Wilson Staff Model XB
matt martian photography
Why We Like It
- Wilson ran more than 4,000 face-optimization profiles across five impact locations before deciding on three: one for the 2- through 5-irons; another for the 6-through 8-irons and one for the rest of the set.
- The hollow-body construction allows for tungsten in the 2- through 7-irons (19 to 27 grams) to be positioned in the low toe area to raise stability.
- Urethane was injected into the internal cavity to reduce vibrations at impact to enhance sound and feel.
- The faces are precision milled for consistency, then bead blasted to reduce glare.
- The sole camber has more curvature in the sole than most irons. Combined with a shorter blade length, this allows the heads to move quickly through the turf.
- SPECS: 7-iron: 32 degrees; PW: 46 degrees
- all
- low
- mid
- high
Hot List panelists observed a compact, elegant model with a satin/matte finish, minimal offset and a classic, blade-like look. It’s soft and quiet at impact, cradles the ball, and excels in turf interaction. Testers praised its strong, penetrating launch, impressive distance and high, consistent ball flight; it’s also very workable with reliable face feedback and decent off-center forgiveness. One caveat: it demands precision—it's less forgiving if you miss the sweet spot.
Hot List testers noted an elegant, small-headed look at address with a silver matte finish that reduces glare. The face delivers a soft, consistent feel and a pleasant sweet spot; many praised turf interaction and the way the head cradles the ball, launching high with excellent distance. Some found it very workable—able to flight shots high or low—while others perceived it as more distance-oriented. One drawback: in this category the compact, near-zero-offset head can feel a little unforgiving and intimidating for some.
Hot List panelists observed a compact, satin‑finished iron that looks sleek and feels soft/quiet at impact. It produced powerful, often high yet penetrating ball flight with excellent distance and turf interaction. Workable both ways, impacts across the face were consistent, mis‑hits tended to stay on line, and feedback was solid. One drawback: a few found it finicky, needing very precise contact to maximize performance.
Range Results
We tracked 20,000 shots through player testing and then had them analyzed by our team of scientists. These graphics reflect the relative performance our players saw for each club in the category.
A Skeptic’s Guide To New Golf Equipment
Related Clubs