Clubtest 2011-Tester's Top Picks

[JB]

I think I agree but with a slight variation. I want to see all current models tested. So for example, I like that they included the AP's that were "new" for last year, but part of their current lineup this year. I want to hear tester's opinions as they compare most (they don't test all after all) offerings against each other. If a driver is great and still holds it's own in the segment, I want the tester's to have option of comparing and even selecting it.

I certainly don't want to discriminate against, or even worse penalize the OEM's who produce a club that holds up well over time.

Releasing a lot of clubs does not mean their others do not hold up. Take Mizuno and TM for example. Both companies have had very successful iron lines over the last 2 years and added more to those. But dont tell me that the AP1 iron is any more available to consumers than the R9 or MX-300 right now. This is for one reason and one reason only. A major company has nothing new until the fall and if you leave them out....Well you know the rest.

Either include ALL irons from a certain time period or no irons. Dont play favoritism because some companies have put out other things.

 

[Aries0321]

I agree with All4's slight variation of current line-up of which ever manufacturers being compared with newest offerings of others.

Although there is undoubtedly manufacturer favoritism, I wouldn't expect to see R9 as TM doesn't market it as part of their current line-up.

 

[JB]

I agree with All4's slight variation of current line-up of which ever manufacturers being compared with newest offerings of others.

Although there is undoubtedly manufacturer favoritism, I wouldn't expect to see R9 as TM doesn't market it as part of their current line-up.

Well then remove R9 and put original Burner in their place. A club that is still listed in their lineup on their own website. Or CG7 from Cleveland. Both last years products (or 2 years ago), but both still marketed as part of the line. Its ridiculous that one company gets older irons in because they have nothing new right now and another company does not despite their previous irons still being part of the line.

 

[MattyKrack17]

thats why i cant wait to hear what ppl think from the demo day, alot of irons and alot of variations!

 

[DawgDaddy]

Releasing a lot of clubs does not mean their others do not hold up. Take Mizuno and TM for example. Both companies have had very successful iron lines over the last 2 years and added more to those. But dont tell me that the AP1 iron is any more available to consumers than the R9 or MX-300 right now. This is for one reason and one reason only. A major company has nothing new until the fall and if you leave them out....Well you know the rest.

Either include ALL irons from a certain time period or no irons. Dont play favoritism because some companies have put out other things.

That is a great summary as to what I also think a "2011" club test should be, nothing that was offered the previous year needs to be included as most of us (actually all of us at THP) have read reviews on the previous offerings several times over the past year.
I believe a lot of the clubs being tested stems from the magazine not wanting to leave out any of their advertisers when doing the testing. Advertising equals dollars to them and they don't want to offend the money source. JMO.

 

[Nappy]

This list totally surprised me. Especially the wedges.

 

[All4's]

This list totally surprised me. Especially the wedges.

Agreed. I plan to try the VR Pro wedges in the next few weeks. I have to switch to CC wedges anyway.

 

[Cats04]

Thanks for taking the time to put this out there - interesting info. I know some people are having issues with it and again it is just like every other "list" / "Hot List" etc... I would hope everyone knows in today market to demo, demo, demo. Personally everyone has their favorite company & will lean on their product line also.

 

[All4's]

Either include ALL irons from a certain time period or no irons.

That is a great summary as to what I also think a "2011" club test should be, nothing that was offered the previous year needs to be included as most of us (actually all of us at THP) have read reviews on the previous offerings several times over the past year.

I see it the other way around. As a consumer I want the testers to get to compare as many clubs as possible. If they can't get all current models, I'll take as many as they can get rather than none at all. I want as inclusive a comparison as I can get. I think it is telling if a particular iron set or driver is chosen by the testers for consecutive years, particularly against newer models.

I see your points about possible favoritism and agree with both of you that if favoritism is what drives inclusion/exclusion it should be addressed, but I would hope they address it by adding the other current models and not removing those included.

DawgDaddy, for me it is about the testers picking their favorites less so than the reviews. I don't put much stock into their "reviews", but do enjoy seeing which clubs became sweethearts to the testers throughout the process. I see your point about new reviews being duplicate info we have already seen, I just want to see how they measured up against the competition.

You both make good points and obviously their system isn't perfect, but it is what we got, so I thought it would be interesting to share the results and discuss them with fellow THP'ers.

 

[biggsy]

Lots of equipment is still for sale in 2011. Im going to go out on a limb and say that CG7 irons were not included or the R9s (guessing of last years line). And I am sure neither were many other irons. This is a way to include companies that do not have anything new and I am fine with it if they were not already tested in the previous year. If a company chooses to only release irons every two years, then they should be included accordingly. No new info is out on them and they already gave their feedback.

Either include EVERY iron that has been for sale over a set amount of time or dont. But dont do it only for a few companies.

Was the same product/iron/club included in this annual test on more than one occasion? I could understand if it's the first time the club was tested, but more than once, I think there is some shenanigans involved.

 

[JB]

I see it the other way around. As a consumer I want the testers to get to compare as many clubs as possible. If they can't get all current models, I'll take as many as they can get rather than none at all. I want as inclusive a comparison as I can get. I think it is telling if a particular iron set or driver is chosen by the testers for consecutive years, particularly against newer models.

It would be telling if it was across the board and all companies had the gear included. Then one could see how previous lines stack up against current lines. But as of right now, that is not the case. Ask yourself this. If some some niche market company that specialized in wedges lets say produced one solid irons in 2008 and did not release another set, would they be in this test?

Either test all companies irons based on time period or none at all, but you cannot have it both ways. They are singling out certain companies because their own release dates dont work out as well as others.

 

[JB]

Was the same product/iron/club included in this annual test on more than one occasion? I could understand if it's the first time the club was tested, but more than once, I think there is some shenanigans involved.

Yes it was.

 

[All4's]

It would be telling if it was across the board and all companies had the gear included. Then one could see how previous lines stack up against current lines. But as of right now, that is not the case. Ask yourself this. If some some niche market company that specialized in wedges lets say produced one solid irons in 2008 and did not release another set, would they be in this test?

Either test all companies irons based on time period or none at all, but you cannot have it both ways. They are singling out certain companies because their own release dates dont work out as well as others.

You both make good points and obviously their system isn't perfect, but it is what we got, so I thought it would be interesting to share the results and discuss them with fellow THP'ers.

Yep, it isn't perfect, but it is what we got. Hopefully they can include all current models in the future.

One thing that was strange was that nearly none of the 0-10 handicappers tested fairway woods. A 3/4 wood is the most pressing need in my bag right now so I was most interested in seeing what clubs emerged as favorites. Only 2-3 of the 21 testers (0-10 handicaps) tried the fairway woods. The majority of the 10-20 and 20-30 handicaps tested fairways woods though and some of the names that showed up often were:

Tour Edge XCG-4 (also showed up on the hybrid list. If the price of these clubs were different I think they would be hugely popular)
Ping K15
Srixon Z-Star

I wonder if the lack of testing fairway woods by the lower handicappers shows more of them moving towards hybrids in that yardage instead of fairway woods?

 

[TripleBogieTim]

This whole list is a head scratcher, if you ask me. But especially the wedges, I would have expected to see Vokey and Cleveland at the top of that list.

 

[wburdett]

Very strange about the 0-10 test results not testing certain clubs. Seems that would really water down the results. High handicappers testing of fairway woods is probably not the best feedback. Difficult for many to hit. Curious if article went into detail of why certain things chosen. Wedges as everyone has said is most surprising.

Its tough to test everything on market at all times especially as not everyone has new clubs out every year like a taylor made some release in 18 mon cylces etc but still provides more feedback to test them out.

good stuf

 

[Ake84]

Adams CB1/2 24%
Titleist AP1/2 24%
Nike VR Pro Combo 19%
Cobra S3 Pro 14%

Just wondering, Titleist Ap1/2 do they mean both the ap1 and ap2? Same with Adams? Why should they get the combined results for two irons, and Nike and Cobra only one.

 

[JB]

Adams CB1/2 24%
Titleist AP1/2 24%
Nike VR Pro Combo 19%
Cobra S3 Pro 14%

Just wondering, Titleist Ap1/2 do they mean both the ap1 and ap2? Same with Adams? Why should they get the combined results for two irons, and Nike and Cobra only one.

He addressed this earlier and said he combined them himself.

 

[Lukey719]

Awesome to see some close comparison with these clubs.