Connect with us

Iron Reviews

Review: Titleist 716 T-MB irons



Pros: Their hollow-bodied, multi-material chassis bares an uncanny resemblance to the shape of the 716 MB irons that most golfers wish they could play, yet offers a level of performance usually reserved for bulkier game-improvement irons.

Cons: One of the most expensive irons in its class. Individual irons (2-5) are available at retail for $199 (steel). Full eight-piece sets are exclusive to Titleist’s Made-Only-To-Order (MOTO) program and sell for $1,599.

Who they’re for: Golfers who like the looks of blade and blade-like irons, but realize they need a set that supplies more distance and forgiveness to play their best. The 716 T-MB irons also serve as great long iron replacements for the company’s MB, CB and AP2 models, providing more ball speed while retaining launch angle to improve golfers’ chances from long range.

The Review

  • Price: $199 per club (steel), $225 per club (graphite). 2-5 irons available at retail.
  • MOTO: Full 8-piece sets are available through Titleist’s MOTO Program for $1,599.
  • Irons available: 3-P
  • Construction: Cast (431 stainless steel steel bodies, high-strength steel club faces, tungsten)
  • Stock Shaft: True Temper Dynamic Gold AMT (steel), Mitsubishi Rayon Kuro Kage TiNi 65 (graphite)
  • Availability: In stores Oct. 23

The 716 T-MB irons are the boldest new iron design the company has released in eight years, when Titleist treated golfers to a revolutionary players iron called the AP2. In many ways, the 716 T-MB irons are the next generation of that breakthrough product, and Titleist’s attempt to make the ultimate players irons.

To create the 716 T-MB, Titleist merged the shaping of its traditional muscleback irons with the blade length of the AP2, while adding a three-piece construction that uses a cast body, high-strength steel face and the most tungsten it has ever used in an iron model — an average of 80 grams per head.


The 716 T-MB irons merge the forgiveness of Titleist’s larger irons with the classic lines of its MB line.

Most of Titleist’s T-MB irons will be sold as long iron replacements, as only the 2-5 irons are the only ones that will be sold at retail. Those irons are the direct replacement for the company’s 712U irons, which were designed to bridge the gap between the shortest fairway wood and hybrid in a golfer’s bag, and the longest AP2, CB or MB iron a golfer felt comfortable using.

Screen Shot 2015-09-21 at 2.06.38 PM

Through Titleist’s Made-Only-To-Order (MOTO) Program, however, golfers can buy the 716 T-MB in an eight-piece set (2-P), giving them a full set of the irons we found to be, pound for pound, Titleist’s best performing irons.


All 716 irons were Trackman tested with the same shaft (model and length), same grip, and Titleist’s stock specs.


All 716 irons were Trackman tested with the same shaft (model and length), same grip, and Titleist’s stock specs.


All 716 irons were Trackman tested with the same shaft (model and length), same grip, and Titleist’s stock specs.

Until golfers compare the 716 T-MB irons directly to Titleist’s 716 AP1 irons, they won’t appreciate how impressive the 716 T-MB testing results truly are. At address, the 716 T-MB irons have toplines that are thinner than the 716 AP2’s, with less offset and a shape that’s unbelievably similar to Titleist’s 716 MB irons.

In effect, the 716 T-MB irons are the best we’ve seen a company merge the looks of a muscleback with the game-improvement features typical of longer irons. That may not justify the full-set price of $1,599 to some golfers — $400 more than Titleist’s next-most-expensive irons — but others will be more than happy to fork over four more Franklins for what’s sure to become a legendary model.

There are downsides to the 716 T-MB irons, the most noticeable of which is their sound. They’re a departure from the denser feel of the AP1/AP2 and CB/MB lines, with a higher-pitched, louder sound at impact.

The bronze PVD finish on the back of the iron is also sure to be polarizing. For some, it will be a prized part of their bag bling, and for others it will be a bit too much. Our testing also indicated a slight fade bias to the 716 T-MB irons when compared to Titleist’s other irons, which will be great for some golfers and bad for others.

There’s no denying, however, that the 716 T-MB’s could set the standard upon which all other future Titleist irons are judged. They’re long without sacrificing launch angle, and forgiving without sacrificing clean looks.


The turf interaction of the irons is also nothing short of fantastic, with a pre-worn leading edge and a trailing edge chamfer that creates a sole that is effectively narrower than the 712U, and plays remarkably similar to the tour-validated AP2. They’re also approximately  2 mph faster than the 712U, have a moment of inertia (MOI) that’s 6.8 percent higher, and spin about 200 rpm less than their predecessors while retaining the same launch angle.

If you’re a golfer seeking more distance without having to compromise looks and versatility — and can stomach the hefty price tag — the 716 T-MB irons should be at the top of your list to test. And if you have found yourself seeking more long-iron horsepower than your solid-face irons can deliver, they’re a great replacement for those clubs.

See what GolfWRX Members are saying about the 716 AP1, AP2, T-MB, CB and MB irons in our forum. 

[wrx_retail_links productid=”23″]


Your Reaction?
  • 253
  • LEGIT42
  • WOW46
  • LOL7
  • IDHT8
  • FLOP4
  • OB4
  • SHANK32



  1. Bob

    Mar 7, 2016 at 4:39 pm

    I just got these and they play long with a high launch angle. At 51 years old it feels great to be able to hit a 3 iron again let alone hit it 220 yards with some height to it! I know they are expensive but what a great club!! Bought the whole set. I keep clubs 5 years+ so the cost averages out compared to most golfers I know that replace every 2-3 years. My son has the new AP2’s and is much longer with these albeit the KBS tour shaft is probably the difference over the S300. Fantastic irons, easy to hit and highly recommend.

  2. Bert

    Nov 27, 2015 at 6:12 pm

    at $199 per club I could care less.

  3. Jon

    Oct 5, 2015 at 1:22 pm

    Does anyone else think its weird the “mb”s are chunkier than the AP2s?

  4. Scott

    Sep 26, 2015 at 8:08 am

    Look gorgeous Will demo for sure

  5. Andy

    Sep 25, 2015 at 7:04 pm

    Can’t help but notice the trackman stats in this article support my love of MB blades. Don’t see any penalty versus the improvement irons re: launch, speed, descent, etc., that is detrimental. This supports my personal preference that blades make you a better player if you can attack the ball effectively at all. I play 690.MB’s, and will be likely getting the 716MB’s. WRX, thanks for the info, very helpful. No trackman type stuff where I live!

    • KK

      Aug 18, 2016 at 4:39 am

      Jordan Spieth has been better than every amateur in the world since he was 17. He doesn’t play MBs.

  6. NVS

    Sep 25, 2015 at 5:45 pm

    I hit it. Looked and felt exactly like the Nike Vapor Speed

  7. Joe

    Sep 24, 2015 at 10:23 pm

    Evidently not forged. “Not that there’s anything wrong with that”

  8. Tom Duckworth

    Sep 23, 2015 at 9:37 am

    Beautiful clubs it will be easy to see them on TV. I wonder how many staffers will use them.
    I’d put them in my bag very happily.

  9. Jordan S

    Sep 23, 2015 at 2:36 am

    And those blue tungsten bits look like they were stuck on by car manufacturers from the 70’s as an afterthought, not much in the way of an “engineered” reason to be like that. Lame.

    • GetRad

      Sep 23, 2015 at 6:35 am

      Hmm, I’ve looked and looked at the pics, but I just can’t see any “blue tungsten bits…stuck on”
      To what are you referring?

      • B

        Sep 23, 2015 at 1:42 pm

        You must be colorblind

        • GetRad

          Sep 23, 2015 at 4:26 pm

          I see a burnished bronze club back and a darker bronze style club sole.
          Help me out.

          • Point

            Sep 23, 2015 at 5:06 pm

            On the inside, doofus

            • GetRad

              Sep 23, 2015 at 5:16 pm

              Thank you. I was just trying to clear up that someone would actually complain about a digital rendering of internal parts of a golf club. That’s really digging deep.

            • John

              Sep 26, 2015 at 11:35 am

              You’re a dork. That is a computer generated image.

  10. Jordan S

    Sep 23, 2015 at 2:34 am

    Can’t be beaten by the Nike Vapor Speed, so…….

  11. KK

    Sep 22, 2015 at 10:08 pm

    These and the PXGs seem to have a very similar design. Let’s see a shootout.

    • John

      Sep 26, 2015 at 11:37 am

      Difference is PXG company owner is delusional for selling his clubs at $350 per club.

  12. Chuck

    Sep 22, 2015 at 1:57 pm

    At $199 per club, Titleist ought to let you buy any combo- or partial-set you want. I would think that some people might, for instance, want something like 5-9, with three Vokeys. At $199/club, that’s a this and dollar partial set. Or you could put some AMT’s in an old set of AP2’s or 680’s for a fraction of that cost.

    • Chuck

      Sep 22, 2015 at 2:37 pm

      Damned auto-correct.

      “…that’s a this and dollar set” should be, “that’s a thousand-dollar set.”

    • christian

      Sep 23, 2015 at 12:10 am

      Putting AMT shafts in either the 680s or older AP2s would NOT make them anywhere near similar to the T-MBs. Odd comparison.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Iron Reviews

Review: Honma TW737-Vs Forged Irons



Your Reaction?
  • 232
  • LEGIT30
  • WOW15
  • LOL1
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP5
  • OB1
  • SHANK36

Continue Reading


GolfWRX Member Reviews: TaylorMade 2017 M1 and M2 Irons



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.


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!


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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. 


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. 



– 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


– 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


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?
  • 27
  • LEGIT4
  • WOW0
  • LOL1
  • IDHT1
  • FLOP3
  • OB3
  • SHANK19

Continue Reading


Members Choice: The Best Irons of 2017



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


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


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


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 


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?
  • 292
  • LEGIT38
  • WOW15
  • LOL17
  • IDHT7
  • FLOP14
  • OB9
  • SHANK114

Continue Reading