Jump to content
Subscribe to the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 4564 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted

I've been reviewing these for about the last month or so and I would say yeah. I love these clubs to be honest. Great looks of an MP iron with a ton of forgiveness. You can't really go wrong with these.

The review should be up on the main site next week sometime, so look for that soon.

Tristan Hilton

My Equipment: 
Titleist TSR2 Driver (Fujikura Pro 2.0 TS; 10.5°) · PXG 0211 FWs (Diamana S+ 60; 15° and 21°) · PXG 0211 Hybrid (MMT 80; 22°) · Edel SMS Irons (SteelFiber i95; 5-GW) · Edel SMS Pro Wedges (SteelFiber i110; 56°, 60°) · Edel Classic Blade Putter (32") · Maxfli Tour Ball · Pinned Prism Rangefinder · SuperStroke Grips · Flightscope Mevo · TRUE Linkswear Shoes · Vessel Player V Pro 

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

Here is a link to the review I wrote on the main site:

http://thesandtrap.com/b/clubs/mizuno_mp-h4_iron_review

Tristan Hilton

My Equipment: 
Titleist TSR2 Driver (Fujikura Pro 2.0 TS; 10.5°) · PXG 0211 FWs (Diamana S+ 60; 15° and 21°) · PXG 0211 Hybrid (MMT 80; 22°) · Edel SMS Irons (SteelFiber i95; 5-GW) · Edel SMS Pro Wedges (SteelFiber i110; 56°, 60°) · Edel Classic Blade Putter (32") · Maxfli Tour Ball · Pinned Prism Rangefinder · SuperStroke Grips · Flightscope Mevo · TRUE Linkswear Shoes · Vessel Player V Pro 

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 4564 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    TourStriker
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • Yes. The full swing is not that different, and speed is important with all of them. You don't see Tour players hitting their driver 310 and then hitting their 7I 160. Of course, but they're nothing like those for the full swing.
    • How about with the high numbered irons such as the 9 iron? Is the swing the same with that? If that's the case then I stand corrected.  OK, although there is physics involved in the putt too. 
    • I have a master's in Spanish linguistics and I like black holes.
    • I didn't say it was unfeasible. That's not what you said. And… be careful there. Not around the club's COM, man.
    • Our public course has red penalty areas marked with red stakes. The stakes are imprecisely placed, often overgrown or missing. Our golf club has no control over how the stakes are placed. We have therefore decided to create a local rule to define the penalty areas by physical features and ignore the red stakes.  Also, most of the currently marked penalty areas are because of an overgrown creek behind dense ground vegetation. The penalty areas are marked (roughly) at the edges of the dense vegetation (see picture example). Players cannot see the creek. The dense vegetation looks the same on holes where there is no creek and no penalty area. For consistency and to reduce confusion, we have decided to define all edges of dense ground vegetation as penalty area.   This adopts a popular USGA recommendation from 2019. Committee Procedures 2C(2) cautions: "A Committee may define the edge of a penalty area by clearly describing it in writing but should do so only if there will be little or no doubt where the edge is. For example, where there are large areas of lava or desert that are to be treated as penalty areas, and the border between these areas and the intended general area is well defined, the Committee could define the edge of the penalty area as being the edge of the lava bed or desert."  We are going ahead, but IMO "little or no doubt" is not possible. For example, the "edge of desert", no matter how "well defined" is often not a distinct line. Sand and grass may intermingle. An edge defined this way will never be as clear as stakes or a line. We will see what happens!  Other comments: I believe the change will improve pace of play. And have minimal effect on handicaps. (Seems like I saw a study of this, but unable to find it again.)    Does anyone have a similar experience with defining penalty areas by physical features? How did that go?     
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

Join us here in The Sand Trap!

Registration is free and takes almost no time. You'll see one fewer ad per page and be ready to jump in and contribute your thoughts to any subject!

Click here to register (registration will open in a new page so you can continue to read what you came to read).

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...