At the time, the list was pretty simple. You’d need a killer driver with a cool name, fairway woods that can be sold separately, these new-fangled things call “hybrids” (whatever they are), at least three iron sets, and maybe a wedge.

Oh yeah. Try to be as Tiger-adjacent as possible.

That checklist has been amended over the past 25 years. Maybe the biggest update has been the wedge requirement box. To be a serious contender, you don’t just need wedges; you need a wedge story.

And to have a wedge story, you need sole grinds, more bounces than a YMCA gym on a Saturday morning and more groove than a Miles Davis LP.

(Look him up, kids. The grownups are talking.)

I’m no crystal ball-gazing soothsayer but from the outside looking in, Tour Edge might have finally checked that last box. The new line of Exotics Milled wedges looks like they’ll fill the last big hole in the Tour Edge lineup.

Tour Edge Exotics Milled wedges: What’s the scoop?

We told you a few weeks ago that this year is the first time in memory that we could game a full bag of Tour Edge gear, from driver to putter, ball and bag, and not feel like we’re missing out.

The wedges, however, were still iffy. I generally don’t get worked up over looks, but the previous Wingman wedge line was, uhhh, well, let’s just say they had a nice personality. Serviceable, but way too busy-looking and clunky for my liking.

With the new Exotics Milled line, Tour Edge is finally trending toward wedge playah status. They’re cleaner-looking with less offset and clearer options and a groove story to rival Kind of Blue.

(Oh yes, the obscure reference game is strong today.)

The new Tour Edge Exotics Milled wedges are cast from 304 stainless steel. It’s corrosion resistant, plenty durable and soft-feeling enough. The faces, grooves and sole details are CNC-milled. According to Tour Edge, that process allows for more accuracy and tighter groove tolerances, specifically a tighter edge radius and steeper sidewalls than basic casting or forgings.

Tour Edge has a name for its new grooves: SuperSpin because, well, why not? They feature maximum conforming groove depth and face roughness. They’re also closer together which means there are more grooves on the face than previous models. It’s not unique to Tour Edge as most OEMs are leaning in this direction. The idea, of course, is that more grooves translate to more reliable and consistent spin, especially in wet conditions.

Internal testing: The home team always wins, right?

The running gag here at MyGolfSpy is that the day an OEM doesn’t win its own internal testing against unnamed competitors is the day pigs will actually fly.

Well, time to head to the local airport, friends. The pork is now airborne.

In 40-yard testing with a 56-degree Exotics Milled, both unnamed competitors out-spun the Exotics. Not by much, only 60 and 155 rpm respectively, but the numbers are the numbers. At 70 yards, only one of the competitors beat the Exotics, this time by almost 300 rpm.

In wet testing, however, the Exotics Milled got its revenge. In 40-yard testing, it lost 444 fewer rpm than its closest competitor and 1,600 than the other.

At 70 yards, the gaps were even wider. The Exotics Milled lost less than 950 rpm. The two unnamed competitors lost between 1,600 and 4,000.

“The performance validated the effectiveness of our new groove geometry and increased groove volume,” says Tour Edge R&D VP Matt Neeley. “It delivers the spin consistency golfers need in all playing conditions.”

Again, these tests are set up, conducted and reported by the home team. Every OEM does this and includes them in their launch material. It is refreshing that Tour Edge reported instances where the competitive wedges provided more spin than theirs. The only other instance I can remember was with Cleveland and one of its Turbo Launcher fairway woods. Cleveland reported it had the second-longest carry distance of the clubs tested (meaning someone else was longer) but added that its low spin led to more roll and thus more overall distance.

Context, my friends, is everything.

An honest-to-goodness bounce, grind and sole story

The new Tour Edge Exotics Milled wedge line features three bounce profiles. That may not sound like a big deal but it hasn’t been a staple in Tour Edge’s mainstream offerings. The company does offer a forged Wingman wedge designed in collaboration with Bernhard Langer. That model features three difference sole grinds but with a high-toe design that starts at 52 degrees.

They’re also, as you’ll see, a wee bit beyond the Exotics Milled price point.

First off, the Exotics Milled showcase something Tour Edge is calling the TriGrind Sole. It’s a three-part sole designed for clean turf interaction and greenside versatility. It features a chamfered leading edge to help reduce digging as well as a flatter sole and heavy trailing-edge relief.

There are also three bounce options. Again, they’re the bare minimums for serious wedge offerings but it’s nice to see Tour Edge actually in the discussion.

LB is the low-bounce option. It’s designed for firm turf, tight lies and shallow attack angles. It features extra heel relief for easier open-faced shots. It’s available in the 54-, 58- and 60-degree models.

MB is mid-bounce and is designed for all-around versatility, mixed conditions and neutral attack angles. This is the bounce to get when you don’t know what bounce to get and it available in the full line from 50- to 60-degree lofts.

HB is the high-bounce sole and is engineered for soft turf, fluffy sand and steep attack angles. It’s available in 54- through 60-degree lofts.

Tour Edge Exotics Milled wedges: Thoughts on price

In our piece on the great testing year Tour Edge has experienced, we discussed the price conundrum the company is facing. It’s pricing screams value but its performance screams premium. As much as we love to complain about pricing, our knee-jerk reaction is that if something costs more, it has to be better. The flip side of that argument, of course, is that is something is less expensive, it might be OK, but it can’t be nearly as good as the “real thing.”

For that reason, we will raise our collective right eyebrow at Tour Edge’s asking price for the new Exotics Milled wedges: $110 each.

Tour Edge isn’t going cheap on the stock build, either. For that you get the KBS Hi-Rev 2.0 115-gram shaft and the industry standard Golf Pride Tour Velvet 360 grip.

“A company our size needs to say, ‘Don’t look at the price, just go hit it, get fit and make your decision,” Tour Edge Marketing VP Jon Claffey told us a few weeks ago. “Our marketing brief has been to stop shouting price from the mountaintop. We’re shouting performance. We’ll let the price do its work at checkout.”

In that spirit, let’s put the question to you, fellow GolfSpies. If the performance meets your expectations, would you consider a $110 wedge from Tour Edge alongside a Vokey, Cleveland, PING or Callaway?

Let us know in the comments below. This one should be interesting.

By the way, the new Tour Edge Exotics Milled wedges hit retail and the worldwide web on Sept. 14. For more information, hit up the Tour Edge website.

The post These Are The Best Looking Wedges Tour Edge Has Ever Released. Are They The Brand’s Missing Piece? appeared first on MyGolfSpy.

Broadly, replacement cycles have stretched out across most equipment categories and with that comes a tacit admission that improvements aren’t easy to come by, particularly in a category where the opportunities to meaningfully iterate are limited by material and cost constraints.

It’s also true the performance briefs for Velocity and TruFeel have tightened up and become more focused. The current generation of each is more purpose-built than any version before it. The idea is to lean heavily into what makes each model unique. The tradeoff for that hyperfocus is that it makes year-over-year (or two-year-over-two-year) improvement much harder to achieve.

This stuff takes time so why not let it?

The exception with the performance lineup is Tour Soft. While it’s produced alongside Velocity and TruFeel at Titleist’s Ball Plant 2, Tour Soft is an outlier in Titleist’s ionomer/Surlyn lineup. Titleist describes Tour Soft as the best-kept secret in the golf ball category and, unlike the other two, it remains on a two-year cycle. Where Velocity and TruFeel are built to deliver on a near-singular promise, the objective behind Tour Soft looks to be that of an ionomer ball that convincingly masquerades as high-performance urethane at a lower price (at least within the Titleist ecosystem).

For the most part, Tour Soft’s chameleon act holds up. It consistently defies expectations (at least until it gets close to the green). Two iterations of testing make a compelling case that Tour Soft is among the most complete performance options in the ionomer space.

With introductions out of the way, let’s look a bit more closely at each of the three options within the Titleist performance golf ball lineup.

A quick footnote: the compression values displayed come from our in-house measurements.

Titleist Velocity (90 compression)

Velocity chases distance through speed and lower spin. Compression is speed and in a category that has become increasingly dominated by soft offerings in recent years, Velocity is unapologetically among the firmest ionomer offerings on the shelf. It’s singularly built for distance and that showed at our 100-mph driver condition where Velocity was the longest ball in the field.

Off irons, Velocity is, to an extent, unremarkable, which isn’t a bad thing. Relative to the other models in our 2026 ball test, Velocity is middle of the pack for spin and generally in the upper third for peak height. It’s not a stopping-power machine but it’s not entirely a liability, either.

Like other ionomer offerings, the consequences of the Velocity design show up around the green where the data suggests it creeps up the face a bit more than most and spin is on the low end of the category. For some, that’s disqualifying but, again, Velocity is built for distance (and more distance) and we’ve heard from plenty of golfers who are all but indifferent to greenside spin. Bump and run (and run some more) is how they play the game and, with that approach, Velocity can work.

Titleist TruFeel (70 compression)

TruFeel is, in some respects, the opposite of Velocity. It’s built for feel (specifically, soft feel) but it’s worth mentioning that it’s not among the absolute softest balls on the market. To put numbers on it, at 70 compression, TruFeel sits roughly halfway between Velocity and Callaway Supersoft (on our gauge). The latter is about as soft as a golf ball gets.

How much golfers perceive a 20-point compression difference at the soft end of the market is admittedly a bit of an unknown. Maybe it matters. Maybe it doesn’t. You tell me.

The Titleist approach is one where what you give up at the extreme end of soft feel, you make up for in speed and distance. Under most of our test conditions, TruFeel qualifies as middle of the pack off the driver and it gets longer (relative to the field) as speed drops. At the 85-mph condition, TruFeel finished fourth in total driver distance and third in iron carry. I suppose you could argue that makes it a legitimate distance option for slower swingers who still want something on the softer side.

The other compelling feature of TruFeel is that it flies high. At our high-speed 7-iron condition, it produced the highest peak height of any ball in the test and came down at nearly the steepest angle in the field. Iron spin is generally a tier higher than what the lower-compression stuff produces which suggests TruFeel could be viable for golfers looking for some stopping power on approach shots.

As with the other ionomer offerings, greenside spin is either low or a liability depending on your perspective. For what it’s worth, on our 35-yard shot, TruFeel was the highest-spinning of Titleist’s three ionomer options.

Titleist Tour Soft (88 compression)

Tour Soft captured our attention in the 2025 ball test. In every test, there’s at least one ball that does something that surprises us. Some of those surprises have not been pleasant but in the case of Tour Soft, what we saw was eye-opening (in a good way).

It performed in ways we didn’t think a ball with an ionomer cover could.

Our takeaway is that Tour Soft plays like every bit of a tour ball until the last 100 yards or so (give or take). It occupies the same general compression space as Pro V1 and, for the most part, it behaves like a 90-compression urethane ball. With that, it’s not unreasonable to suggest Tour Soft is, pound-for-pound, the most complete ionomer ball on the market.

Five iterations of ball testing have shown us there’s plenty of difference between models so the point isn’t that everything around 90 compression is the same. The point is that, in most conditions, Tour Soft blends in easily with the top urethane models. There’s nothing in the data to suggest it isn’t one of them, at least not until you get closer to the green.

Across all three driver speeds, Tour Soft was among the fastest and highest-flying ionomer balls we tested. Off high-speed 7-irons, it spun 6,700 rpm, sixth in the field. We saw similar results at other speeds. No other ionomer ball we tested is doing that.

As usual, the ionomer tax comes due with the wedge. A full sand wedge doesn’t match the average urethane ball although it is notably higher than the typical ionomer offering. From 35 yards, Tour Soft spun 4,231 rpm and while I suppose you could argue that’s pretty good for an ionomer ball, it still trails the top urethane models by a good amount.

As I said after our 2025 test, if Tour Soft had a urethane cover, it would be a Pro V1. The greenside performance that can only be achieved with a urethane cover is the only thing missing.

The bottom line is that Tour Soft is for the golfer who wants a quality product with urethane performance through most of the bag and is willing to give up some greenside spin to save 20 bucks.

The quality piece

Most golfers have some inherent sense of performance, even if it amounts to nothing more than being just aware enough to claim they can’t tell the difference. Quality differences are harder to spot. That’s what our Ball Lab is for and it’s where we quantify the quality and consistency of the golf balls you’re buying.

Full disclosure: We haven’t run the current generation of the performance line through Ball Lab but half a decade has taught us that quality is a factory-level feature so there is data we can point to. The headline is that Titleist’s ionomer offerings have historically been best-of-breed relative to the competitive set.

Ball Lab data also suggests a strong correlation between price and quality. Said another way, while we occasionally find a bad urethane offering, the lower portion of our quality rankings is dominated by ionomer models. Manufacturers have admitted that soft balls (more pliable core materials) are more difficult to work with, which leads to more inconsistency. There’s also some suggestion that ionomer as a cover material is harder to mold consistently.

Historically, Titleist’s ionomer has been the exception. Across everything we’ve gauged, Titleist’s ionomer models grade as above average. Most everything else in the ionomer category rates as below average. The reality is that industry-wide, ionomer quality lags behind that of urethane. I won’t go so far as to say Titleist’s ionomer offerings match the consistency of its urethane offerings but the worst balls we’ve measured from Titleist are better than average by the totality of industry standards—urethane included.

This conversation isn’t strictly about performance, even though this is the performance line. The reality is that price invariably brings compromise but with the performance line, Titleist seeks to make the highest-quality, most consistent product at any given price point. Nobody is pretending TruFeel or Velocity is a Pro V1. The point is you’d be hard-pressed to find better-made options below $28. What we’ve seen in the urethane market over the last few years suggests competitors have narrowed the quality gap at the top end. The same can’t be said at the lower end of the market.

That’s not particularly surprising when you consider that Titleist manufactures the performance line in Titleist-owned factories while most of its competitors still outsource their low-cost models to third-party overseas factories.

It doesn’t much matter what industry you’re in, nobody is going to care as much about your product as you do and it’s difficult to control a process you don’t own.

Where each one fits

As we noted in our 2026 Ball Test report, there’s a strong correlation between the price of the ball and greenside spin. It’s the tangible thing that costs more money to bundle in the design.

With that, if your game thrives on short-game spin, none of the three is your answer, and I suspect Titleist would be perfectly happy to tell you as much.

The key takeaway is this: With the lower-cost performance line, Titleist isn’t selling you three versions of the same golf ball at three price points. It’s giving you three unique design options and, to an extent, three sets of compromises. The only question that matters is which compromise you can live with. If the answer is none of them, well, that’s the reason Pro V1, Pro V1x, Left Dash and AVX exist.

Titleist TruFeel, Velocity and Tour Soft are available now. Titleist AIM alignment features are available on every ball in its lineup.

The post Velocity, TruFeel And Tour Soft: A Deep Dive Into Titleist’s Performance Lineup appeared first on MyGolfSpy.

On the heels of our article celebrating the best municipal golf course in each state, I thought it would be cool to rank every state based on their public golf scene.

These are the places where real golfers love to play. You don’t need to know someone to get on to these courses and you don’t have to be the Country Club Hitchhiker begging for a tee time. The courses are open to anyone.

Here is how the list was calculated:

• Top-Tier Quality (25 percent) — This is where we consider the top shelf of public golf courses in each state. Do you have the top-100, world-class standouts? These are the name-brand courses golfers around the country know.

• Accessibility/Cost (25 percent) — A critically important one here. A state can have a bunch of top-tier venues but we need places where the public can get a tee time without mortgaging their children’s college fund. If a state has a tremendous municipal golf system, that goes a long way to providing for golfers. This variable fluctuates wildly and can push some unexpected states up the ranking. Conversely, some obvious frontrunner states *cough California cough* get dinged for lack of accessibility.

• Depth (20 percent) — An underrated but valuable factor is how many solid courses are available to golfers. A few dozen? A couple hundred? More? This one goes hand in hand with the accessibility metric.

• “It Factor” Appeal (15 percent) — A metric I developed in my head (scary, I know). Is your state a destination for golfers? Does it have sex appeal? Does the average golfer dream of traveling there? Does it have a certain brand of golf?

• Variety (15 percent) — Pretty simple one here. Can you play different types of golf in this state or is it all kind of different shades of the same thing? This is highly subjective but we’re looking for a smorgasbord of municipal, resort, daily-fee, treelined, linksy, Golden Age, new age, etc.

Scores for each metric are calculated from 1-10 and then averaged out to create a state score. I then give a quick opinion and explain the scores.

I look forward to some spirited debate here. Did I get your state right? Let me know below in the comments.

50. Alaska

• Top-Tier Quality: 3
• Accessibility/Cost: 4
• Depth: 2
• “It Factor”: 3
• Variety: 6
• TOTAL: 3.5

Hey, no shade at Alaskan golf—it’s just cool that it exists given the short season. There is distinctive scenery and a golf experience unlike any other state. However, the small inventory and absence of nationally recognized public courses make it easily the weakest public golf scene.

49. Delaware

• Top-Tier Quality: 5
• Accessibility/Cost: 6
• Depth: 2
• “It Factor”: 3
• Variety: 4
• TOTAL: 4.2

Bayside provides Delaware with one decent public course that has destination appeal near the coast. Beyond that headliner, the state has very few notable public facilities to compete in quality, depth or variety.

48. Louisiana

• Top-Tier Quality: 4
• Accessibility/Cost: 7
• Depth: 4
• “It Factor”: 3
• Variety: 6
• TOTAL: 4.9

Louisiana has affordable municipal and daily-fee golf, but it lacks both nationally elite courses and meaningful statewide depth. Course closures and a comparatively weak destination identity (what golf destination is even there?) leave it ahead of only Delaware and Alaska.

47. Rhode Island

• Top-Tier Quality: 6
• Accessibility/Cost: 6
• Depth: 3
• “It Factor”: 4
• Variety: 7
• TOTAL: 5.3

Newport National and Donald Ross-designed Triggs Memorial give Rhode Island two credible public headliners. But the state’s small size produces an unavoidable lack of depth, variety and destination infrastructure. Rhode Island’s private golf scene is far more dynamic.

46. Wyoming

• Top-Tier Quality: 5
• Accessibility/Cost: 6
• Depth: 4
• “It Factor”: 5
• Variety: 9
• TOTAL: 5.7

Wyoming offers exceptional scenery and the potential for mountain, prairie and high-desert golf. Sign me up. Much of its best golf is private, however, leaving the public scene thin and without a nationally significant anchor.

45. North Dakota

• Top-Tier Quality: 5
• Accessibility/Cost: 8
• Depth: 4
• “It Factor”: 4
• Variety: 7
• TOTAL: 5.7

The Links of North Dakota and Hawktree provide memorable golf at accessible prices. There are some strong municipal courses. The state’s tiny inventory and remote geography keep it close to the bottom despite having respectable value.

44. Vermont

• Top-Tier Quality: 6
• Accessibility/Cost: 6
• Depth: 4
• “It Factor”: 5
• Variety: 8
• TOTAL: 5.8

Green Mountain National and several charming historic courses give Vermont scenic and varied golf. Its shortage of nationally elite public courses limit both depth and destination appeal.

43. Arkansas

• Top-Tier Quality: 5
• Accessibility/Cost: 8
• Depth: 5
• “It Factor”: 4
• Variety: 6
• TOTAL: 5.8

Arkansas has affordable golf and a few quality choices such as Mystic Creek and its state-park courses. Its modest depth, limited national recognition and lack of a compelling public-golf destination suppress its score.

42. New Jersey

• Top-Tier Quality: 6
• Accessibility/Cost: 5
• Depth: 7
• “It Factor”: 5
• Variety: 6
• TOTAL: 5.8

New Jersey possesses strong county-operated systems and a handful of notable public courses including Atlantic City Country Club. But most of the state’s architectural greatness remains private (Pine Valley, Plainfield, Ridgewood, etc.) while high costs and population pressure can make public play difficult.

41. South Dakota

• Top-Tier Quality: 6
• Accessibility/Cost: 7
• Depth: 4
• “It Factor”: 5
• Variety: 8
• TOTAL: 6

Red Rock and Prairie Green headline a small but visually varied collection of accessible courses. The state’s limited inventory and absence of a world-class public venue keeps it in the bottom 10.

40. Kentucky

• Top-Tier Quality: 5
• Accessibility/Cost: 8
• Depth: 6
• “It Factor”: 4
• Variety: 7
• TOTAL: 6.1

Kentucky has affordable state-park, municipal and daily-fee golf, with Dale Hollow and Lassing Pointe among its better options. There is decent depth and value but no nationally recognized public centerpiece.

39. West Virginia

• Top-Tier Quality: 6
• Accessibility/Cost: 7
• Depth: 5
• “It Factor”: 5
• Variety: 8
• TOTAL: 6.2

The Greenbrier, Stonewall Resort and several state-park courses give West Virginia attractive mountain golf and good variety. But there just isn’t much going on beyond that.

38. Kansas

• Top-Tier Quality: 5
• Accessibility/Cost: 9
• Depth: 6
• “It Factor”: 4
• Variety: 6
• TOTAL: 6.2

Kansas has affordable small-town golf and worthwhile destinations such as Buffalo Dunes and Sand Creek Station. Still, excellent value can’t fully compensate for limited elite quality, modest variety and almost zero national destination appeal.

37. Connecticut

• Top-Tier Quality: 6
• Accessibility/Cost: 7
• Depth: 6
• “It Factor”: 5
• Variety: 7
• TOTAL: 6.3

Connecticut has decent municipal golf through Keney Park, Wintonbury Hills and other affordable local facilities. The state’s famous architectural reputation is overwhelmingly tied to private clubs while Yale’s evolving access situation (and skyrocketing prices) complicates its public-golf crown jewel.

36. Montana

• Top-Tier Quality: 7
• Accessibility/Cost: 5
• Depth: 5
• “It Factor”: 7
• Variety: 9
• TOTAL: 6.4

Montana’s mountain, prairie and high-desert landscapes create spectacular variety with Old Works and Wilderness Club providing notable quality. Significant travel distances and limited access at several leading courses hold it back.

35. Mississippi

• Top-Tier Quality: 7
• Accessibility/Cost: 7
• Depth: 5
• “It Factor”: 6
• Variety: 7
• TOTAL: 6.5

Mossy Oak, Dancing Rabbit and Fallen Oak give Mississippi a stronger top tier than many golfers realize. The state struggles with depth beyond those leading properties and some of its best experiences require resort or casino stays.

34. Oklahoma

• Top-Tier Quality: 6
• Accessibility/Cost: 8
• Depth: 6
• “It Factor”: 5
• Variety: 7
• TOTAL: 6.5

Jimmie Austin is a standout college venue and several affordable municipal courses give Oklahoma a respectable public offering. Strong accessibility cannot completely overcome its limited destination appeal and relatively shallow group of nationally recognized courses.

33. New Hampshire

• Top-Tier Quality: 6
• Accessibility/Cost: 7
• Depth: 6
• “It Factor”: 6
• Variety: 8
• TOTAL: 6.6

Mount Washington and Owl’s Nest lead a scene that also includes several charming historic courses and nine-hole layouts. New Hampshire provides solid value and attractive variety but its elite quality and overall depth remain limited.

32. Idaho

• Top-Tier Quality: 7
• Accessibility/Cost: 6
• Depth: 6
• “It Factor”: 6
• Variety: 9
• TOTAL: 6.7

Circling Raven, Coeur d’Alene Resort (you’ll know it for the floating island green) and several mountain courses give Idaho impressive scenery and good top-end quality. The state’s relatively small and geographically dispersed inventory keeps it from becoming a major national destination.

31. Hawaii

• Top-Tier Quality: 8
• Accessibility/Cost: 3
• Depth: 6
• “It Factor”: 9
• Variety: 10
• TOTAL: 6.8

Hawaii has unforgettable oceanfront scenery, major resort names and a style of golf unavailable anywhere else in the country. High prices, limited affordable options and the need to travel between islands make the overall public scene far less accessible than its reputation suggests.

30. Maine

• Top-Tier Quality: 7
• Accessibility/Cost: 6
• Depth: 6
• “It Factor”: 7
• Variety: 9
• TOTAL: 6.9

A surprise here. Belgrade Lakes, Sugarloaf and Sunday River provide Maine with scenic, characterful public golf in distinctive natural settings. It’s not in the upper echelon of golf states but Maine packs a punch.

29. Nevada

• Top-Tier Quality: 9
• Accessibility/Cost: 3
• Depth: 6
• “It Factor”: 9
• Variety: 9
• TOTAL: 6.9

Shadow Creek, Cascata, Wolf Creek and the Paiute courses give Nevada tremendous name recognition and visual drama. Extremely high prices and a scene heavily concentrated around Las Vegas severely weaken its accessibility and depth scores.

28. Massachusetts

• Top-Tier Quality: 7
• Accessibility/Cost: 6
• Depth: 7
• “It Factor”: 7
• Variety: 8
• TOTAL: 6.9

Massachusetts combines historic municipal architecture, coastal golf and quality daily-fee courses such as George Wright and Crumpin-Fox. Restricted depth and relatively high costs prevent the public golf in the state from fully capitalizing on its rich golf history.

27. Georgia

• Top-Tier Quality: 7
• Accessibility/Cost: 6
• Depth: 7
• “It Factor”: 7
• Variety: 8
• TOTAL: 6.9

Reynolds Lake Oconee, McLemore, Sea Island and Bobby Jones G.C. give Georgia several compelling public experiences. However, the state’s world-famous golf reputation is primarily built around Augusta National and other private clubs (Peachtree, East Lake, Ohoopee) rather than its public offerings.

26. Maryland

• Top-Tier Quality: 7
• Accessibility/Cost: 7
• Depth: 7
• “It Factor”: 6
• Variety: 8
• TOTAL: 7

Bulle Rock, Whiskey Creek and Queenstown Harbor are supported by excellent county-operated golf systems around Baltimore and Washington. Maryland performs solidly in every category but lacks an especially dominant strength or national golf identity.

25. Illinois

• Top-Tier Quality: 7
• Accessibility/Cost: 7
• Depth: 8
• “It Factor”: 6
• Variety: 7
• TOTAL: 7.1

Chicago and its surrounding counties provide Illinois with a deep collection of municipal and daily-fee courses led by Cog Hill, Cantigny and ThunderHawk. The state has some good accessibility but lacks the scenery and destination appeal of higher-ranked Midwestern competitors.

24. Missouri

• Top-Tier Quality: 8
• Accessibility/Cost: 6
• Depth: 6
• “It Factor”: 8
• Variety: 8
• TOTAL: 7.1

Big Cedar Lodge gives Missouri a compelling collection of nationally recognizable destination courses. The broader public scene is less accomplished and less deep, leaving the state heavily dependent upon the Ozarks region.

23. Ohio

• Top-Tier Quality: 6
• Accessibility/Cost: 9
• Depth: 8
• “It Factor”: 5
• Variety: 7
• TOTAL: 7.2

Ohio has awesome municipal and daily-fee depth, making quality golf affordable throughout its major population centers. Cleveland alone has several tremendous options. Its low “It Factor” and absence of a famous public destination keep it from matching its stronger private golf reputation.

22. New Mexico

• Top-Tier Quality: 8
• Accessibility/Cost: 7
• Depth: 6
• “It Factor”: 7
• Variety: 9
• TOTAL: 7.4

Paako Ridge, Black Mesa, Twin Warriors and the University of New Mexico Championship Course provide distinctive, high-quality desert golf. Its strong value and visual variety are offset slightly by lack of depth and considerable travel between destinations but New Mexico is generally undervalued as a golf destination.

21. Iowa

• Top-Tier Quality: 6
• Accessibility/Cost: 10
• Depth: 8
• “It Factor”: 5
• Variety: 7
• TOTAL: 7.4

Iowa’s affordable nine-hole courses give it exceptional accessibility and remarkable small-town depth. Spirit Hollow, Blue Top Ridge and The Preserve add quality but the state has limited national prestige and destination appeal.

20. Colorado

• Top-Tier Quality: 7
• Accessibility/Cost: 6
• Depth: 8
• “It Factor”: 8
• Variety: 9
• TOTAL: 7.4

Colorado has resort, mountain, prairie and Front Range golf in dramatically different settings. But its top shelf is not quite as accomplished as its scenery suggests and high-season pricing reduces its accessibility. Projects like Rodeo Dunes could boost the state in future rankings.

19. Pennsylvania

• Top-Tier Quality: 7
• Accessibility/Cost: 8
• Depth: 8
• “It Factor”: 6
• Variety: 8
• TOTAL: 7.5

Pennsylvania has strong daily-fee depth, historic architecture and numerous affordable municipal and county-operated courses. It lacks a nationally dominant public destination—it has a sterling private golf reputation, of course—but the overall experience available to residents is consistently good.

18. Indiana

• Top-Tier Quality: 7
• Accessibility/Cost: 9
• Depth: 8
• “It Factor”: 6
• Variety: 7
• TOTAL: 7.6

An underrated golf state. French Lick, The Fort, Purgatory and Sultan’s Run headline a deep collection of affordable public courses. Indiana lacks the scenery and destination reputation of higher-ranked states on this list but it performs extremely well in accessibility and value.

17. Nebraska

• Top-Tier Quality: 9
• Accessibility/Cost: 6
• Depth: 6
• “It Factor”: 9
• Variety: 9
• TOTAL: 7.7

Landmand, Wild Horse and the Prairie Club give Nebraska extraordinary architectural quality and appeal relative to its population. Limited depth, long travel distances and scarce tee times at Landmand prevent the state from ranking even higher.

16. Texas

• Top-Tier Quality: 8
• Accessibility/Cost: 6
• Depth: 9
• “It Factor”: 8
• Variety: 9
• TOTAL: 7.9

Texas gets more flack than it deserves. The Lone Star State has substantial depth, geographic variety and improving top-end quality through PGA Frisco, Memorial Park, Lajitas and numerous municipal systems. The downside is that its enormous size makes the best courses difficult to combine into one trip and several premium facilities remain expensive.

15. Arizona

• Top-Tier Quality: 9
• Accessibility/Cost: 5
• Depth: 9
• “It Factor”: 9
• Variety: 8
• TOTAL: 7.9

We-Ko-Pa, Troon North, Quintero and Grayhawk give Arizona an elite and exceptionally deep desert-golf scene. It’s still a top-tier golf trip destination. Peak-season prices and relative stylistic similarity keep it close with the more accessible but less prestigious Alabama (see below).

14. Alabama

• Top-Tier Quality: 7
• Accessibility/Cost: 9
• Depth: 8
• “It Factor”: 7
• Variety: 8
• TOTAL: 7.9

The Robert Trent Jones Golf Trail gives Alabama an extensive network of affordable, consistently good courses distributed throughout the state. It lacks a universally recognized top-100 public headliner but few states serve the ordinary traveling golfer more effectively. It’s my most underrated golf travel destination.

13. Virginia

• Top-Tier Quality: 8
• Accessibility/Cost: 7
• Depth: 8
• “It Factor”: 8
• Variety: 9
• TOTAL: 7.9

Primland, the Homestead, Golden Horseshoe and Royal New Kent give Virginia an impressive mixture of resort history and modern architecture. Its overall public inventory is strong and varied although several of its leading courses require expensive resort-style trips.

12. Tennessee

• Top-Tier Quality: 8
• Accessibility/Cost: 8
• Depth: 7
• “It Factor”: 8
• Variety: 9
• TOTAL: 8

Tennessee’s public scene includes destination-worthy nine-hole courses, accessible state-park golf, strong municipal systems and quality daily-fee facilities. Sweetens Cove, Sewanee and the state’s geographic variety elevate it beyond what its national reputation might suggest.

11. Oregon

• Top-Tier Quality: 10
• Accessibility/Cost: 5
• Depth: 7
• “It Factor”: 10
• Variety: 9
• TOTAL: 8

Bandon Dunes makes Oregon one of the world’s most desirable public-golf destinations and gives the state unmatched top-end credibility. Oregon falls outside the top 10 because much of that reputation is concentrated at one remote and increasingly expensive resort.

10. Utah

• Top-Tier Quality: 8
• Accessibility/Cost: 8
• Depth: 7
• “It Factor”: 8
• Variety: 10
• TOTAL: 8.1

Utah combines Sand Hollow, Black Desert and Soldier Hollow with affordable municipal golf and spectacular scenery. Its bench of elite facilities is not as deep as those of the states above it but few states offer a better mixture of value, variety and visual appeal.

9. New York

• Top-Tier Quality: 9
• Accessibility/Cost: 7
• Depth: 8
• “It Factor”: 8
• Variety: 9
• TOTAL: 8.2

Bethpage, Turning Stone, Saratoga Spa and a deep collection of municipal courses give New York both prestige and everyday options. Its public golf is somewhat geographically scattered but the state offers excellent architectural and landscape variety.

8. Florida

• Top-Tier Quality: 9
• Accessibility/Cost: 5
• Depth: 10
• “It Factor”: 9
• Variety: 9
• TOTAL: 8.2

Florida offers an enormous inventory spanning championship resorts, PGA Tour venues, municipal courses and affordable daily-fee facilities. The scene loses points because many of its most desirable courses are expensive, private or attached to costly resort experiences—but Florida’s depth is unmatched.

7. California

• Top-Tier Quality: 10
• Accessibility/Cost: 3
• Depth: 10
• “It Factor”: 10
• Variety: 10
• TOTAL: 8.3

California has an unrivaled collection of famous public courses including Pebble Beach, Spyglass Hill, Pasatiempo, Torrey Pines and Rustic Canyon. Its extraordinary prices and difficult tee times prevent its perfect quality, depth, variety and appeal scores from producing a higher ranking.

6. Washington

• Top-Tier Quality: 9
• Accessibility/Cost: 7
• Depth: 8
• “It Factor”: 9
• Variety: 10
• TOTAL: 8.5

Chambers Bay, Gamble Sands, Wine Valley and Gold Mountain provide Washington with an excellent and architecturally diverse top tier. Mountain, coastal, desert and parkland settings give it tremendous variety without making the entire scene prohibitively expensive.

5. North Carolina

• Top-Tier Quality: 9
• Accessibility/Cost: 7
• Depth: 9
• “It Factor”: 9
• Variety: 9
• TOTAL: 8.5

Pinehurst, Tobacco Road and the broader Sandhills region give North Carolina one of America’s most recognizable public-golf identities. Strong coastal and mountain options add variety although some of the premium resort pricing keeps its accessibility score below the top four finishers.

4. South Carolina

• Top-Tier Quality: 9
• Accessibility/Cost: 6
• Depth: 10
• “It Factor”: 10
• Variety: 9
• TOTAL: 8.6

South Carolina has a major-championship venue (Kiawah Island), a PGA Tour venue (Harbour Town) and enormous inventories around Myrtle Beach and Hilton Head. Costs can be high at its most famous properties but the quality, depth and destination appeal remain outstanding. New offerings like Candyroot Lodge add to an already bustling public golf scene.

3. Minnesota

• Top-Tier Quality: 8
• Accessibility/Cost: 9
• Depth: 9
• “It Factor”: 8
• Variety: 9
• TOTAL: 8.6

Minnesota’s strength comes from its remarkable depth of affordable public golf including Giants Ridge, The Wilderness, Deacon’s Lodge and an excellent collection of municipal courses throughout the state. It lacks Wisconsin’s national name recognition but has virtually no weakness as an everyday public-golf state.

2. Wisconsin

• Top-Tier Quality: 10
• Accessibility/Cost: 6
• Depth: 9
• “It Factor”: 10
• Variety: 9
• TOTAL: 8.7

Wisconsin possesses arguably the country’s strongest top shelf of public golf led by Sand Valley, Whistling Straits, Erin Hills, Blackwolf Run, Lawsonia and SentryWorld. Premium pricing prevents it from taking first but its concentration of world-class public golf and enormous destination appeal are nearly unmatched.

1. Michigan

• Top-Tier Quality: 9
• Accessibility/Cost: 9
• Depth: 10
• “It Factor”: 9
• Variety: 10
• TOTAL: 9.4

Michigan is No. 1 by a country mile. The state earns the top spot because Arcadia Bluffs, Forest Dunes, The Loop, Greywalls, Boyne and its many strong daily-fee courses give it exceptional statewide depth. It combines destination-level quality with reasonable prices, varied landscapes and more accessible tee times than most elite golf states.

So that’s the list. What stands out? Which states should be higher or lower?

Let me know in the comments.

The post The Best Public Golf States (Ranked 1-50) appeared first on MyGolfSpy.

Since that moment, I’ve been champing at the bit to tell you all about it. Because the new CHEF RX RS shoe from PAYNTR is the pinnacle of what the performance footwear brand is about.

Yeah, the Eighty Seven SC is one heck of a shoe. But PAYTNR has really outdone themselves with the CHEF RX RS.

The foundational idea behind the creation of the CHEF RX RS was to match Lee’s explosive athleticism without sacrificing style, something that the budding superstar is known for.

How do you blend fashion and function? It all starts with the build. And, as you know by now, PAYNTR spares no expense when it comes to building a golf shoe.

The brand’s tagline doesn’t read“performance multiplied … but only if we can hit margins”.

PAYNTR focuses on performance first, no expense spared. They typically figure out the cost structure downstream. Rather than give themselves a budget of say, $200, they set out to build the best shoe possible and then figure out what it costs to make.

Because of this golfer-first approach, PAYNTR tends to pack each of its shoes with cutting-edge tech. The CHEF RX RS is no different.

It boasts a full-grain leather upper. A knit tongue and bootie. A PMXNITROGEN+ footbed and PMXFOAM midsole (fancy words for proprietary foam compounds, the same used in all of PAYNTR’s flagship footwear). The spiked traction that continues to perform in Most Wanted footwear testing.

And, of course, PAYNTR’s PMXSpeed PLT, a propulsion plate that provides torsional support and energy return.

All in all? A shoe fit for a chef. Err, a golfer. One that just happens to go by the nickname Chef Woozy.

You can shop the new PAYNTR CHEF RX RS starting today.

The post PAYNTR’s CHEF RX RS Has Me Feeling Woozy appeared first on MyGolfSpy.

Wilson Keeps Showing Up

Premium golf ball conversations tend to orbit the same familiar names. Wilson rarely leads that conversation, but MyGolfSpy’s test data keeps making a case that it should.

That makes Wilson an unusual underdog. It has the history and resources of a major golf company but nowhere near the premium-ball visibility of Titleist, Callaway, TaylorMade or Bridgestone. On store shelves and first tees, golfers often treat those brands as the safe choices. The results suggest Wilson deserves the same consideration.

The 2026 Staff Model family arrived with a bold claim printed on the Staff Model X box: “WORLD’S FASTEST URETHANE BALL.” We selected three Forum members to see whether the balls could back it up. JFish350 tested Staff Model, Moose6365 tested Staff Model X and boylerz1 received TRK360 versions of both models. Their handicaps ranged from 17.2 to 1.8, with driver speeds between roughly 105 and 115 mph.

The Ball Test Backdrop

Wilson already had a strong statistical résumé. In 2021, Staff Model produced the second-fastest ball speed tested, missing the leader by 0.01 mph. Staff Model X later tied for third in ball speed at 115 mph and finished runner-up in the 2025 short-game category.

The 2026 Ball Test made the underdog case harder to ignore. At high driver speed, Staff Model X was statistically inseparable from Callaway Chrome Tour X, Chrome Tour Triple Diamond and Maxfli Tour X atop the speed chart. Both Wilsons reached the top statistical group at the middle speed, while Staff Model X was fastest at the lowest driver speed. The Wilson pair also finished level as the two fastest high-speed 7-iron balls, although 10 models were statistically tied.

Wilson was not merely competitive for its price or good for an overlooked brand. It was sharing the leading groups with the premium category’s biggest names. The Forum test showed what that performance looked like in golfers’ hands.

Staff Model X: Softer, Fast and Ready for the Bag

Moose6365 had played the prior Staff Model X and noticed the biggest change immediately. “The new 2026 version is definitely a touch softer and much more in line with other brands’ ‘X’ balls,” he wrote. On chips and pitches, he preferred “a little more give in terms of feel and feedback.”

Wilson lowered Staff Model X to 100 compression, about six points softer than its predecessor, seeking better sound and feel without losing its defining speed.

In Moose6365’s Trackman session, Staff Model X was generally “1-2 mph faster” than Pro V1x with a 7-iron, though Pro V1x reversed the result with the driver. With most spin readings estimated, he did not overstate the conclusion.

Then came the test that mattered. After forgetting his golf shoes and playing in loafers, Moose6365 shot 75 with an eagle and four birdies. He used one ball for all 18 holes. “Everything you’d expect [from] a premium ‘X’ ball, the Wilson did not disappoint,” he said.

When asked whether Wilson would remain his gamer, there was no hesitation: “For me, absolutely. I have over six dozen new balls from various manufacturers and the Wilsons are getting the play.”

Staff Model: Long and Predictable

JFish350 tested the softer, 90-compression Staff Model. His three longest drives of the season with it measured 294, 292 and 296 yards. More important was the flight: “These balls just don’t take wild left or right turns.”

That stability held up in a windy tournament. On a downhill 112-yard par 3 with a strong diagonal breeze, he expected a slightly thin gap wedge to finish short and right. Instead, it held its line and finished on the fringe about 20 feet away.

“The Wilson Staff ball holds its own against any of the big-dollar name-brand balls out there,” he concluded. He added that it would “give any of those other name-brand balls a run for their money in distance with a driver.”

JFish350 could not consistently spin it backward, so he played for two to four feet of release. “I can play to 10-yard dispersion,” he said. “The rollout of two to three feet with the Wilson is just fine for me.”

TRK360 Shines Around the Green

Boylerz1 compared TRK360 versions of both balls with Pro V1x and Bridgestone VS Black. The full-circumference alignment graphic immediately suited a golfer who normally draws his own line. “It is simple but useful,” he said. “It was nice and convenient for it to already be there.”

“The Staff Model (and Model X) really shined with the putter,” he wrote. The line made aiming easier and showed whether a putt rolled end over end. Both earned 10 out of 10.

Both earned 9.5 for wedges and short game. Staff Model felt soft and matched Pro V1x and VS Black. Staff Model X felt firmer and spun a little more, echoing its runner-up finish in the 2025 short-game test.

Both Wilsons earned 9 out of 10 with the driver. They gave up roughly three yards in his best comparisons, but good drives on the course were “just as long as any other ball I’ve tried.”

Where the Testers Disagreed

The disagreement may have been the most useful part of the test. JFish350 and Moose6365 repeatedly described straight, stable flight. Boylerz1 struggled with the Wilsons in the wind.

His 6-iron spin was roughly 500 to 1,000 rpm below Pro V1x and VS Black. Calm-condition stopping power was adequate, but wind made the flight unpredictable. “My only real negative that I noticed was lower spin rates with mid and long irons,” he said.

Even so, boylerz1 scored Staff Model 9.125 out of 10 and Staff Model X 8.875. He preferred the softer Staff Model and would consider playing it when wind was not a major factor, but neither displaced Pro V1x for competitive rounds.

That contrast is why Ball Test data and player testing belong together. The 2026 test showed Staff Model X flying relatively flat at high driver speed but higher at lower speeds. Those are tendencies, not guarantees. Delivery and preferred window determine fit.

The Verdict

Staff Model is the softer, more balanced option. JFish350 found excellent driver distance and a flight that resisted big curves. Boylerz1 praised its Goldilocks iron feel: “Not clicky or hard but also not a marshmallow. It was just right.”

Staff Model X remains the speed-first choice but the 2026 version is easier on the ears and hands. Moose6365 loved the softer feel and chose it over a sizable collection of premium balls. The Ball Test supplied the broader evidence, placing it at or near the front of the speed tables across multiple driver conditions.

TRK360 proved more than decoration. For golfers who already mark an alignment line, it saves a step. Its visible end-over-end roll can also expose a poor putt immediately.

The conclusion is not that everyone should replace a Pro V1, Chrome Tour or TP5. It is that Wilson belongs in the same fitting conversation. The data says its balls can match the leaders for speed. Our testers found them controllable, durable and excellent around the green. Two found new gamers; the third found a strong ball that did not quite fit his wind flight.

Wilson may still be the premium-ball underdog, but it is not an underdog on performance. Based on the data and this Forum test, these balls should be in more golfers’ bags—and at minimum in far more head-to-head tests.

The post Wilson Staff Model Golf Balls: The Data Says Fast. Our Testers Found More. appeared first on MyGolfSpy.

Those are more or less the exact words I uttered back in January at the PGA Show when I got my first look at the newly announced Sun Day Red Osprey Suede.

Nine long months later, they are finally here, and backed by an extensive fall-ready apparel capsule that I couldn’t be more excited for.

The Sun Day Red Osprey is already one of my favorite golf sneakers on the market right now. So dressing it down (err, up) in buttery suede is like finding a prize at the bottom of your favorite cereal box.

Speaking of breakfast, the Sun Day Red Osprey Suede is accompanied by a wardrobe of fall staples that Sun Day Red is dubbing the Quilt & Coffee Collection.

The name of the game is lightweight warmth. Quilted layers for the brisk morning rounds, and lightweight merino wool for when it warms up just a smidgen.

And of course, everything is drenched in a gorgeous array of seasonal tonals like brown, burgundy and forest green.

Yeah, I’ll be living in this collection all fall.

You can shop the new fall/winter staples, including the Osprey Suede, starting today at sundayred.com.

The post Sun Day Red Drops New Fall Collection, Highlighted By Gorgeous Suede Osprey Golf Shoe appeared first on MyGolfSpy.

Some cost $170, others $200 and one of the most expensive models lands at roughly $600. If you’re not extremely well-versed in golf technology, you may not know what to look for. Luckily for you, we know exactly what separates an affordable golf GPS from a premium model.

One gets the job done while the other gets the job done and much more. Think Toyota Corolla versus Porsche 911 Turbo. Both vehicles take you from point A to point B. One just does it with a lot more … pizzazz.

Should you spend $600 on the Porsche 911 Turbo of handheld golf GPS devices—or should you stick with the ol’ reliable Toyota Corolla?

In this case, the Porsche 911 Turbo is the Garmin Approach G82 while the Toyota Corolla is the Shot Scope H50.

Let’s find out.

Accuracy

In terms of accuracy, the Garmin Approach G82 and Shot Scope H50 performed similarly, notching 13.5 out of 15 points in the category. If you prefer letter grades, both models received an A-minus.

The Approach G82 and H50 went toe to toe, finishing within one yard of each other across a variety of distances. Only a couple models were more accurate, proving that accuracy is still a focal point with the golf GPS ecosystem.

If accuracy is your top priority when buying a handheld golf GPS, both models are worth considering.

Display

Once again, the G82 and H50 go head to head, scoring 19.25 out of 20 (A-grade).

The H50 features an AMOLED display while the G82 uses a transflective color touchscreen. Both are good for different reasons.

G82: Better visibility in direct sunlight.

H50: More vibrant but generally harder to view in direct sunlight.

If you prefer a more vibrant display, pick the H50. If you prioritize screen visibility when it’s bright outside, the G82 will suit you much better.

Functionality

The G82 wins the functionality category due to its consistent ease of use.

Like the rest of the Garmin catalog, the G82 is extremely easy to use and offers simple phone connectivity. If getting new technology set up and figured out has been a problem for you in the past, the G82 will be a refreshing change.

The H50 was fine but struggled with consistent connectivity. Although it comes with more than 42,000 preloaded courses, the device runs slower when your phone isn’t connected, negatively affecting the overall experience.

If functionality and ease of use are priorities for you, the G82 is the clear winner.

Features

We’ve reached the boiling point. This section will make your final decision crystal clear.

Both the G82 and H50 have a few main features that improve your experience such as:

• Front, middle and back distances
• Preloaded courses
• Touchscreen displays
• Digital scorecards

Now that I’ve listed the simple overlapping features, it’s time to chat about what makes the G82 greater—and $400 more expensive:

A built-in launch monitor.

That’s right, the G82 contains a built-in launch monitor that gives you ball speed, club head speed, smash factor and tempo. Those four metrics alone are enough for meaningful training and optimized performance. It’s got everything you need if you’re hoping to dial in your golf game.

So the answer is simple.

If you’re searching for a handheld golf GPS that performs the basic functions a handheld golf GPS should, the Shot Scope H50 is a better option at a fraction of the price.

If you need that and more, the Garmin Approach G82 will perform all the basic functions while also offering a built-in launch monitor to help you dial in your game even more.

Long story short: the Shot Scope H50 is perfect for the golfer looking for a traditional golf GPS; the Garmin Approach G82 is the best all-in-one option and the best overall handheld golf GPS.

The post You Can Spend $600 On A Handheld Golf GPS—But Should You? Here’s What Our Testing Found appeared first on MyGolfSpy.

But it also made me wonder if there was more to the decision than simply saying, “You’re a player’s distance golfer.” What happens if I put player’s iron in the bag instead?

I’ve played player’s irons before although it was a long time ago. They were shorter and less forgiving when I missed the center of the face.

So I dug into MyGolfSpy testing data to see what happens when the same golfers hit player’s irons and player’s distance irons. Instead of limiting this to 2026, we went back through every year where we had enough crossover between the two tests to make a useful comparison.

Here’s what we ended up with:

• Eight test years between 2018 and 2026
• 88 matched golfer comparisons
• 102,244 shots
• Only golfers who tested both categories in the same year were included

We aren’t comparing one group of player’s iron testers to an entirely different group of player’s distance testers. Each golfer is being compared against themselves, using the same ball and hitting both categories in the same year.

How much distance do player’s distance irons really add?

The basic answer is about six yards with the longer irons and closer to four yards with the pitching wedge.

The 5-iron gained 6.2 yards of carry, the 7-iron gained 6.3 and the pitching wedge gained 3.7. Across the set, that works out to roughly 3.5 percent more carry.

Six yards in an iron matters. But it’s worth keeping that gain in perspective. We aren’t finding 15 or 20 yards simply because the iron falls into a different category.

With the 7-iron, 84 of the 88 matched comparisons produced more distance with the player’s distance iron. Ninety-five percent gained at least some distance, 60 percent gained more than five yards and only five percent ended up shorter.

The analysis estimates that roughly 70 percent of the extra carry comes from additional ball speed. The rest comes from a flatter, lower-spinning flight.

Stronger lofts are part of the equation but there’s more to it

Player’s distance irons delivered less loft at impact, launched lower and spun less. With the 7-iron, delivered loft was 1.90 degrees lower, launch was 0.98 degrees lower and spin dropped by 412 rpm.

Stronger lofts are clearly helping create some of the distance. The more interesting question is whether the stronger lofts explain all of it.

We can use the golfer’s own data set to get an idea of what should happen if loft were the entire reason for the additional distance. Moving from one iron to the next stronger club tells us how much distance that golfer normally gains and how much height, launch, landing angle and spin they normally give up in exchange.

The player’s distance gain with the longer irons was worth roughly six-tenths of a club. If the distance increase came purely from stronger loft, peak height should have dropped by 0.95 yards. It dropped by just 0.18. Landing angle should have become 1.51 degrees shallower. The measured change was 0.88 degrees.

The additional ball speed player’s distance irons provide is helping recover much of the flight you would expect to lose from stronger loft.

Spin is the exception. The predicted loss was 360 rpm and the measured loss was 354 rpm so when it comes to spin, you’re paying almost the entire price you would expect.

What do those six extra yards cost?

The extra yards are helpful but do they come at a cost?

With the 7-iron, player’s distance irons produced 6.3 extra yards of carry and 2.51 mph more ball speed. In exchange, spin dropped 412 rpm, landing angle became 0.92 degrees shallower and the overall shot pattern grew by about 14 percent. Peak height did not change measurably.

I think that last part is important because a lot of golfers assume the trade for more iron distance is a much flatter ball flight that won’t hold a green. The data doesn’t really show that.

Peak height didn’t change measurably with either the 5-iron or 7-iron. The player’s distance pitching wedge was slightly higher while landing angle became about 0.9 degrees shallower with the 5- and 7-iron and showed essentially no change at the pitching wedge.

The loss of height and landing angle is considerably less than I would have expected.

The accuracy tradeoff may matter more

With both the 5-iron and 7-iron, the overall shot pattern grew by about 14 percent with the player’s distance irons. Most of that additional dispersion was lateral. Carry consistency also slipped slightly, by about a quarter of a yard. With the pitching wedge, there was no meaningful accuracy penalty.

That gives us a pretty clear trade at the longer end of the set. You gain about six yards but your overall shot pattern becomes roughly 14 percent larger. At the scoring end, you gain less distance but the accuracy penalty essentially disappears.

Player’s distance irons can change your wedge gaps

The distance gain is not equal throughout the set. You gain 6.2 yards with the 5-iron but only 3.7 with the pitching wedge so the same number of clubs ends up covering slightly more total distance.

The bigger issue is what happens below the pitching wedge. If your old pitching wedge carries 123 yards and the player’s distance pitching wedge carries 127, the wedges already in your bag haven’t changed. Those four extra yards get added directly to the gap between your pitching wedge and the next wedge.

Thirty-six percent of golfers in this analysis gained more than five yards with the pitching wedge. On a normal 12- to 15-yard gap, adding another four or five yards can make that gap noticeably larger.

If you move into player’s distance irons, checking the bottom of the set should be part of the fitting.

How this looks at the club level

The averages make player’s distance irons look pretty clearly longer. Once we start comparing individual models, there’s more overlap.

With the 7-iron, the longest player’s iron a golfer tested was essentially even with the typical player’s distance iron. The shortest player’s distance iron was 6.8 yards behind the longest player’s iron for that same golfer. We also found that about 12 percent of player’s irons out-carried the player’s distance category average at the 7-iron.

The important takeaway here is that a well-matched player’s iron can give you similar distance while potentially changing some of the other tradeoffs we found. The specific head still matters.

Does swing speed change anything?

The 7-iron testers ranged from 80 to 93 mph and there was only a 1.6-yard difference in the player’s distance gain between the slowest and fastest swingers.

There was no meaningful relationship between swing speed and the distance advantage with the 5-iron, 7-iron or pitching wedge. Within the swing-speed range represented in this testing, faster players weren’t getting significantly more benefit from the category than slower players.

The 2026 gap was the smallest we’ve seen

Player’s distance irons on average were just 2.8 yards longer with the long irons in 2026. That is less than half the 6.6-yard average from the previous seven tests. The gap had reached 7.9 yards in 2023 and 7.8 in 2024 before dropping to 5.6 yards in 2025 and then 2.8 in 2026.

It’s tempting to say the categories are starting to converge but we don’t have enough evidence for that yet. Five golfers who participated in 2026 also appeared in at least one earlier year. Those same golfers gained about 3.5 fewer yards from player’s distance irons in 2026 than they had previously.

Maybe player’s irons are getting faster. Maybe the player’s distance models tested this year weren’t pushing distance as aggressively. Maybe it was simply the particular mix of products. We can’t answer that yet but a 2.8-yard gap after years of seeing five to eight yards is something worth watching.

Final thoughts

Player’s distance irons are longer as a category. After looking at more than 100,000 shots, I think the better takeaway is that the category name is only the starting point of your next fitting. There’s a good chance some of the irons that would be a good fit for your game are categorized in a way that would otherwise make you ignore them. Use all the data you can to put the best tools in your golf bag.

The post How Much Farther Do Player’s Distance Irons Go? We Looked At 102,000 Shots! appeared first on MyGolfSpy.

It sure as hell looked like he did. A high-definition, slow-mo replay appears to show that the sand beneath his club was disturbed ever so slightly.

We can argue the merits of whether such a penalty should exist for grounding your club in a bunker, but it is a penalty. Did it affect his shot? Highly doubtful. Did he touch the sand? It looks like it.

And, yet, no penalty was given. The PGA Tour decided there was not sufficient evidence to say Hovland grounded his club and Hovland didn’t call a penalty on himself.

It led to a lot of confusion because many fans didn’t realize the Tour relies on a “naked-eye standard” that protects players against being overly scrutinized through slow-motion replay.

It’s yet another example of golf’s vague, frustrating and strange TV replay system that needs to be formalized.

Should Hovland have been penalized for something nobody could see?

After Hovland hit his greenside bunker shot on the par-4 13th, CBS showed an enlarged, slow-motion view of Hovland’s club hovering just above the sand. The closer the broadcast looked, the more it became apparent we were splitting literal grains of sand coming up with this ruling.

Analyst Trevor Immelman watched one replay and said what most of us were thinking: “Ooh, that looks pretty close right there.”

It was, in fact, very tight. Tour rules official Mark Dusbabek soon joined the broadcast and said the Tour had received “multiple inquiries” about a possible violation and reviewed the footage.

“It does not appear to us that he has touched the sand,” Dusbabek said.

Hovland bogeyed the hole, shot 72 and ultimately finished three strokes behind Scottie Scheffler so it didn’t matter much in the context of the tournament.

But the whole scene left me with a sour taste in my mouth.

Hovland touched the sand. Under a literal reading of Rule 12.2b, touching the sand immediately behind the ball is a penalty regardless of intent or competitive advantage. That happened.

The issue I have here is that standard, normal-speed video would absolutely never pick up a violation like this and the use of slow-motion replay is muddying the waters of what the ruling should be.

A fan sees the slow-motion video and sees a penalty. But the naked-eye standard says this is not a penalty.

The slow-mo shouldn’t even be a factor here, in my opinion.

Golf is a game of honor where you call penalties on yourself. In my eyes, this was only a penalty if Hovland said it was a penalty or we have very obvious video evidence that the naked eye should have caught the infraction.

Golf’s review process is so convoluted

In an NFL, NHL or whatever game you are watching, rulings are made based on slow-motion replays. It happened or it didn’t. There can be doubt about whether a receiver’s foot is on the out-of-bounds line or whether a puck has crossed the goal line but there is a regulated process.

When golf pulls out this ridiculous slow-motion replay (which happens way too often), it reinforces an uncomfortable problem: Professional golf has replay review but doesn’t have a transparent replay-review system.

Fans were never told who submitted the “multiple inquiries.” Did they come from on-course officials, the Tour’s designated video monitor, CBS personnel or people reacting to the footage online? Were Tour officials already reviewing the incident before CBS began showing it repeatedly? Was Hovland informed on the course that he was under review?

We’re all just left in the dark on all of this. Golf is the only sport I can name where replay review is so nebulous, fickle and without reasonable boundaries.

Golf has spent years attempting to solve its TV ruling problem. The sport’s most infamous rulings once came from viewers who called or emailed tournaments after noticing possible violations from their living rooms, a hilarious thought in the year of our Lord 2026.

The most memorable example occurred at the 2017 ANA Inspiration when Lexi Thompson received four penalty strokes during the final round for incorrectly replacing her ball the previous day and then signing an inaccurate scorecard. A television viewer had contacted a tournament official late.

It created unforgettable television but Thompson was done dirty by the timing and structure of the process.

Beginning in 2018, major tours stopped accepting viewer call-ins as part of the rules-decision process and assigned officials to monitor tournament broadcasts. At that time, the naked-eye standard limited the use of enhanced video. If a possible violation could not reasonably have been detected without high-definition cameras, extreme magnification or slow motion, the footage should not be used to hold a player to an impossible standard.

This explains the Hovland ruling but why did we go through this whole song and dance of analyzing slow-motion footage? It’s so confusing.

Those aforementioned changes eliminated the worst excesses of TV officiating where some dude eating Honey Nut Cheerios in his boxers can impact a tournament but they did not give us an easily understood process for golf TV rules reviews.

The solution isn’t to take away video replay entirely

If a camera clearly captures a player moving a ball, improving a lie or committing another meaningful violation, officials should get to act on it. Protecting the integrity of the competition sometimes requires information unavailable to an on-course referee.

What I’m saying is that golf needs to turn its very informal video-review practices into a defined and transparent system.

Only a designated rules official should be permitted to initiate a formal review. He can get tips from other rules officials but that’s it. If the rules officials don’t catch it, so be it.

The broadcast should tell viewers when a review begins (get an “under review” banner going!), identify the rule in question and explain who will make the decision.

And then we rely solely on normal-speed footage. The rules official shouldn’t even get to look at the slow-motion one since it has no real bearing on the rule interpretation. A broadcaster can show slow-motion for context but microscopic evidence unavailable to the naked eye should not be used to assess penalties (as is the case currently). And the broadcaster needs to thoroughly explain this.

Look, if you can’t see it with the naked eye, it’s on the golfer himself to call his own penalty based on what he feels or knows. If Hovland was sitting in 28th place and did this, he would not have been on TV and none of this would have been a controversy.

There has to be some protection for guys who are under the slow-motion camera gaze, right? The current standard is fair.

If the ruling isn’t made by the time the player finishes the following hole, then it’s over and his score on that hole is official. Fans should not have to wonder whether the leaderboard is provisional while officials examine footage from several holes earlier (remember the Dustin Johnson debacle at Oakmont during the 2016 U.S. Open?).

The Tour should explain its decisions with more specificity. “Multiple inquiries” is not enough. A professional sports organization should be able to say that its video official noticed a potential violation, reviewed three camera angles and found no clear evidence that the club touched the sand. And do it quickly, please.

None of these changes would have altered Hovland’s outcome. It’s just how we got there that matters.

Maybe Hovland touched three grains of sand. The camera captured movement that no player, caddie or official could reasonably detect. Under golf’s current standard, declining to penalize him was correct.

What can’t continue is a process where viewers see apparent evidence of a violation, hear that unnamed people made “multiple inquiries” and receive a ruling without understanding how the Tour reached it.

It is time to give golf’s review system some clear boundaries and a process everyone can understand.

Top Photo Caption: Viktor Hovland was involved in a rules situation at the Tour Championship. (GETTY IMAGES/Kevin C. Cox)

The post The Viktor Hovland Review Exposes Golf’s TV Ruling Problem appeared first on MyGolfSpy.

Along with the live action on the gridiron, fantasy football heats up with many drafts taking place.

Fantasy football can mean huge payouts and major punishments. Seeing as we’re in the golf business, it only makes sense to share some golf-themed fantasy football punishments.

If you’re a golfer who also enjoys fantasy football, here’s some inspiration to bring to your league’s group chat.

Play a round of golf with no clubs

Similar to Connor Marritt’s recent punishment—playing a round of golf with no golf ball—we’re taking it one step further:

Play a round of golf with no gear at all.

Book a tee time, check in at the pro shop, hit some phantom putts on the practice green and then head to the first tee to “play” 18 holes without any equipment.

Your buddies can determine what score you’re going to shoot, dictating how many awkward fake swings you’ll have to complete.

The cherry on top?

You have to make a hole-in-one and buy the group drinks afterward.

Get a job in the pro shop at your local muni

If you finish in last place in your league, you have to apply for—and land—a job working in the pro shop at a local muni. You must (a) get hired and (b) work at least one full month before quitting.

To maximize the severity of the punishment, your league mates can stop by during your first shift, heckle you within reason and make the month as uncomfortable as possible.

If you’re looking for something extreme, this one’s for you.

Play a round of golf in full football gear

Yep, you read that right. You must play a round of golf in football pants, cleats, shoulder pads, a helmet and the jersey of your choice.

Before each tee shot, you must repeat a quarterback cadence created by your fantasy football league. The league can make the cadence as brutal as possible but remember you’ll still be on a golf course so be respectful of the other golfers.

Not only will this be extremely awkward but it could also force your buddy to spend several hundred dollars on football gear.

To top things off, have a Gatorade shower waiting for them in the parking lot.

Honorable mention: Swap your current putter for a mini-golf putter for a full season

My honorable mention? Make the biggest loser swap their current putter for a mini-golf putter for an entire season.

Having a trusted putter is important and forcing the last-place finisher to replace their real putter with a mini-golf putter will cause enough pain throughout the season to motivate them to play fantasy football better in the future.

You can still putt well with a mini-golf putter. It’s just going to take double or triple the practice that a normal putter requires.

What did I miss? Let me know in the comments!

The post Best Golf-Themed Fantasy Football Punishments appeared first on MyGolfSpy.