A golf award is an invitation to disagree. Someone loves the winner. Someone tried it and hated it. Someone else has just spent considerably more on a different badge.
Takomo’s appearance in MyGolfSpy’s 2026 Editors’ Choice selections prompted exactly that sort of argument. It also produced a more serious insinuation about money. Before that becomes the story, it is worth separating what the publication awarded, what a reader alleged and what the available evidence actually supports.
What Takomo won
In its September 18 awards article, MyGolfSpy selected Takomo in the direct-to-consumer company category and the Iron 101 MKII in the irons category. The introduction explains that Editors’ Choice can recognise products that impressed the team without finishing first in a test.
That distinction matters. An editorial selection expresses judgment. A comparative test produces a result under stated conditions. Neither automatically identifies the right club for every golfer.
There is a testing result behind this particular selection, too. MyGolfSpy’s separate account of its Takomo testing places the 101 MKII first among game-improvement irons, the 201 MKII fourth among players’ distance irons and the 201T MKII tenth among players’ irons. Those are different models in different categories; they should not be flattened into a claim that every Takomo iron won.
The comment, the denial and the missing evidence
In the discussion under MyGolfSpy’s September 19 Instagram carousel, a reader questioned the irons selection. After another commenter mentioned Kirkland wedges, the original critic suggested someone was being paid. MyGolfSpy directly denied it.
The critic later explained that they had tried the irons and were unimpressed, acknowledging that as a personal experience. The expanded exchange we reviewed supplied no payment records, correspondence or firsthand evidence that an award had been bought.
That leaves an unsupported insinuation and a denial. It does not establish a purchased award. A disappointing session with an iron is a reason to question its suitability for you; it does not establish how a publisher reached its verdict. Equally, a publisher’s denial is not an independent audit.
Commercial transparency is still a fair question
Readers are entitled to understand how equipment coverage makes money. MyGolfSpy’s advertising page offers manufacturer advertising. Its partnerships page describes paid licensing of award artwork and editorial material. Those activities are different from paying to determine a test result. Their existence does not show that Takomo bought an award, or establish any particular payment by Takomo.
MyGolfSpy’s published policy says sponsorship packages exclude testing participation and resulting accolades, and brands cannot review or edit sponsored content before publication. That is its stated policy. Readers can use it as a standard against which to assess the publication’s work.
Our expectation of any equipment publisher is straightforward: make the criteria easy to find, identify commercial relationships clearly and distinguish measured results from editorial preferences. Readers should be able to follow the reasoning without having to guess what an award badge means.
Before buying the winner, identify the problem
The most useful response to a surprising award is to investigate. Start with the exact model and category. Read what was measured, how it was scored and what the test cannot tell you. Then compare the proposed purchase with the clubs you already use.
For irons, write down the change you want: a more dependable carry distance, a tighter spread of misses or a flight that works for the shots you face. A fitting or a careful comparison can help you investigate those questions. The best strike of the afternoon is only one part of the picture.
Price belongs in that decision. So do confidence and preference. Paying less does not invalidate a good result; paying more does not guarantee one. An award is most useful when it expands the options you are willing to examine.
The book: Every Shot Counts
Mark Broadie’s Every Shot Counts is a useful companion because it turns attention towards the evidence within a golfer’s own game. The publisher describes its statistical approach to golf performance and strokes gained: a way to examine where shots are gained or lost, rather than relying only on familiar impressions.
Our connection to the awards debate is practical. Before spending money to solve a problem, establish whether it is the problem costing you shots. If your approach play is the concern, equipment may be worth investigating alongside technique, target selection and practice. If the losses are elsewhere, an iron award may be interesting without becoming a shopping instruction.
This is a reading recommendation, not a claim that Broadie has assessed these awards or endorsed Takomo. War & Fiction has not independently tested the irons. The book provides another way to think about the buying decision.
We explored a similar question in our Kirkland wedges and Dan Grieve article: what happens after the equipment arrives? Our Arccos and golf-data guide takes the next step into tracking the game you actually play.
Awards can start a useful argument. A clearer understanding of your own golf gives that argument somewhere productive to go.
A question for your next round: What would a new set of irons need to improve before you considered it money well spent?