Head to Head: Mizuno MP-5, PXG 0311T and Titleist 716 AP2 irons
A few months ago, GolfWRX Members voted for the three irons they most wanted to see tested head-to-head. The winners were: PXG 0311T, Mizuno MP-5 and Titleist 716 AP2. Today, the results of my test are in.
I do a lot of these head-to-head equipment test videos on my YouTube Channel, but for this video I stepped it up. Each of the three irons were tested with the same shafts of the exact same length, and all the clubs had the same grips, lofts, lies and swing weights, courtesy of Tour X Golf fitters.
Make sure to watch the video and vote for the three irons you want to see me test in my next video. As always, post your comments and questions below.
- LIKE278
- LEGIT35
- WOW14
- LOL15
- IDHT7
- FLOP13
- OB7
- SHANK43
The PGA TOUR heads to New Orleans to play the 2023 Zurich Classic of New Orleans. In a welcome change from the usual stroke play, the Zurich Classic is a team event. On Thursday and Saturday, the teams play best ball, and on Friday and Sunday the teams play alternate shot.
TPC Louisiana is a par 72 that measures 7,425 yards. The course features some short par 4s and plenty of water and bunkers, which makes for a lot of exciting risk/reward scenarios for competitors. Pete Dye designed the course in 2004 specifically for the Zurich Classic, although the event didn’t make its debut until 2007 because of Hurricane Katrina.
Coming off of the Masters and a signature event in consecutive weeks, the field this week is a step down, and understandably so. Many of the world’s top players will be using this time to rest after a busy stretch.
However, there are some interesting teams this season with some stars making surprise appearances in the team event. Some notable teams include Patrick Cantlay and Xander Schauffele, Rory McIlroy and Shane Lowry, Collin Morikawa and Kurt Kitayama, Will Zalatoris and Sahith Theegala as well as a few Canadian teams, Nick Taylor and Adam Hadwin and Taylor Pendrith and Corey Conners.
Past Winners at TPC Louisiana
- 2023: Riley/Hardy (-30)
- 2022: Cantlay/Schauffele (-29)
- 2021: Leishman/Smith (-20)
- 2019: Palmer/Rahm (-26)
- 2018: Horschel/Piercy (-22)
- 2017: Blixt/Smith (-27)
2024 Zurich Classic of New Orleans Picks
Tom Hoge/Maverick McNealy +2500 (DraftKings)
Tom Hoge is coming off of a solid T18 finish at the RBC Heritage and finished T13 at last year’s Zurich Classic alongside Harris English.
This season, Hoge is having one of his best years on Tour in terms of Strokes Gained: Approach. In his last 24 rounds, the only player to top him on the category is Scottie Scheffler. Hoge has been solid on Pete Dye designs, ranking 28th in the field over his past 36 rounds.
McNealy is also having a solid season. He’s finished T6 at the Waste Management Phoenix Open and T9 at the PLAYERS Championship. He recently started working with world renowned swing coach, Butch Harmon, and its seemingly paid dividends in 2024.
Keith Mitchell/Joel Dahmen +4000 (DraftKings)
Keith Mitchell is having a fantastic season, finishing in the top-20 of five of his past seven starts on Tour. Most recently, Mitchell finished T14 at the Valero Texas Open and gained a whopping 6.0 strokes off the tee. He finished 6th at last year’s Zurich Classic.
Joel Dahmen is having a resurgent year and has been dialed in with his irons. He also has a T11 finish at the PLAYERS Championship at TPC Sawgrass which is another Pete Dye track. With Mitchell’s length and Dahmen’s ability to put it close with his short irons, the Mitchell/Dahmen combination will be dangerous this week.
Taylor Moore/Matt NeSmith +6500 (DraftKings)
Taylor Moore has quickly developed into one of the more consistent players on Tour. He’s finished in the top-20 in three of his past four starts, including a very impressive showing at The Masters, finishing T20. He’s also finished T4 at this event in consecutive seasons alongside Matt NeSmith.
NeSmith isn’t having a great 2024, but has seemed to elevate his game in this format. He finished T26 at Pete Dye’s TPC Sawgrass, which gives the 30-year-old something to build off of. NeSmith is also a great putter on Bermudagrass, which could help elevate Moore’s ball striking prowess.
- LIKE6
- LEGIT1
- WOW1
- LOL0
- IDHT0
- FLOP2
- OB1
- SHANK1
After having four of the top twelve players on the leaderboard at The Masters, LIV Golf is set for their fifth event of the season: LIV Adelaide.
For both LIV fans and golf fans in Australia, LIV Adelaide is one of the most anticipated events of the year. With 35,000 people expected to attend each day of the tournament, the Grange Golf Club will be crawling with fans who are passionate about the sport of golf. The 12th hole, better known as “the watering hole”, is sure to have the rowdiest of the fans cheering after a long day of drinking some Leishman Lager.
The Grange Golf Club is a par-72 that measures 6,946 yards. The course features minimal resistance, as golfers went extremely low last season. In 2023, Talor Gooch shot consecutive rounds of 62 on Thursday and Friday, giving himself a gigantic cushion heading into championship Sunday. Things got tight for a while, but in the end, the Oklahoma State product was able to hold off The Crushers’ Anirban Lahiri for a three-shot victory.
The Four Aces won the team competition with the Range Goats finishing second.
*All Images Courtesy of LIV Golf*
Past Winners at LIV Adelaide
- 2023: Talor Gooch (-19)
Stat Leaders Through LIV Miami
Green in Regulation
- Richard Bland
- Jon Rahm
- Paul Casey
Fairways Hit
- Abraham Ancer
- Graeme McDowell
- Henrik Stenson
Driving Distance
- Bryson DeChambeau
- Joaquin Niemann
- Dean Burmester
Putting
- Cameron Smith
- Louis Oosthuizen
- Matt Jones
2024 LIV Adelaide Picks
Cameron Smith +1400 (DraftKings)
When I pulled up the odds for LIV Adelaide, I was more than a little surprised to see multiple golfers listed ahead of Cameron Smith on the betting board. A few starts ago, Cam finished runner-up at LIV Hong Kong, which is a golf course that absolutely suits his eye. Augusta National in another course that Smith could roll out of bed and finish in the top-ten at, and he did so two weeks ago at The Masters, finishing T6.
At Augusta, he gained strokes on the field on approach, off the tee (slightly), and of course, around the green and putting. Smith able to get in the mix at a major championship despite coming into the week feeling under the weather tells me that his game is once again rounding into form.
The Grange Golf Club is another course that undoubtedly suits the Australian. Smith is obviously incredibly comfortable playing in front of the Aussie faithful and has won three Australian PGA Championship’s. The course is very short and will allow Smith to play conservative off the tee, mitigating his most glaring weakness. With birdies available all over the golf course, there’s a chance the event turns into a putting contest, and there’s no one on the planet I’d rather have in one of those than Cam Smith.
Louis Oosthuizen +2200 (DraftKings)
Louis Oosthuizen has simply been one of the best players on LIV in the 2024 seas0n. The South African has finished in the top-10 on the LIV leaderboard in three of his five starts, with his best coming in Jeddah, where he finished T2. Perhaps more impressively, Oosthuizen finished T7 at LIV Miami, which took place at Doral’s “Blue Monster”, an absolutely massive golf course. Given that Louis is on the shorter side in terms of distance off the tee, his ability to play well in Miami shows how dialed he is with the irons this season.
In addition to the LIV finishes, Oosthuizen won back-to-back starts on the DP World Tour in December at the Alfred Dunhill Championship and the Mauritus Open. He also finished runner-up at the end of February in the International Series Oman. The 41-year-old has been one of the most consistent performers of 2024, regardless of tour.
For the season, Louis ranks 4th on LIV in birdies made, T9 in fairways hit and first in putting. He ranks 32nd in driving distance, but that won’t be an issue at this short course. Last season, he finished T11 at the event, but was in decent position going into the final round but fell back after shooting 70 while the rest of the field went low. This season, Oosthuizen comes into the event in peak form, and the course should be a perfect fit for his smooth swing and hot putter this week.
- LIKE10
- LEGIT2
- WOW0
- LOL0
- IDHT0
- FLOP0
- OB0
- SHANK0
Of all the clubs in our bags, wedges are almost always the simplest in construction and, therefore, the easiest to analyze what might make one work differently from another if you know what to look for.
Wedges are a lot less mysterious than drivers, of course, as the major brands are working with a lot of “pixie dust” inside these modern marvels. That’s carrying over more to irons now, with so many new models featuring internal multi-material technologies, and almost all of them having a “badge” or insert in the back to allow more complex graphics while hiding the actual distribution of mass.
But when it comes to wedges, most on the market today are still single pieces of molded steel, either cast or forged into that shape. So, if you look closely at where the mass is distributed, it’s pretty clear how that wedge is going to perform.
To start, because of their wider soles, the majority of the mass of almost any wedge is along the bottom third of the clubhead. So, the best wedge shots are always those hit between the 2nd and 5th grooves so that more mass is directly behind that impact. Elite tour professionals practice incessantly to learn to do that consistently, wearing out a spot about the size of a penny right there. If impact moves higher than that, the face is dramatically thinner, so smash factor is compromised significantly, which reduces the overall distance the ball will fly.
Every one of us, tour players included, knows that maddening shot that we feel a bit high on the face and it doesn’t go anywhere, it’s not your fault.
If your wedges show a wear pattern the size of a silver dollar, and centered above the 3rd or 4th groove, you are not getting anywhere near the same performance from shot to shot. Robot testing proves impact even two to three grooves higher in the face can cause distance loss of up to 35 to 55 feet with modern ‘tour design’ wedges.
In addition, as impact moves above the center of mass, the golf club principle of gear effect causes the ball to fly higher with less spin. Think of modern drivers for a minute. The “holy grail” of driving is high launch and low spin, and the driver engineers are pulling out all stops to get the mass as low in the clubhead as possible to optimize this combination.
Where is all the mass in your wedges? Low. So, disregarding the higher lofts, wedges “want” to launch the ball high with low spin – exactly the opposite of what good wedge play requires penetrating ball flight with high spin.
While almost all major brand wedges have begun putting a tiny bit more thickness in the top portion of the clubhead, conventional and modern ‘tour design’ wedges perform pretty much like they always have. Elite players learn to hit those crisp, spinny penetrating wedge shots by spending lots of practice time learning to consistently make contact low in the face.
So, what about grooves and face texture?
Grooves on any club can only do so much, and no one has any material advantage here. The USGA tightly defines what we manufacturers can do with grooves and face texture, and modern manufacturing techniques allow all of us to push those limits ever closer. And we all do. End of story.
Then there’s the topic of bounce and grinds, the most complex and confusing part of the wedge formula. Many top brands offer a complex array of sole configurations, all of them admittedly specialized to a particular kind of lie or turf conditions, and/or a particular divot pattern.
But if you don’t play the same turf all the time, and make the same size divot on every swing, how would you ever figure this out?
The only way is to take any wedge you are considering and play it a few rounds, hitting all the shots you face and observing the results. There’s simply no other way.
So, hopefully this will inspire a lively conversation in our comments section, and I’ll chime in to answer any questions you might have.
And next week, I’ll dive into the rest of the wedge formula. Yes, shafts, grips and specifications are essential, too.
- LIKE31
- LEGIT7
- WOW1
- LOL1
- IDHT2
- FLOP3
- OB1
- SHANK3
-
19th Hole2 weeks agoDave Portnoy places monstrous outright bet for the 2024 Masters
-
19th Hole2 weeks agoTiger Woods arrives at 2024 Masters equipped with a putter that may surprise you
-
19th Hole17 hours ago‘Absolutely crazy’ – Major champ lays into Patrick Cantlay over his decision on final hole of RBC Heritage
-
19th Hole3 weeks agoReport: Tiger Woods has ‘eliminated sex’ in preparation for the 2024 Masters
-
19th Hole1 week agoTwo star names reportedly blanked Jon Rahm all week at the Masters
-
19th Hole7 days agoReport: LIV Golf identifies latest star name they hope to sign to breakaway tour
-
19th Hole1 week agoNeal Shipley presser ends in awkward fashion after reporter claims Tiger handed him note on 8th fairway
-
19th Hole6 days agoBrandel Chamblee has ‘no doubt’ who started the McIlroy/LIV rumor and why
Tom
Oct 22, 2016 at 1:05 pm
https://youtu.be/8TBR0AcfEGc
Steve
Oct 16, 2016 at 7:11 pm
I know its a little off topic (or, out of bounds?), but I give you my impression of club testing… I walk in to a Golfsmith while killing some time. I jump in the demo booth and pick up a 7 iron (I dont recall the brand). The computer decides I am hitting the ball 195 yards and 5 yds off center. I am a 3+ hdcp that is well aware of my skills (or lack there of) and carry TM R7TPs in my bag and my 7 iron plays between 157 and 163 yds. therefore, I give little credence to reviews until I personally use a club off grass.
Ani
Oct 16, 2016 at 10:41 am
The test shows that PXG is a big loser. 1 yard longer for being 3 times more expensive. Good luck!
Tom
Oct 16, 2016 at 1:17 pm
with one club, imagine what the other seven will do.
Steven
Oct 15, 2016 at 8:44 am
What was the shot dispersion with each of the irons? That should be a major factor in helping decide which one is the best to put in your bag.
Uhit
Oct 15, 2016 at 1:26 pm
You can see the shot dispersion (in about the middle of the video) at 5:04 …
…the smallest shot dispersion has the Mizuno MP-5.
Tom
Oct 15, 2016 at 3:31 pm
By site it appears to be furthest from the center.
Uhit
Oct 15, 2016 at 6:42 pm
By site he was hitting the Mizuno blade furthest from the center of the clubface…
…however, shot shape is depending from strike.
If you would flatten the lie angle around 1 degree, the draw he plays would straighten, and the shots would be dead center on line…
…good quality forged irons can be bend a few degree without problems.
Uhit
Oct 16, 2016 at 4:53 am
B.t.W.:
If you take into account, that he played the biggest draws with the Mizuno (whilst he had the least dispersion), the Mizuno shots would have been (at least) as long as the other two irons (if the draws would be as straight as with the other two irons)…
…if all is said and done, you come to the conclusion, that in perfect conditions (robot testing), the Mizuno blade would win the test in probably all categories – don´t you think?
Tom
Oct 16, 2016 at 1:43 pm
I’m under the impression draw shots go further. According to the data provided 0311’s had the least deviation from center line.
Uhit
Oct 16, 2016 at 6:40 pm
A big draw becomes a hook…
…a draw, that draws to the center line, is still a draw.
Draw shots only get further, if you generate a considerable part of your clubhead speed with the closing speed of your club face through impact (flipping over)…
…or deloft your club in a helpful degree.
Draw shots are generated by the user – not by the golf club.
With the same ball speed a draw is shorter than a straight shot along the intended line.
You can play draws (and fades), to gap the distance between two golf Clubs.
If you measure the lenght of the flight path, you get an idea, how far a draw (or fade) would have been (approx.) travelled as a straight shot.
Do this in our case and you will find more than a yard distance gain, if you bend the draw from the Mizuno blade to a straight line and use the clubhead speed of the PXG shots.
Greg
Oct 14, 2016 at 8:52 pm
Somewhere along the line I thought that a given shaft might not work optimally in different clubheads. For example the AP1 head may be engineered with different launch and spin characteristics than the mizuno. Therefore a player may get better performance out of a DG shaft in the titleist and a kbs might work better with a mizuno. Is this not true? And if so, would it not impact the comparison if the same shaft is used?
christian
Oct 15, 2016 at 12:38 am
Every brand offers multiple shaft choices. So your theory does not hold water.
Jim
Oct 16, 2016 at 10:26 am
Greg is right…although it’d be measured in microns…It’s more about the strength and technique of the human using the tool…
Christian’s right too..Although they were dragged kicking and screaming into doing so. We used to routinely yank perfectly good un-hit DG’s from Mizuno’s & Titleist irons to install Rifle shafts on the customer’s request Once one big OEM started offering custom shaft selections, they all had to just to be competitive.
Brian
Oct 14, 2016 at 4:41 pm
You’re right…Mizuno are works of art.
Dat
Oct 14, 2016 at 7:17 pm
like those holes in your face?
Tom.
Oct 14, 2016 at 4:39 pm
push mower cut the Mizuno in two
Dave r
Oct 14, 2016 at 4:22 pm
You know what a good golfer can hit any club they want and get the same results. Remember its not the arrow it’s the ……? . You get fitted right and it does not matter what you hit. All the top line clubs are the same the feel might be different but it’s what you prefer. The biggest issue for most is cost . What I would like to see is a pro explain why it’s important for thoese getting into golf to get fitted by someone who knows what their talking about. And explain why it’s best to spend the extra time and have this done.
duffer888
Oct 14, 2016 at 11:04 am
Shots launch higher off a mat than grass. So yes, mat does influence numbers, but it should be the same across the 3.
Most interesting thing I see is 3 different designs, pretty much same result.
Clear winner? No. PGX is longer because it had the lowest dynamic loft. PGX probably has the thinnest face as well, so ball speed is not surprising.
Tom
Oct 15, 2016 at 1:53 pm
thin face & wider grooves
Uhit
Oct 16, 2016 at 5:11 am
He played the faintest draws with the PXG – if the shot shape with all three irons would be the same, the PXG wouldn´t be longer!
If you take into account, that he played the biggest draws with the Mizuno (whilst he had the least dispersion), the Mizuno shots would have been (at least) as long as the other two irons (if the draws would be as straight as with the other two irons)…
…if all is said and done, you come to the conclusion, that in perfect conditions (robot testing), the Mizuno blade would win the test in probably all categories – don´t you think?
Tom
Oct 16, 2016 at 2:34 pm
conditions for this test were as good as we’re gonna get. ( I have no problem with the results of the testing equipment used, benign indoor conditions,or Rick Shiels. What I think is, 1025 select Boron billet being softer that the others is a detriment.
Uhit
Oct 16, 2016 at 8:30 pm
I think Boron is not involved in this test (at least not in the Mizuno MP-5), but a human…
Boron is AFAIK used in the JPX series – except in the 900 tour.
Whether it is used in the PXG, or Titleist I don´t know, but you seem to like the idea of Boron in a 1025 steel, that is softer without it.
The 900 tour has no Boron in it because the face is thick enough…
…a blade (like the MP-5) wouldn´t benefit from Boron, because it has an even thicker face than the 900 tour on it´s thinnest spot.
Don´t know, what your argument is…
Tom
Oct 17, 2016 at 1:02 am
I stand corrected.
Tom
Oct 18, 2016 at 3:15 pm
my thinking is that the steel used in the MP 5 is softer than the others that could be a detriment.
Uhit
Oct 20, 2016 at 12:01 pm
The data show no detriment in performance versus the others…
…so, why should a softer steel be a detriment?
As long as the steel has no remaining deformation after you hit a ball, you can be pretty sure, that there is no energy loss, that could cause a measurable detriment in ball speed etc…
The ball is that much softer than a soft steel and the blade is thick enough to be not deformed during a hit, that you don´t have to worry.
Jim
Oct 14, 2016 at 10:44 am
Ya can’t change lofts to compare the clubs. 7irA is designed & ground to play with Xloft, and 7irB is designed & grounf to play with Yloft.
It doesn’t matter how “strong” anyone makes the loft of a given iron as long as they’ve been able to maintain a low center of gravity, keep it playable for the intended user(s) so that it produces the appropriate launch angle for the iron in question…
Why would anyone want 4-5 yds roll out with a 7? Using super-ultra-straight-titanium double dozen pack Slazengers from Dick’s? That’s either a bad shaft fitting, OR simply the wrong head for that player! Maybe bumping the loft changed COG too much – whatever…that’s not how irons should be “death match” – head to head tested..
GET THE ROBOT. Same shaft & length, same lie with the factory designated loft…ADJUST the robot for 1, 2 & 3 degree off center hits – both heel & toe side, alter path same way – alter clubhead release angles & do all tests with at least 3 speeds (70, 80 & 90mph)
yeah, it will take all day…but it’s the only way to “PROVE” which is best for each catagory of strike
Jim
Oct 14, 2016 at 12:11 pm
Isn’t building a “better mousetrap” the whole idea? I don’t care if an iron’s loft is 10° “strong” – as long as they were smart enough to compensate elsewhere to maintain appropriate launch & playabilty… it”s governed by rules, size limits and frankly consumer esthetics….
– anyone remember the first gen ALL TITANIUM IRONS? Yeah, they hit the crap out of the ball, but were so big n clumsy they failed… Build it as best ya can! Who cares what the loft/head numbers are
PO
Oct 14, 2016 at 10:41 am
No mention of golf ball, using a matt and NO mention of proximity to the hole ? I thought it was about golf…….. The point of the game is shooting lower scores…..
MP-4
Oct 14, 2016 at 11:30 am
Exactly.
Where’s the workability test.
Where the heck is the distance to the hole data?
No mention of accuracy. lol
The game is all about how far you hit it…hah.
Glen
Oct 15, 2016 at 7:03 am
I guess you didn’t see the offline stas he showed for each club?
Dormie
Oct 14, 2016 at 3:10 pm
If you add a little human factor, he is human after all, and take out the best and worst shot of each, you see what is seen time and time again. The closer you are to a true blade on a precise strike, the closer you are to the hole, distance+line. The further you are from a precise strike with that same club, the further you will be vs. a more perimeter weighted club. And vice versa. Great test nonetheless. Data data data.
Tom
Oct 15, 2016 at 1:58 pm
Incredible…absolutety incredible! Did ya watch the video on ur cell phone watch in line at a liquor store? PRO V1 !
Blue
Oct 14, 2016 at 10:15 am
Very Interesting. Thank you for performing the test and I think you did a nice job.
I am curious if anyone knows the C.O.R. for the three clubs? The MP5s and AP2 had a S.D. of 1.8 on ball speed however the PXGs had a S.D. of 2.7 on ball speed. The sample size is much too small and impact of human error is too great to draw any real conclusions but these S.D. numbers jumped out at me. The MP5s are the only true forged single piece of steel head. The others are multi-piece clubs and I think there is a possibility of some spring-like effect –albeit small.
I’ve play the MP5s since last fall and love them. Played the AP2 (great club too!) before and really have seen no difference in performance. I just like the Mizuno look better. Actually hit the PXG 0311ts a few times a couple days ago and didn’t see any noticeable improvement in performance –although I thought they felt softer at impact.
My simple take away is there is no discernible difference between the clubs when a good swing is put on them. Which is what I would expect in a players club. If you’re in the market, any of these are great –although the PXGs come with a hefty price. So pick what you like to look at and what sounds best to you at impact.
ButchT
Oct 14, 2016 at 9:17 am
With these results, how could anyone justify the increased cost of the PXGs?
Charlie
Oct 14, 2016 at 9:37 am
When you are trying to impress family, friends, clients, etc.
Jim
Oct 14, 2016 at 5:08 pm
Do robot tests and have it hit off center, thin, little fat… stuff that happens to humans – especially on uneven turf etc…
Mark Moser
Oct 16, 2016 at 12:46 pm
That would make more sense with a game improvement iron and not a players club as the player who will play this club is a mid to low single digit and a good consistent ball striker so miss hits will be a lot less than a 10 or 20 hdcp. If a 20 is playing these then every miss will be exaggerated.
Tom
Oct 16, 2016 at 4:50 pm
BAZINGA!
Joe
Oct 14, 2016 at 9:11 am
Why do so few people understand the concept of statistical significance? If you really want to prove that one club is longer than another, you need to hit more than 10 shots with each. (And probably use a robot – a human is just not consistent enough.)
I also take issue with the conclusion that any of these clubs “won” this test. This data is a real mixed bag. The PXG was the “longest”, but it also had a greater variance of distance. A player of the quality of the guy who did this test doesn’t care about 2 yards with his 7 iron. He wants to control his distance. If you care about maximizing your distance with your 7 iron, you don’t want this style of club anyway.
Jordan
Oct 14, 2016 at 10:19 am
These results are so close you’d need a crap ton of repetitions to gain anything statistically significant. The issue with that is you’ll probably get something statistically significant, but insignificant in terms of real world impact. No one cares about a club that’s 1-2 yards longer. I think the idea of this article is to show that there’s little difference between any of these clubs and you can sufficiently do that with just 10 iterations.
Blue
Oct 14, 2016 at 10:19 am
Agree. Although I don’t think he’s claiming any stat sig. My take away is there is no difference between the clubs and that is what I would expect w/a players club. Players clubs should provided consistent performance with a consistent swing. All of these clubs provide this.
Mr Muira.
Oct 14, 2016 at 8:56 am
Some guys like their girls fat, some like em skinny…pick your ball buster.
Blade Junkie
Oct 14, 2016 at 8:03 am
So basically there is no real-world difference between any of these clubs LOL. So do I buy the AP2s for £700 .. or the MP5s for £750 … or the PXGs for £2,500 … ?
Mark Donaghy
Oct 14, 2016 at 6:49 am
I think this was a great head to head test. I’ve watched Rick do many of these and he is usually very honest / balanced in his findings. He was not pushing any of these clubs. What it show me was that there is very little between all three, which is what I would have thought from the start. Some of you purists out there will quibble about the details ad infinitum, but to me a lot of this will come down to an individual’s preference for visual looks, feel and brand loyalty. The Mizzy guy will always pick Mizzy. I think if a club is fit properly to the player, the margin of difference is very little in terms of distance, flight and dispersion.
erkr
Oct 14, 2016 at 12:17 am
Pretty similar data I must say.
He didn’t hit so many shots so, just hitting the PXG slightly harder/better can explain the difference in club and ballspeed.
I’d like to hear more about the differences in how they feel and how they play (high/low trajectory, perfor on Mishima etc)
Gary
Oct 13, 2016 at 11:10 pm
To be fair the Mizuno chosen to be run against those other two should have been the JPX 900 forged
Jason Schneider
Oct 14, 2016 at 9:48 am
Why? The mp5s are a better iron
Blue
Oct 14, 2016 at 10:28 am
The JPX 900 forged perimeter weighting is more similar to AP2 and PXG.
Tom
Oct 18, 2016 at 11:56 am
https://youtu.be/8TBR0AcfEGc not cracked up to what they made out to be.
Tom.
Oct 14, 2016 at 1:49 pm
“A few months ago, GolfWRX Members voted for the three irons they most wanted to see tested head-to-head. The winners were: PXG 0311T, Mizuno MP-5 and Titleist 716 AP2. Today, the results of my test are in”
Brian
Oct 14, 2016 at 4:45 pm
I thin the JPX 900 Tour would be more appropriate than the forged.
lhex
Oct 13, 2016 at 10:44 pm
robotic testing will justified everything!
its good to see a dual cavity irons can produce a very close number with a muscles back design iron
nice head to head test men,
Philip
Oct 13, 2016 at 9:23 pm
Since club lofts are tweaked to maximize the characteristics of the club design bending the AP2 and MP-5 7i from 34 to 32 degrees in order to match the PXG club will definitely have an effect on the results. In addition after the lofts were adjusted, the bounce for the PXG stayed at 7 degrees, whereas the bounce for the MP-5 was just 1 degree and the AP2 would have been 3 degrees (if same bounce as prior model since the website not longer lists bounce). I wouldn’t call them identical clubs and the sample size is just oo small for any meaningful conversation – but that it just me.
Dave S
Oct 13, 2016 at 11:04 pm
Always club test truthers.
Craven
Oct 14, 2016 at 10:24 am
I agree about strengthening the lofts. To be fair, he should have repeated the test with the PXG weakened to 34 degrees. Would it have suffered in performance? Then again, looking at the numbers, the differences are far too small to deem the test statistically significant. In essence, they are all the same. Choose whichever one suits your eye or wallet.
Dan
Oct 14, 2016 at 11:39 am
This makes sense to me. Also can explain why the Mizuno was hit a touch higher on the face. impact conditions with 7° bounce versus 1° biunce can definitely change.
Tom.
Oct 14, 2016 at 12:49 pm
https://www.mitchellgolf.com/news/bending-golf-clubs-facts-fallacies/
dan
Oct 13, 2016 at 9:15 pm
Decent “attempt” at a controlled experiment.
Either way it only shows that it just doesn’t really matter which clubs you use.
So you’re telling us that a true blade is slightly (and I mean very marginally slightly) less forgiving than a hollow iron and a CB with tungsten?
Is anyone actually surprised by this??
Find a shaft that fits you and a head that suits your eye and flail away.
Uhit
Oct 15, 2016 at 2:02 pm
Where does your conclusion come from?
In the video at 5:04 you see, that the Mizuno MP-5 blade has the smallest dispersion circle, which corresponds (at least in my book) with most forgiving.
In this test, the Mizuno blade wasn´t struck as well as the others (3-4 mm higher above center than the other two – on average) – and (despite this) it had the smallest dispersion!
In my opinion it also shows, that you should grab the golf club, that looks and feels the best and get fitted – forget the bells an whistles and what the majority tells you.
Tom
Oct 15, 2016 at 2:57 pm
Uh huh… Bob. I’ll take the red circle for 100
/
Uhit
Oct 15, 2016 at 7:03 pm
You know, you can get anything you want, at Alice’s Restaurant…
Tom
Oct 16, 2016 at 1:21 pm
roflmao
John
Oct 13, 2016 at 9:04 pm
When your 7 iron launches like a 6 iron it is time to go to a weaker shaft. Playing a c taper 130x with those numbers is a joke.
KK
Oct 13, 2016 at 9:25 pm
3 to 5 yards of roll-out with a 7 iron is pretty good.
Someone
Oct 13, 2016 at 11:00 pm
Why are you getting roll out with your 7i? That’s an approach shot that shot come down relatively close to steep and settle. If I’m hitting a 7i into a green, the last thing I’m looking for is roll out. If I’m hitting a 7i as hard as I can to eke out some extra distance with a rollout, I’d rather play the 6i.
Charlie
Oct 14, 2016 at 8:28 am
Agreed. But with a push draw, it’s difficult to go softer without hooking the ball. My swing is a lot like his. I can understand why he plays that shaft.
Dylan
Oct 13, 2016 at 8:47 pm
I’d say Mizuno gets the win here, a straight up blade against two players cavity back irons? And it performed only slightly worse off of mis-hits? Very impressive Mizuno, you should be proud.
gwillis7
Oct 13, 2016 at 9:55 pm
agree, Mizuno did fantastic and I would imagine it would be the least forgiving. seems pretty dang forgiving for a blade.
I wish the ping i-blades would have been in the competition!
Jack
Oct 13, 2016 at 11:41 pm
I would agree. His clubhead speed was actually lower for the MP5. I don’t think clubs affect clubhead speed really? That’s really the golfer. The dynamic loft was also higher on the MP5 as well. With it being the same loft, that is really not a consistent strike. I don’t believe that if the Mp5 was swung the same way there would be really much difference at all.
And this is because Rick is a pretty good golfer. I would imagine that the MP5 would perform worse on off center hits compared to the other two. Making this test not as useful as it could have been. Rick should probably try delofting the Mp5 more when he was testing then it would have been fairer. What made him deloft and swing the other two clubs 1 mile slower than the PXG we don’t know. And apparently neither does he. But really this tells me once you rule out the loft differences the three clubs are really quite similar.
Tom
Oct 16, 2016 at 2:42 pm
From Mizuno Corp. Traditionally irons have fallen into blade or cavity type categories but Mizuno insist the MP-5’s are neither, but rather a revolutionary “Channel Back”… end that quote!
R
Oct 13, 2016 at 8:11 pm
Rigged to the moon
Matt
Oct 13, 2016 at 6:54 pm
Hardly seems fair that the PXGs were hit on the screws and the Mizzies were all bonked. Delivering half a club extra of dynamic loft with MP-5s as well, probably the high hits causing deflection (also explains the low spin). NEW TEST! Account for strike this time.
Tom
Oct 15, 2016 at 2:38 pm
250+ think it’s fair compared to the 53 hat don’t.
Uhit
Oct 13, 2016 at 6:25 pm
Interestingly the Mizuno blade had the least dispersion and the other numbers were very close, despite the Mizuno blade was hit on average on the least favourable position on the club head (within the tested bunch of three golf clubs).
3 to 4 mm higher hit point on average on the clubface of the Mizuno blade in comparison to the others, which could indicate that the mat could have been hit (slowing the golf club down) and / or explaining the higher average launch angle.
Tom
Oct 13, 2016 at 8:13 pm
so now the “mat” comes into question on testing?
J
Oct 13, 2016 at 8:50 pm
Ball contact does come into question, which is what he’s implying. Contact higher on the face=higher launch with less spin and lower ball speed. No need to be pejorative, it’s an astute observation that could affect the results.
Uhit
Oct 14, 2016 at 6:05 am
Thank you. You are spot on!
Tom
Oct 15, 2016 at 4:09 pm
look at and compare AoA data provided for more info.
Uhit
Oct 16, 2016 at 4:49 am
Think about it…
…you can hit off center strikes independent of the AoA…
Tom
Oct 19, 2016 at 8:32 pm
I’m thinkin if the if the sole of the club came into contact with the mat, the club would have skipped and contact would be lower on the face. Why didn’t it happen on the other two? Does Rick Shiels that poor of a swing?
Someone
Oct 13, 2016 at 11:03 pm
He’s saying that the mat comes into play if it is hit, whilst the others were cleaner strokes on the ball with mat interaction after hitting the ball. Hitting the mat first could cause the ball to bounce up a tad and hit higher on the club face.
Uhit
Oct 14, 2016 at 6:14 am
In any case, I wouldn´t have expected that the pure Mizuno blade would have the least dispersion AND the other numbers in the same ball park.
My conlusion is – according to the provided data – that the simple blade in this test has no obvious disadvantage in comparison to the high-tech irons…
…which really surprises me (as a gear head), but not really as a Golfer, who loves look and feel.
Tom
Oct 14, 2016 at 9:09 am
SOOooo user error?
Uhit
Oct 14, 2016 at 3:20 pm
The given data show 3 to 4 mm higher (on average and above center) golf ball strike positions on the club face of the Mizuno blade in comparison to the other two tested golf clubs…
…what could it be?
Have you an argument against the given data, or what do you want?
Golfy Golferton
Oct 13, 2016 at 6:06 pm
Anyone getting redirected to pipview for some stupid gift card or is it just me,
Read it was a problem with this site
Someone
Oct 13, 2016 at 11:04 pm
I’m having the same problem. It only happens on golfwrx…their site must be generating hits or one of their ads has an embedded code.
TitleistJunky
Oct 13, 2016 at 5:37 pm
I think the better test would be the distance and accuracy on off center hits. Pure shot for pure shot there really shouldn’t be a difference with any club considering all these equal factors.
CashMoney
Oct 13, 2016 at 5:06 pm
How much did Parsons pay you for this, Rick? Man have you sold out to fame, or what, now that you have found yourself on videotube.
JThunder
Oct 13, 2016 at 10:20 pm
Maybe I don’t get your comment; are you suggesting PXG “won” this shootout? 1 yard more distance at 170 yards is 0.5%. Another 10 balls and that averages to 0 most likely.
Bob Parsons wouldn’t pay anyone a penny to prove his irons fly 0.5% further than irons 1/3 the price.
J Zilla
Oct 14, 2016 at 1:45 am
Pay for what? At best, PXG barely outperformed clubs that cost a third less. Based on cost vs performance ratio, PXG got slaughtered in this head to head.
MIZUNOnumeroUNO
Oct 13, 2016 at 5:04 pm
MY WHOLE LIFE IS A LIE
CashMoney
Oct 13, 2016 at 5:06 pm
The best answer, evah!
Forsbrand
Oct 14, 2016 at 5:11 am
Ha ha ha genius!!
Hippocamp
Oct 13, 2016 at 4:58 pm
There is no way that, with 10 strikes per club, any of those differences lie outside the margin of error. To say that PXG *won* is going way beyond what the data can support. In fact, the performance of the three clubs seems to be incredibly similar.
JThunder
Oct 13, 2016 at 10:11 pm
I would go so far as to say the data is “identical”, if 30 balls were hit with each, that slight variation would likely shrink more.
Also, I’d say the clubhead speed and attack angle of the PXG suggest it was being hit with more confidence/aggression – and while that would be interesting to note, it does suggest the results would be even closer (as if the Mizuno were being “swept” but the PXG “driven” … even so, only the slightest difference.)
I’d be interested to see any 1 of these heads hit with 12 different shafts – weights, flexes, etc.
JD
Oct 13, 2016 at 4:57 pm
Walls closing in on all the Mizuno folks out there…
Tom.
Oct 13, 2016 at 4:55 pm
I see we already have a Mizuno players vote….roflmao
MakeTigerGoodAgain
Oct 13, 2016 at 4:54 pm
The only true blade in this comparison is the Mizuno. Thought the golfwrx readers would vote for some better matching irons to be compared. So not your fault Mr. Shields. In that respect the Mizzy did surprisingly well! Seems like perfect strikes all the way so not much in between those clubs. Would therefore be interesting to see the difference in length on off center hits.
Matt
Oct 13, 2016 at 6:56 pm
Dude, check out the strike average again. PXG was way closer to center than Mizuno. If he was nutting those MP-5s I guarantee they’d spin more than those hollow pieces of junk.
Tom
Oct 15, 2016 at 2:35 pm
Don’t think so; PXG has wider grooves. Good thing MP 5’s have a large sweet spot…..coulda been really disastrous.
JThunder
Oct 13, 2016 at 10:17 pm
I would think the whole point was to compare a more-or-less “true” muscleback (not blade) to irons with more “tech”, but unlike OTR, making all the specs identical. OTR, most MBs are weaker lofted, sometimes shorter shafts, and often heavier and stiffer shafts that their GI/SGI counterparts.
I’d have liked to see MB/CB/GI/SGI, all spec’d the same. That would be way more interesting, but all such comparisons not likely to win much favor from advertisers and sponsors… These “differences” in numbers are so small as to be considered nothing; another 10 balls with each and that 1 yard difference between the AP2 and PXG might disappear. And that 1 yard difference on 170 yard shot is less than 1%…
Tom.
Oct 13, 2016 at 4:36 pm
Ewww this is gonna be good