The results will be similar as with other OEMs. It's just a hunk of metal .

Yes!

@@cgasucksechnology matters, here one club is 2-3 yds longer than the other ones, and that’s a 7 iron, difference will probably be even more in lower clubs.

I tested both the P7MC and P7MB and the P7MC blew them away. It wasn’t even a contest, I felt the P7MCs were better in every aspect, they even got almost as much distance and forgiveness as the P770 in a Forged Iron that you can work. The Mizuno 223 Pro and the Callaway Apex TCB are the three best clubs Money can buy this year by a mile. I don’t know who so many people are still flocking to Titleist and Ping. They aren’t even in the same playing field right now, they’re just going off past reputation.

P Series best series of iron ever made

Just order that exact same combo set with dynamic gold tour issue x100’s. Super excited to break them in

The three best irons are produced by Taylormade, Callaway and Mizuno this year by a fair margin.

Thanks for watching David!

Thank you for watching!!

Better yet would be to educate that the number of the club is purely there for the purpose of being able to easily identify one club from another within the same set. Find the irons that get you the ball flight characteristics, forgiveness, and accuracy you need. Everything else is just how it got there. Over-focusing on static loft in relation to the number on the sole of the club is ignoring so many other variables.

do you know about dynamic loft?

Thanks for watching!! For other manufacturers it will depend a little bit on their iron family and standard lofts within. It worked out nicely here to use the Stealth 8-iron at 32 and then bend the forged irons to that loft. But we definitely have it on the list to try to complete with other brands

thanks for watching!

You don't sound like someone who really knows stats. Anyone who knows statistics at all can see that the standard deviations are small enough to suggest that the mean differences between the Stealth and the MBs are almost certainly statistically significant

@@maxyroo I am not a professional statistician but stats in YT golf analysis is a bug bear of mine. Let me start by saying that Thomas, Drew and the 2nd Swing team did the fairest test they could within the limits of the equipment they had - the difference in shafts between clubs may cause differences but the only way to be sure is to run the same test with identical shafts and a lot more shots. In terms of statistical significance of differences there are 2 simple ways of determining that and many highly complicated ways (p- values or similar tests). The complicated ways are beyond my ability to compute even if we had all the data for every shot, so I will concentrate on the 2 simple tests. The first test is that if the results between 2 clubs show that that when the SD is taken into account they overlap (this is something Mark Crossfield uses) then the 2 results of functionally the same. The second test looks at whether 1 result is within 2 SDs of the other on the basis that 95% of the data will be within 2 SDs of the average. The second test is pretty crude and if we had p- values or similar I would ignore it Let us start with club head speed on the basis that unless that is the same, that will impact on all the results. Effectively the results prove Thomas is a robot, the club head speed is functionally identical across the board. Now let us consider carry distance. With the exception of the difference between the Stealth and the MB every club's result including their respective SD overlaps each other so they are functionally identical. There is a difference between the Stealth and the MB about 2 yards under the overlap test and 0.5 yards on the 2 SD difference test. That might be statistically significant depending on the number of shots but the difference is very marginal, are you really going to notice 2 yards difference in carry? Next consider how the ball flies off the club - ball speed, launch angle and peak height. Launch angles are functionally identical on the overlap test as are, again with the exception of the Stealth v MB, peak heights. When you consider the Stealth and MB on either test there is only 1 ft between the difference in peak heights being functionally identical. Again I have to ask, would anyone notice a difference even of 3-4 ft nevermind 1 ft? Then there is ball speed, the results are with the exception of the difference between the P770 and MB, functionally identical on the overlap test but on the 2 SD difference test are at the outer margins of being functionally identical Finally there is the issue of spin rates. If you look solely at the overlap test the Stealth does seem to be a low spinner but that difference disappears under the 2 SD test. So overall the differences are small and probably statistically insignificant. I appreciate this is my opinion but if the test was run again with identical shafts and a lot more shots I suspect the lower peak height of the MB would come statistically significant, the Stealth would be shown to be a little lower in spin and that there would be a statistically significant difference between the Stealth and the MB in carry distance but probably only 3-4 yards. The interesting one is the ball speed of the P770, I suspect that if the test was rerun with a lot more shots, the P770 probably has a significantly hotter face than the MB and that might result in a statistically significant increase in carry distance but whether that difference would be noticeable on the golf course is questionable - at best we are talking maybe 5 yards of carry

Sample size as well. You hit 6 shots you'll see closer averages. But if you look at the circles there are 3 clubs that are clearly longer and if you hit 30+ shots you'd see it

You won't see much difference in spin if loft is all the same and strike is controlled for. They obviously didn't control for strike here so no real way to know if he wasn't hitting slightly more toe side vs heel side on other clubs or high and low strike caused from bounce change due to bending of the lofts etc etc. But when I've tested on gcquad typically spin rate is within 200-400 rpms when controlled for everything else.

Thanks for watching!! We have RCT balls in each of our fitting bays to use for fittings in addition to our testing.

The bounce would be off too!

This is all true!

You nailed it Robert! What good is distance if it winds up farther from the target?

this, 100%. If you need longer irons to hit more greens, change tee box

@@2ndswing 10 Yards in the rough left is worst than 10 yards front of the green most of the time.

For some it's a 3 wood 😂

You’ll stop a ball from the rough faster with more descent angle than you will with spin, when hitting out of he rough your thought should be “how high can make this go” if you are trying to stop it faster.

@@jim60631 Thanks for the tip. With my game, I play a lot of partial shots, which I try to flight down. Just the way I play the game. I have tried playing irons like Titleist T-300 and Mizuno Hot Metals. I always get the same results, low spin shots that don't hold greens. Whether that's from early morning wet fairways, ruff, whatever. i don't like hitting a 3/4 shot high in the air and hope that landing angle will stop the ball.

Loft on 7 iron for tour players is typically 34 or more, I guess. Here the loft is 32, where the difference is about half a club, implicating 400-500 rpm difference. Also dynamic loft has to be checked, plus some other impact parameters.

jmac_BTC, really excellent questions and a popular dilemna for golfers in your exact position. "Do I stick with the Larger Game Improvement iron that I like but don't love, or do I take a chance on something a little smaller that has the potential to look and feel better and give me more confidence?" Without knowing your specific tendencies with face contact, I personally would not hesitate recommending the P790's to a 12 HDCP. Truth is, it really comes down to your ballstriking more than just your average score. If you are consistently hitting less than 6 greens in regulation, you'll probably want the Stealth irons to see improvement in your score as they are a better comparable to what you are playing now. If you're gaining confidence in your irons, and want something with a little better profile I think you'd be smart to try a p790. Give our fitting team a call anytime to discuss further! 612-216-4152 ext. 2 or chat with us live on 2ndswing.com. -James

go P790 or P770 100%

It help me with control. I prefer the larger grips and I have small hands

Grip has been tested. It has two effects; one is larger grips are heavier, thus can contribute to counterbalancing and the other is you may have a tendency to go right by about 1º for midsize, and 1º more for jumbo… and you'll quickly start correcting for that.

Great question and thanks for watching. The benefit of game improvement irons is that your mishits will perform much better than a players-type iron. So it's finding that balance of what you're looking for in your game between distance, forgiveness, and consistency.

For sure. Unfortunately we don't have the time to gather the sample size you're referring to. Ideally, we could do all of our tests with hundreds of shots. Bottom line - loft is a significant factor in iron distance, though the construction of the club also has a great impact as well.

Club head speed of all matches very well. In that case, club shaft length difference is already facted in.

Hi James! The +/- is the standard deviation

I would be surprise to see if I slicer would slice more with a P770 than a Stealth?

But one thing to remember -- it's not just about distance, it's about precision and consistency as well! Don't want to gain distance if it means sacrificing the other pieces

@@2ndswing true. But how accurate will I be when I'm hitting 5 iron into a 160 yard par 3? 😄

change tee box

Thomas Campbell IS a robot. He is wireless.

I can think of at least one benefit of human tester - it can factor in the forgivness level of clubs for less-than-perfect strikes.

Agree, why do a test like this and not take out all the variables. Different shafts, weight, shaft lengths, etc make this test kind of worthless.

I think you would get the same result...

@@glenburr6755 It would be interesting to compare all the brands and how their tech affects different aspects.

@@arthvader1 I was just thinking that every manufactures blade and small cavity back iron would spin more and fly shorter than their thin faced hollow or big cavity back models. But I would watch. 👍

Absolutely! one of the best performers in fittings

Yes, but 7 yards between the two extremes in the range! That's a tiny difference across that many clubs and that much difference in design.

@@jaywalk4446 yep, that's approximately 0.6 of a club differential longer.

Thanks for watching us goobers 😎

Hi JD and thanks for the feedback! We will include more shots in our testing going forward. Due to time constraints (and golfer fatigue, LOL) we likely cannot do much more than 10 per club in a test like this with five clubs. However, you're right in that it can be tough for real trends to emerge with 5 per club. We will increase that number moving forward when we film