2017 MOST WANTED SUPER GAME-IMPROVEMENT IRON
Irons

2017 MOST WANTED SUPER GAME-IMPROVEMENT IRON

2017 MOST WANTED SUPER GAME-IMPROVEMENT IRON

INDEPENDENT & UNBIASED

MyGolfSpy accepts $0 advertising dollars from any of the major golf manufacturers. We believe in always putting #ConsumerFirst.

60

Hours
Researched

16.2m

Readers

3,276

Shots
Hit

176,904

Data
Points

OUR JOB IS YOUR GAME

What characteristics define the best performing super game-improvement iron?

Is it distance? Accuracy? Control? A little added forgiveness? We’ve found that it’s a combination of all of the above, and the best way to summarize that is through a system based on Mark Broadie’s Strokes Gained Methodology.

To that end, we’ve changed things up a bit since our Most Wanted Players Iron test. We still leveraged our testing facility in Virginia to deliver the most comprehensive, unbiased Super Game-Improvement Iron Test in the world, but we’ve improved our metrics. If you’re in the market for new irons in 2017, this is for you.

To determine this year’s rankings, we applied Strokes Gained methodology to long, middle, and short irons. We’ve provided the Strokes Gained values for each iron in our table below. As we have in the past, we have also provided standard launch monitor metrics, along with our Radial Distance and Shot Area calculations.

For more information, view our How We Test page.

DEFINING THE SUPER GAME-IMPROVEMENT CATEGORY

Six of the top super game-improvement irons were put to the test; the clubs tested are designed purely for distance and forgiveness.  The target handicap for this iron category starts at the mid-high single digits and goes up from there.

The target demographic for these clubs is the golfer who’s looking for a little extra help. For some, that means helping regain some distance lost over the years. For others, it means a bit of added forgiveness on mishits. For others, it’s helping to shoot lower scores and enjoying the game a bit more.

QuadShot

ADVANCED GOLF ANALYTICS

Data matters. And when it comes to finding the right equipment, it’s critical. We help solve this by applying the largest connected set of head-to-head data to tackle one of golf’s biggest challenges.

All testing was conducted inside our fully independent test facility located in Virginia. All testers used Bridgestone B330-RX golf balls for consistency and to reduce test variables. All ball data was collected using the world’s most trusted launch monitor, Foresight Sports. All head data was captured using the Foresight’s HMT.

  • SHOTS HIT: 3,276
  • DATA POINTS: 176,904
  • TIME: 60 hours
  • TESTERS: 20
  • HANDICAP RANGE: 2.4 – 18
  • AGE RANGE: 23 – 79
  • SWING SPEED RANGE: 70-100 mph
  • IRONS TESTED: Three irons, a short, middle, and long iron from each set

Data. Aggregated. Normalized. Delivered.

For more details, see our How We Test page.

RESULTS AND RANKINGS

Our rankings aren’t determined inside a conference room. We don’t have a panel, and there are no votes. The launch monitor is the one and only judge. For our 2017 Most Wanted Super Game-Improvement Iron test, we collected a standard set of launch monitor metrics (ball speed, launch angle, spin rates, distance, etc.).

Using that data, we calculated a Strokes Gained average each club. Note that because Strokes Gained values are derived from PGA Tour data, it’s normal and expected that amateur averages will show negative Strokes Gained values. What’s important isn’t the absolute number, but rather how the numbers compare from club to club.

2017 Best Super Game-Improvement Irons

top3

foresight-bnr

Numero1

2017 Most Wanted Super Game-Improvement Iron Data

Below you’ll find the data from our 2017 Most Wanted Super Game-Improvement Iron Test. Note that you can use the Iron Model filter to limit the display to specific models.

PLEASE NOTE:

By default, we show the comparative metrics for long irons. To see middle and short irons, use the Iron Type drop down located on the top right of the charts.

Game-Improvement Iron Data (by Club Type)

2017 Most Wanted Super Game-Improvement Irons Ranking

ClubLongMidShortGrand TotalTRUERANK
PING G Max-0.4211-0.2042-0.1141-0.73931
Mizuno JPX 900 Hot Metal-0.384-0.2563-0.1102-0.75062
Mizuno JPX EZ-0.4157-0.2112-0.164-0.7913
AirForce ONE AFX-0.3773-0.3543-0.0859-0.81754
Wilson Staff D300-0.4194-0.3023-0.146-0.86765
Callaway Big Bertha OS-0.44-0.2715-0.2048-0.91646

Support Unbiased Testing.

DID YOU KNOW: If only 1% of MyGolfSpy readers donated $25, we would be able to become completely independent in 12-months. With every donation, you create change.

Would you be willing to help by giving a donation? Every dollar will help. Make a donation to support our independent and expert golf equipment research. A PayPal account is not required in order to donate.

Donate to MGS


Amount

Frequency

For You

For You

Golf Shafts
Apr 14, 2024
Testers Wanted: Autoflex Dream 7 Driver Shaft
News
Apr 14, 2024
A Rare Masters ‘L’: Day Asked To Remove Sweater
Drivers
Apr 13, 2024
Testers Wanted: Callaway Ai Smoke Drivers
MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

Our mission is #ConsumerFirst. We are here to help educate and empower golfers. We want you to get the most out of your money, time and performance. That means providing you with equipment reviews you can trust, as well as honest reporting on the latest issues affecting the game today. #PowerToThePlayer

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

Driver Ping G30 Hybrids PXG 0317
3/4 IRON PXG 0311XF 5-GW Srixon Z 565
SW PXG 0317 LW PXG 0311
Putter EVNROLL  
MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy





    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

      Luke

      6 years ago

      Let’s not forget the DST Compressors! I owe a lot to those guys!

      Reply

      dcorun

      7 years ago

      Don’t forget Cleveland Launcher HB irons for 2018 testing if they enter the testing. Sleeper of the rest of this year and also 2018 IMHO. Thanks for the truthful testing and results each year. I know it helps me to select which clubs to compare and saves me money which is nice when your on Social Security.

      Reply

      Robert millar

      7 years ago

      I have missed this site so much as I forgot about it sorry.the price they are charging for clubs is way over the top. And I am one of the worst offenders for buying in to the hype. As I just bought new clubs after thinking you can buy a golf game. You can’t. Keep up the good work thanks.

      Reply

      downeyvader

      7 years ago

      What/who determines the difference between “game improvement” and “super game improvement”? I ask the question because it’s my perception that there are some sets in the “game improvement” category that seem like they should be in the “super game improvement” category and visa versa. For example, do the Steelhead XR’s not fit in the “super game improvement” category because Callaway also produces the GBB OS irons? I ask this question mostly because the Mizuno JPX 900 Hot Metals don’t seem like they belong in this category. Yes “game improvement”, but not “super game improvement”. Again what/who determines the delineation? Thanks for all your hard work on these tests!!!

      Reply

      John Charles

      7 years ago

      Have played the GMax for the last year and thought they were a great improvement over my old set, nice to see your numbers verify that feeling!

      Reply

      Fozcycle

      7 years ago

      Please explain why the Air Force Ones ranked 1st, 6th & 1st yet only drew 4th Place.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      Because math.

      Long irons, AFX was .01 SGs ahead of the #2 finisher (tiny margin). Short irons, AFX was .03 SGs ahead of the #2 finisher (tiny margin).
      Middle irons, AFX was .15 SGs behind the #1 finisher (big margin).

      While our top finishers had SGs scores that weren’t far off the best at all iron lengths, the AFX’s 7-iron performance was comparably poor, which caused a significant drop in the rankings.

      Reply

      Donald McKnight

      7 years ago

      I love my G30s so those are probably good too. A bit too thick for me

      Reply

      Martin Smith ‘Shorty’

      7 years ago

      Clinton Gauld mizuno’s are styling, but what about the other manufacturers, they must also have super game improvement irons? i.e. Callaway, TaylorMade etc….

      Reply

      Stevegp

      7 years ago

      Thank you for another interesting comparison test. It provides a great baseline of data from which one can proceed. I appreciate your efforts.

      Reply

      MyGolfSpy

      7 years ago

      Thanks Steve!

      Reply

      Toad

      7 years ago

      Far and away the best club tests in the industry. Thanks!

      Reply

      MyGolfSpy

      7 years ago

      Thanks Toad! We appreciate you stopping by and the feedback as well.

      Reply

      Julian Saluk

      7 years ago

      Again I ask, which specific number iron and degrees of loft ?

      Reply

      dang3rtown

      7 years ago

      Since it’s all relative, does it really matter? In anywise, virtually all of these sets come in a 4i-GW set so, assume 4i for long, GW for short and 7i for your middle distance. The lofts vary by manufacturer.

      Reply

      Julian Saluk

      7 years ago

      Exactly my point. An allowance of +/- 2 degrees could mean one is a 7 and another is a 6. Would be nice to know the specs of the ones used.

      Stephen Pearcy

      7 years ago

      It would seem that actual ball flight (speed, angle, distance, height, spin, etc.) would be more significant than a number stamped stamped on the club

      Reply

      Toad

      7 years ago

      Love most your albums.. saw you first in ’85 open for the Scorpions!

      Scott

      7 years ago

      It might be covered in the workings to f strokes gained method already but you seem to simply adding the strokes gained for each club length to get an overal result. Is there an argument that there should be different weighting so applied to each that reflect the frequency each club type is used per round – might that get a different result? If not for SGI maybe for the other comparisons.

      In any case thank you so much all the effort to enable the consumer to make datacratic decisions on the merits of different clubs – to see through all the marketing hype whether drivers, hybrids or irons.

      Reply

      Ben B

      7 years ago

      I see what you’re saying. I have no affiliation to this site or article. Just wanted to point out that the comment you are making IS what strokes gained is meant account for. How much better is your putting than player “x” with his putter, where player “x” is the average of all the players in your comparioson. It looks like to make the data and comparison just a little more palatable and easier to put together, the data for similar irons and clubs were aggregated. So is your 7, 8, 9, P better than the average.

      Cheers mate

      Reply

      cksurfdude

      7 years ago

      Sorry the Cobra King OS were not included in the test…. Have a set and totally love them!

      I know everyone is different, but.. in my own very UN-scientific testing – ie. in-store demos but also an irons fitting – where I was just going by feel and .. simulated .. ball flight, the Cobras came out on top .. again, for me.

      Tried the Ping G Max – to me, they felt dead. Did seem to help straighten out mis-hit shots, though. But I would not have enjoyed gaming them. Also tried the JPX-EZ and the Hot Metal, amongst others in the category.

      Anyway, MGS provided another great guide and if anyone reads this my recommendation is to go test, test and re-test until you find the one that works for you!

      Reply

      Dan Smith

      7 years ago

      I tried to post this on a previous test, but it didn’t post for some reason:
      I want to start of by saying that I appreciate the testing and information, and agree with what you are trying to accomplish.
      I have a few questions/comments. The first being with regards to data, and I think it is an important one. Do you use an alpha-coefficient to determine statistical significance of your data? When making determination of ranks based on numbers, especially that are less than 1, it is vital to determine if those differences are statistically significant, meaning that they are not due to chance. If this is done, great, and please ignore me.
      With regards to the ball, I know the point is to reduce variables, but aren’t some of those variables important when determining this data. One ball with one club will perform differently for people that have different swing speeds and different attack angles, etc. I just find it interesting that you use the same ball for all of your testing, and that ball comes from a company in which their number one focus is proper ball fitting.
      My last thought is just an idea for further testing. I think it would be interesting to take the top-3 Most Wanted clubs from the past several years and test them all against each other again. I know you have tested new clubs against 15 year old ones, but what about the Most Wanted of the Most Wanted?
      Keep up the work!

      Reply

      Charles Mellas

      7 years ago

      Great idea to test previous “best” clubs compared to current “best” clubs. Love to see the results.

      PS. Love your site!

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      Dan – For nearly every test we conduct we look at confidence intervals and p-values. We’ve talked about different ways to present that to the reader. It’s challenging because the average guy doesn’t want to get that deep into the weeds.

      One of the things we’ve talked about is displaying results as a group. For example, with our putter tests, our top 5 contained the putters that showed no statistical difference from our top finisher. However, from position 1 to 6 we observed a reliable difference to most of the remaining field and then a big difference with 1 compared to the bottom few.

      Regarding the ball, as you point out, the important thing is having a constant. While different balls will perform better for certain golfers, we don’t believe that the performance relationship between clubs would be impacted. We chose the B330-RX because it’s the best-selling ball in the B’stone lineup.

      Reply

      Steve S

      7 years ago

      Very interesting. Using the strokes gained metric shows that there isn’t a lot of difference between the top and the bottom. Which shows me that you have to hit them to really decide which brand “feels” better to you. I hit 5 of the 6 listed here and wound up with another choice. A GI iron instead of the SGI.

      One MINOR criticism. I know it takes a lot of time to do these comparisons but it would be nice if they came out earlier in the year. I bought new irons back in April.

      Reply

      Carolina Golfer 2

      7 years ago

      I hear what you’re saying and totally understand the point. I will just say, I believe last years most wanted was only driver and maybe one other category, could be wrong.

      I seem to recall readers asking for more categories to be included and this year MGS vowed to cover every category in the bag,.

      Without a staff of hundreds and to do ti correctly I know this takes an inordinate amount of time.

      I’m sure the ownership and staff will evaluate this years testing and see how it can be made better in 2018. Although I have to say this year it’s been pretty damn good and extensive!!

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      We’re looking at ways to speed up testing, but there are limitations. Any given test takes about a calendar month to complete. Sometimes we can run tests in parallel, sometimes we’re 8+ hours a day on a single test. Having invested a tremendous amount of effort to learn *how* to test the right way, I must admit to chuckling when I see so-called comprehensive tests conducted over the span of 24-48 hours, or every club in the bag tested over the course of a week. It simply can’t be done thoroughly within that time frame.

      As resource allow we will expand resources to do more parallel testing, but there will always be constraints time constraints related to how we test.

      Assuming we narrow our time constraints we still face two other issues:

      So long as companies like TaylorMade, Titleist, and to a lesser extent Callaway decline to submit clubs for testing, we’ll be bound to release schedules. By way of context, Golf Digest can publish the Hot List in late January/early February because OEMs provide them product well in advance of release – in some cases the products aren’t even finalized. Our reality is that in some cases, we have to wait for retail availability, which means we can’t start some tests until mid-February or later.

      The other issue is one that doesn’t have a clear solution. The cadence of the industry is changing. Instead of January for everything, many companies are shifting to a year-round release model. That makes the timing of tests very difficult. We missed Epic irons, the entire G400 lineup, and a few other things simply because they didn’t exist at the time of testing. The G400 will be 7-8 months into its life span before we can put it in a large test. Longer still for Epic irons.

      That’s just the industry changing, and I’m not sure what the solution is.

      Reply

      Drew

      7 years ago

      Wow, very interesting. I expected to see Ping up there but the Mizunos are a surprise.

      Reply

      John coppock

      7 years ago

      Just wondering why no Taylormade or epic or srixon irons in this test?

      Reply

      Steve S

      7 years ago

      Maybe because they don’t fall into the super game improvement category?

      Reply

      erock

      7 years ago

      Many of the TM and Srixon offerings were in the GI test

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      We actually checked with TaylorMade prior to this test. They classify M2 as GI rather than SGI, so that’s where we tested it.

      As far as Epic goes, it wasn’t available at the time testing began. See my previous comment regarding how the cadence of the industry is changing. As release schedules become more spread out, it becomes more difficult to include all the new stuff in an early season test.

      Reply

    Leave A Reply

    required
    required
    required (your email address will not be published)

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

    Golf Shafts
    Apr 14, 2024
    Testers Wanted: Autoflex Dream 7 Driver Shaft
    News
    Apr 14, 2024
    A Rare Masters ‘L’: Day Asked To Remove Sweater
    Drivers
    Apr 13, 2024
    Testers Wanted: Callaway Ai Smoke Drivers
    ENTER to WIN 3 DOZEN

    Titleist ProV1 Golf Balls

    Titleist ProV1 Golf Balls
    By signing up you agree to receive communications from MyGolfSpy and select partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy You may opt out of email messages/withdraw consent at any time.