Irons

2018 MOST WANTED PLAYERS DISTANCE IRON

BY MyGolfSpy
Sep 3rd 2018
Read all comments

INDEPENDENT & UNBIASED

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

10

Products
Considered

120

Hours
Researched

5,487

Shots
Hit

35.6m

Readers

STRETCHING THE DISTANCE WITH NEW TECHNOLOGY

Each year the major golf equipment manufacturers are pushing the limits of technology (and the USGA conforming rules for that matter), promising us more distance, more forgiveness, and of course – lower scores. To do that, however, we must hit the ball higher, longer and straighter.

In years past, there really wasn’t the “whole package” deal when it came to irons. If you needed distance and forgiveness, you went game improvement; if you wanted precision and workability, you went players preferred. But in 2018 we are seeing a new trend take a firm hold in the industry – players distance. With each manufacturer touting their own revolutionary technology, we’re being promised those extra few yards, maintained forgiveness and almost no sacrifice in workability.

This year we put 10 of the top players distance irons to the test. If you’re in the market for new irons in 2018, this test is for you.

DEFINING THE PLAYERS DISTANCE CATEGORY

With an entirely new category of irons to test comes with it certain characteristics that define a “players-distance” iron. From first glance, these clubs look like a players preferred iron – a tight profile, a thin top line and a small footprint. Cut open the head, and it appears as though manufacturers are starting to squeeze metal-wood technology into iron heads. Thus the rise of hollow-body irons with thin faces and stronger lofts.

The results are, well, just about what you would (or wouldn’t) expect. Faster ball speeds, higher launch, lower spin rates, all in player preferred look. The higher launch angles allow the manufacturers to strengthen lofts without sacrificing trajectory. While on the outside these clubs may look like a players iron, there’s plenty of technology and forgiveness packed inside. The target handicap for this iron category ranges from scratch(or better) to the low double-digits.

REFINED ANALYTICS

Each year we strive to bring you the most accurate data possible to help you make the right purchasing decisions. As with years in the past, we’ve worked to improve our analytics, tightening our outlier detection system and tweaking our calculations. We’re still utilizing strokes gained, but have added another piece to the puzzle – statistical significance.

All testing was conducted inside our fully independent test facility located in Virginia. All testers used Bridgestone Tour B-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 GCQuad. All head data was captured using the Foresight’s HMT.

SHOTS HIT: 5,487
DATA POINTS: 406,038
TIME: 120 hours
TESTERS: 20
HANDICAP RANGE: +2 – 12
AGE RANGE: 18 – 60
DRIVER SWING SPEED RANGE: 90 mph – 120 mph
IRONS TESTED: Three irons, a short, middle, and long iron from each set

Data. Aggregated. Normalized. Delivered.

RESULTS AND RANKINGS

For all MyGolfSpy Most Wanted Testing, we yield to only one boss – the launch monitor. There is no panel of judges, no round-table discussions and certainly no voting. As with all Most Wanted tests, we collected the standard set of launch monitor metrics (ball speed, launch angle, spin rates, distance, offline, etc.).

Our Most Wanted winner is the club that finished in the statistically significant top group (based on Strokes Gained) for the highest percentage of our testers. To simplify things a bit, we call the final order TRUERank; a metric that includes the order of finish (rank), along with the percentage of golfers for whom each club was shown to be in the top group.

For more information, view our How We Test page.

2018 Players Distance Irons Rankings

2018 Most Wanted Players Distance Iron Data

Most Wanted Players Distance Iron Rankings

Club Name	Long Iron Rank	Mid Iron Rank	Short Iron Rank	TRUERank
Fourteen TC788	1st	5th	1st	1st
Mizuno JPX 900 Forged	2nd	5th	1st	2nd
TaylorMade P790	4th	1st	3rd	3rd
Wilson Staff C300 Forged	4th	2nd	3rd	4th
Titleist 718 AP3	4th	3rd	8th	5th
Cobra Forged TEC	2nd	5th	6th	6th
Ben Hogan PTx	7th	3rd	6th	6th
PING i500	9th	5th	3rd	8th
Callaway EPIC Pro	7th	5th	8th	9th
Callaway Rogue Pro	9th	5th	8th	10th

Below you’ll find the data from our 2018 Most Wanted Players Distance Test. Note that you can use the Iron Model filter to limit the display to specific models. Also note that, by default, we show the comparative metrics for long irons. To see middle and short irons, use the Iron Type dropdown located on the top right of the charts.

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.

comments

Join The Discussion

Plumbob

5 years ago

I notice that you included the AP3 in this category rather than the AP2. From my reading isn’t the AP3 more suited to game improvement category, while it looks like the AP2 it really is an AP1 in disguise. I am getting a little confused as to where it sits. I am not a forged player, but do like the idea that a cavity backed iron that looks like a players club is available.appreciate your thoughts?

BR

I have a few thoughts regarding the comments suggesting MGS test Wishon and other companies vs the off the shelf OEM brands. First let me state that I am long time Wishon disciple and have gamed the 771csi model for years now. I have annually went to demo club fitting, testing days and hit all the big OEM’s and some smaller boutique brands and have not switched from Wishon. But, I do not desire to see MGS test Wishon against off the rack OEM clubs. I think it would be a disservice to everything custom fit clubs (regardless of brand) stand for. I am not opposed to custom fitting a major brand and then custom fitting a set of Wishon, etc clubs but that is probably not realistic for MGS testing, at least for the majority of consumers whom do not buy custom fit clubs. Even when I attend a demo day/fitting I am only looking for a certain feel, launch angle. I attempt to get as close to my specs as possible when testing a OEM brand (i.e. loft, shaft flex). Should I leave a demo/fitting impressed with a certain brand club, I have gone so far as to order single PING, Callaway, etc iron or wood and then separately order a preferred after market shaft from a manufacturer and re-build to my specs. Then I can do true testing for myself. But I am a builder/fitter hobbyist and definitely fall out of the norm. I appreciate the MGS testing but take it for what its worth. I am better prepared when researching, down selecting my test clubs in search of something I probably will never find, a perfect club :) .

BenSeattle

First off, this title of “Most Wanted…..” is both inaccurate and pompous. Most wanted by WHO? Just because a club “wins” an MGS ranking, doesn’t mean it will be most wanted by the majority of buyers in the coming months. (You don’t really expect a run on Fourteen irons, do you?)

Second, I find some of the testing faulty in two respects: 1) all the irons are not the same length, thus (as mentioned previously) an iron with a longer shaft will certainly go farther than a shorter competitor. Second, using a club’s Number is just asking for inaccurate results. As there’s no manufacturer’s standard for the loft of any given club, my 32 degree “seven iron” is certain to go farther than your 35 degree seven. To make a useful comparison, MSG should match all clubs of a specified “degree,” i.e. 35 degrees from every brand — FORGET what’s on the bottom of the club.

And isn’t there great variety between the shafts provided by the manufacturers? Again, this will make for a great difference in performance because, say, the Dynamic Gold in the Titleist might be fine for you, a tester, but WAY OFF for me, another tester. With the right shaft, perhaps I would perform far better.

Sorry…. while I admire MSG’s ambition in trying to determine the “best” clubs, there are FAR too many variables to make such a test valid. If you’re shopping for irons (or any other club) you just can’t go by reviews or tests; you need to get off your duff and go test for yourself… working with a professional fitter to determine the best gear FOR YOU, not a bunch of generic golfers.

John Sampson

Hi there,

Not wanting to take sides, and merely making a gentle suggestion, but in your response to Keith above re point No. 1, I would have thought that in the case of the Wishon irons, it should be theoretically possible to request a set of irons from Wishon which fall within the average parameters for current set make up, i.e. specify the loft and lie angles as well as the length and flex for the shafts. Choose values that reflect the modal average (most common) of the rest of the field and then test away. I do agree with you when you say that those two club builders (Maltby and Wishon) probably do not account for near the sales numbers of the larger and more familiar “off the rack” suppliers.

Thanks, and keep up the great work.

Amirul

6 years ago

Great write up. Will we get to see MW GI and SGI irons this year?

Dan

Same question from me ^^^ I am waiting for some comparisons of the Z585 and JPX919 Forged!

JB

Also my Top 2. Just ordered the JPX919 Forged 6i-GW and Hot Metal 4i and 5i (+1*). The Z585 seemed a little more forgiving. The JPX919 Forged felt a little better. Both were laser straight and impressive all-around.

John Quinn

I’d be curious to see how the Ping I500 irons stacked up.

scott

I like looking at stats and I believe you try to make a honest assessment but the true test in buying any club to me is what it looks like and how it feels the extra two yards one way or the other I don’t care. BUT if you want to send me a set for free then they are the best irons I ever played

Ranger76

I did my homework and was custom fitted the P790 on the range during a demo day. I am 62, 17 handicap, was a 10 before a bicycle crash, 6 weeks in I shot a 77 on my 130 slope rate tees. I moved up one tee, and am hitting more GIR than ever. Sept 1 I am a 13 handicap, probably going to be a 10 by Sept 15. These irons make me concentrate on hitting the ball better due to the non offset and smaller heads.

bart casiello

Hi All,
Im struggling with how you came to your conclusions. For example one listing is distance from pin. Did you ask the testers to hit a flag from x yards out? how do you adjust for swing speeds? Wouldn’t that also penalize clubs that went too far? especially since distance is the goal of these irons? or is it really just how far off the center line? Im not saying the testing is bad, wrong, or anything else. I just haven’t been given enough details to understand why club X is better than club Y. thanks for all you do.

mackdaddy

Great test thanks for the info

MyGolfSpy

Thanks MD!

Edmund

I just checked specs on all the tested irons.
The Wilson Staff C300 Forged has the weakest lofts, comparable to my six year old Adams Idea Black CB3 Forged Irons. So, my 4 iron is really a 5 iron now. I remember the 90s when my Maxfli Revolution Pitching Wedge was 50* loft… that’s a gap wedge now.
Oh, how the lofts have gotten stronger over the years.

Dave S

Been reading MGS for many many years and I’m sure the data and methodology being used for these MW tests is better now than it was a few years ago, but I gotta admit, I really enjoyed the old format where there was quite a bit of commentary to go along with the test numbers. It’s nice to see the raw data and the final rankings, but I also want to read some anecdotes from the testing process; maybe learn how each club felt, what you liked/disliked, etc. These reviews now just seem so bland, even if more accurate. Just my two cents.

We are bringing it back!

#backbyrequest

Simon

Didn’t realize it was gone, but now that I think about it, it was my favourite part.

Andrew Han

Don’t guys do this now in your youtube channel? I like to listen to that on my way to work, just like the putter most wanted.

marshall

Yes please. The data is great, but context and commentary is a valuable part of the picture. Keep up the great work.

Nocklaus

For me, it looks like I could go for looks only. My 8hcp swing gives me more variation than the differences between those clubs.
So for me, I would really like to see some personal input, like feel for instance …

Johnny Penso

Seems the Wilson’s gave a good showing in the dispersion and distance to the hole categories, the two most important statistics to me. Off the top of my head I’d guess they’d come out first or second if those were the only metrics used.

Mike

Totally agree. When I delve into the numbers they seem like the top performer. Also the highest spinning in the long and mid-iron categories and 3rd highest spinning short iron.
I also thought the F5 should’ve won in the 2017 test for the same reasons we mentioned.

Rod_CCCGOLFUSA

Nice to see an evaluation not bought by Big Boy OEM marketing. Mizuno earned its ranking. Most of the single digit, pure strickers I’ve done club work for are Mizuno guys. Here’s the thing, though. Shafts make a significant difference in performance for high speed, consistent irons. Using a Flightscope launch monitor to reveal shaft bend profiles, important variations in distance & shot dispersion are verified. It’s hard to beat Mizuno, but even these top class irons can be dialed in with fitted shafts.

Jay McGillicuddy

Love my JPX 900 Forged. Best clubs I have ever owned.

Joel

Happy to see the JPX 900 near the top of the list. I’m gaming JPX 850 forged irons right now and really love them, so I’m happy to see that your testing puts them up at the top of this category.

ALSO, thanks a lot for doing a test of this category of irons. As a player who would probably be a 8 – 10 cap if I could bring someone else to hit my drives, this is exactly the category of irons I should be hitting, and I think it fits a really large group of dedicated golfers.

Brad

These results are somewhat…suspect. I don’t see why the Fourteen TC788 irons are even considered to be in the “distance” player category. They are a simple forged cavity back that are mainly achieving any extra distance by using shafts that are 1/4″ to 1/2″ longer than the other irons in this test to generate more club head speed. There is no “technology” in the TC788 that will aid in generating more ball speed. Evidence of this fact can clearly be seen in the fact that the TC788 is 4-6 yards shorter in the mid and long irons than the P790 and i500 for instance, even though those clubs have 1/2″ and 1/4″ shorter shafts as compared to the TC788.

Understand that I think that Fourteen Golf make fantastic irons, including the TC788. But, you can’t make me believe that the average low to mid handicap golfer is going to strike the ball as well or better with irons that are 1/4″ to 1/2″ over length as compared to their competitors. Since that is where the extra distance is coming from with these irons, if you are properly fitted and need them to be made 1/2″ shorter (i.e. JPX 900 forged and P790 standard length at 36.75″) – then the TC788 is probably going to be a full club shorter than these other irons. So, how then could it then be called a “distance” players iron? The i500, JPX 900, and P790 are achieving the same or extra distance with a shorter shaft than the TC788. I would love to see the smash factor for all of these irons included in the data. That could prove interesting.

Unfortunately, I’ve found the Most Wanted tests this year have not been as good as those in previous years. I know that you are very proud of the methodology being used this year, but in many instances the results of the testing belie what I’m seeing in the real world. Perhaps it is the selection of testers being used, or the small number of testers (20) that is creating the seemingly unusual results, or perhaps it is in how the data is being filtered or smoothed.

Keith Irvine

Totally agree. Also, have asked Golf Spy repeatedly why they only use well know name clubs for testing. Have asked them to test Tom Wishon’s line of clubs, but not even the courtesy of a reply. So, maybe they are being paid by the name brands to use only their products in testing…..

Keith,

Thanks for the comment. I will try and address your concerns and assumptions below:

1. We don’t test Wishon clubs for a few reasons. We test the way the majority of consumers buy. Otherwise our testing would be for the minority and doing a disservice to the majority. The majority of consumers still buy clubs off the rack. Secondly, if we were to test a set of Wishon irons they would have to be custom built. And those clubs would almost surely not perform the same as the majority of clubs purchased because of MGS testing from the Wishon site. So it would not represent what was tested. This could be more misleading to consumers then we are happy with. It sounds like since someone didn’t answer you you made up the answer for yourself.

2. Similar to the assumption you are making up that we get paid by brands to “only” include their clubs in testing. Not only is this not true, it is based on absolutely zero evidence. And while you will go on with your day possibly attempting to justify this statement, these type of mistruths are damaging to sites and businesses just like ours.

Dustin

To MyGolfSpy- Do you think the “average consumer” is your target audience? We want to see how the Wishons and Maltbys of the world stack up against the big boys. I mean really you have Hogans in there and those aren’t exactly something you would see on the shelf at Dicks.

In 2018 MyGolfSpy will be read by over 8 Million golfers. Last I heard there are about 600,000+ what they call hardcore golfers in the US. If those numbers are even close to accurate that means the majority of those that will read MyGolfSpy are what you would consider the “average consumer”.

That being said it has more to do with the way the majority of consumers buy equipment presently and testing for that majority.

One example let’s say we tested a club with a really high-end exotic shaft and it won our test. The majority of “average consumers” would think and expect the club they buy based on that test to perform the same. We know however that is probably not the case. So, we test for how the majority buy clubs and fit accordingly to take in to consideration those that will also have a decent fitting if they do decide to get one.

DL

They have addressed this multiple times. They go for more mainstream clubs as that’s what people have access to. Anything they don’t get for free from the manufacturers, they go out and buy (if it’s mainstream enough). Perhaps Wishon didn’t provide a set to them or perhaps MGS didn’t ask. The other issue is that every set increases the amount of work you have to do, and data to keep track of.

JeffB

Purchased the P790’s with Mitsubishi OTi 110 graphite shafts 2 weeks ago. First time using them I won the monthly medal, so you can say that I’m very happy with them. Had played with blades for years, but made the decision to go with a player’s distance club and chose the P790’s through a fitting session testing other similar equipment makers’ offerings. The feeling of the ball off the club face was extraordinary and the performance is amazing. In short, I’m very happy.

JasonA

Right so, 20 testers should mean that number of players in statistical “best” group per golf set would move in 5% increments. But in top 3 we have 72% (14.4 players) 70% (14 players) 68% (13.6 players)

Which looks like results are the average of “statistically best count per individual club”. Does this mean best for 18 short, 17 mid, 8 long or best for 14 short, 14 mid, 15 long or ???

For me there should be more transparency on the data for those that understand data. Simple positive yes – but good to drill down.

Scott denzel

A different take on these %s, rather query the validity I would simply know what they were for the subsequent Trueranks for clubs further down the ranking list (68% isn’t that different from 72%anyway)

..would simply like to know what the other true rank %s were

Terry

I am not sure why anyone wants to know what number club was used. A 7 iron is not a standard club. If you wanted to know the loft of the club, that would be telling. Here are some examples to show why asking if it was a 7 iron won’t tell you. Wilson V2 (35 degree), Wilson C200 (32 degree), Wilson D300 (29.5 degree), PING G15 (32 degree) Wilson G30 (30.5 degree) PING G400 (30 degree). PING i500 (30.5).

I really don’t know how to compare the clubs across brands but I trust My Golf Spy has a fair way of doing it. I suspect the real results are your opinion with the club in your hands. The longest distance golf ball might beat the second and third by less than a yard. Buying clubs based only on numbers, not a good way. Using the numbers to try clubs out? A very good way.

I remember a famous quote “90% of the clubs are better than 90% of the golfers”.

Brad Smith

Most of these clubs (as do most irons sold these days except pure blades) have some unique shaping/mass location/undercuts/tungsten/vibration damping material/hollow/hollow filled with foam, blah, blah…… “HI-TECH” design element. Except the winner, Fourteen. Their plain, perimeter weighted shape of club is probably 25-30 years old. And I see nothing on their web site describing the technical aspects of the club that is anything except marketing speak.

Example: 1993 Titleist DCI Black (google it)

Alex

You can also just buy maltby te forged on golfworks for much cheaper too. Same old build

Good catch with those 93 Titleist DCI Black irons, the TC788’s do bear a strong resemblance. The TC788’s also remind me a bit of the Miura PP 9003 CB and the Vega VC-05 irons. All of them are fantastic players irons. I just would never call them players “distance” irons. Add 1/2″ to the shaft length though and Shazam – I guess they are.

Tank

At first glance they look like Wilson Staff FG tour M3 from a few yrs ago with a different finish.

Tom Duckworth

I think it’s interesting that the Fourteens are the least “techy” looking club of the bunch. They remind me of forgiving clubs from the 90s
I think we will see big changes in the coming years in iron designs and sooner or later graphite shafts will take over in irons there are just too many advantages to the material and disadvantages to steel as a basic material for shafts. Imagine them being able to marry up a head with a shaft that can perfectly complement the design. Head and shafts could be developed together. Now that we are seeing more hollow heads we will probably see carbon fiber being used in irons someday much in the same way it’s used in drivers now.

shortside

Speaking of splitting hairs……I could game any of these. This is another example of why trying them out and getting fit is so important. Right shaft, lie and loft for your swing makes a difference.

Golfguy94

What irons were actually used? A 3 iron, 7 and PW ? It’s nice to have some numbers but the group of 20 players are all over the place. Mixing all the data together truthfully isn’t going to give good data. Someone with a 120 mph club head speed and a 60 year old with a 90 mph will have way different numbers across the boards. I’d really like to see you guys do groupings based off of handicaps more. Give us the data for the low handicapper, mid and high. That would be more useful to people. Even the ball being used isn’t a good ball for a 20 handicapper. They aren’t going to compress that ball enough. Thanks for the data though. As always, see your local pro and get properly fitted.

Jonny B

Very interesting – does anyone know where you can demo fourteen brand irons?

I find it baffling that Srixon didn’t have a club in this test. According to MGS they make some of the best equipment in the market.

Nick Stevens

You are right about the Srixon irons. I have a set and they are over looked. My locals golf store told my dad and I that they were more popular over seas.

Its a shame people will probably be surprised by Fourteen. Not knowing who they are. I think they make the best irons and wedges in the game. And I was really interested in there fh-1000 blades. But these are really the clubs I should be hitting. I love how small the blade size is too. Very good looking stick and I think my aging FG Tours are in trouble.

I’ve got a couple Hogan Black demo’s. Oh my.

Terry (TMAC)

How can Srixon not be in this mix?

Rob

Most likeky rekease timing. The 785 irons were just released this week and im sure testing began weeks ago. The 765 are two years old ans no longer available. So no reason ti test those.

Good point.
I just looked at the new Srixon’s. SWEET, but I don’t care for the graphics on the back of the 5-series.

D.A.

I am 68 years old playing to an eight. Average drive is 215 yds from senior Tees. I have been playing with Cleveland CG 16 Black Graphite Reg. flex shaft Irons. Recently had the nine iron shaft snap. ?????? Several years ago I bought a set of Hogan Edge CFT Irons on a whim. Put them in a closet and basically gave them no thought. These Hogan irons were in very good shape so I decided to give them a try. (Reg steel) Dang!!! My point, I was surprised that the new Hogan PTx irons rated higher than Ping and Callaway. In the near future I will buy a set of Hogan PTx irons. Not long ago MYGOLFSPY let us know that Hogan was getting back into the equipment game. Looks like they are not cutting corners. Tks for the info……………

Steve S

Anyway to redo these rankings WITHOUT the long iron? Even though I’m just outside the handicap range(13) I’m not the only one who has gone to hybrids instead of long irons. Many of the single digit guys I play with have dropped their 3 and 4 irons and replaced them with one or two hybrids.

Sharkhark

Why would they need to redo?
The chart is there to scroll and play around forever to see how results played out ignoring the long irons then you could make your own choice on which irons without long irons are your choice

Sharkhark, I get that…and did it. It would be nice if they compiled the data to show “true rank” without the long irons. Since I don’t have the raw data I’m not sure I could get there…certainly not as easy or fast as MGS can.

Hawk

I agree Steve – I use hybrids too, so here’s a way to do it: just add up the score for mid and short irons. Lowest score wins.

Therefore the rank is

1. TaylorMade P790
2. Wilson
3. Mizuno and Fourteen

Sluggo

Which irons exactly were used for each category?
Was the long a 4?
Medium a 7?
Short a Pw?

Helps to know so the data can be understood better…?

James

Pleasantly surprised that Fourteen edged out Ping and TaylorMade! Great clubs tho! Congrats to 14 Golf ?

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

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

Irons

2018 MOST WANTED PLAYERS DISTANCE IRON

INDEPENDENT & UNBIASED

10

ProductsConsidered

120

HoursResearched

5,487

ShotsHit

35.6m

Readers

STRETCHING THE DISTANCE WITH NEW TECHNOLOGY

DEFINING THE PLAYERS DISTANCE CATEGORY

GET FIT FOR YOUR GAME WITH TRUEGOLFFIT™

REFINED ANALYTICS

RESULTS AND RANKINGS

2018 Players Distance Irons Rankings

2018 Most Wanted Players Distance Iron Data

Most Wanted Players Distance Iron Rankings

Support Unbiased Testing.

Donate to MGS

For You

For You

Buyer's Guides

Apr 12, 2024

Best Spikeless Golf Shoes of 2024

First Look

Apr 12, 2024

Under Armour’s Cheesy Take on the Masters

News

Apr 12, 2024

PING WebFit: Get Fit From your Phone

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

comments

Plumbob

BR

BenSeattle

John Sampson

Amirul

Dan

JB

John Quinn

scott

Ranger76

bart casiello

mackdaddy

MyGolfSpy

Edmund

Dave S

MyGolfSpy

Simon

Andrew Han

marshall

Nocklaus

Johnny Penso

Mike

Rod_CCCGOLFUSA

Jay McGillicuddy

Joel

Brad

Keith Irvine

MyGolfSpy

Dustin

MyGolfSpy

DL

JeffB

JasonA

Scott denzel

Scott denzel

Terry

Brad Smith

Brad Smith

Alex

Products
Considered

Hours
Researched

Shots
Hit