Golf Magazine's 2008 Club Test comes up short.

[Kuvasz]

Where are the details of the 2007 club test? The overall rating for a specific set of irons in the 2008 club test is simply not enough.

For instance, I'm not really concerned with the "look" of a particular 9-iron. I'm more interested in the "accuracy," "forgiveness," and "distance" of that 9-iron.

In the same way, a set of irons is judged by a number of categories, some mentioned above. However, for example, a set of irons that fare well (or do not fare well) in the "chipping" category means little to me since I chip with my wedges.

So bring back the numerical scores, GM, and let us decide which clubs are better for us!

(Who in the world rates golf clubs according to their appearance anyway?)

- k

[Ruckus]

Apparently a lot of people here rate clubs based on their appearances. There are countless threads talking about thickness of top lines (I never understood that, but different strokes for different folks). Also, many people panned the new Titleist AP line without ever playing it based on their looks. (Funny how everyone got on the bandwagon once Adam Scott started using them).

[nykfan4life]

Where are the details of the 2007 club test? The overall rating for a specific set of irons in the 2008 club test is simply not enough.

I didn't like it either. It was good for having a centralized place to look at clubs, however.

Apparently a lot of people here rate clubs based on their appearances. There are countless threads talking about thickness of top lines (I never understood that, but different strokes for different folks). Also, many people panned the new Titleist AP line without ever playing it based on their looks. (Funny how everyone got on the bandwagon once Adam Scott started using them).

Yeah, I think thats funny how people who have never tried equipment will spout out what the manufacturers say and then talk about how great they are.

[Big_M]

Where are the details of the 2007 club test? The overall rating for a specific set of irons in the 2008 club test is simply not enough.

Apparently a lot of people here rate clubs based on their appearances. There are countless threads talking about thickness of top lines (I never understood that, but different strokes for different folks). Also, many people panned the new Titleist AP line without ever playing it based on their looks. (Funny how everyone got on the bandwagon once Adam Scott started using them).

There are so many clubs to choose from... why play one that doesn't look good to you. Looks are important, you need to have confidence in what you're playing (think putter). That being said, what suits one guy might not another... so it seems like too subjective of a factor to get too much weight. I don't like Callaway irons because I like a thinner topline, but it also happens that they didn't feel the best to me either. I see no problem with choosing an iron that is appealing to your eyes. Of course if you are a 30 capper and anything but blades looks bad to you, then you may have a problem. Also, I personally am willing to try anything, and if I hit it well it usually starts looking good real fast (see driver in sig). Also, look of a club at address could effect how you setup to the ball, and therefore effect the performance.

-just my 2 cents P.S. - I agree the clubtest was less informative than ever this year... I consider it to be the same as the GD tests... just another preview of newer clubs that people should hit before they make any decisions... I can and would bet anything that the worst club in their test performs the best for SOME people.

[pgonza2723]

Looks is exactly why I picked the r7 TP over the X-20 Tours... the topline on the Callaways was uber thick for what is supposed to be a player's type club. To me, feel was a wash as to they both felt great, performance was similar with the TP's having a slightly lower ball flight. The Callaway's were more forgiving, but b/c of that they seemed to not have as much workability either (which bites me in the butt every once in a while when the swing goes awry). The deciding factor though was when I looked down at both of them, the TP's topline just "looked" right to me.... made my choice and a year later still could not be happier with the irons.

[nykfan4life]

Looks is exactly why I picked the r7 TP over the X-20 Tours... the topline on the Callaways was uber thick for what is supposed to be a player's type club. To me, feel was a wash as to they both felt great, performance was similar with the TP's having a slightly lower ball flight. The Callaway's were more forgiving, but b/c of that they seemed to not have as much workability either (which bites me in the butt every once in a while when the swing goes awry). The deciding factor though was when I looked down at both of them, the TP's topline just "looked" right to me.... made my choice and a year later still could not be happier with the irons.

I think he meant, like, the back of the irons. I think the topline and clubhead size are very valid points when deciding.

[Big_M]

I think he meant, like, the back of the irons. I think the topline and clubhead size are very valid points when deciding.

no he didn't... see below

Apparently a lot of people here rate clubs based on their appearances.

[srjorion]

Looks is exactly why I picked the r7 TP over the X-20 Tours... the topline on the Callaways was uber thick for what is supposed to be a player's type club. To me, feel was a wash as to they both felt great, performance was similar with the TP's having a slightly lower ball flight. The Callaway's were more forgiving, but b/c of that they seemed to not have as much workability either (which bites me in the butt every once in a while when the swing goes awry). The deciding factor though was when I looked down at both of them, the TP's topline just "looked" right to me.... made my choice and a year later still could not be happier with the irons.

I had a very similar experience with a totally contrasting outcome. When I started looking at new clubs last year, The R7 TPs were the very first clubs I looked at. My only fear was they were too much club for my game. Then, when the new Callaway X-Forged irons came out I fell in love with their look. Eventually I demoed the X-Forged irons. Unfortunately I didn't hit them solid every time and the mishits for me were way off. I figured it was just because it was a new club and I would eventually figure it out.

When I mentioned this to the guy at the golf shop, he said I should try the X-20 Tour. I put it in front of me and immediately told him no because I didn't like the top line. I just wouldn't have anything to do with it. I drove away from the golf store with this nagging feeling in the back of my mind that I should have taken the X-20 Tour demo with me. A week later I went back and grabbed the X-20 Tour demo. After a couple of times at the range I had no doubt that the X-20 Tours were better for me over the X-Forged irons. I totally agree that you should like the way the club looks to you. It just gives you that much more confidence as you address the ball. For me, while at first I didn't like the X-20 Tour look, I learned that I actually loved it after hitting shots that I liked. Of course I never hit the R7 TPs, so pgonza2723 has really made me wonder if I missed something OK, not really, I love my clubs.

[nykfan4life]

But I agree, compared to last year, this was really poor.

[Fastrack]

I agree that this year's review is not quite comprehensive, but better have something to check....

Look is obviously less important factor than playability/workability and such factors for me. But if working equally well, I would pick better looking one, so I guess it is still matter.

[pgonza2723]

Of course I never hit the R7 TPs, so pgonza2723 has really made me wonder if I missed something

Nah, the X-20 Tours are great clubs, they were not as workable for me as the r7's and I really couldn't get over the thickness of the topline. Now the X-Tours were an absolute first choice, but I didn't have the heart to spend the extra money to get them. They felt like butter when struck well, but at the same time since I've only hit them at the golf shop, I can still claim the "ignorance is bliss". The r7's have a very very similar feel to them as a forged iron when flushed anyways so and with an ample amount of forgiveness all the way down to the 3-iron. But for many, looks is very important and conversely translates to confidence over the ball which leads to better overall play IMO.... hence the reason I still have the T-40 in the bag