grochol17

It's interesting that you thought they were too hot... admittedly I only hit the demo iron (I forgot if it was a 6 or 7), but over a few different demo sessions, when I compared my MP-5 to the 243, the only distance difference I saw could be attributed to the loft differences between the irons. I guess it must be something about our swing speeds or delivery to the ball that has them performing differently for us.

I think that person was poking fun at all of the online comments from people that supposedly lose their minds any time Mizuno changes anything. When Mizuno switched from writing "MP" on their irons to the "Mizuno Pro" script, some people were posting that they were going to sell off their current Mizuno irons and never play Mizuno again because of how ugly the font was on the script. I saw similar comments when Mizuno moved away from the stylized "M" logo in favor of the running bird. No idea if any of it is real or if it just people trolling on the internet.

I don't have launch monitor numbers to back this up, but my experience with the Wilson Staff Model (non-X version) is that it is pretty low spin with the driver and ramps up considerably toward the wedges. I normally play the left dash and the Wilson seems to perform about the same off the tee, but has noticeably more spin when I get to the short irons. I've only played the Chrome Tour for 18 holes, so I can't really comment on that ball, but last year I did the PING ballnamic fitting and in one of my runs, it gave me the Chrome Tour and Wilson Staff as recommended balls... PING's data shows them to be pretty similar off the tee, but with the Wilson having considerably more "full wedge spin." Greenside spin is about the same. Also, the Wilson comes in yellow, so that would be recommendation for something for you to try.

As someone that played a combo set of MP H5/25/5 for 8 years, my opinion is that the irons you're looking at are basically a lateral move, going from one players iron to another... MOIs from Maltby are all about the same for the models you mention, with the T100 and T150 being a bit higher than the rest. The big difference I see is that the vertical COG on the 25 and H5 irons is pretty high and the sweet spot is closer to the heel on those than the others you mention. So, depending on where you normally hit the ball on the face, you might see some better results out of the newer irons than what you currently have. It is possible you can find something that fits you better, but I wouldn't be surprised if you see about the same performance between your current irons and any of the ones you've listed. For what it is worth, I moved on from my combo set because I wanted to try a lighter shaft. After some extensive testing in the hitting bays at a couple of golf stores, I settled on JPX 923 Tour 4i-PW and an MP 245 3i with a shaft that is only 10g lighter than I had been playing. I picked the Tours because they felt a bit better on my miss, which is typically off the toe, and I had really consistent numbers with them. The 243s would have been my second pick, but just didn't fit me quite as well as the Tours. After almost a year with the Tours, I'm not seeing a huge difference from what I was playing... shots on the toe side are losing less distance than they used to, but it's not like I went from missing the green to hitting it to 5 feet, so I can't really directly trace the new irons to an improvement in score.

I think Wilson likes to put a lot of weight towards the toe, which gives their irons pretty high MOI. It's too bad the current models are not on the Maltby list. Last year when I was testing out irons the CBs definitely seemed more forgiving than most of the stuff I tried.

Confidence is very important definitely not something Maltby can quantify!

The idea that slower swing speed players can't play a high compression X ball is a myth. For example, take a look at Titleist's LPGA Tour golf ball players... on their website they list 72 playing the V1X, 61 playing the V1, and no one playing the AVX. And it's not just the long hitters using the V1X. Some of the shortest hitters (like Danielle Kang and Aditi Ashok, both averaging around 240) are playing the V1X. If softer golf balls were better for slower swing speed players, you'd expect at the very least the Titleist players to be heavily weighted toward the V1, possibly with some AVX use, but the fact that more are playing the V1X should tell you that picking a golf ball isn't purely about swing speed.

Indoor launch monitors can't track the full flight of the ball, so they are guessing at what may happen downrange. On the 7 wood and 7 iron, the Maxfli Tour X had a higher launch angle so the software assumed based on some model ball flight that it would then have a steeper landing angle, resulting in less roll. The problem is that the model used for the ball flight is the same for all balls, so even if the aerodynamics of the Pro V1X and Maxlfi Tour X are vastly different, they are treated the same in the calculations. That's why comparing ball performance on an indoor launch monitor many not give accurate results for what you'd see on course.

I played the T-Zoid Pro irons for about 4 years and switched because I was wearing out the faces from too much time on sandy soil golf courses. Mine felt quite soft, but I had the sensicore shafts, so I'm not sure how much softness was the clubhead and how much was the shaft. As for forgiveness, based on the Maltby MOI numbers, the T-Zoid Pro were basically the JPX line before it existed... the T-Zoid MOI is higher than any of the Mizuno Pro irons (including CBs and the players distance irons like the 243/245) and comparable to the current JPX 925 forged. The vertical COG is pretty low for Mizuno and similar to the 925 high launch, so the T-Zoids were a pretty forgiving iron in a not too large package. I know everyone has their classic Mizuno irons they wish Mizuno would bring back and my vote is for the T-Zoid. I don't need a new set of irons, but if they re-released the T-Zoid tomorrow I'd have them on order as soon as I could type in my credit card info.

Forgiving means different things to different people, but the specs that Maltby measures don't back up your claims about the clubs getting less forgiving over time. Just a few examples (you can check the numbers here: https://store-k9nvqai7wz.mybigcommerce.com/content/PDFs/Head_MPFs/MPF_MIZUNO.pdf) The MP 64s you mention as your standard for what you want from a Mizuno CB have almost the exact same specs as the blade MP 4 in terms of C dimension, MOI, and actual vertical COG, so it is safe to say that the 64 isn't really a forgiving CB. The new Pro S3 has a tiny bit higher MOI than the 64 and a longer C dimension, but the AVCOG is also a bit higher. If you miss off the toe, the Pro S3 should play more forgiving than the 64, but the higher vertical COG might not work well for some players. For the recent JPX Tours, the 921 was not "bladier" than the 919... the 921 has a longer C dim, higher MOI, and a tiny bit higher vertical COG (0.018 higher to be exact). Unless you're sensitive that tiny COG difference, the 921 Tour should play a little more forgiving. The 923 Tour is kind of a mixture of the two irons, but again it is not definitively less forgiving than the 919. Regarding the blades, the MP 241s are the least forgiving iron on the Mizuno chart in terms of MOI, but it is unclear if that is a trend or a one off. As for the MP 5s, those aren't particularly forgiving on paper... they are slightly less forgiving than, but comparable to, sets like the MP 4s and MP 20s. I'll agree that they felt good and didn't seem particularly punishing on mishits, but having switched from the MP 5s to 923 Tours, I can tell that the 923 tours are more forgiving on toe hits than the 5s. For what it is worth, the MP 67 has the highest MOI of any Mizuno blade in the chart (it is the only one above 12). The next up is @NRJyzr's MP 11 followed by the MP 32, both close to 11.8.

My opinion is that irons are about consistency, so you want to go with whatever you're going to hit the best. The only reason I'd say go with the 120s is if the extra bit of spin and launch was helping you hold greens whereas the 130x was running off of the back. That being said, did you get to hit the 130x in a longer iron? It isn't always the case that how a shaft performs on paper is how it will perform in your hands, so you might not hit it any higher than you hit the x100s.

Howard can give you a more complete answer, but one issue is that it can be tough to disentangle lie angle issues from face angle issues when using the lie boards. There's also the aspect that some people worry they are going to hurt something when they hit off a plastic board and might flinch a little going into impact, giving bad results. The marker on the ball test is just you hitting off of (hopefully) grass, so more like what you'll experience on course.

Honestly, I don't think you can take away much from that chart because your numbers are all over the place... your clubhead speed varied by 10 mph and ball speed varied by almost 30 mph. Either you were tired from hitting 80-100 balls before this test, or you need to look consider a shorter playing length for your driver. You're going to gain a lot more from a more consistent swing and finding the center of the face more often than just buying a new driver.

What are you ultimately trying to accomplish? The reason I ask is that high launch doesn't necessarily equate to particular performance down range since the aerodynamics of the ball's dimple pattern plays a role in that.

I forgot about this thread and never followed up, but I decided not to go with the used balls because the cost savings vs getting new balls on sale (like Titleist's 4-for-3) wasn't big enough to overcome the unknowns of used balls.