'The World's Largest Unbiased Head-To-Head Driver Test.' Yes, we've teased you since January. So you've tweeted us, emailed us, even showed up at our test facility demanding results, well we're happy to tell you the moment of truth is finally here. Don't mind us though, sure it only takes hundred hours, close to ten thousand shots and countless data geeks and scientists to analyze the most complete, data-centric driver test in the world. W e're proud to present to you the 2017 Most Wanted Driver test. Data You Can Trust If you are looking for a driver in 2017, this is for you. At MyGolfSpy our job is to provide independent, unbiased, and objective testing of products that help increase consumer confidence.

Kilauea; Mount Etna; Mount Yasur; Mount Nyiragongo and Nyamuragira; Piton de la Fournaise; Erta Ale. King Cobra SZ 400. The King Cobra SZ drivers (SZ sounds for Sweet Zone) feature a visible Dual Weighting System on the sole that moves the centre of gravity lower and back to promote a higher moment of inertia for greater stability; and lower spin variance across the nine hot points across the club face. The combination.

We do this by employing consistent testing methodologies and advanced golf analytics inside our 100% independent test facility. The consumer is then able to apply the industry's richest set of head-to-head data collection to help unlock their full potential. Our testing provides unparalleled data which equals unparalleled insight for the golfer. We are here to help you find golf equipment that you will not only love but want to keep. We don't want you spending a dollar unless it improves on what's already in the bag. Advanced Golf Analytics Data matters. And when it comes to finding the right equipment, it's critical.

We help solve this by applying the largest connected set of head-to-head data to tackle one of golf's biggest challenges. All testing was conducted inside our fully independent test facility located in Virginia. All testers used for consistency and to reduce test variables. All ball data was collected using the world's most trusted launch monitor,. All head data was captured using the Foresight HMT device. This comprehensive dataset was then run through our proprietary Most Wanted Rankings methodology that we have developed called TRUE Rank.

What we have developed is the most accurate test to determine the leaders in the driver category. • SHOTS HIT: 7,330 • DATA POINTS: 225,000 • TIME: 120 hours • TESTERS: 30 • HANDICAP RANGE: +2 - 16 • AGE RANGE: 18 - 79 • SWING SPEED RANGE: 75mph - 120mph Data. For more details, see our page. I appreciate MyGolfSpy and all of the testing that you do, and I reference you data regularly.

I also find that the results that you get very closely parallel my own results. However, I am wondering if you did not test the 2017 Tour Edge Exotics EX10 adjustable driver? I had always considered Tour Edge Exotics to be much more of a “fairways and hybrids” company, and have used their fairway metals for more than a decade (and their hybrids for about 6 or 7 years).

This year i added a 10* EX10 adjustable driver with Rogue M-AX Red 65-S shaft to my arsenal, and it has kicked my 2016 TM M2, Cobra King LTD and Ping G30 LS Tec drivers right out of my bag! Was the omission of the EX10 adjustable driver intentional on your part, or did the company fail to provide any of their drivers for testing? Kind regards, Doug Mael Doug’s Custom Clubs / Tour Quality Golf. A question and a comment. Did testers have the ability to select from each company’s shaft offering or was the option just stiff or regular for each? Titleist for example has 5 stiff shafts as part of their stock offering.

I’m curious how much fitting was done for each player with each club. It appears that the ranking put more emphasis on distance than accuracy. The Top 5 drivers are all among the longest and least accurate drivers. Personally, if 7 yards is the difference between the longest and shortest driver, I am taking the most accurate every time.

Sometimes you can make the face more flexible by looking beyond the part of the club that actually hits the ball. That’s why the full-size, higher-launching, slightly draw-bias 565 and the compact, mid-launching 765 use a face design that wraps deeper around the crown and sole for better off-center-hit performance. Both help even worse hits through a stepped sole design. This structure deforms at impact and springs forward to contribute to the flexing of the face.

It also stores weight low and deep for better stability. The result is two drivers that play more forgiving than they look. From Golfdigest. My comment about PXG was tongue-in-cheek (admittably, difficult to discern in written text).

As as to performance, it’s all relative–the first and last ranked drivers are only separated by 7 total yards distance that’s not a lot. So when I say it’s the “worst” (note that I didn’t say “poor”) showing by Ping in a MW test in years, I’m 100% factually accurate. Ping has been in the top 5 of MGS driver testing since its inception in 2013; this is the first year they are not. They fell to #8 this year. Don’t confuse me as a Ping hater like the company a lot, but they fell off a bit this year either that or other companies surpassed them due to their longer product cycles. The Ping SF tec is the winner to me, look at that accuracy, Also note that all the Pings were all 98+ mph swing speed.

U supposedly get 2.58 yards more per MPH swing so u need to take that into account. I don’t understand why they don’t use the same Swing speed, of course Driver A is gonna go further then Driver B is its swung slower. The ball needs to be hit at the same speed on,same angle and on the same area of the club for this test to be equal. I find that most of the time n these test MGS is biased & will pick an underdog and help them sales, it happened with the Kirkland ball, it happened with Carbon Putters and MLA putters, and also Evnroll.anyone see a pattern? Of course Ping & Titleist where swung the slowest.LMAO. Thank you for your work.

I would not have placed a $2.00 bet at 100 to 1 odds on Srixon and I am gaming 565 irons as well as a driving iron. I love my irons but even our local Srixon reps show no love for their drivers.

Indeed, are any Srixon staff pros gaming their drivers? In any event, I used your data to arrive at my own top three picks. The drivers had to have total distances of at least 248 yards; they had to deviate no more than 19 yards from center and their total dispersion had to be less than 10,000. Three drivers were left standing, to-wit: Srixon Z565, TM M2 ’17 and the Callaway Fusion. I would never have guessed that these three would be standing at the top of the podium. I enjoy seeing this data but those are slow swing speeds and carry distance.

I want to see raw numbers or breakdowns of the speed closer to 110-120, I went to the PGA Superstore and was just swinging and testing clubs out and my driver speed was 114-117 mph with a carry of 288 and total up to 310. These numbers are exceptionally low and don’t give me enough evidence that Srixon has the best driver by any standard. Also going back to an earlier comment about testers and their ability to have the same shaft or a similar shaft in each club head. Were they fitted to that shaft and head? Or was it an off the shelf here you go?

I want to see the raw data and make my own decision off of that then see numbers so skewered by age gap and ability. Saying 18-75 year olds swung the clubs that’s a huge difference! The first thing to understand is that we test clubs off-the-rack.

That means no exotic shaftsbasically nothing you won’t find on the shelves at big box. Stock still accounts for the overwhelming majority of sales, and that’s our target consumer. We think we can give all golfers a better idea of what will work well for them, but my thinking has always been if you’re going to work with a fitter with a full arsenal of shafts and heads at his disposal, you don’t need to rely on our test, but if you’re going to walk into a golf shop and pull something off the rackwe got your back. As for the fitting itself. First, understand that we have history with many of our testers. Many tested last year, many have been in throughout the year for other tests, so we start with a good understanding of who our testers are and what generally works for them.

That, along with our understanding of the static properties of each clubhead (CG location, actual loft vs. Stated loft, and even shaft performance) gives us a good idea of where to start. From there it’s a dynamic processtuning as needed, moving weights around, changing face angles when shot patterns suggest we should, and when the stock lineup allows for it, changing shafts. Worth nothing on the shafts, generally shaft changes don’t result in nearly as significant launch/spin differences as many readers generally believe they do.

More often than not, the shaft change creates more consistency and tighter dispersion. Again, we’re definitely not Club Champion level (againif you’re going to Club Champion, you don’t need us), but depending on where you go we’re as good, if not better, than a typical big box experience. Interesting results regarding the Srixon. I’m also not surprised about the meh showing of the Epic Sub-Zero. Our Callaway rep told us it’s a waste of time for anyone with less than 105 mph swing speed to hit it and to get them to hit the standard Epic. Of course all of these wannabes see Rory gaming it and they want to try it and of course ALL of them came back saying the club is a POS. I agree with some other posters here regarding the distance gap.

6 yards from first to worst. That’s about 1/2 of a club and that distance can be lessened even more with a professional fitting.

These clubs are all really good, find one that looks and sounds good to you and pry open your wallet and GET FIT. Keep in mind your looking at averages across 30 testers, and not all of them saw ball speed gains. I think in every test we’ve ever done we’ve had a driver plus or minus 1.5 ahead, but you can’t discount directionality and the difference in roll between fairway and rough.

Our total performance looks at the remaining distance to a theoretical pin with some additional calculations to remove the skew we’d otherwise get from longer hitters (basically, the longer you hit it, the greater influence you have over the averages, so we relate everything back to individual tester averages). Using that metric (which is similar to strokes gained without the lie condition), by the absolute number, the Srixon finished slightly ahead.

Seeing a lot of people with the “there is no difference between drivers” take based on the fact that there is “only” 7 yards difference between top and bottom. But it seems to me that 7 yards is pretty significant. If I could switch from my current driver to a driver with 7 more yards distance I would do it in a heartbeat. So I have a couple questions for you Tony/MGS. Do you see this “there is no difference” argument as valid? Have you ever thought about formulating some type of strokes gained value for driving like you do for putting that might help underscore the number of STROKES that an additional 7 yards might give a player?

Mat, To a degree, yes, it is a valid observation that our data suggests little difference over a 30 tester average sample. Now as we break it down by swing speed, the differences increase. We’re working on something that digs further into individual swing characteristics that show even greater differences.

So I guess I would say that I believe there are big differences, they’re just not readily apparent looking at a large group average. To your second question.

We’re looking at options similar to what you mention. The metric we use to determine our overall rank is akin to strokes gained without the lie conditionwith some tweaks to remove bias from longer hitters. I think this last comment is the heart of the discussion. We all have unique swings with different swing speeds and different “AOA” that put spin on the ball that affects ballflight and carry, etc. What’s good for golfer A may not work for golfer B. In my selfish case I care less about guys with higher and lower swing speeds thus ranking clubs is not only subjective but anecdotal. MGS is doing great work but we can’t ask them to test a zillion variables.

Reading test results is akin to diagnosing Denge Fever on WebMD. Getting fitted is better but even then some fitters have biases that color outcomes. I’m informally looking at several fitters in my State and factoring in my own biases (prefer Mizuno irons) I am down to 3. So now it’s a matter of data and feel and shaft performance. Very little difference between the drivers.

Ball speed consistent with clubhead speed; launch within 1 degree except Air Force One; backspin most within 150 rpm’s, all within 250 rpm’s 2457/2206, except low spinning TM M1 440 & Srixon z765 2009 & 2090; apex & descent all within a couple degrees; carry, all within 5 yds except three within 7 yds; total yds all within 4 yds except three within 6 yds; yds from center all within 3 yds; shot area(consistent dispersion?) is the biggest difference I could find: Ping G SF Tec 7711/ Mizuno JPX 900 8684/ Titeist 917 D2 8820 So, obviously no matter how minute, distance is king in these tests. Why is accuracy not king?

Marketing pushes distance, nothing else? Just a thought. Since my clubhead speed is high 90’s to low 100’s on occasion, I appreciate this test. FYI: I tried several drivers last year, and bought the Titleist 917 D2 because I hit it consistently straighter and in the same “shot area” than the others. +1 on expecting a higher weight for accuracy/shot area. Ended up with a Titlest D2 after getting fit and was between that and the Ping G during the fitting.

After seeing this test it validates what I saw during my fitting, that these clubs consistently are more accurate. I would tend to put more emphasis on the shot area vs the yrds offline. As I can more easily adjust my aim vs adjusting my swing tendencies if I have a particular ball flight when I show up to play a round. If I hit three drives that cut 10 yards to the right (avg 10 yrds offline but shot area of 0) I wont try to fight it mid round, just play a small cut and keep the drives in the fairway. I would much rather have 10-15% less shot area rather than 4 extra yards of distance.

Also looks like there may have been a fair number of testings fighting a left to right ball flight given how well the SF TEC performed. Awesome information, and I appreciate the transparency you provided on how you get the numbers. The only question I have is regarding the ‘outliers’ not counted. You had testers hit 3-4 shots for all sessions that ‘counted’ so that you could have the 10-12 shots which constitute the published ‘performance’. The question revolves around how many shots it may have taken to generate the 10-12 good ones? If testers for example found a club that just won’t go straight for them, and it took 15 shots every session to get 3-4 ‘good’ ones, would the reported performance then actually illustrate the ‘real’ performance of the club?

I ask only because I am stunned that there is less than 4 yards difference between the tightest and sloppiest dispersion in the test, and only 7 yards difference in total distance between the longest and shortest clubs. Thus, there is virtually no difference (based on the lack of a repeatable quality strike by a high handicap golfer) in performance between the $200 club AND the $500 club.

From one swing to another, the average golfer can easily get back to back drives more than 4 yards apart, and/or 7 yards shorter than another. That being said, the best path for most mid to high handicappers would seem to be buy the $200 club, and spend the other $300 on some lessons and buckets of balls to practice with. When you improve, see if you can generate higher numbers with the more expensive club. The short answer is, it dependsmostly on the tester. It’s not uncommon for lower handicap golfers to get us 10-12 good shots on 10-12 swings. As handicap goes up, the drop rate goes up, but really only marginally. Regarding what doesn’t make it into the counts.

The first thing we do is toss anything more than 50 yards from the centerline. In simple terms, our goal is to keep the less than stellar shots where one club would have made a difference over the next, and we think 50 yards is a reasonable grid from which to start. Generally speaking the distribution of dropped shots based on the 50 yard ‘wall’ is reasonably level. We’d expect that, since misses that large aren’t likely to be specifically related to the club. We also see runs where testers get into a funk (nasty pull hooks are the most common). These account for the biggest portion of the pre-calculation drops, and again, distribution is fairly level. The other thing we look for are worm burners, and the occasional severe pop-up.

Our goal is to keep as much data as we can, so in this pre-calculation phase, we’re really only taking out the absolute trash. Once we get to the processing phase, the outlier stuff is all pre-programmed math. We’re looking for significant variation in ball speed, launch angle, carry yards, and offline.

There is some overlap between those 4 things, and that’s not a bad thing. In practical terms, if a guy hits one comparatively bad shot, it’s going to get flagged. If there’s a pattern of mediocrity, it’s going to stay. My personal philosophy on outliers from day 1 is this: 1 is an anomaly, 2 is a curiosity, and 3 is a pattern.

The trick is getting the math to bear that out. We’ve consulted with R&D guys and independent statisticians on the outlier conundrum (it’s not an easy nut to crack), but this year we reduced our percentages significantly, to try and get to the point where the distribution was reasonably even, thus, hopefully, allowing aspects of forgiveness to shine through. I have some ideas for how to improve the outlier piece even further, but we feel like we’ve done a good job leveling the playing field. Feel like the Wilson D300 statistically performed better than others that were ranked higher. That said, I’m very aware of the hundreds of RPM’s and.1 yards differences here, but generally speaking, if you buy a driver in the top 10 here, your going to get a good one, as the margin of difference between them in every category is about less than 10% except for spin rate (15% difference between the highest and lowest in the top 10).

So, while the algorithm suggests a victor, the general feeling is that they are quite equal Tough to say it, but the data reflects that, generally speaking, especially with 1-2 yard variances with total distance and 1.5 yard variances in accuracy. Maybe a more accurate comparison would be swing speed categories rather than a broad spectrum comparison. Best drivers for 80 – 89mph, 90 – 99mph, 100 – 109mph, 110 – 119mph, 120+mph. I think it could help the reader identify with a category better and see that certain driver have much difference characteristics at difference speeds. We’ve continuosly invited Krank, and they’ve repeatedly declined our invitations. Being completely frank with you, given that Krank has no measurable market share, we don’t feel the same pressure to include them as we do with TaylorMade and Titleist for example. Based on the design we can project that, like the Formula 5 (which was in the test a few years ago), it would show to be a high spinning, relatively short driver for the majority of testers.

High swing speed players with strongly ascending angles of attack, who generally make above center face contact (basically all the characteristics of a long driver) will see outstanding results, the other 90-some odd percent, not so much. Great observation, Adam! We made a small, but significant change to our test setup, and one that we hope we can expand to make the test even more relevant to the real-world. Instead of testing on a wide-open driving range with unlimited fairway, we tested on simulated actual golf hole. What that means for the results is that balls that hit the rough produced less rollout that balls in the fairway.

So while longer is still better, similar to strokes gained methodology, there is an inherent penalty for missing the fairway. As I said, we’re looking at ways to expand this in future tests, as its something we really believe in. Unless your driver configurations are equal: same length; same head weights; same shaft; same loft; same club MOI; same stiffnessthe data seems flawed as not exactly apples to apples. The max head COR is supposedly controlled by the USGA. The shaft is a key matching and critical component.

Different swing techniques and shaft loading occurring for different swing speedsall make a difference. Good overall data. Range or lab testing.with same headand different profile, same weight, same length shafts.shows how much the shaft is the difference maker. It would be incorrect to say that the GCQuad is much more accurate. The miss rate, particularly with head data should be lower, but to say it’s less accurate suggests that the numbers are fundamentally different, which they are not. Regarding why we didn’t use the Quadwe just received our Quads at the test facility last week. They weren’t yet available at the time we started testing.

Similarly, the PXG 0311X was also not available at the time we began testing. Probably worth mentioning, these tests take considerable time. 30 testers, 20 drivers, and of course, a finite limit to the number of shots that can be hit in a single session. Each tester came in multiple times.

Start to finish, just the testing portion of the this (before we talk about aggregating data, crunching numbers, making graphics, etc.) takes more than a month to complete. Yards from center is simply how far off the target line shots were on average. Small detail, but we base this on the absolute value of each shot, so, for example, if we look at two shots, one 8 yards left (-8) and the second 8 yards right (8), we would say the average is 8 yards from the centerline. If we took the native ‘offline’ value from the launch monitor, those two shots would average 0 yards offline, even though both are 8 yards offline. Shot Area is a calculation of a 90% CI ellipse representing the distribution of shots. The value is in yards squared. Basically, its a measurement of how tight the group of shots was.

We generally like Shot Area, however, it’s more susceptible to the influence of a single shot. Been waiting for this, just like everyone else. Very surprised at the 565 winning, but not shocked if that makes sense. Srixon has been putting out clubs that just flat out work.

Mame32 V 0 87 Download Adobe. A question or two about the results if I might. What is ShotArea and what does it mean. Also I’m sure the results were calculated by the TrueRank, but looking at it from a pure numbers point of view, the Srixon 565 was 1.5 yards shorter than the the Epic, and only less than 1/2 yard closer to center. I don’t see how that would be considered “better” if you will. That said, thanks so much for bringing us the only comprehensive and objective testing done by any golf publication or site. Weights are configured in the setting that provides the best results on an individual basis. Epic Sub Zero is NOT a low spinning head, and I don’t believe I’ve ever heard Callaway bill it that way.

Certainly, I’ve heard retailers say that, so I’m guessing this particular bit of mythology carries over because it shares its name with the XR Sub Zero, which is a low spinning head. Wa With the weights back, SZ is a mid-to-high/Back CG driver. With the weights forward, it’s a mid-to-low/Mid (front-to-back) CG Driver. ICYMI – Here’s the measured CG chart with actual CG locations for a good number of the drivers in this test. Tony, I want to preface by saying I’m a big fan and I really mean no disrespect, have you looked at the Callaway site or ads?

Here’s the first paragraph from the site -“Epic Distance and Forgiveness in Our Lowest Spinning Driver. The GBB Epic Sub Zero Driver is a true paradigm shift: a powerful, low-spinning Tour-level driver that’s also incredibly forgiving — an unheard of combination.

Its high speed / low-spin characteristics make it particularly appealing to Tour pros, yet it’s so exceptionally forgiving and easy to launch that a wide range of players will want to play Epic Sub Zero” I know your testing is legit but in terms of marketing, if the sub zero wasn’t lower spinning what would be the point of even having two different models? Fair point that said, “our lowest spinning”, is a relative phrase, and low spin is always relative. Ultimately what’d I say is this. You can believe Callaway and what is ostensibly a non-specific market claim, or you can take the mass properties chart for what it is – measurements from actual retail parts. As to your question, there is still a significant variation on CG placement between regular Epic and Sub Zero, and as a general rule, Callaway likes to have a shot shape correction option (sliding weight) in the lineup.

I can’t speak to Callaway’s internal thinking, but as a comparative example, SZ is better suited to a guy who generally hits a bit low on the face, while standard would generally be better for a guy who misses high. I think some believe spin comes from some magic dial golf companies turn.

In fact, it comes from CG placement and how that influences dynamic loft and by extension spin, as well as the vertical gear effect. The chart is as concrete and absolute as anything in golf. It’s marketing-proof, and by no means does it suggest SZ is a low spinning driver when compared to the market as a whole. Compared to other current Callaway drivers, yes, but not everything else. As a nearly immutable rule, low spin and high MOI do not go together.

For that to be true, the CG needs to be pushed near or below the neutral axis, which again, is simply not the case for the SZ. P38 Serial Number Location. If you take a look at the chart and add the 2016 drivers in, you’ll see how dramatically different XR Sub Zero is from Epic SZ. They’re simply not in the same class. I think I’d argue that 7 yards is a lot less than most people would think.

I don’t know about the rest of you guys, but my personal variance is certainly more than 7 yards. Moral of the story here is one that I think we all know well: you just have to go out and get fitted. Buying off the shelf now is almost immaterial, as this data shows. Almost every driver can perform, what we all want is the driver that perform the best for us and the only way to do that is hit a bunch of them and find what works best for you and your swing.