Drivers

2019 MOST WANTED DRIVER

BY MyGolfSpy
Feb 25th 2019
Read all comments

Support our Mission. We independently test each product we recommend. When you buy through our links, we may earn a commission.

INDEPENDENT & UNBIASED

MyGolfSpy accepts $0 advertising dollars from any of the major golf manufacturers. We believe in always putting #ConsumerFirst.

24

Products
Considered

210

Hours
Researched

9,237

Shots
Hit

38.2m

Readers

OUR JOB IS YOUR GAME

If you are in the market for a driver in 2019, this test is for you.

At MyGolfSpy our job is to provide independent, unbiased, and objective testing of products to help you make more confident purchasing decisions. We do this by employing consistent testing methodologies and advanced golf analytics inside our 100% independent test facility. You are then able to leverage the industry’s richest set of head-to-head data to help unlock your full potential. Our testing provides unparalleled data which equals unparalleled insight for the golfer.

For 2019, stop buying golf equipment you like and start buying equipment you want to keep. Don’t spend a dollar unless it improves on what’s already in the bag.

Most Wanted: Callaway Epic Flash Sub Zero

Driver Buying Considerations

Performance should be your primary concern when buying a new driver, but there are some additional considerations you may want to think about before you make your purchasing decision.

ADJUSTABILITY

By leveraging the adjustability provided by club manufacturers, you can often turn a good driver into a great driver. Most everything on the market has an adjustable hosel which allows the golfer to tweak loft and face angle. Many golfers benefit from the draw and fade options available on drivers like the Callaway Epic Flash, Titleist TS3, and PING G410 Plus. Others benefit from the launch, spin, and MOI changes offered by front to back weight systems like those found on the Cobra F9 SpeedBack, Wilson Cortex, and Sub70 839D. For those looking for the best of both worlds, movable weight systems like those found in the TaylorMade M5 and PXG 0811 X GEN2 series, offer front to back as well as draw and fade positions.

SHAFT SELECTION

The shaft absolutely matters. For those who buy off the rack or take a DIY approach to club fitting, having a selection of stock offerings that span a variety of weight classes and include – at a minimum – low, mid, and high launch shaft options, can make the difference between a driver that doesn’t perform and one that goes into your bag.

Distance vs. Forgiveness vs. Shot Shape Correction

While most every manufacturer has its version of the fast AND forgiving story, most are trying to strike a right balance that fits within their brand’s identity. The reality is that pushing ball speed limits often comes at the expense of MOI while maximizing forgiveness often means giving up a bit of speed and adding a bit of spin. It’s up to you to weigh how much speed you want against how much forgiveness you need.

It should also be noted that to create a draw bias (anti-slice correction), weight must be moved to the heel. That means pulling weight from the back of the club, which often results in draw biased models being less forgiving (lower MOI) than standard models from the same family.

Cost

The drivers in this test range in price from $190 to $650, excluding any exotic shaft upgrades. The top performers tend to fall towards the higher end of that price range, though at $450 the F9 Speedback can be considered a relative bargain. While $500 is rapidly becoming the new entry-level, those leveraging a cost per yard formula will have a hard time justifying paying that much.

2019 Runner-Up - Cobra F9 Speedback

Our 2019 Most Wanted Runner-Up, by the slimmest of margins, the all-around performance of Cobra's F9 was better than exceptional; finishing in the top tier for the majority of the metrics we consider. A driver without any discernable weakness, in addition to its strong performance, our testers rated the F9 highly for looks, feel and sound.

If there's anything about our Most Wanted choice that doesn't appeal to you - or even if you love everything about it - you owe it to yourself to give the Cobra F9 Speedback equal time in the demo bay.

FIELD NOTES

During each test, we look for trends that provide us insight into where the market as a whole is moving, as well as what noteworthy changes manufacturers have made to improve year-over-year performance. We also solicit feedback from our testers. We want to understand what they liked, what they didn’t like, and why. We want to reemphasize that, while we do collect and share noteworthy portions of this subjective feedback, it does not factor in our rankings.

Trends and Tweaks

This year’s crop of drivers, as a group, may be the lowest spinning we’ve tested to date. More so than in years in years past, we found ourselves using higher lofted heads, pushing weight to rear positions, and leveraging higher launching and sometimes softer shafts in an attempt to increase launch angles spin rates.
The addition of a perimeter weight track and expanded hosel settings in the PING G410 Plus significantly improved the fitting capabilities of PING’s mainstream offering. The new flat hosel setting proved particularly beneficial for golfers who needed help starting the ball a bit farther right.
Likewise, we found significant benefit in Cobra moving away from an all lofts in a single head approach to discretely lofted 9 and 10.5 models. In years past, many testers struggled with accuracy, which we attributed to face angle issues at the upper and lower end of the loft range. That isn’t an issue this year as the F9 Speedback finished among the very best under our accuracy metrics.
Finally, with the TS2 and TS3, Titleist appears to have shed the short and spinny label. The TS3 finished at the top of the table for ball speed, and for the first time in Most Wanted memory, we didn’t have any unmanageable spin issues.

How Adjusting Loft Impacts Launch and Spin

Did you know that adjusting the loft of your driver by 1° changes launch angle by approximately .8° and alters spin by +/-300RPM?

Notes from the Testing Pool

The PXG 0811X/XF GEN 2 drivers were rated highest among the test group for feel. While sound and feel are correlated (if not identical), some testers reported that they liked the feel, but not the admittedly muted sound.
The XXIO and Cleveland Launcher drivers were favored among our slower swing speed golfers who cited the easy launch and longer carry as reasons why. One of the few non-adjustable drivers in the test, XXIO produced the second highest average launch angle.
Higher swing speed testers raved about the Cobra F9 Speedback. Consistent feel across the face was noted often. As you might expect given its bold design, looks scores were polarized with testers rating it either among the best or among the worst, with not much in-between.
Our Most Wanted Winner, the Callaway EPIC Flash Sub Zero, received high scores for looks but was rated poorly for sound.
While the performance of the Bridgestone Tour B JGR suggests is an excellent option for golfers looking to take the right side out of play, its lie angle is noticeably upright, which many of our testers found off-putting.
A new-comer to the driver market, Sub70’s 839D driver received positive feedback for looks but ranked worst among the test group for sound, which many described as too loud.
For the second year in a row, Mizuno produced a strong performer, this time with the ST190. Unlike previous blue designs, which received mixed reviews, the new all-black paint scheme was a hit with our testers who consistently rated among their favorites.

PING G410 SFT - The Slice Killer

If you struggle with a slice, the PING G410 SFT needs to be on your short list. In this year's test, the draw biased version of PING's G410 family showed significant more left-side bias than any other club tested. Also noteworthy, it produced the tightest shot area (dispersion) of any model in this year's field.

What does that mean for you? It means the G410 SFT offers you the best chance of taking the right side out of play and keeping more balls in the fairway.

2019 Most Wanted DRIVER DATA

To filter and compare by club, use the drop-down list and checkboxes to select the only the drivers you wish to compare.

Expert Tip - Aligning Weights with Impact

Draw and fade settings aren't just for shot shape correction.

While club manufacturers typically talk about draw and fade positions in terms of shot shape correction, they can be leveraged to increase ball speed. If you're a relatively straight driver of the ball who favors the toe, moving weight to the fade position will better align the center of gravity with your point of impact, producing higher ball speed. The same is true for heel strikers and the draw position.

MORE BUYING TIPS

Always be aware of shaft length. Clubs that are physically longer may produce a bit more distance on your best shots, but they’re also generally less accurate and less consistent. There is no industry standard for how to measure, so it’s not unusual for a company’s 45.5″ to measure closer to 46″. When demoing, be sure to consider the actual length of the clubs you’re testing. One may generate more distance, simply because the shaft is longer. In the absence of a ruler, a side by side examination can help you understand if a club is really longer (distance) or the shaft is just longer.
When you use your wrench to add or remove loft, you’re also changing the face angle. Adding loft closes the face while reducing loft opens it. While we do leverage hosel adjustments to make small changes to launch and spin, very often, we use those same adjustments to alter starting direction and improve accuracy. The same approach can work for you.
Much like age, the loft stamped on your driver is just a number – an often meaningless one at that. Every driver has 3 lofts: what’s stamped on the club, the actual loft a given manufacturer is trying to hit, and the actual measured loft. When all is said and done, there isn’t as much overlap between the three as we’d hope – and that’s before we talk about center of gravity placement and dynamic loft. It’s not usual for one brands 9.5 to have the same loft as another’s 10.5, so if you’re a 9.5 guy in one manufacturer’s lineup, don’t assume you’re a 9.5 in everyone else’s.
Not all adjustable weighting systems are created equal. If you plan to leverage adjustability to its fullest potential, look for systems that allow you to move significant mass over a wider area of the clubhead while keeping the weight close to the perimeter of the golf club.

How We Test

Our Mission is to help you find the best driver for your game.

We are 100% independent and unbiased, and we always put the #ConsumerFirst.

About our Testers

Our pool of testers consists of 35 golfers with handicaps ranging from plus to the mid-teens. As a group, they span a broad range of swing characteristics (head speed, attack angle, etc.).

Over the course of several sessions, each golfer is required to hit 10-12 "good" shots with each club. Club order is randomized on a per tester basis.

Limiting Variables and Gathering Data Reliably

To minimize variables, all testers hit Bridgestone B330 RX Golf balls.

Both club and head data are captured using Foresight GCQuad launch monitors.

Crunching the Numbers

Before determining our rankings, we identify and remove outliers using a proprietary detection methodology.

To arrive at our final results, we calculate the averages of key metrics (ball speed, distance, dispersion, etc.), while also considering the standard deviation and the statistical reliability of those values.

PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS

Most Wanted Driver Spec Sheet

Club	Stamped Loft	Measured Loft	Lie*	Length*	SwingWeight*
Bridgestone Tour B JGR Check Price	9.5°	10°	63°	45.5"	D2
Callaway EPIC Flash Check Price	9°	8.8°	59.8°	45.625"	D2.3
Callaway EPIC Flash Sub Zero Check Price	9°	9°	57.5°	45.5"	D3.5
Cleveland Launcher HB Check Price	9.5°	9.6°	60.1°	45.5"	D3
Cobra F9 Speedback Check Price	9°	9°	58.2°	45.25"	D1
Exotics EXS Check Price	9.5°	9.4°	59.6°	45.75"	D3.7
Mizuno ST190 Check Price	9.5°	9.2°	60.8°	45.125"	D2.9
Mizuno ST190G Check Price	9°	8.7°	61.9°	45.125"	D3.2
PING G410 Plus Check Price	9°	9°	60.8°	45.375"	D3
PING G410 SFT Check Price	10.5°	11.1°	61.4°	45.375"	C9
PXG 0811X Check Price	9°	8.3°	60.8°	45"	D4
PXG 0811XF Check Price	9°	9°	60.8°	45"	D3.1
Srixon Z585 Check Price	9.5°	9.2°	64.8°	45.375"	D4
Srixon Z785 Check Price	9.5°	9.4°	62.8°	45.375"	D4
Sub70 839D Check Price	9.5°	9.8°	61.4°	45.5"	D5.7
TaylorMade M5 Check Price	9°	9.1°	57°	45.75"	D5.4
TaylorMade M6 Check Price	9°	8.7°	58.1°	45.75"	D4.2
Titleist TS2 Check Price	9.5°	9.1°	58.1°	45.5"	D5.7
Titleist TS3 Check Price	9.5°	8.9°	59.2°	45.5"	D5.1
Tommy Armour Atomic Check Price	9°	9.2°	61.9°	45.375"	D4.9
Tour Edge HL3 Check Price	9.5°	9.4°	57.4°	45"	D2
Wilson Cortex Check Price	9°	9°	59°	44.75"	D6.4
Wilson D7 Check Price	9°	9.4°	64.2°	45.5"	0
XXIO X Check Price	9.5°	10.5°	60.4°	46"	D6

* denotes measured value vs. manufacturer’s stated spec.

FAQ

Buying a New Driver

Q: How often should I buy a new driver?

A: While on rare occasions there are quantifiable year over year breakthroughs, typically it takes 3-5 years for manufacturers to make any significant performance gains. With the USGA further tightening restrictions on manufacturers, it’s possible, even likely, that it will take longer still moving forward. Our recommendation is to buy a new driver only when it appreciably outperforms what is already in your bag. Of course, if you want a new driver because you want a new driver, that’s fine too.

Q: With all the talk of new face technology, is there one driver that produces significantly more ball speed?

A: Across our test pool as a whole, we found no significant ball speed advantage that can be attributed to face technology. It’s true that some drivers worked significantly better for individual golfers than others, but thus far, we’ve found no evidence to suggest that any one brand has a significant ball speed advantage over its competitors.

Q: Does the shaft matter?

A: Absolutely. While changes to spin and launch and spin differences are rarely massive, shaft changes frequently lead to improved accuracy, tighter dispersion, and greater overall consistency.

Q: What should I look for when testing drivers?

A: While golfers have been conditioned to consider distance to the exclusion of nearly everything else, we recommended looking at the little numbers and looking for small circles. When comparing metrics like distance and ball speed, be sure to look at your standard deviations (the small numbers usually found under the big ones on the data screen). Smaller numbers mean better consistency which will usually mean more than an extra yard or two on the golf course. Similarly, look for tighter dispersion ellipses (small circles). We can’t understate the importance of consistency with the driver.

Q: Is there any downside to adjustability?

A: Yes, but… With many designs, adjustable hosels weigh significantly more than their glued alternatives, so manufacturers have to find workarounds to offset the additional weight in an area where additional weight is undesirable. Furthermore, movable weight systems require complex physical structures that eat up otherwise discretionary mass and often have sound and feel consequences. That said, in most cases, the fitting versatility more than offsets those negatives. This is especially true for golfers who choose not to work directly with a fitter.

Driver Lie Angle Matters Too

Did you know that a driver with a more upright lie angle can help you start the ball farther left and mitigate a slice? Likewise, if you struggle with pull hooks, consider a driver with a flatter lie angle.

Most Wanted

Q: How are the drivers in the test fit to each golfer?

A: We use a fitting process that we call fit from stock. Drivers are fit to each tester using the stock, no up-charge options from each manufacturer. We test with stamped lofts between 9° and 10.5° and fully utilize the fitting capability within each manufacturer’s lineup. This includes leveraging, loft, lie, and face angle adjustability (hosel), movable weights, and available shafts.

Q: How is the Most Wanted Driver Determined

A: To determine the Most Wanted Driver, we look at a variety of performance metrics based on data collected with Foresight GCQuad Launch Monitors. These metrics including ball speed, distance (carry and total), strokes gained, accuracy, and dispersion (shot area). As part of our analysis, we consider the standard deviations of key metrics (consistency), as well as the statistical reliability of the data on a per tester and club basis.

Q: How is the “Longest” driver determined?

A: To determine the Longest Driver, we consider the average total yards across the test pool along with the statistical reliability of that data. We also look at a narrower subset of the data that includes only the longest few shots hit by each tester with each club.

Q: How is the “Most Forgiving” driver determined?

A: To determine the Most Forgiving Driver, we focus on a narrower set of metrics that includes: Shot Area (dispersion), Accuracy, and the average standard deviation for ball speed and carry yards.

Q: How much does subjective feedback like looks, sound, and feel factor into your rankings?

A: ZERO. Our rankings are based purely on launch monitor data and quantifiable performance metrics.

Q: Will you publish a breakdown of the results by swing speed like you have in the past?

A: Yes. those results will be published in the coming weeks.

Support Unbiased Testing.

DID YOU KNOW: If only 1% of MyGolfSpy readers donated $25, we would be able to become completely independent in 12-months. With every donation, you create change.

Would you be willing to help by giving a donation? Every dollar will help. Make a donation to support our independent and expert golf equipment research. A PayPal account is not required in order to donate.

comments

Join The Discussion

Matt f

4 years ago

How is the Tour Edge EXS better in almost every category than the Wilson D7 but has less strokes gained?

Dennis

Guys, I spent the $9 for True Golf Fit and was disappointed. One of the recommendations was the Srixon z585 driver which I hit yesterday. I found the driver to have an extreme hook bias, due largely to a 64.8 degree lie angle, which I found is this MGS review. This driver was not a good fit for this 6 handicapper and thought you would want to know. Dennis

Jack B

5 years ago

Why do so many modern drivers have such high swingweights?

HDTVMAN

About 1/3rd of the players on my senior league hit the Ping G400MAX. Long and forgiving. Can’t wait to see what Ping does with that model this fall.

BillRyan

Your guys are way ahead of the curve in the golf world and I am a master tinkerer with hundreds of heads shafts grips ETC the things I have done to test stuff would boggle your your young very bright minds Willy

joe

Where are the 100mph’ish clubbed speed results? Every year I donate a few bucks to the cause. This year they’ve fallen back quite a bit. I’m not sure this site is long for the world. Feels like they are fading a bit.

MyGolfSpy

You must have simply missed it: http://mygolfspy.com/category/product-reviews/golfs-most-wanted/

Dan Z

Thank you for doing these tests. I just went for a fit with PXG — a brand I had never considered in the past but wanted to try based on the test results. My dispersion over my gamer G400 MAX was improved enough to buy the Gen2 PXG.

Let’s face it, unless you’re buying off the rack, pretty much all of these are $600+ when you factor the cost of upgrade shafts. With the selection of premium shafts offered standard, the PXG was actually $125 less than my best fit G400 MAX combo purchased last year.

Your testing tightened by dispersion by 12 yards and saved me $125. Can’t argue with that.

scott

It’s more cost effective to spend that kind of money on lessons then to buy another driver. with the upgrade shaft.

Andy

for the 2018 test you put out “Most Wanted” by swing speed category. That was SUPER helpful. Why did you go away from that in ’19? Is there any way you can publish some data using blocks of swing speed data? I’m hoping to track down the best value between 2018 and 2019 clubs (’18 prices are in the 200 – 300 range for many of the clubs) and I’m trying to compare apples to apples. Any help on this would be really appreciated.

MHB

The report included this question and answer –

Will you publish a breakdown of the results by swing speed like you have in the past?

Unfortunately MSG has forgotten it wrote those words. Last year the swing speed group reports took a few weeks to issue after the main report whereas this year a gap of over 2 months must indicate we are not going to get swing group reports. Disappointing.

Shame on us for being busy and not providing you free info.

I missed the FAQ where MGS said they will publish it. If I had seen that I would have asked when it might be available. I am thrilled to get free data and reviews and information that helps me learn more about what goes into a good club. Apologies if my question appeared to be snarky. It was most certainly not intended that way. I just missed that part of the FAQs.
I look forward to seeing the data when it’s available for review. Thank you.

Gerald Lindell

I think this test is dead on. I bought a new EXS driver and with the Tensei shaft it comes with was “ho=hum”. I put a HZRDUS yellow into it, adjust the loft and now I think it will stay with all the big boys in this test. I’m very happy with it.

I’d like to see you take a specific driver and then test it with different shafts to see the effect it has.

Hi Tony. Sorry to ask yet again but will you publish a review of 2019 drivers specific to swing speed groups. Last year the swing speed group reports were issued within weeks. It is now close to 2 months. Grateful for a reply to indicate when the reports will be issued. I am sure I am not the only one waiting.

Bobarino

Hi Tony. When is the review of the slower swing speeds to be published. The overall review promised a breakdown in the coming weeks.

“Will you publish a breakdown of the results by swing speed like you have in the past?

A: Yes. those results will be published in the coming weeks.”

albatrossx3

Interested in the contest to try this.

Tim D

As usual, you guys did a great job.

I do find it interesting that the difference between top and bottom “ranking” for a number of clubs is very small. What it tells me, assuming I’m looking for a driver, is that I should take your top 10 drivers and hit those. I should then, essentially, select the one that I like the way it looks and sounds as performance will be very similar for most of the drivers you tested. So, give me the one that gives me the most confidence as I stand over the ball on the tee.

BSteve

Guys! I really appreciate the testing, training and reviews that you all do. Mygolfspy is my first ? stop before shopping for anything golf!! I trust that you all are doing your very best to bring as accurate information to us as you possibly can. I know there are a lot of people out here in web-land that give you all flack. Don’t worry about it. These days everyone with a web capable device is a “shock-jock”. We know that you all have integrity and are setting up the best possible controls and variables for each test. There’s always going to be an element of chance, or preference. However, your sample size is large enough for the information to start to separate itself through the testing. I for one really appreciate your efforts and have made some terrific purchases based on mygolfspy’s recommendations. I live in a rural area and do not have many club options locally. So, I tend to purchase golf clubs and other equipment online or I have to wait until I can get to a larger town to schedule a fitting. You all have made my life much easier. Based on your information, I can narrow the selections that fit me best. Then I can either go for a fitting, like when I bought my Ping Driver and Mizuno 919 Hot Metal irons, or make an online purchase like my Ping Stealth 2.0 wedges, Snell Golfballs, and other supplies. I for one find your site exceptionally informative!!! Please keep up the excellent work!!

Mhb

Just a quick message to find out when the breakdown per golfswing speed group is going to be issued. Thanks

Devin

Recently tested the Flash Sub Zero and WOW…ball speed numbers were off the charts, spin numbers were great as well.

For some context, with my normal M1 440 gamer (9.5 Atmos Black 7x, fade weighting), if the ball speed hits 170-172, it was crushed. Generally my spin is 2400-2700 with it. The spin was the reason I got this one in the first place. I can pop it out there 300 when I am swinging well, but that’s certainly not every day.

First swing with the Flash (9* Fade Weighting, AD-IZ 6X) felt like I missed it a touch so I go look at the trackman numbers, 172 ball speed, 290 carry 310 total…on one that felt like a whiff. Hit a couple more, ball speeds start hitting 175-176. Hit 10 total with it, take out two complete wipes and the two longest (to make it fair) I was averaging 309. Blown away by the speed and spin of this club.

It’s not all rainbows and lollipops for this club though. I will say with the weight in the toe it still had a little too much hook in it. Will likely try a slightly different shaft or tip the AD IZ to cut that hook spin out a bit. Also, the sound is atrocious.

The battle isn’t over yet, waiting to get my hands on a TS3 (I am usually a Titleist guy), which tested fastest for you guys. I have heard incredible things about it and can’t wait for the two to battle it out.

Devin Gm

UPDATE…Took the Flash to the course and couldn’t keep it anywhere near the fairway with the 6X IZ shaft. Halfway through the round switched to a TX Tensei 70 and hit dead straight ROCKETS the rest of the day. It has to be slower with the heavier shaft…will continue testing on the trackman in a few days.

Andrew

Hey Tony, when will we be seeing this year’s drivers on TrueGolfFit? Soon? Or is it already up? I don’t want to pay another $7 until it’s up.

Ryan

You do realize that all of these numbers are statistically so close that their differences are irrelevant. The M6, the longest because of its loft, forward weight, and low launch shaft. You can tell that with the launch and descent angles. It would be better if you presented a chart of measured sweet spots and differences in launch/descent angles among offered shafts. That way a golfer can actually use all your data. You tell me you test the D7 well that comes in 3 lofts and 3 shafts. The cortex has 9 shaft options I believe. All of them $300+ on their own. Same with pretty much every club and manufacturer. I just think your method is a waste of time and just a click grab.

P.J.

You CLEARLY know more than any of the people on the MGS staff and as you stated it’s ‘a waste of time’, so move on Troll. Nothing more for you to see here…
As for the rest of us, we find it interesting and value the data provided.

Dcorun

Great job gentlemen. If you think MGS does such a bad job then get your info from Golf Digest. Callaway gets 5 stars for every club they submit. Can you say BIASED!

Rick

and in 6 of the last 7 years Callaway has ranked in the top 3 using the MGS metric. I’m sure golf digest is biased, but I think a lot of this may just have to do with consistency of product more than anything.

David

I always enjoy the work done here and digging into the numbers and I appreciate all the work you do! I guess my takeaway as a 13 HDCP is that it’s still the indian and not the arrow. There are a lot of good arrows out there and the differences are pretty marginal, but it’s still fun to look at them and see how they compare. I think what MGS does here for us is take out some of the marketing hype. If you’re wondering whether this driver is “better” than that driver or your driver, this is good stuff. My takeaway is that for a player of my mid-hdcp ability, there’s just not a lot of difference among the top drivers. A couple yards longer or a couple of yards straighter isn’t going to get me to my goal of being a single digit some day. The information is great and it removes the thought in my mind that I may have the wrong “arrow” in the quiver. Again, thank you all at My Golf Spy for what you do for us.

Mike

There was reference made in the article to the ‘small numbers’ that show standard deviation. Could some one tell me where to find those small numbers, because I just see the data for each club from ball speed –> strokes gained, with no standard deviation for any of them. I imagine I’m not looking in the right place.

xjohnx

I hope Tony plans a nice vacation every year scheduled two weeks after this test is released for having to put up with all these comments and defend MSG. Respect.

Thank you for what you do. I am sure it must be taxing to spend all the time, effort, and energy MGS does and receive such somewhat hateful responses. I am also sure all of these uber critical people will go out and spend a similar amount of time, energy, money or whatever to complete similar testing of new Drivers, Fairways, etc. etc.etc.

Not saying the process cant be improved, but your results are very similar to other “overall” reviews that have been done by others. When testing the mass population there will not be significant differences in whatever is being reviewed. In other words results will tend toward the middle.

Now when you break out individual swing categories as is you intention I do believe the club being reviewed will have clear winners/losers.

Keep on, keeping on. Always have enjoyed your reviews, consider them relevant and statistically sound. Head and Shaft combinations are significant, and in the end a proper fitting is the real answer, and mostly outside fitting is the key.

But for your stated purpose “an off the rack buyer” for which the population is seismically greater than the fit population, they couldn’t have a better resource.

Joe Meissner

So the $299 Wilson D7 out performed the $499 Wilson Cortex? That’s interesting!

Tony Covey

It will be interesting to see how this shakes out when split things out by swing speed, but taking a quick peek at our 95%CI data for several key metrics, the D7 does rank a bit higher. What that means is that, more often, it was not reliably different from the top performing driver (for a given tester), relative to the Cortex.

Tom Cairns

and when can we expect to see the swing speed breakdown? and also I did the true fit driver for the $7.00 which is fair, but I really have a hard time believing that the new callaway sub zero is the right club for me with a 88 mph swing speed, and someone who can use some forgiveness carrying a 15 handicap but thanks for all the work you do

Steen Rabol

How can anyone take this conclusion serious?

There is max 2mph ball speed differences in top 7 and max 5 yards. And only drivers that is provided free is included… independent test would have bought the drivers and done the test

Ugh…reading comprehension…and also facts.

As we’ve covered numerous times, we publish the raw data because people like to poke around and make some general conclusions. The actual leaders are determined by a much more detailed analysis (overviewed in our FAQ section) than one would get from a few data points from 35 testers across a 50MPH swing speed range.

Some of the drivers were purchased, some were provided by the manufacturers. And while we hope to someday get to the point where we’re able to buy 100% of the gear we test, yours is an exceptionally myopic view of “free”. The test took 210 hours to complete. That’s 210 hours of our staffers gathering data, which ultimately benefits many of the brands we test. That 210 number doesn’t include the time spent analyzing the data to make our determinations, nor does it include the time spent each year tweaking our software tools to power the entire operation. It also doesn’t factor the time it takes to get the data into our TrueGolfFit club recommendation engine either.

Free implies, actually it literally means something for nothing. Anyone can see that isn’t the case here. In fact, I’d argue that the work we put in and what brands get back in return, far exceeds the actual cost and value of those “free” clubs.

TR1PTIK

Clearly you haven’t paid any attention whatsoever. All you have to do is be anything more than just a casual reader/participant of MGS discussions to know that your claims are utterly false.

http://mygolfspy.com/2019-mygolfspy-most-wanted/

Matt D

I took some of the values and plugged them into Flightscope’s Online Trajectory Optimizer and found the carry and total distance to be substantially lower. About 6-8 yards shorter in carry.

We’ve covered this before.

If you take averages the average of several disparate metrics across nearly 10,000 unique shots and plug them into a trajectory algorithm as if they came from a single shot, it’s not going to work. You can’t take what are essentially bits and pieces of – again – nearly 10,000 different shots and turn them into a cohesive set of points as if they were one shot. Data just doesn’t work like that.

saveva

ty for answering my either question, what you said makes sense.
Is there a way to determine which club is best based upon strike area? I.E. I tend to hit the ball in the high toe area of the driver face. I heard that depending on cg of driver the sweet spot is not always in the center of the face. Are there drivers where the sweet spot is in the high toe area? I rather find a driver that fits my tendencies then to try to change where naturally tend to hit.

It’s definitely possible. For example, I’ve toyed with the idea of one day adding something like a typical miss, or typical impact location (I tend to work the toe a bit myself) to TrueGolfFit. It’s a relatively simple sounding problem that gets a touch more complex as you start to figure out how it would work. How do you define, mathematically, or on an x-y coordinate system, something that we all basically understand as “high toe”. Where do you draw the line, what kind of fluff (margin for error) do you build it. It’s really cool, I’d love to do it, but the boundaries aren’t as clean as I’d like them to be.

ty again, appreciate the response. It just hit me that I could theoretically extrapolate this data, the best “high toe” driver based on the cg data from the 2018 driver cg report. Excited for the 2019 version of this.

Harm

High toe ? this gives you more gear effect ? to much gear effect hook spin ? High toe isn’t that bad imo but if so ? you could change this with lie icw loft ? or check the enzo system form Fuijkura where the right shaft might influences your impact point ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7qdRhA3JN4

John Dranschak

I appreciate that your site is trying to rate equipment. But my takeaway from this test is that all drivers from the companies you tested are essentially equivalent. A strokes gained average from +0.3 to -0.3 is statistically insignificant. Basically you are saying the driver has almost no impact on a golfers score. If this is your criteria for ranking then all of these drivers are equivalent. However, optimizing the club head and shaft for an individual golfer is going to have a much more profound effect on the performance of the driver for that particular individual. What you study has proved is that all top quality drivers are maxed out in terms of performance and the fitting the correct head and shaft is the only way to maximize strokes gained for an individual golfer.

I suppose that’s one interpretation. And certainly looking at the data across a broad spectrum of golfers it does appear to wash out (though I’d suggest there’s a good bit of separation from the top to the bottom). However, to determine our category leaders we look not just as the raw data, but also at the statistical reliability of the data on an individual golfer basis, as well as the standard deviations that contribute to what I suppose you could call a reliability grade. What we arrive at is a driver (Most Wanted) that our data suggests has the greatest probability of being a top performer for an off-the-rack buyer. When we break down the results by swing speed, we narrow further. By using the TrueGolf Fit platform, golfers are able to input parameters specific to their swings to find out which drivers can be expected to perform best for them. When you narrow down to the individual golfer level, the result are more significant.

Bryan H

nice review, I hit most of the new ones and your best was my worse for almost everything, I ended up getting the G410plus kinda blew away the rest for me, my swing speed around 108 I got the mittsubishi pro orange shaft in stiff to match up for me , I would say the F9 was probably 2nd best

Jose

It would be great to get the data to filter specific swing speeds to compre to your own!

MattF

As they usually do every year, that info will be coming out in the next few weeks. Patience grasshopper.

Working on it…

TJ

Appreciate you providing the testing related data. One think I can’t seem to understand is how you guys use this data to come up with your general recommendations that grab all the headlines. For example, the commentary mentions part of the reason Epic Flash was #1 is that it had the “Highest fairway % in the test”. Not sure how that is possible when it isn’t close to the best in terms of “yards from center” or “shot area”. This comment seems to be very inconsistent with your first CON, that the driver doesn’t perform very well on off center strikes. Also, really not sure how you can claim that the most wanted driver does not perform well on off center strikes, but somehow finds the fairway more than any other driver…seems very perplexing. The PXG is awarded the most forgiving driver, but it is towards the bottom of the group in terms of yards from center and strokes gained while Epic Flash and the PING G410 have similar shot area numbers but much better yards from center performance, distance, and even strokes gained…what am I missing?

MikeG

+1 on this , I had the same exact questions .

My assumptions is that they use adavanced statistics to further come up with conclusions as every driver is relatively close in terms of numbers.

However I agree , how is the subzero most wanted and how is PXG the most forgiving.

Both of your questions come up quite a bit, and help illustrate the fact that there’s no single perfect metric for accuracy and what golfers generally consider forgiveness.

Let’s start with shot area. That’s basically an elliptical pattern which in if we break down further included elements of left to right and front to back dispersion. As we noted in the text, the carry consistency of the Sub Zero wasn’t as good as some others, so that resulted in the shot area being a bit wider from front to back (tee to pin, if you will) as opposed to left to right.

Our test fairway is 35 yards wide, which means 17.5 yards on either side of center. Let me offer an overly-simplified example of what we see to varying degrees. Take something like the Sub Zero for which yards from center (deviation from the centerline in either direction) is middle of the pack, but the FW% is at the top. What that pattern generally looks like is a greater concentration of balls closer to the edge of the fairway, but not necessarily tight to the centerline (say 10+ from center on fairway shots). Very often it’s accompanied by fewer big misses (say 35+ off the centerline). Conversely, you can get other drivers for which the best shots tend to be a bit tighter, but a greater percentage find their way into the rough.

One of the things I say quite a bit with respect to averages is, “there are a lot of ways to get to 250”. Same is true with YFC averages. So, to break this down to a really simple 2 shot example, if club A produces shots with YFC values of 5 and 20, it’s YFC average is 12.5 yards, and its FW% is 50%. If club B produces shots that are 14 and 15 yards from center, it’s YFC average is 14.5 (2 yards worse) but the FW% is 100%. Again, this is an extreme example of a pattern that repeats itself over the course of 9000+ shots.

It’s also important to note at similar distances (and with few exceptions the distances we see are at least similar), the lie condition (fairway vs. rough) will have a significant influence on the Strokes Gained equation.

Looking at the Forgiveness metric. First, as laid out in the FAQ section, we only consider our forgiveness metrics, which are shot area and standard deviation of ball speed and carry, and our accuracy metrics, so the SG value isn’t considered as what we’re seeking to identify is the club that produces the most consistent results – its for the guy who is going to work the face and wants to minimize the penalty for bigger misses. When we looked at those metrics – and again, the statistical reliability of those metrics – there were only two drivers in the conversation (0811XF and 410SFT), with the XF being just a touch better.

JS75

Hi there, You reference “Carry Consistency” for the M6 but don’t give any reference to what that exactly refers to?

It’s close but the M6 seems to beat the Sub Zero in most places especially when looking at data like launch angle, apex and descent for a high launch high spin player where it ranks considerably higher.

Mostly confused where your “Number 1” pick comes from.

Taylor

Carry Consistency is as it sounds. Consistently carrying the same distance +/- a couple yards. Basically tight dispersion front to back.

When we say “Carry Consistnecy” and/or “Ball Speed Consistency” what we’re talking about is the standard deviations for those metrics. I just mentioned this in another comments, but something I say quite a bit is that there are a lot of ways to get to 250.

Quick example of two drivers. For the sake of expediency, we’ll consider a relatively extreme two shot sample. Driver 1 produces shots of 240 yards and 260 yards. Driver 2 produces shots of 248 and 252. Both drivers have an average distance of 250, but arrived at it via two different routes. This is one of the inherent challenges of publishing the data.

Not that you asked, but let’s build on this example. Let’s say that instead of 240 and 260, driver A produces shots of 243 and 263.

If we say that driver B is better than driver A, we’d invariably get a ton of pushback and “How is it possible that…” questions. Given the mountain of data we sort through, it’s not realistic that we can publish all of it – or even most of it – without it looking like just a big pile of numbers, but I think most golfers would agree that despite the lower average, Driver B is the better driver. We can’t break it down like this for every “how come…” scenario, but I hope it will help readers understand why a simple look at the raw data can suggest one thing, when in fact the complete picture, which involves looking at raw group averages, individual performance, standard deviations, and statistical reliability of more than a handful of metrics, we often find something much different to be true.

Paul

Thanks again for another year of comparisons, but your continuation of allowing TrueGolfFit as an option troubles me after my experience with the company in December. I plucked down the $7 and got a recommendation of a driver that was two years out of date. I tried to contact via there website, tried to email-no response. I don’t care about the money, it just seems like avery flaky company if they don’t respond. Have you guys been in contact with them?

Ralph

Tony,
There seems to be a number of people who are starting to clamor for a “Best of the Most Wanted Winners” test (Overall, Swing Speed, etc.).. I, for one, have seen little if any distinguishable improvement in MGS driver testing in the past few years. You state that your tester pool has changed a bit and while I suspect that testing skill/swing speed has a bit to do with the numbers flattening out/not improving, I think it’s more likely that the OEMs are selling us colors and shapes rather than real-world tangible technology improvements. I think that, going forward, the only way MGS’ very valuable testing will remain relevant is if MGS can show #ConsumerFirst that year over year there are actual performance gains to be had by plunking down our cash for “new tech” rather than just looking back at your previous years’ testing and finding the “best” driver for our games when the data started to stagnate. I suspect that the 2016 M1 and Z565 (among others) will be just as relevant five years from now as they were when tested. The same is true for wedges and irons (esecially SGI).

I donate to MGS, love the testing, but am intetested in it staying true to the mission. For the OEMs to move around the COG, move around a bit of weight, throw in some new materials, tell us their head is faster, is marginal consumer fraud.

Randall

Even if the pool of testers changes, why not bring in the last few most wanted winning drivers and add them to the mix? They are already testing 20+ driver, why not add a few more? Maybe because manufacturers won’t donate gear?

It’s something we look at from time to time and we’ll definitely have a conversation about a head to head with the most recent winners, but just adding a few more drivers has a significant time cost. Each driver requires approximately 500 swings. If we’re going to add more swings, I’d rather it come by way of more testers than more clubs.

Stu

Just add last two years winners to pool …G400 and Srixon Z565. Nothing against the Tommy Armour or Wilson D7 but i think most people would like to see how (if any) much improvement between previous MyGolfSpy most wanted winners. At minimum add last years winner to current year test.

Ray

I understand it takes more cost/time adding additional divers but I believe I have a solution. Everyone says that they want previous years winners added so why not have them put their money where their mouth is. Figure out the cost to add these drivers and let everyone know if donations reach $X then thise drivers will be added to the test. Have a bar so people know where it is donation wise and how much more is needed. I know I would pony up!

Simon

Any comment on how the Most Wanted Driver for two years has been a low spin option, when Ping reckon less than 8% of the drivers they sell are low spin models?

Is it responsible or misleading to have a ‘Most Wanted’ model?

Just interested in your view.

Regarding ‘low spin’ drivers. First thing I would say is that LST, while low spin within the PING lineup, wasn’t really low spin compared to other so-called low spin offerings. I’d also add that PING will tell you it’s a driver that fit significantly more golfers than it had anticipated. In general, we do skew a bit towards the low spin end, and it’s something we continue to look at and discuss with the golf companies. Some of that may come from the reality that “low spin” drivers aren’t what they used to be. We’re not talking about undersized (440cc) low MOI drivers anymore. Everything in this test was 460cc or damn near, with projected MOIs above 4500. With that, CGs are being pushed low and farther back, which means you’re getting higher launch with your low spin, which is also a big factor.

As for having a single Most Wanted model. We tackle some of that by doing swing speed breakdowns (coming soon), and this year we added categorical leaders (Longest, Most Forgiving). I think the meaning of Most Wanted gets misinterpreted. We’re not saying (and have never said), This is the best driver for everyone. What we’re ultimately saying is that for the off-the-rack buyer, the Most Wanted Driver offers the highest probability of top tier performance. It doesn’t roll off the tongue, but that’s the objective. Along the way, if we can identify some strong performers that golfers might have overlooked, that’s great too.

Look, we believe absolutely every golfer should be properly fitted. We can dig in, spin our wheels, die on that hill…whatever metaphor you want to use or we can try and bridge the gap by helping golfers who, for whatever reason choose not to get fitted, make smarter buying decisions. That’s the objective of Most Wanted.

dave

im a 1 cap. i have found that optimal on launch monitor is not necessarily true for outside especially if you play on softer course conditions like we almost always do. example 917d2 indoors on foresight was 40 yards less than m1 2017. yet outside d2 and m1 were identical distance and much more forgiving. in fact the 2017 likely less distance because low hooks on launch monitor still rolled out yet outside those were nose dives. launch monitors love low spin.

Thanks for taking the time to reply Tony, really appreciate your time.

Kevin

Tony, Thank you for all you do. I do not comment often but your info on clubs really has opened my eyes. Awesome stuff!

JasonA

I went for a fitting end last year – I’m particularly average golfer (98 mph head speed & 14 hcp) but could not use the “G400 Max” (which I though I would love). Of the Ping drivers the best dispersion, feel and distance results was very clearly the “G400 LST”. The spin numbers were not worryingly low (circa 2200). The M3 @9 degrees was longest couple of drives of the day but an unplayable dispersion and too low spin.

As Dave says take the carry and landing angle into consideration. That can make low spin models look better than they play reality. But at my fit the fairway and environment conditions were configured same as my course and numbers were very realistic.

I’m more concerned that Golfer’s are being given “Standard” club off the rack default than MGS indicators are wrong.

Adam

Going off your info from previous tests the longest driver from the last 4 years for swing speeds over 100mph and not counting this year because you haven’t published them yet is the 2016 M2 driver at 291 yards. In 2017, by your numbers, the longest was the M1 at 286 yards. 5 yards less? Last year the rogue and mizuno drivers were longest at 278 yards. 8 yards less? What is going on here? Am I missing something?

Let me start by saying it’s not possible to make year over year comparisons and take anything meaningful (or accurate) away from it.

As I said in a previous comment, testing pools change year over year, and as we’ve expanded the number of testers, we’ve made an effort to recruit slower swing speed golfers (our swing speeds skew a bit faster than the population average). While I’d still like to add a few more, we’ve done just that. As a result, year over year swing speeds are down, and consequently, so are year over year distance averages.

Can you do a test of just the most wanted winners for the last 5 years with the same pool of testers?

If we can’t make simple comparison between years, then ,imho, you need to make take a serious look at your testing methodologies and/or statistical tests. It seems crazy to me that I can’t,using your data, compare between an ’18 model year club and a ’19 model year club. This is especially disappointing when we consider that the same brands tend to make up the top 3-5 every year.

“I can’t make comparisons, therefore, you’re doing something wrong.”

Interesting interpretation. Counter thought – our methodologies are just fine. The idea that you’re entitled to unfettered access to several years worth of our data, however, maybe not.

I look forward to the ‘Most Wanted Driver’ every year. Not surprisingly, Callaway and TaylorMade continue to be at the top of the heap. A lot of people say that those two companies also lead the industry in hype, but based upon the data – they’re leading in performance too. Guess what they say is true… ‘haters gonna hate’.
Thanks again to the MyGolfSpy staff and the legion of testers that help all of us make more informed decisions. I’m anxious to see the spin-off articles and data input into the True Golf Fitting!!

Fred

What is the age or handicap of testers on average. Very low max carry of only 240

First, I would point out that *ONLY 240 is significantly higher than that of the population of golfers as a whole. We actually skew a little long, it’s the reason why we’re trying to recruit more slower swing speed players. As mentioned in the post, our testing pool includes a range of swings speeds beginning at just a bit under 80MPH and topping out at just a bit under 130MPH.

Doug

Haha, “very low” carry… hmmm, so I play almost every day, with a variety of players. A 240 carry is is not a short shot, and will usually roll out to 260-280?
The only players that go that far are the young male “playahs”.. and most of them are pretty wild too. I think an average of a 240 carry is pretty generous…

mackdaddy

I can’t wait for my fitting appointment in March

Matt W

Best MW format for the results yet. Love the information and I will continue to donate every year to MSG. Thank you for all you do.

Scott

When will you be putting out the MOI/CG charts for the 2019 drivers?

Eventually, yes. It’s a time-intensive process and our focus is on club testing.

bob siegel

Since High Heat created such a sensation at the 2018 PGA show, why not test it with the usual suspects and see if the claims hold up. Where is you independence from name brand manufacturers that Golf Spy claims?

We tested the High Heat a couple of years ago. It performed ok for slower swing speed golfers, but that’s really all we can say about it.

Brian shuman

It appears that the srixon z585 has better ball speed, longer carry and less spin than the epic and other top choices. Yet no mention of it being the winners in those critical categories. I thought those were the most critical statistics?

Based on raw data only the 585 finished ahead of the SZ in one or two categories. FW% was significantly better with the SZ. Shot Area (dispersion) was tighter. When we look deeper into standard deviations of key metrics as well as the statistical reliability of those same metrics, the 585 falls offs a bit.

It’s by no means bad, but the SZ tested better overall, and the 585 wasn’t a factor in the total distance and forgiveness categories.

mac

What variables changes from the 2017 results? Looks like 2019 drivers are shorter…

http://mygolfspy.com/2017-most-wanted-driver/

It’s not possible to make year over year comparisons and take anything meaningful (or accurate) away from it.

Haydz

Kia ora Team.
Thanks for this very informative and detailed test. I have been viewing these for years, but have found this to be your best so far. Your questions with answers are a great addition.
What I’ve taken away from this test, is basically they all perform well. But what performs best for me and you will vary.
Finding a driver head style I like, and getting fitted into the correct shaft will maximize my game.
Distance is not a problem for me – I’m after consistency and tighter dispersion.
This data gives me the confidence that I’m not going to be coerced into buying a fitters preference over factual data or what I like.
Try them out, see what’s best (numbers, feel, confidence) and then spend the money.
Thanks again.

Richard H.

I miss hearing people say “Kia ora”. I used to live in NZ when I was younger. :)

DFinch

Super close results. Hard to go wrong with any of them. Great to see Titleist step it up with ball speed and lower spin. I probably would have gone with F9 this year if it was out of pocket (they set the standard for performance/value), but I couldn’t pass up a club credit deal on the TS3.

PS

Recently stumbled upon a local fitting spot that had a Honma driver to demo. Whoa is all I can say! It wasn’t my favorite to look at but the numbers were simply incredible and considerably better than everything else I tried that particular day including Epic Flash, Ping 410 and Cobra. Have not been back to verify but it’s safe to say they have some legit gear to compete with the big boys. TW-747v irons were also awesome. Best feel and performance of anything I’ve personally tested to date. I have no idea how much Honma gear costs so I best be careful before I fall in love. Must say the Honma website is hot mess……. not very user friendly and club descriptions that are puzzling. Will be interesting to see if they can get a foothold here in the states.

Well I am commenting on my own comment. Had a chance to test the Honma product again and went to a different facility that also had a Trackman. Completely different numbers…….very strange. All the parameters and setting were identical as far as I could tell including golf ball so I don’t know what to say. Scratch hdcp player and I felt as though I was swinging well both days so not sure what to chalk it up to. Back to the drawing board……..and my old driver for now.

Brad

Based on the combination of price and performance, the Cobra F9 is definitely worth a look, especially for golfers with high swing speeds. I tested several drivers recently, and I was getting some of the most consistent results and highest ball speeds of any driver I’ve ever hit. So, was the person testing the F9 in the bay next to me. We both walked out that day with a new Cobra F9 driver. ‘

The Epic Flash was also very good, but cost $150 more than the F9 (ouch!). The Cobra was also better on off-centre hits. I hit a few that were a bit low heel and each time I thought “that’s a bad one” only to look up at the launch monitor and see the ball flying well and either going straight or with the slightest draw, and only a 10 or so yard loss of distance. I’ll take that result every time.

ChuckIt

It seems like a number of people are clamoring for a best of the best Most Wanted test…

Went down the rabbit hole of comparing companies between years and it seems (at least imo) that there isn’t much of difference in the numbers that the average golfer would notice.

Stewie

Agreed. In the past I’ve compared numbers between years and scratch my head. In fact I look at the old numbers and compare them with the new numbers and when I find that the olf numbers “outperform” the new numbers I look for a good used head and shaft it up with my favorite shaft. For example, the 2016 M1s did no worse (no I’m trying to remember without looking at the numbers) than the 2017-18 Taylormade offerings. Last year I bought a good condition used Srixon 565 head for cheap because of the numbers (based on my swing speed) compared with the best of the new heads. I strongly suggest that MGS do a “Best of the Most Wanted” test where the best clubs for each swing speed range go head to head and see exacly what the golf equipment companies are selling us.

Caroline

Right on Rick, I got taken by the 2018 Rouge….wish we could run that ad right next to the new ad for the Epic….sorry to say my Rouge feels as sold as any driver ever, but distance is no better then my old Taylormade R15 preiod…and don’t even toss that accuracy idea at me…

Brandon

Another great informative driver test. I went through a fitting and tried all the 2019 driver released, and the M6 was by far the best for me. I had the M2 which I was fitted for but was a great driver nonetheless. But with the fitting process and the M6, I went from 242 carry with M2 to 272 carry with the M6. I credit more to the fitting process but the M6 is more forgiving on a mishit.

The spin numbers were significantly lower as well. I was averaging 2800 rpm with M2 and 2200rpm with the M6.

I believe the moral of my story is to get fit and try every driver.

JJ

How were the weights set up in the Cobra F9?… I think the F9 is more appealing. Virtually the same performance, but the sound/feel is so much better with the F9. The Epic flash SZ sound is a huge turnoff, imo…

Eric

In your pros and cons section for the winner, the Callaway epic flash subzero, you mentioned that the sound is not very pleasing. And that is totally correct. Matter of fact it kept me from buying the golf club even though it was the longest for me. The sound is absolutely brutal. When all drivers are good this year, 2 to 3 yards isn’t a big deal and I’ll make that sacrifice to get a driver that’s not offensive sounding. Callaway truly screwed up this time. It just warmed up in my city and folks that purchased the flash SZ driver are starting to return them now that I’ve got them out on the course and heard the sound.

Shon

Eric,
If you truly love the driver, for $25 or so you can have hotmelt added to that bad boy and keep it moving…

eric

It was long but so was everything. No reason to tinker this year. I’ve added hotmelt to a few clubs and sometimes it sounds good and sometimes dead. So it’s a roll of the dice. I ended up with the Mizuno ST190 this year. Great from the word “go”.

Jas

Who is gonna put hot melt n there? I cut my shafts off 2 43″1/2 & it makes the sw 2 like C-8. I haf 2 put alot of tape on the heads 2 make them D2-4.
thx

Quite frankly, we feel like Callaway made a mistake with the acoustics, not unlike Cobra’s big whiff with the F6+ several years ago. I wonder if it’s something in the ripples of the Flash Face that they didn’t account for or didn’t have time to fix, because it’s not like Callaway doesn’t have a tone of experience with composite at this point. They know how to make it sound good, or at least not bad.

I can also tell you that the firmer the ball, the worse it sounds, and I do wonder if they do most of their testing with lower compression balls that may have helped mask the issue.

It could also be an attempt to get people to use Chrome Soft balls. But I doubt that – I don’t see Joe consumer putting 2 and 2 together and choosing a softer compression ball to fix his driver sound. Tony is correct, Callaway has a sound lab/acoustics room in their R&D facility. They KNOW how to do sound.

Kaz

It is great what mygolfspy does for us. As a suggestion, I would like more information regarding the shafts; what shafts were used in each of the winners? It was suggested that many golfers may be going to a softer shaft, means? Softer tip?

Mygolfspy has never released deep player cohort data from their testing. I surmised this was because they were selling this to manufacturers. Especially those with smaller R&D budgets.

Now I see that truegolffit.com seems to be an offshoot enterprise also using data from these tests – so you’re not likely to see this raw data.

I have no problem with alternative monetization strategies and wish them every success. However personally gives me pause about donating on the basis of true datacracy.

In the interest of transparency, I can tell you that we haven’t sold the data to any of the golf companies, though it’s something we’ve considered, and something I can’t honestly rule out. We’ve also dipped our toes into independent 3rd party human testing in much the same way Golf Labs offers its robot testing services.

It remains true that we haven’t taken ad dollars from any company with significant market share. We put, quite literally, nearly everything we had into opening up our test facility – and we did it with no clear monetization strategy. As we grew we were able to hire one full-time staffer (Sam) and then another guy (Harry) to increase our testing capacity. This year, we’re testing nearly 12 hours a day, 5 days a week to try and get all categories completed sooner (and we keep adding both club and soft good categories). That’s on top of revising the presentation, which as you can imagine, takes quite a bit longer to produce now.

That’s the background of how we got to where we are today. TrueGolfFit was a little bit of an accident. Going back to the original driver test, Adam and I looked for ways to make Most Wanted (back then it was “The Ultimate Driver Test”) more relevant to an individual golfer, but short of things like our swing speed breakdowns, we didn’t have a great way to do it. Getting head data from Foresight kicked open some doors we hadn’t considered. One day, I was just messing around with some things to make a one-off review more interesting, and basically tripped over my own feet into an algorithm for providing targeted (individual) club recommendations using our data.

It took some time to fully conceptualize, but TrueGolfFit was conceived as a way to make better fitting recommendations for golfers who choose not to be fit conventionally. It can also serve to give golfers a starting point in their fittings and hopefully get them to consider strong performers they might have overlooked. It was costly to build (and is costly to improve), but we’re optimistic that by monetizing it, we can offset the development costs, and hopefully grow to the point where we can hire more staff.

I understand that some will assume we have ulterior motives (such is the world we live in), but our goal has always been to provide golfers with the best information we possibly can. We don’t have website subscriptions, we don’t take big ad dollars, and we don’t require anybody to donate to get ‘the good stuff’. I suppose you can think of TGF as our singular subscription offering – though I’d argue that the Performance Guarantee from GlobalGolf is worth the small fitting fee. As I said, I hope it grows as it will help us grow. The long-term goal is to get to a point where we don’t need donations to buy clubs for brands that don’t participate. We want to get to a point where we buy everything off-the-rack.

What I hope everyone will take away from this is that TGF isn’t some money grab (it has always been about the consumer), and it’s not something that pushes us closer to the OEMs. Time will tell, but I certainly hope it becomes one of many revenue streams that will allow us to become even less dependent on the big brands.

It’s always challenging to strike the right balance between enough information/data and overload. If we cater exclusively to the gear head, we lose the casual golfer. If we swing too far the other way… That’s part of the thinking behind the new format.

As far as the shaft question is concerned, it was largely tester dependent. In some cases, we had guys that often fit into what gets labeled the low launch profile in a given lineup (stiffer tip), move into the mid-launch option. In some cases though less frequently, Stiff flex guys, for example, moved into regular flex shafts.

It’s probably worth mentioning that while there are a few made fors or more deceptively made fors disguised as not, the quality of the stock shafts is arguably better with fewer playing apreciably soft to flex in general.

Thank you for filling in the background and addressing the “data availability” question with such depth and clarity

FWIW I have faith in integrity of MGS, never seen any signal to the contrary. I would not think that TrueGolfFit is some kind of hardware shill. Sounds very interesting what you are hinting at about delivery pattern and club suitability. Must give it a spin when time comes to upgrade.

Yes, I’m a bit of a data geek, and agree that many would not find “raw data” dumps at all digestible. Monetizing this data while making it highly accessible is perfectly reasonable. Even a win-win.
I have no right to expect detailed data for free and I don’t :-) If raw data keeps MGS successful that’s already a big plus. FWIW likewise I’d have zero qualms if the raw data were used to help the equipment guys improve their product and compete more closely.

Absolutely you’re deserving of rewards for initiative and all the hard work. Offering what you do without big ad dollars is some achievement. I may be alone, but even if MGS had big manufactures advertising I wouldn’t expect any undue influence.

BTW new presentation is super!

Gordon

Excellent job as usual guys!!

Thanks to MGS and all of your testers for doing this kind of this for the readers and consumers!!

10shot

Thanks MGS, average “Joes” ranking clubs. can’t ask for more than that.

Marty Neighbour

Great job as always.

Your results mirror my own testing for what it’s worth.

Looking to replace my Epic SZ from 2017, I was down to the Epic Flash SZ and the Cobra F9. As a high speed (120+) swinger, they both performed almost identically (spin slightly higher on Cobra). I ended up going with the Cobra F9 for two main reasons. Feel was much better to me (impact and sound), and value (cheaper for similar performance).

I really feel like Cobra has a winner with this one.

Kenny

Would love to see last year’s winner included in this test to see how that holds up to the new technology.

Dan

Fascinating the most accurate drivers in this list have 2800+ rpms of spin while only one had above 2600 in the 2018 list. Maybe the message of “spin it as low as possible and bomb it (into the forest)” is finally starting to change?

Dom Lee

Great information as usual. And what a crop of drivers this year! Definitely seemed that the top third of each data category were really close. Of course that should encourage everyone to go get fit. In my opinion and testing at Club Champion between the Callaway Flash Sub Zero, the Ping 410 Plus, PXG 0311X, and Cobra F9… Flash and PXG had the fastest ball speeds, the Ping just would go left on me (would love to test the LST eventually), and the F9 was too spinny even with the weight forward. What did it for me is the look, feel, and sound for the PXG is so far above and beyond the rest. Just felt like the ball was a rocket off the clubface. Callaway and Ping looked/sounded the worst. Again, all a matter of opinion.

PakDoc

Can’t wait for the 410 Max so I can get the discounted G400 Max at a steal….probably still one of the best “current” drivers on the market.

Tom

Doubt you will see that. Ping doesn’t bring out another version, unless they can make it better. And with as great as the G400 Max has been, that will be a hard nut to crack.

I’ve been using the G30 since it came out and when I tried the G400 Max I was disappointed. I have the Diamana Blue in the G30 and Kiyoshi HB in the G400max. Switched the shafts and it made no difference, I still hit more fairways with the G30.

MattM

Is it appropriate to look at this year’s data compared to last year’s data (given that last year’s products are still on the market)? Or are/were the testers vastly different to where we wouldn’t really be comparing apples-to-apples?

For instance, the Ping G410 Plus has a lower ball speed compared to the G400 LST testing from last year, but the dispersion appears to be tighter for the G410 Plus.

It’s difficult to make year over year comparisons with the data. Our pool of testers always has some year over year changes and we’ve made more of an effort to use more slower swing speed testers.

Brett

I absolutely endorse doing a comparison between the best of previous years’ winners.

I currently play the ‘17 TM M2. Looking back to the 2017 MW results the current crop drivers speed numbers have dropped off. Has your test method changed or are the 2017 driver’s faces that much faster? For example the ball speed for the 95-105 segment for the M2 was 142.9 mph. Thanks again for bringing the truth.

The test method itself is the same, but in the last couple of years, we’ve grown our testing pool to 35 golfers while making it a priority to bring in more slower swing speed testers. The average swing speed in the test has dropped a bit the last couple of years, so it’s logical ball speed would drop with it.

Thanks. I figured there was some change in a variable. Thanks for the reply.

Craig

It would be nice if you can compare drivers from current and previous years. I have the G400 Max and would like to see the difference with the G410 Plus.

Completely agree with this! Take the winner from the last 3-5 years and throw it in the testing. #ConsumerFirst

Awesome job MGS! Surprised to see Callaway on top as I fully expected Cobra would be the top performer. Sounds like they might as well be tied though if they’re as close as the article and comments suggest.

Mark M

Bravo! and thanks for the effort – always great to see all the info.

Mark

It was good to see the numbers (ball speed) near what I average, I figure the swing speed was around 90 mph. Sometimes the testing is done with a person who swings around 110 mph. I know it would take more time, but if you could have tester swing speeds around 80, 95, and 110 mph, a person could better choose their driver based on those numbers. I figure a 15 mph swing speed could affect which driver goes the furthest, straightest, etc.. in those 3 swing speed categories.

Hi Mark,

What you see in the data is the average across all testers. The 35 golfers who participated in this test have swing speeds from a bit under 80 to over 120 MPH. We’ll publish a ‘by swing speed’ breakdown in the coming weeks.

ChrisK

Swing speed category is definitely something i look out for . In my own personal testing (i got off work early on Friday and went to the golf shop), i checked the new Epic Flash subzero. Admittedly, i’m a sucker for new tech, and this one was supposed to be an AI-creation.

I swing the driver at about 100 mph, and i did a direct comparison of my 2017 Epic Subzero with the new Epic Flash subzero model. Got a similar shaft in it too. Surprisingly (or perhaps not), there wasn’t much difference. The best shot with the new model carried 3 yards further than the 2017 model, but other than that, it was amazing how close they were in every other category with the exception of one — the launch angle. The monitor had me at 13.5* in the old model, and consistently at 17* in the new model. I thought it was odd then, and still do now, so i noted it.
IMHO i think there’s definitely something going on with the face of the new model that’s probably beneficial for a bunch of golfers that just have issues catching the ball on the upswing. Ball speeds and carry distances were still very close otherwise. Bottom line: I reckon i’ll hold off on any new purchases this year :)

This is by far the best presentation of information that i think we have seen from this test. particularly enjoy the inclusion of the specs regarding lie and loft vs what is supplied to us stamped on the club or posted on the Man. sites.

This data falls right in line with the COG postings you have posted in the past and will help end users and fitters alike.

One question about the data you presented.

Did the loft an lie measurements on the higher lofted models (10.5 in the TS3 for example) have equivalent or close to equivalent discrepancies to the stated specs from the MAN seen on the 9 degree version?

David Langley

How did the cobra come 2nd when it finished 5th in the strokes gained metric?

Rob

This chart isn’t the full set of numbers. It is only the lower end of ballspeed. They should post the rest of the numbers as the weeks go by (although I wish they would just post everything at once)

We’ve taken a much more extensive approach to what we look at this year. The average stokes gained is a single metric. In addition to SG, we also factor in the selection of distance, accuracy, and consistency metrics, while also looking at the statistical reliability of those metrics. We publish the raw data because it’s expected, but there’s considerably more we have to look at to arrive at our rankings. The raw data only presents a partial picture. What I will tell you is that, based on the totality of what we collect and analyze, this is as tight of a result as we’ve ever had in the driver category.

Hello Tony,
Looking for the summary chart of the most wanted driver. From the article all I can seem to find is 1 = EPIC FLASH SUB ZERO and 2 = Cobra F9. Is there reason why you don’t publish the all things considered list? Or is that coming later? Have you considered a score based system, like how car magazines settle head to heads? Thanks

Full rankings are easy when your metrics are subjective or if you’re using one or two data points. We’ve tried to do that in the past, but we found that by evaluating a wider field we can do a better job of not only identifying the clubs that standout, but also identify weaknesses we might have missed previously. At the end of the day, what’s the difference really between a score of 86 and 84, for example? What we’ve found is that year over year – and almost without regard for the metrics used – there are 2 or 3 clubs that are clearly top tier, 2 or 3 that are clearly bottom tier, and +/-18 or so that fall into the average range to the degree that it would be unreasonable to separate because, realistically, the difference between say #8 and #18 are not nearly as significant as 10 places in the rankings might suggest.

Any idea when truegolffit.com will get updated w/ the new drivers?

Ken

Yep – interested in this as well as I’m getting fit for a new driver now and would love to have as comparison data.

Derek

Same here, just discovered true fit and will be looking for a new driver this year. would be a huge help to have them in the system. (which looks awesome by the way)

We’re working to get the 2019 data into TGF. With a little luck we’ll have it in there before the end of the day.

How will we know when the new drivers have been updated? Is there a list on the site that shows what drivers are included in the fitting?

TrueGolfFit was updated last night.

RB79

Sub standard sound and bad peformance on mishits makes the epic flash a sub zero the loser and not the winner.

Right?!? Bad performance on mis-hits completely negates the advertising story with the flash face technology. The super computer was supposed to have maximized ballspeed across the face but it seems like the didn’t in real world MGS testing.

I’d also add, FWIW, that nothing in Callaway’s Flash Face story discusses off-center ball speed. The emphasis – and what distinguishes the story from others – is a claim that they’ve boosted peak ball speed. Actual mileage may vary there, but Callaway was transparent about the fact that off-center performance was down the list of instructions they provided the computer and that this years’ models are a tad lower MOI than Rogue.

Where does it say bad performance on mishits? It says not among the best, which is how we would describe the top handful. As you would expect, we generally see tighest standard deviations on ball speed (and to an extent carry yards) with the higher MOI driver. When we look at the totality of our data, which includes not only the raw data, but also standard deviations for key metrics, as well as the statistical reliability of those metrics, we found the Flash SZ to be at or near the top across the board with the exception of one of our consistency metrics.

The reality is most of the average golfers and consumers don’t hold this variable to a very high standard when choosing a new driver either. Regardless of the logical arguments we could all make, us gear heads and data freaks are the minority.

Divot

Was kind of hoping the Wilson Cortex would have finished higher. The Driver vs Driver is a brilliant marketing format, Hopefully they stay in the game and catch up to the major equipment manufacturers

Jeremy

Yeah, I’m a little disappointed the Cortex didn’t get any mentions in terms of where it scored positively or negatively. Seems like everyone else’s product at least had some sort of mention but I guess we will have to wait until the full chart comes out.

As far as the subjective stuff from our testers is concerned, the Cortex was largely unremarkable. What testers tend to talk about are a couple of clubs (or aspects of those clubs) they really like, and clubs (or aspects thereof) they don’t like. In that respect, Cortex would qualify as average (nothing stands out good or bad on a subjective level).

As far as performance goes, looking at rankings within our key metrics it was solidly in the average range for most every one.

The Wilson D7 numbers were better. I think their design basis for the D7 is better however its not flashy and doesn’t have the story of the other drivers out there. The Cortex will be in the bargain bin this time next year. Wish they would of priced it more realistic for what it is…Wilson must of known how they were going to stack up based on the 2018 driver testing…

Right on Mike, be right next to the huge supply of TRITON DVD…I think that one is getting $35 dollars in trade now….

Tom54

Perfect timing. I have a fitting at Club Champion scheduled next week. Can’t wait to hit Epic Flash, M6, PXG, and F9. I just hit the F9 in the store for the first time a couple of days ago and I’m very intrigued.

steve s

I assume that forthcoming articles will have the breakdown by swing speed as in the past?

Geoff

Great job as always! Any reason the G400 Max wasn’t included as it’s still a current model? Any idea how it would have compared on dispersion or overall performance? Thanks!

Aaron

Great review!!! Any consideration to this test and the fact that the lie angles are all over the place? The top 5 (except G410+) all had relatively “normal” lie angles for a driver. There are some on the list that have more upright lies than my wedges! I feel like this contributes as much to performance as loft and length do as well.

Pinkster

I love what you do at MyGolfSpy but I *really* wish you guys would create a driver (and putter) test based not just on this years hottest drivers, but of all the top placing drivers that you’ve tested over the last 5+ years.

If you really want to cut through the manufacturer BS and give valuable data to buyers, I think that’s the best way to achieve it.

Just focusing on new equipment each year seems like a sales push, even though I know it’s all independent testing, no sponsorship etc. The fact old equipment is never tested again just leaves a sour after taste.

JonM

Would it be possible to provide the swing speed for comparison? A fraction higher in swing speed can correlate to a fraction higher ball speed etc.
Also, can any of the data be broken into ideal driver for different swing speeds (slow, moderate, fast)?

I would also add that only focusing on new drivers and only testing them against other new drivers, is contributing to “artificially accelerated desirability” a strategy you are on record as saying is there to put profits over the player and MGS was created to fight that; but you’re actually adding to it if you look at your social feed after every Most Wanted Test with people saying how they are now going to go out and buy the #1 or #2 club in your tests.

I understand MGS needs revenue but when you bring out these test, only focusing on the latest and greatest AND get paid for promoting the clubs via affiliate links on the most wanted results pages, that makes you a cog in the golf hype machine.

Well stated. Still love the content on the site.

I second this!

McFly

Great Jobs as always and thank you guys for this. I’m curious if you guys see yourselves adding to the study once the new version of last years winner the Ping G410 LST is added to there line up.

Great Job as always!

Marklar

Thank you for the test guys!

Why was M6 D-Type left out of the test while G410 SFT was included?

Would have also loved to see M5 Tour included..

As you can imagine, there’s quite a bit of lead time with these tests. TaylorMade declined to send product so we weren’t able to source some product in time to include.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Driver Ping G30	Hybrids PXG 0317
3/4 IRON PXG 0311XF	5-GW Srixon Z 565
SW PXG 0317	LW PXG 0311
Putter EVNROLL

Drivers

2019 MOST WANTED DRIVER

INDEPENDENT & UNBIASED

24

ProductsConsidered

210

HoursResearched

9,237

ShotsHit

38.2m

Readers

OUR JOB IS YOUR GAME

Most Wanted: Callaway Epic Flash Sub Zero

Driver Buying Considerations

ADJUSTABILITY

SHAFT SELECTION

Distance vs. Forgiveness vs. Shot Shape Correction

Cost

2019 Runner-Up - Cobra F9 Speedback

FIELD NOTES

Trends and Tweaks

How Adjusting Loft Impacts Launch and Spin

Notes from the Testing Pool

PING G410 SFT - The Slice Killer

2019 Most Wanted DRIVER DATA

Expert Tip - Aligning Weights with Impact

MORE BUYING TIPS

How We Test

About our Testers

Limiting Variables and Gathering Data Reliably

Crunching the Numbers

PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS

Most Wanted Driver Spec Sheet

FAQ

Buying a New Driver

Driver Lie Angle Matters Too

Most Wanted

Support Unbiased Testing.

Donate to MGS

For You

For You

Buyer's Guides

Apr 12, 2024

Best Spikeless Golf Shoes of 2024

First Look

Apr 12, 2024

Under Armour’s Cheesy Take on the Masters

News

Apr 12, 2024

PING WebFit: Get Fit From your Phone

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

comments

Matt f

Jack B

HDTVMAN

joe

MyGolfSpy

Dan Z

scott

Andy

MHB

MyGolfSpy

Andy

Gerald Lindell

MHB

Bobarino

MHB

Bobarino

albatrossx3

Tim D

BSteve

Mhb

Devin

Products
Considered

Hours
Researched

Shots
Hit