Opinion & Analysis
Callaway R&D Director on the XR irons, 360 Face Cup
Scott Manwaring, Callaway’s director of R&D for irons, hybrids and wedges, has been with the company for nearly two decades, and he’s worked in club design since the mid-2000s. He’s seen a lot in his time at the Carlsbad-based company, which under the direction of CEO Chip Brewer, is putting product front-and-center, according to the R&D specialist.
The company’s latest product to stand front and center: Callaway’s XR and XR Pro irons with Callaway’s Face Cup 360 technology.
Manwaring, who graduated from Brigham Young University with a degree in mechanical engineering, said he was incredibly proud of the new XR and XR Pro irons, which were the focus of our conversation.
Note: Topics in bold with Manwaring’s replies beneath
Callaway’s primary focus, how it influences product
The broad umbrella changed with Chip coming here. He said, “Be proud of the product that you’re creating.” Before, it was a lot more nuanced and complicated.
Chip is driven on the product front. Callaway spends more than $30 million per year in R&D, so that philosophy comes from Chip himself: Be proud of it. Drive every last detail, do it as quickly as possible.
Callaway’s X Hot Pro fairway wood from 2013
That has to drive its way into every category. With the X Hot fairway wood, we took it all the way to the finish line. The next year, we said, “Let’s get the hybrids.” This was the first year that that mantra really hit irons. I obviously had a lot going on, and we’re trying to change a lot of products, but you can only turn a boat so fast; this is the first year we said, “Let’s really drive it home in irons.”
Developing the XR Irons
Callaway’s XR irons sell for $799 (steel).
On the Apex iron, where your COGs are a lot higher, it’s easier to fix that one. When you get down to the $799 category, you have to think a lot harder about every nickel you spend and why you spend it to give the consumer the best value and also make a product you’re proud of. That just takes a little more time and effort.
Just to give you a perspective of what a pain in the a** this iron was to make: We did eight prototyping iterations with the suppliers alone — You know, get the part back, test it, change it. That is at least five or six more than we would normally do. That doesn’t even count internally. We did about four or five…using our own machines.
Addressing concerns about hot spots
We were aware of the complaint. From our position, a common complaint is just an opportunity to do something completely different and completely out of the box.
You have this opportunity with Chip coming on board and saying, “Do something different…do something that you’re proud of. Do something that’s harder.”
You have this great opportunity to break the problem up and really dig into every detail…and think in different ways to tackle all those items.
An overview of Cup 360 technology
Talking about the 360 cup face: By separating an iron into two pieces, you inherently increase the complexity and the cost. And when you weld two similar materials, it’s kind of counter-intuitive. But we needed to cast the face independently because we needed control of every…point on the back of the face.
We needed to control the thickness at every location to avoid changes in thickness that create hotspots.
You’re seeing a lot of companies take the easier solution and not keep the CG in the optimal spot, because they know they need to control face. And you see them taking the simple solution and not worrying about the thickness.
You’re still using the same FEA tools and all the stuff you’ve used in the past, but when you do things like this…when you’re trying to get the distance, plus maintain consistency, your material properties become way more critical. So all your analysis tools start to struggle. You pick up failure modes that are somewhat unexpected.
I think one aspect that’s kind of lost on everybody here is when we did the face cups on the fairway woods and the hybrids, you had this eggshell principle going on where it was a closed-back system…it was naturally stronger and thicker.
Callaway’s X2 Hot and X2 Hot Hybrids (2014) brought the company’s face cup technology to hybrids, giving them the 455 carpenter steel faces used on the 2013 X Hot fairway woods.
On a cavity back iron, when you open up the back of that iron, you’re now on a way more flexible system. Dealing with your durability requirements and your strength requirements is a lot more complicated. And when you overlay the cost…you’ve got a real problem.
The face cup, it’s just as critical as the body. When you separate the face cup…it allows you to minimize your hotspots, especially when you cast it, because then you don’t have any machining marks, you’re not dealing with forging or some of the inherent problems that come there with draft analysis and some of the complexity there…and the cost.
The COR testing becomes obvious. You put that cup face on there and your COR gains across the face are just incredible. So the face cup is critical, but then you’ve got to move to the body. The second you…pull the mass away from the face…your center of gravity just climbs immediately…and then you’ve washed out all the gains. So, step two is finding a body design that when all that energy is transferred off the face, it doesn’t die.
The XR Pro
Callaway’s XR Pro irons sell for $899 (steel).
On the Pro, we wanted to not offend PGA Tour players with the thicker top line. Getting that just right—where it still has the durability and still has the ball speed and still has the COR numbers we were interested in, and it still has the CG and can carry the load—it was a challenge.
Your thickness on that top line: As you get that face to transfer energy more efficiently to the ball and ultimately also to the body…it becomes a trampoline. And if you wanted the metal rims around the trampoline to be thinner, the person jumping on it is still transferring the same load, and if you start thinning those rims down too much, they just give out.
The XR Pro (left) has less offset and a thinner top line than the XR irons.
So, the Pro iron is an incredible club…some better players hit the Pro farther than they do the standard [XR]. When I was looking at the COR data, I originally thought it was just the offset and they were able to swing at it more aggressively. But…we did a damn good job…it’s incredibly efficient for its face area.
A walkthrough of Callaway’s 2015 irons
With Big Bertha, it’s just “how can we help you?” We’re doing everything we can to help you enjoy the round of golf. We’re going to help you get the ball to fly far. You’re going to have a lot of hybrids in your bag.
Callaway’s Big Bertha irons ($999)
With the XR, we intentionally designed stuff in there to help the average golfer that we knew the better player would snub their nose at. But with the XR Pro, Chip said: “You’re not allowed to skimp on the technology.”
In creating the XR Pro, we took everything we learned from the XR—because we did that first—and applied those lessons to the XR Pro in a shape that we knew wouldn’t offend, and it ended up doing really, really well.
The XR is for the center-of-the-green player. The player who isn’t going to work the ball, who just wants to check the yardage and hit it. But in order to help that player along, it requires a certain offset, a certain top line thickness, a sole width to help with turf interaction, a little more MOI. The XR is for that weekend guy that’s out there quite a bit.
At Address: Callaway’s XR Pro (left) and Apex irons.
The XR Pro…was really going after someone who really likes his Apex irons but would like a little more control. We kind of kept the offset; we narrowed the top line back down. We brought the sole width back down…and this is a guy we see wanting to be a pin-seeker, wanting to really go after it…he’s going to be disappointed if he didn’t pull the shot off. So the MOI is a little lower, the top line is a little thinner. The Pro is for someone who I think is truly passionate about their game.
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.
‘Why would anybody want to change that swing?’ – Brandel Chamblee says PGA Tour star was wrong to change his swing
‘The stupidest freaking thing I’ve ever heard’ – Billy Horschel slams Open idea suggested by Padraig Harrington
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Golfer proudly posts photo of ball mark on iron, receives immediate roasting
WITB Time Machine: Matthew Wolff’s winning WITB, 2019 3M Open
Oakmont Country Club bans Wyndham Clark over locker incident; Reveals specific conditions to earn reinstatement
Adam Scott puts Callaway blades in the bag at Wyndham Championship
Report: LIV star fires caddie and coach in shock shake up
Rickie Fowler makes equipment change to ‘something that’s a little easier on the body’
The championship formula: How 3 key stats separate winners from the field
Peter Malnati WITB 2025 (August)
Peter Malnati what’s in the bag accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. More photos from the event here. Driver: Titleist...
Cameron Young’s winning WITB: 2025 Wyndham Championship
Driver: Titleist GT2 (9 degrees, A1 SureFit setting) Buy here. Shaft: Mitsubishi Tensei 1K Pro Orange 70 TX 3-wood: Titleist...
Camilo Villegas WITB 2025 (July)
Camilo Villegas WITB accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. Villegas was undecided on a 3-wood when we shot his bag. ...
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Brandt Snedeker fired a final-round 65 at the 2018 Wyndham Championship to outlast Webb Simpson and C.T. Pan. His 5-under...
t golf
Mar 3, 2015 at 8:30 am
How much different are these than something like the speedblades? Those have little off set for a GI and pound the ball. Straight too.
Vito
Mar 1, 2015 at 1:19 pm
Just ordered my XR Pro and Apex MB combo set. Now if the snow will just allow me to use them…
Jeff
Feb 24, 2015 at 5:24 pm
Oh great, now I have to throw out my Apex Pros. The marketing on these new iron sets leaves the guys who bought last year’s sales pitch hung out to dry. Basically, last year’s 1200 dollar set is obsolete, because, you know, face cups and stuff. High CT, face cups, progressive this, channel slot that. I hope the garbage man takes my Apex Pros without charging me extra.
killerbgolfer
Feb 24, 2015 at 10:16 pm
I hope not, i just got the Apex forged! I don’t see these really threatening the forged offerings. Until there’s new forged offerings…
Ol deadeye
Feb 25, 2015 at 11:29 am
Well, keeping in mind that the USGA limits the COR of all club faces, I took my 20 yr old daughter(12 handicap) to a big box store. We compared her shots with her Ping G20 seven iron (steel R shaft) and both Taylormade RSi 1 and Callaway XR seven irons. Distance increase? About one or two yards with either club. With both steel or graphite shaft. She preferred the steel shafts. These were 85 grams and Ping steel is about 100. She preferred the impact feel and swing weight of the Taylormade. Enough there to replace her clubs? Not in our opinions.
Ol deadeye
Feb 23, 2015 at 2:04 pm
It would seem that the players most interested in distance with irons would be the better women players. Not granny who retired and took up golf at 65. Younger women who hit an eight iron 110 yards. If the shaft is about the same length but flies the ball ten yards further that would be a game changer.
Roosterredneck
Feb 23, 2015 at 1:12 pm
The 360 club design is not new. Macgregor did this years ago.Yes the thick top line and off set is excessive for me .. Buy a Macgregor model it should be much cheaper.
Teaj
Feb 20, 2015 at 3:37 pm
These things get out there, stronger then your traditional lofts yes but if your looking for a little extra distance with forgiveness and less offset these might fit the bill. They go a little to far for me as I don’t really need to hit my clubs farther but the forgiveness with less offset is something to think about for players not playing as much as they used to but still don’t need offset. Go try it before you knock it, for the right person these would be a great club.
Person
Feb 20, 2015 at 11:52 am
What throws me off about those irons is how round the topline looks from address. Also yes they look just a little too thick for my tastes.
Vincent
Feb 20, 2015 at 10:45 am
Callaway could forget the “Big Bertha” trademark. This is a cannon built and used by the German army against Belgian and French soldiers and fortresses during the First World War. What could we think about a golf club named Kalashnikov?
graymulligan
Feb 22, 2015 at 7:26 pm
If you asked most folks at this point, especially golfers, they would equate the Big Bertha name to the clubs, and not the cannon. It might be a couple decades too late to have this conversation.
gwillis7
Feb 20, 2015 at 10:36 am
Very interesting article. Haven’t had a ton of Callaway gear in the past, but did have the x-hot driver and that thing was a beast. Last couple years they def have made huge strides in woods
Dave S
Feb 20, 2015 at 9:15 am
This probably isn’t the forum to post this, but looking at the top-line pics of these irons, it really struck me. I’ve always struggled with the large off-set that typically exists in a true GI iron. My natural shot shape with irons is right to left, with my miss usually being a hook. I’m not a great player by any stretch (14 hcp) and I’ve been playing the Adams CMBs for three seasons now. I’ve always been a naturally good athlete, but I really don’t play enough to get great at golf (every other weekend in the spring and summer), so I think GI irons could help. BUT, they all have that huge off-set, which with my natural in-to-out swing path, would likely exacerbate my hook. I guess these OEMs have to make a product that fits the majority of mid-high handicappers and their miss is usually left to right… I’m kind of in a weird spot.
Jeff
Feb 24, 2015 at 5:19 pm
Dave, players cavity backs. Less offset, more forgiveness.
CHRIS
Feb 20, 2015 at 8:40 am
Looks like tennis rackets to me, both of them. I just cannot bear to look down and see a topline like that.
Rich
Feb 20, 2015 at 9:11 am
Keep playing your blades mate. I’ll take your money with a set of XR pros thanks.
Mike
Feb 20, 2015 at 9:24 am
Rich you know if you don’t use blades you’re a loser! 🙂 Which I guess I am since I just took delivery of my XR Pros.
Rich
Feb 20, 2015 at 5:14 pm
Yep, I know what you mean Mike. Happy to be a loser. Can’t wait to try the XR pro’s, they look pretty good to me. Happy for all the help I can get these days.
Philip
Feb 20, 2015 at 2:29 pm
Maybe, maybe not – if the guy doesn’t like the look than so what? By the way, I don’t like them too, but whether one plays blades or XR Pros is irrelevant to whether they’ll beat someone else in a match. I’ve played both with players using blades and players using clubs like the XP Pros and the deciding factor of their game has NOTHING to do with what type of iron they play, but whether they know their true yardages and whether they know their weaknesses and play accordingly.
Rich
Feb 20, 2015 at 5:08 pm
Easy there tiger. Just poking a bit of fun. I love blades and have several sets but don’t play them much anymore because my game is not what it used to be. All power to those that can.
XR is King
Feb 19, 2015 at 10:59 pm
The XR irons are going to blow everybody away!!!!! Awesome!!!!
Cyd
Feb 19, 2015 at 10:30 pm
Hit the Pro model further???? Difference in lofts maybe?
Cyd
Feb 19, 2015 at 10:29 pm
Hit the Pro further???? Difference in lofts?
I have a new set of irons for the masses. Guaranteed to add 15 more yards. Of course the lofts are 2* stronger than the previous model so now your 7 Iron is what used to be a 5 iron, the PW is what used to be an 8 iron, so on and so forth.
But by golly I can hit a 8 Iron 190 or more and Hogan or Nicklaus could never do that.
Tom
Feb 20, 2015 at 4:17 pm
Pro is +1* on lofts (weaker) and shorter in length in the long irons (3-6) than the plain XR also lie angles are different between the models.
And yes lofts are stronger than in the 60’s or 70’s but when I can get a 7i launching at over 20* why should I care? As to added length, hey 4 wedges is fine in the bag. (Really only 2 or 3 using old lofts.) So long as my misses are closer in results to solid hits.
BTW: Jack could do that. He choose not to most of the time. I remember him being in trouble at Firestone once and hitting a VERY long 8i. But then that was with far worse equipment esp. balls than today!
Steve
Feb 19, 2015 at 7:33 pm
Xhot line with different colors
LMB
Feb 19, 2015 at 10:24 pm
I’d say that was true for X2 Hot irons but these have legit tech updates.
Tom
Feb 19, 2015 at 7:11 pm
Both the XR and XR Pro swing very nice. (With proper fit.) I get my XR Pro irons next week, my pro e-mailed me they got in and would be available at my lesson on Tue. I’ve been hitting the demo iron and LOVE how it feels/swings, the feed back, and how consistent yardage is between center and off center hits. Callaway was not on my radar when I went to get new irons but these just blew me away! 🙂
LMB
Feb 19, 2015 at 6:36 pm
Sounds like they made the XR first, and then figured out how to make a better version of it when they did the XR Pro…