Skip to content
Zomma Golf
Menu

TaylorMade iron

The TaylorMade X300 iron is an iron in 9 options from 19°–48°.

9
options
19–48
loft °
Built against the iron fieldpublished figures only
DIFFERENCE FROM THE MEDIAN OF EVERY RECORD WE HOLDLOFTMEDIAN 33.0°31.0° -2LIEMEDIAN 62.5°60.5° -2
Each bar is this club's published figure minus the median of the 1,124 other irons on record that publish it — a median over the records we hold.

View on TaylorMade →

Where this club lands

The field is every iron in the database that publishes both of the chart's figures — every brand, not just TaylorMade.

This set's 7-iron is 35° — 95th percentile, weaker-lofted than 95% of the 889 sets that publish one. The median is 32°.

Loft ladder against the field

Loft at each club in the set over the middle half (p25–p75) of every comparable iron set on record — the busiest rung here is built from 900.

TaylorMade X300middle half of the field
2030405060123456789PWGW/AWSWLWLOFT (°)TaylorMade X300 — 2: 19°TaylorMade X300 — 3: 21°TaylorMade X300 — 4: 24°TaylorMade X300 — 5: 27°TaylorMade X300 — 6: 31°TaylorMade X300 — 7: 35°TaylorMade X300 — 8: 39°TaylorMade X300 — 9: 43°TaylorMade X300 — PW: 48°

A break in the line is a club the set does not publish a loft for — it is never bridged, because joining across a gap would draw a loft the manufacturer never stated. Every brand's name for the gap wedge is pooled into one rung, since only 25 of 917 sets publish two of them.

The head half

Read the set through

TaylorMade X300 · 7

LOFT · X AXIS35°
95th percentile — weaker-lofted than 95% of the 889 sets that publish a 7-iron
LIE · Y AXIS61°
1st percentile — flatter than 99% of the 889 sets that publish a 7-iron
7-iron field: Loft × Lie

The 7-iron of every comparable iron set on record publishing both loft and lie — 889 of them, binned by density.

Specifications by option

What this record publishes. Across 9 options: loft and lie on every one.

9 rows, unsorted, collapsed — use the button below the table to show every option.

19258.5
21359
24459.5
27560
31660.5
35761
39861.5
43962
48PW62.5

Head geometry doesn't change with the shaft, so it's stated once. A blank cell means TaylorMade did not publish that figure — we don't estimate.

Measured against comparable clubs

Where this club's published fitting specs sit among comparable clubs — never how good it is.

FigurePublishedAll ironsIts yearAmong its peers
Strongest-lofted 7-iron35°=838th of 953no release year on record=73rd of 86 TaylorMade irons · =396th of 508 low-handicap irons
Widest loft range29°=629th of 1,104no release year on record=71st of 89 TaylorMade irons · =241st of 508 low-handicap irons
Most upright lie61°=924th of 941no release year on record83rd of 83 TaylorMade irons · =492nd of 505 low-handicap irons

player level — derived

This iron reads as built for a low-handicap player — our deterministic reading of 7-iron loft 35° (no offset published). A design classification, not a rule about who may play it. How the bands are read →

Compare this iron →

Or go straight to a comparison: vs PXG 0211 XCOR2 Irons | Players Distance Irons · vs XXIO 13 Ladies Irons · vs Titleist 1979-80 Tour Model

More irons

Other TaylorMade irons on record. Nothing here is a ranking or a recommendation. Browse every club →

What's on this page

In progress2 of 3 built

2 of 3 parts of this club page are built, and we're filling in the rest.

  • TaylorMade's own specs, partly built.Taken from TaylorMade's product page. We haven't found their full spec sheet for this club yet, so some figures they publish may be missing.
  • Published options, built.9 configurations with 2 of the 7 specs an iron can publish.
  • Stock shaft, built.TaylorMade names no stock shaft for this club on the sources we hold, so there's nothing to link.

The site is in beta and the database is still being built, so expect gaps. Know something we don't? Help us fill it in — a link to where it's published is worth more than anything else you could send.

Know something about this club? 11 fields we don't hold — or tell us something here is wrong