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.
As the editor-in-chief of this website and an observer of the GolfWRX forums and other online golf equipment discourse for over a decade, I’m pretty well attuned to the grunts and grumbles of a significant portion of the golf equipment purchasing spectrum. And before you accuse me of lording above all in some digital ivory tower, I’d like to offer that I worked at golf courses (public and private) for years prior to picking up my pen, so I’m well-versed in the non-degenerate golf equipment consumers out there. I touched (green)grass (retail)!
Complaints about the ills of and related to the OEMs usually follow some version of: Product cycles are too short for real innovation, tour equipment isn’t the same as retail (which is largely not true, by the way), too much is invested in marketing and not enough in R&D, top staffer X hasn’t even put the new driver in play, so it’s obviously not superior to the previous generation, prices are too high, and on and on.
Without digging into the merits of any of these claims, which I believe are mostly red herrings, I’d like to bring into view of our rangefinder what I believe to be the two primary difficulties golf equipment companies face.
One: As Terry Koehler, back when he was the CEO of Ben Hogan, told me at the time of the Ft Worth irons launch, if you can’t regularly hit the golf ball in a coin-sized area in the middle of the face, there’s not a ton that iron technology can do for you. Now, this is less true now with respect to irons than when he said it, and is less and less true by degrees as the clubs get larger (utilities, fairways, hybrids, drivers), but there remains a great deal of golf equipment truth in that statement. Think about it — which is to say, in TL;DR fashion, get lessons from a qualified instructor who will teach you about the fundamentals of repeatable impact and how the golf swing works, not just offer band-aid fixes. If you can’t repeatably deliver the golf club to the golf ball in something resembling the manner it was designed for, how can you expect to be getting the most out of the club — put another way, the maximum value from your investment?
Similarly, game improvement equipment can only improve your game if you game it. In other words, get fit for the clubs you ought to be playing rather than filling the bag with the ones you wish you could hit or used to be able to hit. Of course, don’t do this if you don’t care about performance and just want to hit a forged blade while playing off an 18 handicap. That’s absolutely fine. There were plenty of members in clubs back in the day playing Hogan Apex or Mizuno MP-32 irons who had no business doing so from a ballstriking standpoint, but they enjoyed their look, feel, and complementary qualities to their Gatsby hats and cashmere sweaters. Do what brings you a measure of joy in this maddening game.
Now, the second issue. This is not a plea for non-conforming equipment; rather, it is a statement of fact. USGA/R&A limits on every facet of golf equipment are detrimental to golf equipment manufacturers. Sure, you know this, but do you think about it as it applies to almost every element of equipment? A 500cc driver would be inherently more forgiving than a 460cc, as one with a COR measurement in excess of 0.83. 50-inch shafts. Box grooves. And on and on.
Would fewer regulations be objectively bad for the game? Would this erode its soul? Fortunately, that’s beside the point of this exercise, which is merely to point out the facts. The fact, in this case, is that equipment restrictions and regulations are the slaughterbench of an abundance of innovation in the golf equipment space. Is this for the best? Well, now I’ve asked the question twice and might as well give a partial response, I guess my answer to that would be, “It depends on what type of golf you’re playing and who you’re playing it with.”
For my part, I don’t mind embarrassing myself with vintage blades and persimmons chasing after the quasi-spiritual elevation of a well-struck shot, but that’s just me. Plenty of folks don’t give a damn if their grooves are conforming. Plenty of folks think the folks in Liberty Corner ought to add a prison to the museum for such offences. And those are just a few of the considerations for the amateur game — which doesn’t get inside the gallery ropes of the pro game…
Different strokes in the game of golf, in my humble opinion.
Anyway, I believe equipment company engineers are genuinely trying to build better equipment year over year. The marketing departments are trying to find ways to make this equipment appeal to the broadest segment of the golf market possible. All of this against (1) the backdrop of — at least for now — firm product cycles. And golfers who, with their ~15 average handicap (men), for the most part, are not striping the golf ball like Tiger in his prime and seem to have less and less time year over year to practice and improve. (2) Regulations that massively restrict what they’re able to do…
That’s the landscape as I see it and the real headwinds for golf equipment companies. No doubt, there’s more I haven’t considered, but I think the previous is a better — and better faith — point of departure when formulating any serious commentary on the golf equipment world than some of the more cynical and conspiratorial takes I hear.
Agree? Disagree? Think I’m worthy of an Adam Hadwin-esque security guard tackle? Let me know in the comments.
@golfoncbs The infamous Adam Hadwin tackle ? #golf #fyp #canada #pgatour #adamhadwin ? Ghibli-style nostalgic waltz – MaSssuguMusic
Episode #16 brings us Cliff McKinney. Cliff is the founder of Old Charlie Golf Club, a new club, and concept, to be built in the Florida panhandle. The model is quite interesting and aims to make great, private golf more affordable. We hope you enjoy the show!
Last week, I came across a reel from BBC Sport on Instagram featuring Scottie Scheffler speaking to the media ahead of The Open at Royal Portrush. In it, he shared that he often wonders what the point is of wanting to win tournaments so badly — especially when he knows, deep down, that it doesn’t lead to a truly fulfilling life.
View this post on Instagram
“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf? Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport,” Scheffler said. “To have that kind of sense of accomplishment, I think, is a pretty cool feeling. To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers. I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world, because what’s the point?”
Ironically — or perhaps perfectly — he went on to win the claret jug.
That question — what’s the point of winning? — cuts straight to the heart of the human journey.
As someone who’s spent over two decades in the trenches of professional golf, and in deep study of the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the game, I see Scottie’s inner conflict as a sign of soul evolution in motion.
I came to golf late. I wasn’t a junior standout or college All-American. At 27, I left a steady corporate job to see if I could be on the PGA Tour starting as a 14-handicap, average-length hitter. Over the years, my journey has been defined less by trophies and more by the relentless effort to navigate the deeply inequitable and gated system of professional golf — an effort that ultimately turned inward and helped me evolve as both a golfer and a person.
One perspective that helped me make sense of this inner dissonance around competition and our culture’s tendency to overvalue winning is the idea of soul evolution.
The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has done extensive research on reincarnation, and Netflix’s Surviving Death (Episode 6) explores the topic, too. Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, the idea that we’re on a long arc of growth — from beginner to sage elder — offers a profound perspective.
If you accept the premise literally, then terms like “young soul” and “old soul” start to hold meaning. However, even if we set the word “soul” aside, it’s easy to see that different levels of life experience produce different worldviews.
Newer souls — or people in earlier stages of their development — may be curious and kind but still lack discernment or depth. There is a naivety, and they don’t yet question as deeply, tending to see things in black and white, partly because certainty feels safer than confronting the unknown.
As we gain more experience, we begin to experiment. We test limits. We chase extreme external goals — sometimes at the expense of health, relationships, or inner peace — still operating from hunger, ambition, and the fragility of the ego.
It’s a necessary stage, but often a turbulent and unfulfilling one.
David Duval fell off the map after reaching World No. 1. Bubba Watson had his own “Is this it?” moment with his caddie, Ted Scott, after winning the Masters.
In Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, reflecting on his 2011 Super Bowl win, Rodgers said:
“Now I’ve accomplished the only thing that I really, really wanted to do in my life. Now what? I was like, ‘Did I aim at the wrong thing? Did I spend too much time thinking about stuff that ultimately doesn’t give you true happiness?’”
Jim Carrey once said, “I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it’s not the answer.”
Eventually, though, something shifts.
We begin to see in shades of gray. Winning, dominating, accumulating—these pursuits lose their shine. The rewards feel more fleeting. Living in a constant state of fight-or-flight makes us feel alive, yes, but not happy and joyful.
Compassion begins to replace ambition. Love, presence, and gratitude become more fulfilling than status, profits, or trophies. We crave balance over burnout. Collaboration over competition. Meaning over metrics.
Interestingly, if we zoom out, we can apply this same model to nations and cultures. Countries, like people, have a collective “soul stage” made up of the individuals within them.
Take the United States, for example. I’d place it as a mid-level soul: highly competitive and deeply driven, but still learning emotional maturity. Still uncomfortable with nuance. Still believing that more is always better. Despite its global wins, the U.S. currently ranks just 23rd in happiness (as of 2025). You might liken it to a gifted teenager—bold, eager, and ambitious, but angsty and still figuring out how to live well and in balance. As much as a parent wants to protect their child, sometimes the child has to make their own mistakes to truly grow.
So when Scottie Scheffler wonders what the point of winning is, I don’t see someone losing strength.
I see someone evolving.
He’s beginning to look beyond the leaderboard. Beyond metrics of success that carry a lower vibration. And yet, in a poetic twist, Scheffler did go on to win The Open. But that only reinforces the point: even at the pinnacle, the question remains. And if more of us in the golf and sports world — and in U.S. culture at large — started asking similar questions, we might discover that the more meaningful trophy isn’t about accumulating or beating others at all costs.
It’s about awakening and evolving to something more than winning could ever promise.
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