Connect with us

Equipment

2013 Mizuno JPX-825 Driver, Fairway woods & Hybrids

Published

on

Mizuno JPX-825 Woods

JPX-825 Driver

The Mizuno JPX-825 driver provides higher ball speeds and lower spin than the company’s previous driver, the MP-650, according to a Mizuno press release.

The driver is constructed with a new chemical etching process that makes the crown thinner, which lowers the center of gravity (CG). It also has Mizuno’s CORTECH face, which has varying thicknesses in different regions to provide faster ball speeds across the face, as well as two internal weights that are placed low and deep in the head to provide stability.

“The JPX-825 Driver incorporates technologies designed to forgive both vertical and toe/heel mishits,” according to Dick Lyons, vice president and general manager of Mizuno’s USA golf division. “That means that even when you miss it high, low, left or right of center, you’re still going to get superior distance and keep the ball in play. We also worked to make the look of the driver more aggressive and cosmetically appealing so that it will suit the eye of golfers as they look down at it.”

Available Lofts:  9.5, 10.5 (All Right-Hand Only)

Shaft:  Fujikura Orochi Blue Eye 55

Grip:  Golf Pride M-31 58 Round

Suggested Retail Price: $299.99

JPX-825 Fairway Woods

Like the JPX-825 driver, the JPX-825 fairway woods have a square face angle and internal weighting that makes the head stable on mishits. An L-shaped maraging multi-thickness face design creates a trampoline effect that increases COR and maximizes distance, according to the press release. The clubs also have a thin crown and a thick-soled stainless steel body that is beveled for better turf interaction than previous models. Mizuno used its Harmonic Impact Technology (H.I.T.), as well as PGA Tour feedback to help ensure the JPX-825 Fairway Woods deliver a solid and powerful sound at impact.

“We’re pleased to be able to provide golfers with a wood family that will deliver long, controllable distance and a solid sound at impact,” Lyons said. “We feel strongly that the new JPX-825 Fairway Woods will appeal to a broad audience with its fresh, aggressive looks and superior performance.”

Available Lofts:  15, 18 (All Right-Hand Only)

Shaft:  Fujikura Orochi Blue Eye 65

Grip:  Golf Pride M-31 58 Round

Suggested Retail Price: NA

JPX-825 Hybrids

The JPX-825 Hybrids have the same beveled-sole design and H.I.T. as the JPX-825 Fairway Woods for better turf interaction and solid impact sound. They also has a square face angle. They are larger than previous hybrids from Mizuno, with an L-shaped maraging multi-thickness face design and a thin crown with a thick-soled stainless steel body.

“Our new hybrids offer an ideal combination of technologies to create and extremely forgiving club that delivers consistently long distance with accuracy,” Lyons said.

Available Lofts: 16, 19, 22, 25 (All Right-Hand Only)

Shaft:  Fujikura Orochi Blue Eye 75

Grip:  Golf Pride M-31 58 Round

Suggested Retail Price: $189.99

Click here for more discussion in the “Tour/Pre-release equipment” forum. 

Your Reaction?
  • 1
  • LEGIT1
  • WOW0
  • LOL1
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK0

Zak is the Editor-in-Chief of GolfWRX.com. He's been a part of the company since 2011, when he was hired to lead GolfWRX's Editorial Department. Zak developed GolfWRX's Featured Writer Program, which supports aspiring writers and golf industry professionals. He played college golf at the University of Richmond (Go Spiders!) and still likes to compete in tournaments. You can follow Zak on Twitter @ZakKoz, where he's happy to discuss his game and all the cool stuff that's part of his job.

12 Comments

12 Comments

  1. MBAISLEY

    Sep 7, 2013 at 3:56 pm

    I just bought a MP-650 with the stock Orochi blue shaft in stiff flex. It’s a GREAT driver.

    I hit it 10 to 20 yards further than the R1 (and I tried every shaft option TM offers), 20 yards further than the 913D3 (same thing on shafts), and 20 yards further than the newest Callaway models.

    Plus, it has a fantastic sound and feel….. which are big factors for me on the driver. Maybe not factors for other folks. The MP-650 may be the best sounding driver available in the last 10 years.

    I just don’t think Mizuno gets as much attention on their woods because they don’t market them as effectively or as forcefully as their irons. Boy, they sure know how to make (and market) those forged irons!!

  2. kickngoals

    Jun 27, 2013 at 10:06 am

    I have been on the lookout for a new driver to replace my old TM burner for about 3 months.I have tried all the latest TM drivers & dont like them now, so far the Callaway xhot was my pick until at the range the other day decided to try the Mizuno JPX825 9.5 and wow loved it even though it doesnt have all the bells & whistles of other new drivers i dont care for it,so went back again yesterday just to feel again and it is so straight and long that i will pick up my new driver Saturday morning on my way to play cant wait to get it on the course now.

  3. Brockohol

    Jun 17, 2013 at 9:51 am

    Anytime I am at a demo day or looking at Mizuno stuff in store they always have such bland shaft options. Obviously you can typically order whatever you want but when you see some of the better shafts and different options in all the other major brands, Mizuno just gives me the impression “meh, buy it, dont buy it…we dont care. Were just making woods because we have to.”
    I know I am in the minority of wanting to hit a stiffer shaft and being a club geek and all. Most guys are content with the low kick 60 gram OEM shaft, which is fine. But if you want to get people talking about your stuff you have to go the extra mile and they certainly dont.

  4. dave

    Mar 24, 2013 at 10:26 pm

    after 15 years as a callaway guy. this year i will be all mizuno. irons and driver. hit the jpx 825 Driver 9.5 and 10.5 and what a great club. wow the feel is spot on the sound is sweet. the ball just jumps of the face. taylormade, ping, corba, and callaway are all very good clubs. but the jpx 825 Driver was the best fit for me. no need for all that sales crap that dont realy work as far as lofts , open, close face bs. i had my r 11s last year and played 5 rounds with it before i sold it. all you guy and gals need to hit this club to see for your self. Mizuno you won me over at last.

  5. gunmetal

    Jan 7, 2013 at 1:40 pm

    This day and age, the only way Mizuno can sell woods is if they get some type of tour presence. I can’t think of one of their staffers that plays their drivers or other woods. It’s probably great and performs up there with everything else, but until they start shelling out clams to their staff, people will just think ho hum about their drivers. They’re probably okay with this as their irons do fine and I’m sure Golf is a small piece what with Baseball and all the other stuff they do.

  6. adrian

    Dec 1, 2012 at 2:15 pm

    the driver and the woods werent a success for me. definetely missed something there mizuno.

    however the hybrid is money. i currently use adams idea a12 and my 3 hybrid is 200 avg distance, not to say tht occasionally i get it to 212. i went in to golfsmith and tried it out . amazing feel and look. let alone consistent. i hit 215 avg with 230 being my max several times. off the deck it picks up the ball really well. went straight into the bag. even ordered a 16* and hit 245 – 255 off the tee!!!! new driver? idk.

  7. Matt

    Nov 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm

    Saw the new JPX-825’s in a local shop here in CT. Both the Driver and hybrids look amazing to look down at. Could very well go all mizuno bag next year to match my custom MP-64’s and MPT-11’s.

  8. Joe Golfer

    Nov 23, 2012 at 12:54 am

    jgpl states that Mizuno has a complete lack of understand that they need more custom shaft options to broaden appeal.
    Most buyers go to a store and never even ask about the custom options available, as there is an upcharge for customization in many cases. Most buyers simply aren’t aware enough.
    That said, Mizuno does offer several alternate shafts.
    Just because this one review lists only the Fujikura Orichi Blue Eye shaft doesn’t mean that other shafts aren’t being offered or available.
    Before making the comment, look at the MizunoUSA.com website and you’ll see that there are several custom options available, such as a different Fujikura model shaft for lower trajectory, several Mitsubishi Diamana shafts (Blue Board and White Board in different weights), Project X graphite shafts (Blue and Black models), Grafalloy ProLaunch Blue, and also the Exsar shafts, which are Mizuno’s in house brand (and which are actually high quality shafts).

  9. jgpl

    Nov 20, 2012 at 8:56 am

    Probably a great driver destined to failure.

    Complete lack of or understanding from Mizuno that they need to offer a good range of custom and exotic shafts like other OEM’s to broaden the appeal.

  10. Matt Dailey

    Nov 20, 2012 at 7:29 am

    I love their irons. I wish they’d get with the program on their woods and hybrids.. I hit one of their hybrids last week. To my surprise it wasn’t bad, but there are other hybrids out there that feel better and go longer.

  11. Pingback: GolfWRX.com – 2013 Mizuno JPX-825 Driver, Fairway woods … | Golf Tips

  12. Stephen Palywoda

    Nov 19, 2012 at 5:30 pm

    Mizuno again ignore the lefty golfers!!!

Leave a Reply

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

pga tour

Ian Poulter WITB 2018

Published

on

Equipment is accurate as of the 2018 Honda Classic (2/20/2018).

Driver: Titleist 917D2 (9.5 degrees)
Shaft: Mitsubishi Tensei Orange CK 60TX

3 Wood: Titleist 917F2 (16.5 degrees)
Shaft: Matrix Ozik TP7HDe 7X

Hybrid: Titleist 816 H2 (21 degrees)
Shaft: Aldila Tour Green ATX85H TX

Irons: Titleist 716 T-MB (4), Titleist 718 AP2 (5-PW)
Shaft: Project X LZ 130 7.0

Wedges: Titleist Vokey SM7 (52-12F, 56-14F, 60-04L)
Shaft: Project X LZ 7.0 (52), True Temper Dynamic Gold Tour Issue S400 (56, 60)

Putter: EvnRoll Tour ER
Grip: Odyssey Pistol

Putter: Rife Antigua Island Series
Grip: Odyssey Pistol

Ball: Titleist Pro V1x

Related:

Discussion: See what GolfWRX members are saying about Poulter’s clubs. 

Your Reaction?
  • 4
  • LEGIT0
  • WOW0
  • LOL1
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK1

Continue Reading

Equipment

10 interesting photos from Wednesday at the Honda Classic

Published

on

From our featured image of Rory McIlroy putting in a different kind of work on the range in the pre-dawn hours of Wednesday morning, to shots of Tiger Woods’ similarly early pre-pro-am range work, to some intriguing shots Patrick Reed’s prototype Bettinardi putter, GolfWRX has plenty of fantastic photo content from PGA National.

Here are some of the best shots from Wednesday.

Tiger Woods at work prior to his crack-of-dawn pro-am tee time. Gentleman in the foreground: You do know that as the sun has not yet risen, you do not need a hat to aggressively combat its rays, right?

“My feet do not look like that at impact.”

All eyes on the Big Cat…except those focused on the live video on their cell phone screens…

Let’s take a closer look at Patrick Reed’s yardage book cover. Yep. As expected.

Do you think these two ever talk?

It looks like Captain Furyk already has some pre-Ryder Cup swag in the form of a putter cover.

If you’ve ever wondered why Rickie Fowler selected these interesting locations for his tattoos, this may be the answer: Visible when he holds his finish.

We’ve got a Pistol Pete sighting!

Patrick Reed’s droolworthy Bettinardi Dass prototype.

Fun fact: Wedges double as magnetic putter cover holders, as Jon Curran illustrates here. Healthy application of lead tape, as well, from the tour’s resident graffiti artist.

Wednesday’s Photos

Discussion: See what GolfWRX members are saying about the photos in our forums.

Your Reaction?
  • 12
  • LEGIT3
  • WOW1
  • LOL2
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK6

Continue Reading

Accessory Reviews

Review: FlightScope Mevo

Published

on

In 100 Words

The Mevo is a useful practice tool for amateur golfers and represents a step forward from previous offerings on the market. It allows golfers to practice indoors or outdoors and provides club speed, ball speed, smash factor, launch angle, spin rate, carry distance and flight time.

It also has a video capture mode that will overlay swing videos with the swing data of a specific swing. It is limited in its capabilities and its accuracy, though, which golfers should expect at this price point. All in all, it’s well worth the $499 price tag if you understand what you’re getting.

The Full Review

The FlightScope Mevo is a launch monitor powered by 3D Doppler radar. With a retail price of $499, it is obviously aimed to reach the end consumer as opposed to PGA professionals and club fitters.

The Mevo device itself is tiny. Like, really tiny. It measures 3.5-inches wide, 2.8-inches tall and 1.2-inches deep. In terms of everyday products, it’s roughly the size of an Altoids tin. It’s very easy to find room for it in your golf bag, and the vast majority of people at the range you may be practicing at won’t even notice it’s there. Apart from the Mevo itself, in the box you get a quick start guide, a charging cable, a carrying pouch, and some metallic stickers… more on those later. It has a rechargeable internal battery that reaches a full charge in about two hours and lasts for about four hours when fully charged.

As far as software goes, the Mevo pairs with the Mevo Golf app on your iOS or Android device. The app is free to download and does not require any subscription fees (unless you want to store and view videos of your swing online as opposed to using the memory on your device). The app is very easy to use even for those who aren’t tech savvy. Make sure you’re using the most current version of the firmware for the best results, though (I did experience some glitches at first until I did so). The settings menu does have an option to manually force firmware writing, but updates should happen automatically when you start using the device.

Moving through the menus, beginning sessions, editing shots (good for adding notes on things like strike location or wind) are all very easy. Video mode did give me fits the first time I used it, though, as it was impossible to maintain my connection between my phone and the Mevo while having the phone in the right location to capture video properly. The only way I could achieve this was by setting the Mevo as far back from strike location as the device would allow. Just something to keep in mind if you find you’re having troubles with video mode.

Screenshot of video capture mode with the FlightScope Mevo

Using the Mevo

When setting up the Mevo, it needs to be placed between 4-7 feet behind the golf ball, level with the playing surface and pointed down the target line. The distance you place the Mevo behind the ball does need to be entered into the settings menu before starting your session. While we’re on that subject, before hitting balls, you do need to select between indoor, outdoor, and pitching (ball flight less than 20 yards) modes, input your altitude and select video or data mode depending on if you want to pair your data with videos of each swing or just see the data by itself. You can also edit the available clubs to be monitored, as you will have to tell the Mevo which club you’re using at any point in time to get the best results. Once you get that far, you’re pretty much off to the races.

Testing the Mevo

I tested the FlightScope Mevo with Brad Bachand at Man O’ War Golf Center in Lexington, Kentucky. Brad is a member of the PGA and has received numerous awards for golf instruction and club fitting. I wanted to put the Mevo against the best device FlightScope has to offer and, luckily, Brad does use his $15,000 FlightScope X3 daily. We had both the FlightScope Mevo and Brad’s FlightScope X3 set up simultaneously, so the numbers gathered from the two devices were generated from the exact same strikes. Brad also set up the two devices and did all of the ball striking just to maximize our chances for success.

The day of our outdoor session was roughly 22 degrees Fahrenheit. There was some wind on that day (mostly right to left), but it wasn’t a major factor. Our setup is pictured below.

Outdoor testing setup with FlightScope X3 (foreground) and Mevo

The results of our outdoor testing are shown below. The testing was conducted with range balls, and we did use the metallic stickers. The range balls used across all the testing were all consistently the same brand. Man O’ War buys all new range balls once a year and these had been used all throughout 2017.  The 2018 batch had not yet been purchased at the time that testing was conducted.

Raw outdoor data captured with range balls including metallic stickers. Mevo data (blue) and X3 data (orange) were both generated from the same exact shots.

You’ll notice some peculiar data in the sand wedge spin category. To be honest, I don’t fully know what contributed to the X3 measuring such low values. While the Mevo’s sand wedge spin numbers seem more believable, you could visibly see that the X3 was much more accurate on carry distance. Below is a quick summary of the percent differences between each of the parameters as presented by the Mevo and the X3 in our outdoor session when separated out for each club. As previously mentioned, though, take sand wedge spin with a grain of salt.

Table showing the percent difference of each parameter between Mevo and X3 grouped by club (outdoor testing).

The first thing we noticed was that the Mevo displays its numbers while the golf ball is still in midair, so it was clear that it wasn’t watching the golf ball the entire time like the X3. According to the Mevo website, carry distance, height and flight time are all calculated while club speed, ball speed, launch angle and spin rate are measured. As for the accuracy of the measured parameters, the Mevo’s strength is ball speed. The accuracy of the other measured ball parameters (launch angle and spin rate) is questionable depending on certain factors (quality of strike, moisture on the clubface and ball, quality of ball, etc). I would say it ranges between “good” or “very good” and “disappointing” with most strikes being categorized as “just okay.”

As for the calculated parameters of carry distance, height and time, those vary a decent amount. Obviously, when the measurements of the three inputs become less accurate, the three outputs will become less accurate as a result. Furthermore, according to FlightScope, the Mevo’s calculations are not accounting for things like temperature, humidity, and wind. The company has also stated, though, that future updates will likely adjust for these parameters by using location services through the app.

Now, let’s talk about those metallic stickers. According to the quick start guide, the Mevo needs a sticker on every golf ball you hit, and before you hit each ball, the ball needs to be placed such that the sticker is facing the target. It goes without saying that it doesn’t sound like a whole lot of fun to spend time putting those stickers on every ball, let alone balls that will never come back to you if you’re at a public driving range. Obviously, people are going to want to avoid using the stickers if they can, so do they really matter? Below is a table of data showing the percent difference between the Mevo’s data and the X3’s data of what we collected outdoors with a driver and range balls with and without the use of the stickers.

Table showing how the percent difference of each parameter changes between Mevo and X3 when you use the metallic stickers and when you don’t

The FlightScope website says that the metallic stickers “are needed in order for the Mevo to accurately measure ball spin.” We observed pretty much the same as shown in the table above. The website also states they are working on alternative solutions to stickers (possibly a metallic sharpie), which I think is wise.

Another thing we thought would be worth testing is the impact of different golf balls. Below is a table of data showing the percent difference between the Mevo’s data and the X3’s data of what we collected outdoors with a driver and range balls as compared to Pro V1’s. All of this data was collected using the metallic stickers.

Table showing how the percent difference of each parameter changes between Mevo and X3 when you switch from range balls to Pro V1’s

As shown above, the data gets much closer virtually across the board when you use better quality golf balls. Just something else to keep in mind when using the Mevo.

Indoor testing requires 8 feet of ball flight (impact zone to hitting net), which was no problem for us. Our setup is pictured below. All of the indoor testing was conducted with Titleist Pro V1 golf balls using the metallic stickers.

Indoor testing setup with FlightScope X3 (foreground) and Mevo

The results of our indoor session are shown below.

Raw indoor data captured with Pro V1’s including metallic stickers. Mevo data (blue) and X3 data (orange) were both generated from the same exact shots.

Below is a quick summary of the percent differences between each of the parameters as presented by the Mevo and the X3 in our indoor session when separated out for each club.

Table showing the percent difference of each parameter between Mevo and X3 grouped by club (indoor testing)

On the whole, the data got much closer together between the two devices in our indoor session. I would think a lot of that can be attributed to the use of quality golf balls and to removing outdoor factors like wind and temperature (tying into my previous comment above).

As far as overall observations between all sessions, the most striking thing was that the Mevo consistently gets more accurate when you hit really good, straight shots. When you hit bad shots, or if you hit a fade or a draw, it gets less and less accurate.

The last parameter to address is club speed, which came in around 5 percent different on average between the Mevo and X3 based on all of the shots recorded. The Mevo was most accurate with the driver at 2.1 percent different from the X3 over all strikes and it was the least accurate with sand wedge by far. Obviously, smash factor accuracy will follow club speed for the most part since ball speed is quite accurate. Over every shot we observed, the percent difference on ball speed was 1.2 percent on average between the Mevo and the X3. Again, the Mevo was least accurate with sand wedges. If I remove all sand wedge shots from the data, the average percent difference changes from 1.2 percent to 0.7 percent, which is very, very respectable.

When it comes to the different clubs used, the Mevo was by far most accurate with mid irons. I confirmed this with on-course testing on a relatively flat 170-yard par-3 as well. Carry distances in that case were within 1-2 yards on most shots (mostly related to quality of strike). With the driver, the Mevo was reasonably close, but I would also describe it as generous. It almost always missed by telling me that launch angle was higher, spin rate was lower and carry distance was farther than the X3. Generally speaking, the Mevo overestimated our driver carries by about 5 percent. Lastly, the Mevo really did not like sand wedges at all. Especially considering those shots were short enough that you could visibly see how far off the Mevo was with its carry distance. Being 10 yards off on a 90 yard shot was disappointing.

Conclusion

The Mevo is a really good product if you understand what you’re getting when you buy it. Although the data isn’t good enough for a PGA professional, it’s still a useful tool that gives amateurs reasonable feedback while practicing. It’s also a fair amount more accurate than similar products in its price range, and I think it could become even better with firmware updates as Flightscope improves upon its product.

This is a much welcomed and very promising step forward in consumer launch monitors, and the Mevo is definitely worth a look if you’re in the market for one.

Your Reaction?
  • 118
  • LEGIT10
  • WOW2
  • LOL6
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP7
  • OB3
  • SHANK25

Continue Reading

19th Hole

Facebook

Trending