 2015 at 7:09 pm

      Mike – Thanks for the read. A couple things to keep in mind – I do have a swing speed which is on par with PGA tour averages. That said, it’s easy to focus solely on this facet and miss some very important information. I do all of my testing in Colorado (at 5000 ft) and thus my carry distances tend to be higher than people are probably expecting to see –

      The feel, performance, looks, etc. of the iron are going to be quite similar regardless of ball speed generated.

  9. Philip

    Nov 4, 2015 at 11:28 am

    Nice review. So you are saying that distance wise all four sets of clubs are the same given that the JPX clubs tested are 2 degrees stronger than the MP clubs. However, the JPX lines give extra help getting the ball airborne and as a side benefit hold the line better with the added backspin. It should also be noted that the new JPX lines have the larger 5 degree gaps for 9i, PW and GW compared to the MP lines which still have a 4 degree gap for 9i and PW. This has to be considered when matching these clubs to wedges. Other than the increased lofts near the wedges I like what I read. I’m very consistent with 4 degree gaps for all my irons, so I’m not sure about 5 degree differences in the higher lofts where I need more precision. I’m also concerned about bending the boron as current Mizuno 1025SE is stiff enough compared to older Hogan irons.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Iron Reviews

Review: Honma TW737-Vs Forged Irons

Published

on

Your Reaction?
  • 134
  • LEGIT18
  • WOW7
  • LOL1
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP4
  • OB0
  • SHANK21

Continue Reading

Equipment

GolfWRX Member Reviews: TaylorMade 2017 M1 and M2 Irons

Published

on

One of the many benefits of being a GolfWRX Forum Member is exclusive access to Giveaways and Testing Threads. For Giveaways — we give away everything from golf clubs to golf balls to GPS units — all it takes is a forum name. Enter any Giveaway, and we select winners randomly. You’re then free to enjoy your prize as you wish.

For Testing Threads, the process a bit more involved. GolfWRX Forum Members sign up to test the latest and greatest products in golf, and then they provide in-depth reviews on the equipment. Being the intelligent golf-equipment users they are, GoflWRX Members are able to provide the most-informed and unbiased reviews on the Internet.

df5745825623a9697f92315cd9d8f1d7

In this Testing Thread, we selected 75 members to test a TaylorMade M1 2017 7-iron and TaylorMade M2 7-iron. Each of the clubs were built with the stock lofts and shafts — M2 2017 (28.5 degrees) with a TaylorMade Reax shaft, and M1 2017 (30.5 degrees) with a True Temper Dynamic Gold S300 shaft — and the testers were instructed to post their review of the clubs here.

Below, we’ve selected what we’ve deemed the most in-depth and educated reviews out of the 75 testers. We have edited each of the posts for brevity, clarity and grammar.

Thanks to all of those involved in the testing!

Brock9007

To be honest, looking down on the TaylorMade M1 and M2 irons at address, there is really not much difference. I would have to pick one up to see which is which.

The first 10 balls I hit were with M1 and 6/10 felt great, while the other 4 were toe hits, which I felt and the distance reflected that. Kinda what I expected with a club design for lower-handicap players. Distance was about 1/2 longer than my Srixon iron and dispersion was close, as well. I will say they did not feel as good as the Srixon on center hits.

Next 10 (ok, 15) balls were with the M2. Wow, can you say “up, up and away? The ball really popped of the club face, but wasn’t a ballon flight. Waited for the ball to come down and WTH, with the roll out it was 5-8 yards longer than balls hit with M1, and that is with a few toe shots. I did some smooth swings and then very aggressive swings and was a little amazed at this iron. Just like the M1, it does not have the forged feeling and does have a clicky sound (which I hate).

Bottom line: M2 is the longest iron I have ever hit. I love my 545s, but I could see myself playing M2 very easily. Matter of fact, I will be taking this M2 7 iron in my bag and play it more head-to-head against my Srixon 545 on the course.

deathbymuffin

These are both beautiful clubs. What surprised me the most is how much alike the two clubs look at address. I was expecting a chunky topline and significant offset in the M2, but it’s footprint looked almost exactly the same as the M1, outside of the chrome finish on the M2 versus the frosted finish of the M1. The M2 could almost pass as a player’s iron to my eye at address. These clubs both get A’s from me in the looks department.

The M1 felt a tad thicker than most player’s irons I’m used to, but it seemed to come with a bit of added forgiveness too. Well-struck shots felt good, with a nice mid-trajectory and with the workability that I’ve come to expect from a player’s iron. But true to TaylorMade’s claims, the M1 seemed more forgiving than a traditional player’s iron. Had a nice soft feel at impact, mishits didn’t sting and left you with a more playable result. A really nice combination of the better attributes of both player’s and game improvement irons. I’ve been playing with an old set of Tommy Armour blades, but I’ve been recently wanting more forgiveness for when I’m stuck with my B or C swing. Based on the early returns, I could definitely see myself bagging these.

I’m not sure if it’s the shaft, the design of the clubhead, or a combination of both, but the M2 is definitely a different animal than the M1 at impact. This club launches the ball high, arguably ridiculously so. I was hitting Jason Day moonbombs with this bad boy. Didn’t seem to matter what kind of swing I put on it, the ball launched high, flat and dead straight. The club was super forgiving and if not for the insanely high ball flight, I would love to have a set of these for when my swing is out of sorts. I didn’t really try to flight it at all, so I’m not sure what it’s capable of at this point. One other note was that the M2 had a clicky feel at impact. It didn’t bother me since it still felt so sweet… so strange as it sounds, clicky, but smooth and sweet at the same time. I think these clubs will be big winners with the mid-to-high handicap set.

The M1 is a fine iron, but doesn’t really stand out in any way from other irons of its class.

The M2, on the other hand, is an iron on steroids. I’m really starting to love this thing. It’s super forgiving and just goes and goes. According to my laser, flush shots were going 195 yards (my usual blade 5 iron distance) and very high. I can’t help but think golf would be a whole lot easier, particularly longer courses with long par 3s, with a full set of these in my bag.

poppyhillsguy

M1 feels softer than the M2 and I felt the ball flight was more consistent and what I want in an iron. The M1 did have a harsher feeling in my hands than I typically like, but I’m going to credit a lot of that to the range balls.

M2 flies very high. It was a windy afternoon and about 100 degrees. I love the high ball flight on the range, but I have a concern what that ball flight would be like on the course. I like to hit the ball different heights for different shots and I don’t think I could do that confidently with the M2, but I could with the M1. I don’t like the sound of the M2. It sounded “clicky” to me.

Fourpar18

Initially on the range I was scared because the M1 had a regular flex in it, so I took it easy for my initial 10-15 swings with it. Ball SHOT off the face, loud crack (didn’t care for it, but not too bad) and ball just kept rising and rising but didn’t balloon. I thought, “whoa,” that’s not what I expected…did it again…another CRACK and the ball just flew. I set another down and I paid attention to how it looked behind the ball, not much offset for a game improvement and I thought…”I could actually play this club!”  The 5-7 were EASY swings, aimed at a target of 170 yards away (my normal 7 iron distance) and with a EASY swing I was flying it by 20 yards or so. The next 5-10 I really went after it, same CRACK and ball just flew but to my surprise it was a nice draw, harder draw than the first but it was a nice 10-yard draw. This time the balls were landing just short of the 200 yard marker. Damn, 200 yards with a 7 iron! I know they are jacked lofts but it feels good to say “my 7 irons just few 190-200 yards!”

P.S. LOVE the Lamkin UTX grip!

Now, this was interesting, the M2 was quieter then the M1… weird!  Now, there is more carbon fiber added to this one and there is a “Geocoustic” label on the back. I am sure that it has something to do with all that carbon fiber but it does have a better sound. Other than the sound, it played exactly like the M1: long and straight. The REAX shaft felt a little weaker than the True Temper shaft and it flew a little higher but nothing else I could pick up.

noahdavis_7

Finally got out to the range after getting these bad boys in on Friday. My first impression of them is that they look really sharp. The graphics and design really stand out and really give these clubs a cool, modern look.

They were both a little to big IMO, as I am currently bagging Mizuno MP-68s. The M2 isa definite “game improvement iron”, while the M1 was similar in size and shape to my previous irons, Titleist AP1s.

They both really launch it, high and far. Ridiculous for 7 irons. I don’t have access to a launch monitor, but it was about a 20-yard difference between my gamer 7 iron and these (stronger lofts, as well).

The M1 definitely was more suited for my eye, and produced more consistent ball flights. It felt much more smooth and solid as the M2 had a clicky, cheap feel.

The M2 just isn’t for me. I felt like it was launching too high and ballooning, which could be due to the shaft (the M1 had the S300, while the M2 just had a stock “Reax” shaft). The feel off the face of the M2 just turned me off, to be honest.

While I don’t think I’ll be putting either model in play, I can definitely see the appeal for mid-to-high handicaps. Both irons were super forgiving, and they should be a dream to the average weekend golfer who has trouble with ball striking consistently.

golfnut5438

Looks: As expected, I preferred the M1 with less offset, slightly smaller sole and a smoother finish. Less glare looking down on the iron. I must say the M2 did not look as bulky, or have as much offset as I thought it might have.

Feel: This was a close race, probably due to the shafts as much as the heads. The M1 was just a slight bit smoother feeling on solid shots. But the M2 was not bad at all, just not quite as smooth.

Distance and performance: Our range has a slight incline up the length of the range, so specific yardage gains or losses were difficult to measure. Both irons had a higher trajectory than my gamer 7 iron. Neither sole dug onto the turf either. The lofts for both irons are a degree or two stronger than mine, so I would think they probably flew a little further than my gamers. Neither iron flew “too” high, however. Might be a little harder to hit knock down shots, though.

Final thoughts: I had hit both the M1 and M2 irons last year during a fitting day, but did not like either. This year’s model were both better in my eyes. I asked a fellow member at our club to hit both and he felt the M1 was his preferred model, and he is a 20-index player. So coming from both a single digit, and a high double-digit, the M1 won this battle of wills. I will try and see if I can locate both a 5 iron and 9 iron to see if a full set might be a winner for me.

DblEgl

I was surprised that the M2 was the winner in this brief session. It felt better, flew higher, easier to hit and about 1/2 club longer that my gamer Apex CF16. The feel/sound was better than I thought it might be, but really not up to the CF16. I could, however, easily game the M2’s.

Bstein74

Feel: I hit the M2 first, and found it to be very solid when hit on the screws. There was almost no feel off the club face at all. When I mishit it, you knew it was, but it wasn’t harsh at all. Hit the M1 next, and same type of feel when hit solid. Much more harsh when mishit though, but I knew that was coming.

Distance and performance: This is was where I was curious to see how they would play. The M2 went out high in the air, and just kept going forever. Now granted my eyesight isn’t that great anymore, but it looked like I got about 10-15 yards more from the M2 compared to my Wilson D300. The only thing I didn’t like about the M2 was how much I was able to turn it over. Got a lot more hook compared to my D300. Don’t know if that was from the REAX shaft, but would love to find a less spinning shaft to correct that.

The M1 wasn’t a great performer for me. Same height as the M2, but much straighter off the club face. Didn’t get any great distance advantage as compared to my D300. Can’t game a player’s iron anymore, and testing this one just reaffirmed that.

Final thoughts: Was very happy with the distance I gained with the M2 compared to my current gamer. Very good-performing iron for me, and something I would definitely consider changing them out if I could reduce the spin off the face. If you’re looking for more distance, you need to try these out. The M1 just wasn’t for me, but as a player’s iron, I can see it as a great option.

Bobcat271

Like the other testers, I found the M2 to launch the ball much higher and is 10-to-15 yards longer than my Adams XTD forged 7 iron. Of the two 7 irons I prefer the M1. I like the design of the M1 and its visual appearance at address. I feel more confident in trying to work the ball with the M1. The M1 gave me more feedback as to where the club head was in relation to my swing plane. If I had my druthers I would put the M1 in the bag as it stands now. Will continue to test, what a treat to compare the two irons.

myurick2

Once I started making solid contact with a decent shoulder turn, the M2 really came alive in my hands. Towering flat height, for me, and very long. No more clacky hollow feel, just a very mild pleasant sensation… then zoom. Once I started making better swings, back to the M1, which was a very nice iron. Shorter than the M2 (though not short) and a little lower ball flight. Felt nice and substantial without being heavy. Very forgiving on slight mishits.

But the M2 was the star for me. High trajectory and very long. Club felt lively and fun. Frankly, unless a player wanted a lower trajectory, or likes to hit a lot of knock downs or feel shots, I don’t know why anyone wouldn’t choose the M2. They are very attractive and a very fun iron. I think folks who say that the M2 feels and/or sounds clicky, clacky or hollow may be mishitting the iron toward the toe. I am not judging — I mishit a lot of shots at first. I agree on toe mishits the iron did not feel great. It almost felt like plastic. The ball still flew pretty well, but it wasn’t a very enjoyable experience. Not painful, just felt very dead. But when hit nearer the center, the iron felt fantastic. Light, springy and very lively. 

hammergolf

They are both good-looking clubs. Not too long heel to toe and toplines were not that distracting. M1 is more what I like to see shape wise, but M2 was not bad at all. Personally, not a fan of seeing the face slots. But I could see how some people may like how they frame the ball. 

Ace2000

M1 

– Has a very odd sound on contact, almost sounds a tad like a fairway wood “ting. Not a fan
– Looks very good at address with the brushed finish
– Most shots I hit with it seemed to fall out of the sky (very likely a lack of spin). Ball flight was much lower than I would have expected (not super low, just not much different than my 7 iron)
– Inconsistent misses. Next to no distance gains vs RocketBladez Tour 7 iron

M2

– Doesn’t look as good at address as the M1. Chrome finish at address is not an issue in even direct sunlight for me
– Feels and sounds quite nice to my ears at impact. Not a classic sound but very good considering what type of club it is
– Ball flight is very strong (comes off hot). Ball stays high in the air for awhile. Very high and lands soft
– 10-12 yards longer on average vs my 7 iron, it even had the horsepower to hang with my 6 iron
– VERY forgiving on thin strikes. Couldn’t believe how a near-top still traveled to nearly the front edge in the air and still went as far as the M1 did on a good strike
– Shaft is too light

Even though I’m a 2-handicap and don’t fit the M2 “mold,” I could see myself playing this club from 4-6 iron (although gapping would be a major issue mixing these with almost anything else) if it had a heavier shaft in it (I can only imagine how far this 4 iron must go… yikes)

M1 = 2.5/5 stars
M2 = 4.5/5 stars

tpeterson

Visual first impressions: The M1 7-iron is visually appealing to me as far as the finish and overall look. Even though it is classified as a player’s iron, it doesn’t seem so tiny that it would be tough to hit. I am not a huge fan of the bright-yellow badging, but I probably could get over it. The iron inspires confidence with its topline and a little bit of offset. The “rubber” piece on the hosel is a little bit funky to me.

I thought the M2 7-iron would look clunkier than it really is. Besides the finish being a little bit different, the difference between the M1 and M2 is actually pretty small. The M2’s topline and sole are a touch wider, but not by much. Not a huge fan of the fluted hosel since it can be seen at address. The M1’s fluting is only on the rear of the club.

I did notice that the sole’s finish did scratch pretty easily. Overall, I thought the M1 and M2 are pretty good looking, but I would definitely give the edge to the M1. I also preferred the stock Lamkin grip on the M1 vs. the ribbed M2 grip.

On course action: They both feel solid. I tried hitting both irons in all different types of on-course situations over a two week period. Both clubs launch the ball high but I would not say they balloon. For me, the M2 was about 10 yards longer and higher than the M1. Compared to my Cleveland irons, they are 1 to 1.5 clubs longer.

M1 loft = 30.5
M2 loft = 28.5
Cleveland TA7 loft = 33.5

I know this accounts for the distance gain but the ball definitely comes off hot compared to my set. I was hoping I would hit the M1 better since I like the appearance better, but that was not the case. The M2 definitely felt better for me and I felt more confident with it in my hands.

Discussion: Read all 75 reviews and the responses in our Testing Thread

Your Reaction?
  • 23
  • LEGIT4
  • WOW0
  • LOL1
  • IDHT1
  • FLOP3
  • OB2
  • SHANK15

Continue Reading

Equipment

Members Choice: The Best Irons of 2017

Published

on

To help golfers find the best irons for them in 2017, we enlisted the services of GolfWRX Members, the most knowledgeable golfers on the internet. They not only understand the technology used in the latest golf equipment, but they also test new clubs extensively. Following their detailed experiences and words of wisdom about the latest products is the perfect starting point for anyone interested in purchasing new golf clubs.

To gather their votes and feedback, we as a company first needed to properly sort the irons into categories. We aimed to keep the categories as simple as possible with 2017’s crop of irons, and we broke them down into three general categories:

  • Players Irons: Basically, small-sized irons. These irons have sleek top lines and soles. They place workability and control over distance, and for that reason they’re irons you can expect to see in the bag of a professional golfer.
  • Game-Improvement Irons: Basically, medium-sized irons. This category includes a wide-range of clubs that blend distance, forgiveness, good looks and workability.
  • Super Game-Improvement Irons: Basically, large-sized irons. These irons are juiced with hot faces, wide soles, thick top lines, big offset and a low center of gravity, among other engineering feats, that are often unique to each company.

Note: Because of the abundance of Players Irons currently available, we divided that category into two categories: Players Irons and Exotics Players Irons. The Exotic Players Irons list included players irons from companies such as Epon, Fourteen, Miura, PXG, and Honma, which are not as widely available for testing in the U.S.

Below you can access the full results of our Members Choice 2017: Best Irons lists, as well as feedback about each iron from the GolfWRX Community. We’d like to sincerely thank all the GolfWRX Members who participated in the voting and provided feedback on the irons. We also want to thank those of you who provided feedback on the voting process itself. We assure you that we read and consider everything, and we’re going to continue to improve our process in order to provide the best and most useful information about the latest golf equipment.

Members Choice: The Best Players Irons

Mizuno_JPX_900_Tour_Feat-1021x580

Vote Leader: Mizuno JPX-900 Tour

“WOW! Great mix of buttery feel and forgiveness.”

Overall, the Mizuno JPX-900 Tour irons earned nearly 15 percent of votes on the Players iron category, giving them top billing for players irons. One GolfWRX member said he was “weak in the knees from first look at the satin finish and compact size,” and that the “feel is excellent, and there’s just enough forgiveness.” Another said the JPX-900 Tour irons are the “best irons out there right now in terms of blending feel, forgiveness, and the ability to shape shots.”

Full List: The Best Players Irons of 2017

Members Choice: The Best Exotic Players Irons

PXG0311t-600x377

Vote Leader: PXG 0311T

“I can’t say I have ever hit anything that feels as good as the PXG.”

With more 21 percent of votes for the Best Exotics Players Irons of 2017, PXG’s 0311T irons were described by GolfWRX members as “a great looking club,” and that they “felt unbelievable.” When comparing the irons to Titleist’s 716 MB irons, one member said, “The fact that you can barely tell if it has or doesn’t have more offset than the MB 7 iron just shows how little it has.”

Full List: The Best Exotic Players Irons of 2017

Members Choice: Best Game-Improvement Irons

CallawayApexMembersChoice

Vote Leader: Callaway Apex CF ’16 

“Apex CF is simply the most explosive, best feeling iron I’ve ever hit in this category.”

Acquiring nearly 20 percent of votes of all models in the Best Game-Improvement Iron category, GolfWRX Members described the Callaway Apex CF ’16 irons as “simply the most explosive,” and that they “perform very well on center hits and almost as good on mishits.”

Full List: The Best Game-Improvement Irons of 2017

The Best Super Game-Improvement Irons 

PingGironsWRX

Vote Leader: Ping G

“The Ping G takes what Ping has done for years and added in increased ball speed, improved feel and much better looks.”

An iron that “will appeal even to Ping haters.” GolfWRX Members described the Ping G as “stupid easy to hit,” providing a “high and straight ball flight,” and “an eye opener.” The irons also accumulated more than 22 percent of the total votes in the category.

Full List: The Best Super Game-Improvement irons of 2017

Your Reaction?
  • 243
  • LEGIT31
  • WOW11
  • LOL12
  • IDHT5
  • FLOP10
  • OB3
  • SHANK86

Continue Reading

19th Hole

Facebook

Trending