Which Is Better: A Blade or Game-Improvement Iron?
Labs

Which Is Better: A Blade or Game-Improvement Iron?

Support our Mission. We independently test each product we recommend. When you buy through our links, we may earn a commission.

Which Is Better: A Blade or Game-Improvement Iron?

Have you ever heard someone say, “If I play blade irons, I’ll get better”?

To many of us, it sounds absurd but there are plenty of higher-handicap golfers who truly believe that playing blades will make them a better ball striker. The theory, I suppose, is that if you can master the most difficult, hardest-to-hit level of iron, anything else will make the game child’s play. It’s just like playing a video game on the hardest difficulty when you want to sharpen your skills and conquer the objective.

Of course, in our video game example, many end up frustrated. Throw the controller at the TV. Shut it down. I’m done.

It’s a safe bet the same logic applied to playing blades has led to more than a few thrown clubs and, for the most part, I’d wager few have actually lowered their handicaps in the process.

By comparison, blades are smaller. They invariably have less offset, thinner toplines and while the concentrated mass at the center of the impact zone contributes to better feel, the lack of perimeter weighting creates more inconsistency from shot to shot. With higher CGs, muscle-back designs rely almost exclusively on loft to get the ball in the air.

Conversely, game-improvement irons are bigger. And while that means they’re seldom as pretty at address as blades, the perimeter weighting and modern technology create more speed.

And, yeah, while manufacturers have made loft-jacking (reducing loft to create more speed) standard practice, with wider soles and lower centers of gravity, the advertised theory is that higher flight doesn’t always require more loft.

Whether you want to frame it as blade versus cavity-back or loft-jacked versus traditional, we decided it was worth digging into a bit deeper.

To separate myth from reality, we decided to test muscle-backs side by side against game-improvement irons.

Are game-improvement irons really more forgiving? Is the overall design of loft-jacked irons able to overcome the deficiencies in static loft?

Let’s find out.

Testing parameters

For this lab, we gathered 10 average golfers, just like you and me. Here are the details:

  • Handicaps ranging from 0-12
  • 6-iron swing speeds ranging from 74-89 mph
  • 14 shots per iron model

About our test clubs

For this test, we hit TaylorMade P7MB and Stealth irons.

As you probably know, there’s not much in the way of consistency in terms of specs across categories. The P7MB 6-iron is relatively traditionally lofted at 30 degrees while the Stealth 6-iron has a stock loft of just 24 degrees. The P7MB has a stock length of 37.5 inches while the Stealth is slightly longer at 37 5/8.

Irons were tested in their stock, off-the-rack builds.

Performance insights

After putting all three irons to the test, we crunched the data. Here’s what we found.

Speed and distance

Ball speed

  • P7MB – 111.3 mph
  • Stealth – 117.5 mph

The modern Stealth design shows significantly faster ball speeds than the traditional MB with a speed differential of 6.2 mph.

Ball speed differences between blade and cavity back irons

Carry distance

  • P7MB – 159.7 yards
  • Stealth – 177.4 yards

Given the speed advantages, it should not be a surprise that Stealth irons were significantly longer than the MB. And while that’s to be expected, with 17.7 yards between the blades and Stealth, the distance gap is larger than we expected.

Carry Distance of a blade iron and cavity back iron

Of course, speed and distance aren’t the only metrics that matter. Too often, golfers overlook playability in favor of distance so we decided to look at two other key metrics: backspin and descent angle.

Backspin

  • P7MB – 4,691 rpm
  • Stealth – 3,530 rpm

Surprising no one, the higher-lofted MBs produced significantly more spin than Stealth. The Stealth’s results may not be enough spin for some golfers.

Descent angle

  • P7MB – 43.47 degrees
  • Stealth – 39.86 degrees

Despite promises of higher flight, it’s worth pointing out that Stealth is relatively close to the P7MB. That said, given the loft differences, the height differences are smaller than we would have expected.

Descent angle is important for all irons

Peak height

  • P7MB – 27.71 yards
  • Stealth – 26.34 yards

The separation in peak height is even closer than the descent angle, which again, is not what we were expecting given the stock lofts of each the P7MB and Stealth irons.

Dispersion (Shot area)

  • P7MB – 1,094 square yards
  • Stealth – 1,191 square yards

Dispersion is tighter overall with the P7MB which is nearly 100 square yards better than the Stealth.

Dispersion of a blade iron and cavity back iron

Broadly, these findings align with what we see in Most Wanted Testing, especially for clubs in the player’s distance and game-improvement irons.

The summary version is that while ball speed and distance are higher than they are with more player-centric designs, backspin and, to an extent, descent angles take a hit.

What does this mean in terms of overall playability?

Playability

With any golf club, you want playability or how I like to describe it, consistency. It is a focal point of any Most Wanted Test: performance over all else.

Accuracy, distance and consistency are all important. The trade-off for distance is often a drop in consistency and accuracy. This is evident in this test, where shot area and consistency favor the TaylorMade P7MB.

With what we would describe as a more playable trajectory, the P7MB produced the smallest dispersion (tightest shot pattern) of the three irons tested. With that, one might argue that the MB was actually more forgiving or more consistent than the modern Stealth iron.

Is everything we believed to be true about modern game-improvement irons wrong? Is the effect of loft-jacking eliminating the on-paper forgiveness advantage of perimeter-weighted irons?

At a minimum, we struggled to dispute the idea that blades could make you a better ball striker.

Hold on just a minute …

As we chewed on the data, we wondered if we might be oversimplifying things a bit.

Did the results suggest what many golfers want to believe: that modern, loft-jacked game-improvement irons are longer but less playable and ultimately bad for golfers?

Or … and hear me out on this, because it’s wild …

Does the data we collected suggest what, in hindsight, felt kind of obvious: clubs with more loft that produce more spin are easier to hit than clubs with less loft and less spin?

That sounded more likely to us but to try and separate technology from specifications, we went back to TaylorMade to see if we could remove some variables and repeat the test in a more apples-to-apples kind of way.

(Spoiler alert, we could.)

The second time around, we worked with TaylorMade’s R&D team to normalize the irons in our test. For the remix edition, our test clubs had identical lofts, shafts, lengths, swing weights and grips. The only variable was the clubheads themselves.

For testing, we landed on a standard loft of 27 degrees, comfortably splitting the significant differences between stock lofts meant using a 5-iron for the P7MB and an adjusted 6-iron for the Stealth iron.

I suppose this approach partially supports the argument that what gets sold as technology is little more than a change to the number on the bottom of the club.

But is there more to it than that?

Let’s see where this takes us.

Speed and distance

Ball speed

  • P7MB – 112.7 mph
  • Stealth – 115.1 mph

All things being as equal as they can be, the Stealth iron was still significantly faster than the MB. At a minimum, this suggests there is real technology in the designs and the added speed comes from more than just stronger lofts.

How much more ball speed does a game-improvement iron produce?

Carry distance

  • P7MB – 163.2 yards
  • Stealth – 170.3 yards

While the differences weren’t quite as significant as they were in the stock configurations, the game-improvement design still bested the MBs for distance by plenty, though not by as much as they did with the stock builds.

Backspin

  • P7MB – 4,537 rpm
  • Stealth – 4,043 rpm

With loft out of the equation, spin rate differences narrow, although they didn’t change as much as you might expect. Spin rates for the Stealth increased by nearly 500 rpm while the MB dipped a bit.

Big picture: Even at equivalent lofts and lengths, the higher center of gravity of the P7MB produced the most spin.

Descent angle

  • P7MB – 42.55 degrees
  • Stealth – 42.21 degrees

With lofts normalized, descent angles move closer together. Built to a stronger loft, the P7MB peaked almost a yard lower. Interestingly, the adjusted Stealth flew nearly 1.5 yards higher.

Peak height

  • P7MB – 27.21 yards
  • Stealth – 28.11 yards

We saw P7MB produce a higher descent angle but with the normalized lofts, Stealth actually produces a higher peak height. This is a 1.77-yard increase when more loft is added.

Dispersion (Shot area)

  • P7MB – 777 sq yards
  • Stealth – 886 sq yards

Both normalized irons see a significant improvement in dispersion. P7MB still has the edge but Stealth secures a reduction of 305 square yards.

Loft is your friend

In Phase 1, we saw the higher-lofted P7MB produce higher spin rates and higher descent angles while resulting in the lowest shot area. Traditionally, blades or muscle-back irons are not considered “forgiving.” To an extent, this is true. You won’t hit them as far. Severe mishits definitely don’t go as far. However, they have more loft which helps with more spin and steeper descent angles.

These two performance characteristics lead to more playable shot outcomes. Furthermore, one could argue that this inherently makes them more reliable and more consistent with their performance in relation to game-improvement irons.

Which would you rather have?

  • Less distance but more predictable outcomes
  • More distance but less predictable outcomes

Before you answer, here’s another scenario: What if you could have more distance and predictable outcomes?

In Phase 2, we see the performance of the Stealth iron increase dramatically. Backspin and descent angles increase. Distance and ball speed take a loss although both metrics are still higher than the P7MB.

All four of these metrics can be attributed to two variables: more loft and the design of the clubhead which is exactly what our goal was. Additionally, Stealth’s shot area decreased as well.

Loft is your friend.

Is there a solution to “loft jacking”?

Yes, more loft. Loft is your friend, especially if you’re an amateur golfer.

In both phases of this lab, we’ve seen a higher-lofted blade iron produce more playable launch conditions versus the modern game-improvement iron. This is evident by higher spin rates, higher (steeper) descent angles and lower shot area. Furthermore, the design properties of a blade iron are not conducive to excessive ball speeds and, in turn, longer carry distances. They’re made for precision, control and playable shot outcomes.

In the second phase, we see the modern game-improvement iron produce more playable launch conditions when loft is added. Spin rate, descent angle and shot area all benefit from the presence of more loft. Yes, ball speed and carry distance see a drop-off but they both showcase the clubhead design and why it is more suitable for amateur golfers. With the addition of loft, the game-improvement iron becomes an even more user-friendly golf club.

The game-improvement iron offers the perfect scenario of more distance and predictable outcomes.

However, not all golfers are the same. There are some who won’t benefit from more loft, especially those with speed and steeper angles of attack. If this applies to you, less loft might be your best solution.

Ultimately, paying attention to the lofts on your irons is the solution to “loft jacking” for all golfers. Just because an iron has a stock, standard loft “off the rack” doesn’t mean it is ideal for you.

For You

For You

Uncategorized
Apr 30, 2025
Four-Ball Versus Foursomes: What’s the Difference?
First Look
Apr 29, 2025
Vice Steps into the Stripe Golf Ball Game with Green Mile Club Limited Edition
Buyer's Guides
Apr 29, 2025
The Best Budget Drivers You Can Buy Right Now
Phillip Bishop

Phillip Bishop

Phillip Bishop

Cancer Survivor. Amputee Golfer. Essentially, a OneLeggedBoss. When he isn't facilitating testing or analyzing data, Phillip enjoys his family time, practicing and playing golf, unwinding with video games, capturing photos of nature, or devouring pretzels.

Phillip Bishop

Phillip Bishop

Phillip Bishop

Titleist Drivers: Then Versus Now
Mar 31, 2025 | 15 Comments
Is a $300 Golf Simulator Any Good?
Nov 19, 2024 | 5 Comments
Tested: Uphill Versus Downhill Putts
Nov 18, 2024 | 9 Comments
Phillip Bishop

Phillip Bishop

Phillip Bishop

Driver Titleist TSR3 3 Wood Titleist TSR3
Driving Iron Titleist U505 Irons (5-6) Titleist T200
Irons (7-PW) Titleist T150 Wedges (50, 56, 60) Titleist Vokey SM10
Putter L.A.B. Mezz.1 Max Ball Titleist Pro V1x
Phillip Bishop

Phillip Bishop

Phillip Bishop





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

      RI_Redneck

      2 months ago

      I’m curious if anyone collected distance dispersion between the two heads. Was one more consistent in distance than the other. Inquiring minds want to know!

      Reply

      Charlie

      3 months ago

      I loved the note about loft jacking is just switching the numbers on the bottom of the club.

      Since most GI irons are marketed at more distance –> loft jacked. Do you have ideas of how to find non-loft jacked GI irons?

      I’ve been playing CB’s for this very reason, at 8 handicap. But I’d love to entertain some more forgiveness without giving up precision.

      Reply

      P to the C

      3 months ago

      Looking at the data, it seems the real takeaway is that modern multi-piece GI construction will give you roughly a half club more distance at the cost of dispersion (forgiveness), spin, and stopping power. I’ve seen a few similar tests and they all came to the same conclusion so it makes sense. It also makes you wonder what the real target demo is for GI clubs. The slow swing speed player who simply wants to tell their buddy they hit their “9 iron” 150 yards?

      Reply

      Franc38

      4 months ago

      Ultimately it’s the Indian not the arrow, and a we pick clubs that work for us (this includes data linked performance but also feel and confidence as these play a massive role on the eventual score).
      Some feel insecure when looking at a small thin blade and will end up shooting better scores with a bigger profile head, others (me for example) have a lot of speed but a tendency to play high spinny excessive draws and will feel better looking at a small blade with little to no offset…

      Side note, a higher club head speed makes blade work better and SGI even harder to control and 89 mph with a 6 is the bottom end of that “blade playing sweet spot”…

      Reply

      Jimmy

      4 months ago

      It seems like whatever benefit that comes from practicing with blades can be had for much cheaper with a can of Dr. Scholl’s and some focused, intentional practice.

      Reply

      Kevin

      4 months ago

      How many 7i does a 12 hdcp hit during a 4.5 hr round? Maybe 5? Hitting 5 in a minute on the range is not an accurate test to prove anything. Entertaining read, sure. Anything the reader can use, nope.

      Reply

      Mike

      4 months ago

      They should do away with numbering clubs and stamp them with loft instead.

      Reply

      Eric neville

      4 months ago

      Hey I think I dared you to do this on one of your yt videos haha well done. Some surprising results and some not so surprising.

      Reply

      Vito

      4 months ago

      I have a few older blades, Mizuno MP23, that I take to the range when my ball striking has gotten wonky. I get instant feedback thru feel and results. I can start getting back to hitting the ball in the center of the clubface with better tempo(which is usually my issue). I haven’t taken them on a golf course in 20 years.

      Reply

      OpMan

      4 months ago

      So what is your current, new, playing set?

      Reply

      James

      4 months ago

      Waiting for the run of + handicaps trading their P7TWs for Cleveland Halo XLs now…lol. I think the best of both worlds is the forged CB.

      Reply

      Will

      4 months ago

      Nicely written, some pros’ play cavity back irons also…

      Reply

      Carl

      4 months ago

      Nice article. A lot depends on the amount of bounce you have. I play on firm fairways and ground and most cavity backs have too much bounce.

      Reply

      Joe Z.

      4 months ago

      Thanks! This is interesting – and the results are interesting. Especially the dispersions.
      I’m curious about testing 2 irons that have the same carry distance. That is, at 165 yards out, am I better off with the MB or the game improvement iron?

      Reply

      PaulR1

      4 months ago

      Probably better off with a hybrid if you are only hitting a two iron 165.

      Reply

      James C

      3 months ago

      Yes to me this is the proper test & the one that I can’t seem to get any reviewer to do. It’s all that matters when choosing one set vs another. Test the 150-yd club of one set vs the 150 club of another. That’s what actually matters to the golfer!

      Reply

      greg

      4 months ago

      Isn’t the real test playing golf and posting a score?

      Reply

      Mike

      4 months ago

      One would think so, but removes the bragging about being “a big hitter” .

      It also introduces too many variables, such as short game, putting, and keeping the ball in the fairway

      Reply

      SJW

      4 months ago

      What is missing from the test is if you play a stock set of each model, then you would hit the stealth 8 iron instead of the 7pmb as I bet, they go about the same distance. How would those compare ? I think that is where most normal playing comparisons would happen.

      Reply

      Troy West

      4 months ago

      Great article enjoyed the read. I’ve found these super thin springy face irons great for hitting the yardage, to the detriment of dispersion. This is great for shots above 150y. As the lofts rise I find a feel penalty along with the dispersion penalty. At approach distance, say 140y, my preferred miss is short but straight instead of pin-high but left/right/long of the green, leaving lots of unpredictable sideways or downhill chips. Would love to see this test done with equivalent 40* loft irons as that’s right around where these SGI irons begin to eat away at my touch and bring up my scores.

      Reply

      OpMan

      4 months ago

      ALMOST the same –
      but what about face angle/offset, bounce, and sole shape/grind effects on impact and angle of attack?
      Indoors off mats, too –
      what would happen when you take it outside in various course conditions from wet to dry, soft to firm, different grasses???

      And the other part of this whole “fill the bag correctly” thing is – you’re still only allowed 14 clubs in the bag. If your 7 iron is playing the par of the 5 iron like in the original design of the thing – then your PW is your 8 iron, so you’re going to probably need 4, may be even 5 wedges to fill the short end, which ends up being the normalised same thing if you just used the MB types that have the weaker lofts which means you might only need 3 wedges LOL

      But yes forgiveness also needs to be considered……. of course. LOL

      Reply

      HikingMike

      4 months ago

      I like this test. Well done!

      Reply

      Dtrain

      4 months ago

      The argument should not be which is easier to hit right now. The argument I usually see is if hitting blades will make you a better ball striker with time and practice.

      Reply

      Ed

      4 months ago

      Me personally love like the compact design less margin of error due to smaller face,,for me easier to address ball,confident in making the shot,requires lots of practice,l would rather chip,putt,sand play, practice. 150 yrds out is where this game is perfected. It’s not perfected on the tee box. Most do not focus on the game from 150 out.

      KT

      4 months ago

      That’s the beauty of golf!! The clubs are going to be clubs. We as humans are not robots and “professionals” so we will TRULY never know the full extent of the club. I just know for my game, it’s what clubs stick and fits your swing and your body flexibility. Blades in my opinion, are beautifully made irons and deserve the respect of the aesthetics. The simplicity of the look yet it gives the notion that it is an aggressive club. With that being said, blades 100% do help you become a better ball striker and even helps you align better with your swing. This is due to the narrow gap of “hitting the sweet spot”. Id say, if youre just starting off golf, start off with a nice and easy hybrid/cavity backs to get yourself to enjoy and fall in love with the game. Then once you start getting more serious, around mid- low handi, (IF you want to improve), you can start slowly swapping out your lower irons for blades and truly get the feel for them and start spreading them out throughout your set. AGAIN, it is 100% up to you! You can even do lower irons blades and higher irons cavity backs (these used to be called half sets). That is why golf is such a beautiful sport. It gives the player their own personality as well as their own ingenuity.

      Reply

      Rob

      4 months ago

      Nice testing. Part of the allure of game improvement irons is the forgiveness factor on off center hits vs blades which have a tendency to be very unforgiving. That does not appear to be something you tested. Game improvement irons are often targeted to mid to high handicap players with slower swing speeds. For most of them the differences in spin don’t mean as much because they can’t spin the ball well to begin with. Heck, there was a time that I could consistently break 80 and even then, I could never make a ball back up on the green. The best I could do is get it to check up near where it hit. And with lower swing speeds they often need the loft jacking to some extent to get some distance. They give up spin, something they don’t have and they give up feel and workability. And most golfers in the mid to high handicap struggle with consistently striking the ball. Last thing they need to worry about is trying to draw or fade the ball on command.

      So even when I could score better, I still did better with cavity backs than blades. Still playing irons from 2006 but looking for an upgrade. Going to go with a game improvement iron because I am older and my swing speed is slowing down and starting to lose distance. I tend to hit the ball high anyways so the loft jacking will give me some distance but likely not hurt me too much in peak height.

      Reply

      Bill

      4 months ago

      I almost gave up on this article until I saw phase 2. Comparing 6 irons isn’t an accurate comparison. Loft v loft is way better. The other thing is with the distance difference and tech means some would be hitting 7 iron vs 5. Shorter shaft with approx same distance. Better control of club = more consistency.

      Reply

      Mike

      4 months ago

      Great test! I would to see the P790s (and/or P770s) added as well to see where they fit into the spectrum.

      Would it be possible to share the data for just the scratch or very low handicap golfers? It is unclear whether the difference in ballspeeds (and distance) are do the greater loss on offcenter hits or if there are meaningful differences when flushed in the center of the club. Even better, run the tests with a GCQuad next time where you could compare shots with similar club conditions (club speed, path, impact position, angle of attack, etc).

      As for the note about ‘more loft’ being better…it is very easy to get a set of TM Stealths with +4 degrees loft for each club. Just buy an off the rack set, and everywhere you see a number on bottom scratch it off and subtract one :). And get 4 wedges and no irons stronger than a 5! I doubt most would see any actual benefit non-standard lofts as TM has already matched the standard shaft lengths and swing weights to the lofts.

      Reply

      Al

      4 months ago

      Last season, I tried a set of Takomo player’s distance irons (with weaker lofts). Previously I’d played various G.I. irons from Taylor Made and Mizuno. My experience: the sacrifice in distance is well worth the higher flight, and increased backspin, and I was surprised how little the smaller club face impacted my strike consistency. Strong lofts might create higher total distance, but when it’s time to actually stop the ball on a green, there’s just too much roll and not enough backspin. I’ll focus on slowly improving my swing to get more distance, but I’m not going back to Game Improvement irons anytime soon.

      Reply

      Boisepro59

      4 months ago

      Super interesting test, thanks.

      I think the allure of the blade is how beautiful it looks, like a work of art. Just the picture of the blade in your article made me want to get a set lol (and I’m a Ping guy!). I’m 65 but I think even younger players admire the beauty of the blade.

      Reply

      WiTerp50

      4 months ago

      The last part of the comparison struck home. While I have always used GI irons, the fitter put me into Titleist T200 instead the expected T350. While my speed in the dumpster, the ball striking is usually not far from center. The higher loft gets me more height that helps on approach shots. Previously I had no idea why the T200 listed as a players iron worked better than the GI T350. Well, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

      Reply

      Felipe S

      4 months ago

      I dont play to compete. I play for me. So Mizuno Pro Blades for me anytime of day.
      If the difference is less than 20yards then definitely I would not put a game improvement Iron on my bag just because I like the look of my blades.

      ctg44

      4 months ago

      My wife was a 13.9 handicap and increasing when she was fitted to the Mizuno 923 Hot Metal Pro HL irons. She tried the regular HM Pros, but could not hit them at all. She tried other irons from other brands, including the AiSmoke HL and G430 (both regular and power spec versions). The HM Pro HL was the most consistent for her. With just the iron change, her handicap is down to the low 7s and still dropping. She hasn’t shot in the 90s for an 18 hole round in a while, so the premise of this test, adding loft to game improvement irons, is borne out in her real-world experience. I can tell you she has a hell of lot more fun playing golf now than she did this time last year for sure. Now, could she be even better with a different iron? Maybe, but there’s no way she’s going to keep playing after even 1 mishit in cool to cold weather with a blade iron that runs up the shaft and hurts her wrists / hands that have issues from years of being a softball catcher. Nope, she’s thrilled that the HM Pro HLs mute that a lot for her, even if there’s a little less feel on a regular summer day when she’s feeling better.

      Reply

      Tom G

      4 months ago

      I think for me, the bigger difference was the feedback you get from players clubs vs game improvement. I went into players distance irons, which certainly arent blades, but the biggest difference for me was being able to tell where I hit the ball off the face. In my case, i learned that i banged everything off the toe horribly, but this was not something i was even aware of before i made the change. the reason players irons in general will help, is they will tell you very clearly when you miss the middle of the face, and once you know you need to work on that, improvement is not far behind, so in a way, i do think a club with more feedback will be helpful, even if its not a blade.

      Reply

      john b

      4 months ago

      So a player with plenty of distance but wants forgiveness and decent angle rather than loft jacked distance could have his GI irons bent for more loft? Would that make sense?

      Reply

      Danny Jay

      4 months ago

      I think this was a good test. In my hands I will stay with the game improvement clubs.

      Reply

      Joe

      4 months ago

      “we gathered 10 average golfers, just like you and me. . .
      Handicaps ranging from 0-12”

      I’m not there yet, but a man can dream

      That being said, hitting a blade pure is one of those things with the next thought of “I need to do that again”

      Reply

      Paul

      4 months ago

      OK, so the game improvement irons go further, so in some cases you will use less club, which increases the loft for a given shot which is sort of like scenarios 2?

      I personally like a compromise – players cavity back. e.g. zx7 or Mizuno 243

      Reply

      Jason S

      4 months ago

      I think your scenario 2 is where the current Player’s Distance category came from. More loft, yet still forgiving. Granted, some PD irons still don’t spin (looking at you P790). But many have 2-4 degrees more loft than the standard GI irons do, which does help spin/launch/height/descent. I also think the more forgiving CB plays a bigger role in sales than it ever has. Again, more forgiving than the MB but has a bit more pop which still giving a player more control. Lots of awesome stuff happening in the iron world these days.

      Reply

      Golfspy MTB

      4 months ago

      Love the two parts to this study! My only concern would be turf interaction. Assuming you had 0-12 cappers (shoutout to my peeps) hitting off of mats, I think that negates the on course advantage of playing a PING G-series vs a Blueprint. I have a “friend” who sometimes hits the Earth first…

      So if we could get Blueprint T faces on a G20 sole with Eye 2 Lofts…

      Reply

      Evan P

      4 months ago

      I applaud your for trying to “normalize” but I still, am not sure you hit the mark. These types of tests focus on the wrong thing (typically iron number vs iron number). They really should focus on the distance after all that is all we care about on the course. Who cares if a 6 MuscleBack (MB) vs a 6 Players Improvement (PI) is 6 degrees different in loft. If the 6 MB goes 160 and the 8 PI goes 160 then that should be the comparison. Including spin, height, decent, and dispersion. The PI aren’t typically evaluated correct IMO. You will almost always see more dispersion from 180 yards vs 160 yards.

      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.

    Uncategorized
    Apr 30, 2025
    Four-Ball Versus Foursomes: What’s the Difference?
    First Look
    Apr 29, 2025
    Vice Steps into the Stripe Golf Ball Game with Green Mile Club Limited Edition
    Buyer's Guides
    Apr 29, 2025
    The Best Budget Drivers You Can Buy Right Now