MGS Tested: 2017 MOST WANTED DRIVER
Drivers

MGS Tested: 2017 MOST WANTED DRIVER

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

MGS Tested: 2017 MOST WANTED DRIVER

INDEPENDENT & UNBIASED

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

120

Hours
Researched

16.2m

Readers

7,330

Shots
Hit

30

Products
Considered


“The World’s Largest Unbiased Head-To-Head Driver Test.”

all-drivers-1-final

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. We’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. 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.

true-rank-gif2

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 Bridgestone B330-RX golf balls for consistency and to reduce test variables. All ball data was collected using the world’s most trusted launch monitor, Foresight Sports. 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 TRUERank. 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. Aggregated. Normalized. Delivered.

For more details, see our How We Test page.

Read up on the best drivers of 2020, whether you have a slow swing speed, mid swing speed, or high swing speed find the best gear for your game!

 

testimonials2

2017 Driver Rankings

 

top-5-grass

 

foresight-bnr

 

2017guides-3

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.

Donate to MGS


Amount

Frequency

For You

For You

Partner Content
Feb 22, 2024
What Club Should You Use to Get Up and Down?
adidas tour360 24 adidas tour360 24
Golf Shoes
Feb 22, 2024
adidas TOUR360 24: The Return of an Icon
News
Feb 22, 2024
Opinion: Pro Golfers Should Still Keep Score—But Let’s Reduce the Penalty for an Incorrect Card
MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

Our mission is #ConsumerFirst. We are here to help educate and empower golfers. We want you to get the most out of your money, time and performance. That means providing you with equipment reviews you can trust, as well as honest reporting on the latest issues affecting the game today. #PowerToThePlayer

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

Ball Lab Golf Ball Quality Awards
Jan 22, 2024 | 31 Comments
How Long Does a Round of Golf Take?
Nov 15, 2023 | 0 Comments
MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

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

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy





    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

      Deuce

      6 years ago

      These results validate the fact that data can be biased in any number of ways to drive different outcomes. For example, compare your winner vs the BB Fusion (I game the G30, so it’s not personal). The winner is only .6 yards longer but is farther from center and has a wider shot dispersion from a club that wasn’t even in the top five.

      In my opinion, this shows that you should simply eliminate the outliers and pick the club that looks, feels, and sounds the best to maximize your confidence and then get it fitted so the loft and shaft match your swing.

      Reply

      Birdieputt13

      6 years ago

      Tony, I appreciate the effort with your driver testing; however, to be honest, I was just as confused after reading the report as before.

      I understand the use of stock shafts; however, as any fitter worth his salt knows, the shaft is a HUGE part of the fitting process and results can vary significantly from shaft to shaft. Why did you test the PING G driver when the G400 has been on the market for some time now.

      I appreciate the effort but your report leaves just as many questions unanswered as answered. I’m not sure of its’ value.

      Reply

      Walter

      6 years ago

      I thought earlier in the year MGS said Tour Edge was going to participate in all the club tests, then you tell Doug M. that Tour Edge declined???

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      6 years ago

      There’s literally a Tour Edge Driver in this test. They chose to submit only the new Hot Launch stuff for the driver test.

      Reply

      James Markham

      6 years ago

      What about us old guys with a 75/80 swing speed? I never see anything about that!

      Reply

      Jerry Noble

      6 years ago

      I don’t know why I am getting this test that was taken several months ago but I have my own test. I own an Epic, M1, G30lst, and just got the Ping 400. I have same shaft in each. The Ping 400 is 5 to 10 yards longer than the others and easier to swing. Great driver.

      Reply

      Jerry Noble

      6 years ago

      That was ping 400 lst.

      Reply

      Chad Miller

      6 years ago

      So, I’m a little confused about the “Club Speed” column. wouldn’t that simply be dictated by the testers? shouldn’t this be somehow normalized across the board? I mean, Ball speed appears to have a pretty strong correlation to club speed. so, low club speeds have a pretty negative affect on some clubs (like the Titleist 917 D3)

      Reply

      Birdieputt13

      6 years ago

      I agree with Chad. When using an “Iron Bryon” or other machine, the swing speed can be set and one has at least one constant across the board. Using the testers, who all have a different swing speeds, negated the validity of the testing in my view.

      I found it hard to extract any real, viable data from this test.

      Reply

      Doug Mael

      7 years ago

      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

      Reply

      Sam Robinson

      7 years ago

      We did request equipment from Tour Edge Exotics this year. However they did not choose to participate.

      Reply

      Chris C.

      7 years ago

      Once again, these test results are amazing. However, and despite the fact that the Srixon 565 will probably be my third driver of the year, I do not understand how the M2 ’17 is ranked below the 565. The M2 appears to hit the ball further and more accurately than the 565. Is that not better?

      Reply

      Jamie

      7 years ago

      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.

      Reply

      Jordan

      7 years ago

      No way I would sacrifice 7 yards for 1 yard in accuracy. If you hit it solid they’re all pretty much equal in accuracy. The accuracy differences are negligible and hardlystatistically significant let alone significant in the real world. Distance on the other hand has fairly major differences.

      Reply

      Will Bacon

      7 years ago

      Why do you think some Srixon staffers do not have a Srixon driver in the bag?

      Reply

      Kyle

      7 years ago

      As a huge srixon fan and user I’ve often wondered the same thing. As far as I can tell Srixons #1 priority is the ball, then irons. The companies also pay the staffers on a per- club basis so some players than not will seek out multiple offers to play different equipment (Smylie Kaufman is a srixon staffer and with a “woods only” Taylormade contract for example)

      Reply

      Birdieputt13

      6 years ago

      Because there are many drivers that outperform the Srixon drivers. Remember a guy on tour isn’t going to use an inferior product just because of a premium paid by a manufacturer. There’s too much prize money at stake.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      6 years ago

      This is a total fallacy so it’s a shame that it gets repeated very often. On the shaft side, for example, there’s a tremendous amount of politics involved – more a who knows who than what plays best. What goes into bags is heavily influenced by pay for play. And you can’t overlook the fact that with the fitting (and van customization) available to these guys it’s very easy to level the playing field. And that’s before we talk about guys playing what they play because they’ve always played…insert brand here.

      I had a fun chat a few weeks ago with an industry who works with tour players frequently. What he said that these guys are no different than the guys he plays with every week. More talented sure, but easily susceptible to what they hear in see. His example: If a guy won next week with a fluorescent blue putter, we’d have a bunch of guys asking us for a fluorescent blue putter.

      Andrew Han

      7 years ago

      Good stuff and a surprise, Srixon?! Wow didn’t see it coming.

      Thanks for putting darkness17 as workbook. The name sounds like a PXG club btw lol.

      Reply

      Robert Chapel

      7 years ago

      I wanted to know if the Callaway BB Fusion was the 44.5 inch shaft or the 45.5. It seemed fairly accurate and was wondering if that was because the shorter shaft?

      Reply

      Kaz

      7 years ago

      Help me understand the difference between the Srixon Z565 & Z765.

      Reply

      Jae

      7 years ago

      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

      Reply

      Ted Fletcher

      7 years ago

      Very cool. As a business intelligence professional, I would love to see this dataset put into a sliceable dashboard format on your site so users could filter out or adjust things like swing speed or launch to better get an idea of what might work better for their game.

      Reply

      MyGolf Spy

      7 years ago

      Coming soon.

      Reply

      dcorun

      7 years ago

      No winners or losers in my opinion. Any one of these drivers may work better for one of us than another. I found the Z565 and F7 to be the best fit for me when testing at the PGA Superstore. I enjoy the unbiased testing that MSG does. No company BS here just facts.

      Reply

      Shawn

      7 years ago

      you should do a follow up test of the top 5 drivers from the previous years. i bought a fly z based strongly of its review from a couple years ago, it would be interesting to see how it holds up. it would be a good standard off when i feel i need to upgrade again. great site. thanks guys

      Reply

      KJ Johnson

      7 years ago

      Always good info……

      Reply

      Dave S

      7 years ago

      Worst showing by Ping in these Most Wanted tests in a long time. Maybe PXG actually DID take all their good engineers?

      Reply

      station

      7 years ago

      The G and G30 drivers were designed before any hiring by PXG took place. And how is 2.8 yards behind the winner a bad showing by the G?

      Amazing that people think any driver had a bad showing.

      Reply

      Dave S

      7 years ago

      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.

      Kevin

      7 years ago

      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.

      Hammer22

      7 years ago

      Ping SF tec 16.9 yards off center , I’ll take that over a couple yards all day long

      David W

      7 years ago

      This test confirms I made the right choice with the 2016 M1 I bought earlier this year! When you look at the numbers from last year, the 2016 M1 is still the king.

      Reply

      Bob Kendall

      7 years ago

      The testing clearly shows that virtually any of the top ten drivers will perform very well if fitted with the correct loft and shaft. I do have an Epic SZ 10.5*. Rogue Max R but could live happily with all of the top ten except the M1 440.

      As a Master Fitter at Golf Town for the last 15 years, I’ve seen driver technology greatly improve in the last three years.

      Reply

      Greg

      7 years ago

      MGS you sure are enablers. I have a new Z565 on the way. I’ll post a review when I get a few rounds under my belt with it. Thanks for a great report and review!

      Reply

      Reed Hughes

      7 years ago

      And then there is Titleist!!

      Reply

      Chris Prendergast

      7 years ago

      The bag in this pic is pretty sweet

      Reply

      Steve

      7 years ago

      I personally smoke the living crap out of the Epic Sub-Zero. I have the 12g Weight forward, 9* standard, with the Aldila Rouge I/O X-Flex shaft.
      I find it to be very low spinning and straight with a slight draw.
      Maybe it’s just a great fit for my swing but damn, 12th for the majority was #1 for me…

      Reply

      Dave S

      7 years ago

      Well… have you hit every other driver in this test? Specifically the Srixons? If not, then how do you know the sub-zero is #1 for you? Maybe you can smoke the living crap our of the Z565 even better?

      Reply

      MJ

      7 years ago

      Good luck finding somewhere to get fit to a Srixon driver properly. They look sweet though…

      Thomas

      7 years ago

      Great work. I have been been waiting since I snapped the head off my Titleist D3 and I have been in the market. Boiled down to
      TM M2, T D3, Epic, Srixon. After your work I’m no further ahead on decision. Guess I will go with looks, setup, and feel
      Thanx again MGS

      Reply

      Chris C.

      7 years ago

      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.

      Reply

      Ryan

      7 years ago

      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!

      Reply

      Mike Walker

      7 years ago

      Can you talk for a bit about how extensively each golfer was fit? Golf galaxy level fitting or club champion level? Stock shafts only?

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      The first thing to understand is that we test clubs off-the-rack. That means no exotic shafts…basically 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 rack…we 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 process…tuning 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 (again…if 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.

      Reply

      BHS

      7 years ago

      Is there a way to get the results of the test base on swing speed of tester? so…80-90…90-100…100+

      Reply

      Maio Reyes

      7 years ago

      The winner is a big surprise, but I trust you guys. Thanks!

      Reply

      Marty

      7 years ago

      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.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      I’d put Sub Zero in the same class at Cobra’s KING Ltd. It’s not a particularly descriptive label, but I call then ‘tough fits’. I think they’re both exceptional performers for the right guy with a good fit, but as far a walking into a golf shop, pulling one of the rack and getting stellar results go…the odds aren’t good.

      Reply

      The dude

      7 years ago

      I have the sub zero with a fujikura Atmos shaft and only swing 100-106 and think the club it the titts. It seems to be fade biased and is easier to hit a nice little fade with. Which actually runs out for me and can hit a little draw here and there when need be. Definitely not a a piece of shit like some peeps say lol

      Reply

      MyGolf Spy

      7 years ago

      The Mizuno was included in the test.

      Reply

      ERBug

      7 years ago

      I’m confused. The Callaway EPIC was longer in distance, only 0.4 yards off in accuracy, spun virtually the same, and had 1.5 mph FASTER ballspeed than the Srixon….yet the Z565 was named Most Wanted Driver? Why? Ball speed especially is something you cannot improve (it’s effectively engineered into the face technology) so one would think being almost 1.5 mph faster would be statistically significant.

      Reply

      Uhit

      7 years ago

      I´m confused, why the Srixon Z565 named Most Wanted Driver and not the Srixon Z765…

      …because the Z765 has the higher club speed, the higher ball speed, the lower spin rate, the longer carry distance, the longer total distance, AND the tighter dispersion!

      For me, the numbers count – not the ranking…

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      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.

      Reply

      Mat Davis

      7 years ago

      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.

      1. Do you see this “there is no difference” argument as valid?

      2. 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?

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      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. Yes. 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 condition…with some tweaks to remove bias from longer hitters.

      Reply

      Jerry

      7 years ago

      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.

      Marc Llanes

      7 years ago

      Nice, ill have hit my local Pga superstore and do a head to head vs my m2.

      Reply

      andy

      7 years ago

      Tony, kinda funny that D300 seems to consistently outperform the much more hyped Triton driver, no?

      Reply

      Michael Woods

      7 years ago

      I swing somewhat fast. I hit that srixon about a month ago and almost bought it! It really was a long flyer. Sounds sweet also.

      Reply

      Marc Llanes

      7 years ago

      Agreed. I like the look of the Srixon more than the Taylormade 2016 M2 i have with a Matrix 80X M4 tour shaft. Srixon drivers have that compact classic look that says “swing me and ill murder the ball”….if u know what i mean.

      Reply

      Corey

      7 years ago

      Does this mean we will see the M1 440 on the CG chart soon? Great job as always.

      Reply

      Matthew Wood

      7 years ago

      Thx MGS

      Reply

      Carson Joens

      7 years ago

      I can agree on the grenade, just wondered why it wasn’t in there. Same with the new mizuno driver.
      If it’s going to be an all out best driver competition, I’d think every think available should be in there.

      Reply

      JC Westlake

      7 years ago

      It seems the smash factors are quite low – all below 1.45. Does this monitor track smash individually?

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      Yes. Smash Factor (called Efficiency by Foresight) is recorded on every shot. Foresight has the best head tracking system among the enterprise class launch monitors. It measures the head while radar systems make what are effectively educated guesses.

      Reply

      Alex Chrzanowski

      7 years ago

      Vertical groove?

      Reply

      MyGolf Spy

      7 years ago

      Declined to participate.

      Reply

      Matt

      7 years ago

      Does this not show that the only thing that now matters is dispersion? The distance difference between all the drivers is miniscule. Would rather be on the fairway 3 yards short of someone in the rough.

      Reply

      Mike McC.

      7 years ago

      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.

      Reply

      Tom

      7 years ago

      Totally agree. It looks like the weighting on yards from center and shot area are too low. Want 6 more yards into the water or OB?

      Reply

      Alex

      7 years ago

      +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.

      MikeB

      7 years ago

      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.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      The short answer is, it depends…mostly 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.

      Reply

      Count Tyrone Rugen

      7 years ago

      Can we get units of measure for each of the attributes measured? I understand everything except Apex and Decent. I’m assuming they are angles, but just want to confirm.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      Sorry…always tough to get 100% of the details to fit nicely on the chart.

      Descent is degrees.
      Apex is yards.
      Shot Area is the weird one. 90% Confidence Ellipse, measured in yards/squared. Smaller is better as it suggests tighter dispersion of shots.

      Reply

      Uhit

      7 years ago

      Thank you again for the great work!

      However, I wonder why the Srixon Z565 has the 1. Place and not the Srixon Z765, despite the same efficiency, the lower spin rate, the longer carry and longer total distance, AND the tighter dispersion of the Z765!?

      Guy Crawford

      7 years ago

      I tell everyone. Looking for a new driver? Start with #MyGolfSpy Most Wanted Driver Testing!

      Reply

      MyGolf Spy

      7 years ago

      Thanks for being such a supporter of what we have been doing over the years and trusting MGS Guy.

      Reply

      Jonathan Holmes

      7 years ago

      Chris Holt you might like this…

      Reply

      Chris Holt

      7 years ago

      It’s great isn’t it, I read it before #srixon ?

      Reply

      John Porter

      7 years ago

      For the High SS guys, you’ll find the M1/M2 at the top of every category. This testing appeals to the masses. Guys who swing 120+ are in such a small percentile it’s pointless for MGS to base a complete test around and exclude the majority of weekend golfers who average SS is less than 100mph.

      Reply

      Lee

      7 years ago

      Not surprised EPIC near the top. Played TM drivers for some time.
      Got fit at authorized Callaway fitter in our area. Now have Epic Gamer. Age 75 playing to 7 hdcp. Here are my numbers from EPIC fitting. Loft 10.5 with Dimana 40G RFlex, Club Speed 89, Ball Speed 122, Launch Angle 13.9, Spin Rate 1753, Carry 178, Total 210. Distance even better with my nameless ball. Everyone has their own
      swing GET FIT. Thanks MGS.
      with my ball.

      Reply

      Uhit

      7 years ago

      Had the fitter told you, that you have a relative low smash factor of 1.37 ?
      This could be because of a negative angle of attack, or something else…
      …however, the Spin Rate and Launch Angle is fine.

      Reply

      Uhit

      7 years ago

      Great review!

      I am glad that you do this extensive work and provide the most useful data on the net – for golf aficionados!

      However, you are a bit late to the table, and I have already bought the M1 440, because I was pretty sure, that it would produce the least spin – and yes, I also tried the Epic Sub0 (in it´s lowest loft and spin setting), which was also nice, but it produced more spin than the M1 430 and 440.

      Well done!

      Reply

      Alex Coombes

      7 years ago

      More medals for Srixon! I for one am happy about that

      Reply

      Weston

      7 years ago

      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. Thoughts? I think it could help the reader identify with a category better and see that certain driver have much difference characteristics at difference speeds.

      Reply

      MyGolf Spy

      7 years ago

      It will all be shown next week.

      Reply

      Chris C.

      7 years ago

      It has been a week. I await the release of more data before I acquire my third driver of the new year. I am hoping that the 565 will remain tops in the low swing speed category.

      Reply

      Stephen Pearcy

      7 years ago

      My guess is that these results aren’t much different than last year’s drivers. The USGA rules are quite constraining and all are pushing those limits. Only place to improve is having a sweet spot that covers the whole face – a sweet spot with no velocity nor accuracy lost. I won’t hold my breath. Players will see a bigger difference in performance going from shaft to shaft – the key is to get a shaft that matches your swing and club head.

      Reply

      Cory Schmidt

      7 years ago

      Thanks You️The work your putting in makes filling the bag much easier!!

      Reply

      Aaron

      7 years ago

      the moral of the article is…..there is absolutely no real #1……all manufacturers produce ultra similar results…..pick the one that looks the best to you giving you the most confidence and then get fitted for the best shaft

      I don’t see any ex nike staffers rushing toward the Srixon driver, I for one hated it….but lots of guys are liking it

      Golf is too advanced and personal to have an effective “best” list

      great article and test though it gives gear whores something interesting to read and debate

      Reply

      Station

      7 years ago

      Bravo – Best comment. All drivers are good these days. Pick your passionate favorite and GO GOLF YOUR BALL.

      Reply

      Shane Wickham

      7 years ago

      Good to see an average swing speed used rather than some guy that swings to kill the ball.

      Reply

      chal

      7 years ago

      Really appreciate the information. Always love to see the data. I am guessing the swing speed information is to follow. Love the site and appreciate the work.

      Reply

      Chris

      7 years ago

      This is great! This is my favorite golf article of the year every year period! Now if you guys could do another direct to consumer ball test this year that would be great! Would love to see Snell, Vice, MG golf C4, Cut, all up against an OEM flagship.

      Reply

      Marc Llanes

      7 years ago

      Agreed, thats why im asking. My ss is high so for me getting data from a high ss player would greatly. Im looking for guys hit it 280+ minimum

      Reply

      Steven C

      7 years ago

      I have loved my Srixon Z565 driver. Love the photo after the Tableau results table. lol.

      Reply

      Jeff Tavone

      7 years ago

      Awesome news for Srixon

      Reply

      Rob Roth

      7 years ago

      agreed and they used to have that in the past

      Reply

      Steve Dodds

      7 years ago

      No Cobra LTD?

      Reply

      Gene

      7 years ago

      I was hoping to see PXG’s new driver…any thoughts on how it would/could compare.

      Reply

      Marc Llanes

      7 years ago

      It would’ve been interesting to see how it faired for the high swing speed players.

      Reply

      Jamie

      7 years ago

      Did I miss it or is the Epic Sub-Zero driver not included in the test?

      Reply

      TJ

      7 years ago

      You missed it, it’s there. TRUE rank #12

      Reply

      Edward

      7 years ago

      Look further down, Epic fail so to speak

      Reply

      Kenny

      7 years ago

      The sub-zero was included.

      Reply

      Jake Andrajack

      7 years ago

      I’m assuming that’s the average of all shots hit with each driver with the extremes removed on both ends. You don’t use Jamie Sadlowski, or Bubba Watson for that matter, in this kind of testing.

      Reply

      Perra Sandström

      7 years ago

      Read the article. Swingspeeds from 75-120 mph ?

      Reply

      andrew wheeler

      7 years ago

      Poor performance from Titleist. That’s surprising

      Reply

      MyGolf Spy

      7 years ago

      They have performed near the middle of the pack for almost all of our tests.

      Reply

      andrew wheeler

      7 years ago

      MyGolf Spy I’ve noticed that. I really enjoy your tests! Keep up the great work.

      Reply

      Reggie Pendleton

      7 years ago

      Any reason why “Krank Formula 6.5 Driver” wasn’t added to this testing?

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      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.

      Reply

      Raymond CHASTEL

      7 years ago

      Being an unconventional fellow ,I usually don’t go neither with THE ” experts ” nor THE crowd : I make my opinion by myself .I use d to Play THE “recommended ” clubs ,then I went to find out by myself .I tried THE KRANK Formula 5 ,and played it ,then came THE KRANK Formula 6 and today THE KRANK Formula 7 .I fin d them well suited to m’y game and get good distance an perfect accuracy with them .( Fairway woods and Hybrids also ) One thing they do give is a lot OF ” roll ” .As for THE irons .I Play THE HONMA BERES THE shafts OF which are better than what you get elsewhere .
      But I do respect TONY COVEY ‘s assessments and he’s probably right for most OF THE players but maybe not for me ( I’m 83 years OF âge and Still Play to a handicap OF 7 ,3 Times a week ,18 holes ,150 rounds per year ….

      Dave

      7 years ago

      Great stuff. Titleist loyalists will be outraged!

      Reply

      Station

      7 years ago

      How would Titleist loyalists be outraged? Great dispersion….and distance among ALL TESTED drivers is +/- 7 yards. Hit a drive with the longest and shortest drivers in the test and your balls will be next to each other in the fairway. Just goes to show all drivers are great these days.

      Reply

      Josh

      7 years ago

      I’m a big Titleist fan, have been for years, not quite a loyalist, but I know they don’t make the longest drivers anymore, so I got a Cobra LTD Pro.

      Reply

      Carolina Golfer 2

      7 years ago

      Awfully big assumption to make. I have the Titleist D3 and I’m not outraged. I got fit for a driver that gave me an increase over previous driver, and i’ve continued to do well with it.

      The ranking of it has no bearing on my game, all the drivers tested are very good, and I know first hand Srixon makes great clubs, so I have no issue with it being No. 1.

      Sounds like someone has an ax to grind with Titleist :)

      Reply

      John M Domagal

      7 years ago

      Comes down to the 2 Ps, price and pretty. $400 or $500.

      Reply

      Adam

      7 years ago

      Thanks as always!

      It looks like the roll assumed on the shots was less than last year, making distances a bit shorter. Everything seems to be rolling around 15 yards, regardless of spin. Are you just assuming wet conditions?

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      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.

      Reply

      Adam

      7 years ago

      Ah ok, that makes a ton of sense.

      alex

      7 years ago

      Awesome work MGS!! Will you guys do over 100 and sub 95 swing speed again? thanks!

      Reply

      Al Humphrey

      7 years ago

      unless your driver configurations are equal: same length; same head weights; same shaft; same loft; same club MOI; same stiffness……the 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 speeds……all make a difference. Good overall data. Range or lab testing….with same head…and different profile, same weight, same length shafts….shows how much the shaft is the difference maker. IMO.

      Reply

      Gil

      7 years ago

      Agreed.

      Reply

      Brian Morrissey

      7 years ago

      Agree 100% with Al. Also wondering why you are not using the new Foresight Quad which is much more accurate. I would like to have seen PXG in the test as our results with it have been amazing?

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      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 Quad…we 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.

      Connor T. Lewis

      7 years ago

      Very interesting results!

      Reply

      Berniez40

      7 years ago

      Two years ago I switched to the Srixon 355 Irons, and gained yardage as well as sawed off some strokes. I can’t even begin to tell you how much better they feel than my old Taylormades. At that time, while also getting fitted for a driver, the Srixon Z355 was in the running neck and neck with the first Generation TM M2. The M2 barely edged it out on distance and forgiveness, but dang that 355 felt so much better. I may have to go see what the Z555 can do for me.

      Reply

      Berniez40

      7 years ago

      That should say..”what the 565 can do for me….” Just so excited for Srixon as they are finally getting some well deserved recognition.

      Reply

      McaseyM

      7 years ago

      Well done Srixon! While the z565 took home top honors, That z765 ( and shaft) looks like a serious RPM killer, which probably helped it pick up the shared overall distance crown). My Cobra pick came up short, but did beat out Titleist!!
      Thanks again MGS, really appreciate the hard work and dedication.
      I’m sure people will dive into every little detail to try to pick the results apart to “debunk” the results.

      Reply

      BobGeorge

      7 years ago

      What is the difference between ‘Yards from Center’ and ‘Shot Area’? Which ones best identifies the most forgiving driver?

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      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.

      Reply

      Carolina Golfer 2

      7 years ago

      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.

      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.

      Reply

      tim carmitchel

      7 years ago

      Awesome info.Any way to break it down in Handicap groups?
      Would love to see which drivers are better for higher handicappers.

      Or break it down at least by swing speed?

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      Swing Speed break down coming next week.

      Reply

      don stage

      7 years ago

      I noticed the Wilson had the highest ball speed and was wondering if it was the lightest also?

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      Yes. I would classify the D300 as an ultralight. Most of the other manufacturers have moved away from super light weight heads in mainstream releases.

      Michael N

      7 years ago

      Great to see. Good work guys. Well done and congratulations.!

      Tom S.

      7 years ago

      The top five drivers are all within a yard of each other. Come on, just pick the one that you can get for the lowest price, or that they’ll throw in a free hat. This is paralysis by analysis.

      Reply

      Gordon P.

      7 years ago

      At $459 Srixon’s driver is also the best value.. no brainer

      Reply

      Eric E

      7 years ago

      The Wilson D300 is 300-349. Sorry it’s not the best value. Also look at the data between the two, they’re basically identical minus the Wilson’s superior club head speed bc of how lightweight it is. I honestly don’t understand how TRUrank can put the Wilson at 10 and the Srixon at 1 when their differences are smaller than negligible.

      Steve S

      7 years ago

      I take it that all the gritty details will come out soon. It’ll be interesting to see what the slower swingers results are…

      Reply

      jlukes

      7 years ago

      There was no doubt that Srixon was getting so much deserved love for their incredible irons, but this test proves that people need to start paying attention to their metal woods as well

      Reply

      mikepgt2

      7 years ago

      I switched from Titleist to the Srixon Z545 two seasons ago and haven’t looked back. Just put the new Srixon irons in my bag as well. May need to get the 565 now…

      Congrats Srixon & Cleveland!

      Reply

      ole gray

      7 years ago

      Way to go Srixon/Cleveland ! I’ve never gamed a Srixon driver however that may need to change in the future. Thanks to MGS for the hard work put in to bring these results. I don’t think it would hurt folks to throw a few bucks in the donation kitty to keep informative stuff like this flowing.

      Reply

      JD

      7 years ago

      917 D3 with the shortest distance from center is all I needed to see. I switched from Ping G LS to the D3 and have never hit more fairways. I’d rather be 5 yards back in the fairway than 5 yards further in the trees…

      Reply

      painter33

      7 years ago

      Okay, then why not cite the Ping G SFTech, which has a closer to center number and pretty much the same distance? A golfer’s swing puts the ball left/right/center, not the club alone, although with adjustable heads, one might have a completely “wrong” setup for a specific swing. Under most circumstances, a shot into the woods was caused by a flaw, however subtle, in that one swing of the club (or a huge gust of wind). Great test though.

      Reply

      JD

      7 years ago

      You’re right to each his own…but the flaw is PING’s stock tour shafts are garbage. I put a rogue black on it and worked wonders… but the head of the LS is still set open when soled… didn’t help on misses.

      dang3rtown

      7 years ago

      Also note, that the 917 D3 finished 8th in the “shot area” measurement which is in many ways, a better measurement of accuracy. It had a significantly worse dispersion than the Ping G SFtec. Combined with the decent score on distance from center, this indicates that it was not a particularly consistent club.

      Reply

      chris

      7 years ago

      I’d like to see what the higher swing speeds hit the best.

      Reply

      Large chris

      7 years ago

      Great driver test as usual, well done MSG
      That’s a tiny difference longest to shortest, just 8 yards difference in carry? And there isn’t much in the dispersions either. I’m sure in previous test years there has been a bigger difference than that. Tough time for the manufacturers trying to differentiate their products.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      Also keep in mind that the more testers we add, the more things level off. Crazy to think we’ve gone from 6 testers, to 10, to 20, to now 30 testers. It’s true that with all the data we don’t see a ton of differences, however, individually, and even within whatever groups we define, we see, much more significant differences.

      Reply

      mackdaddy

      7 years ago

      Tony can we see the groupings you mentioned? Are there groups based on swing speed, handicap and age? Can we see it? Is there any data comparing to the top few from last year? Have you considered testing all the heads with the same shaft?

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      We’ll be breaking down by swing speed next week. Bigger things still to come.

      Reply

      Harvey

      7 years ago

      That’s great (by swing speed), but what about shaft info…stock (?), weight, flex, etc.?

      Johnny Cowboy

      7 years ago

      I thought that the whole point of the Epic Sub Zero was that it was a super low spinning driver but your tests show that it spins more than the regular Epic

      Reply

      xjohnx

      7 years ago

      my only guess is that it was only tested with the heavier weight back. In this configuration the two heads spin very similar based on my fitting. The SZ is much less spinning with the weight forward but the regular epic is also a lower spinning head than most people think. Since the M1 440 was “lowest spinning” mt guess is everything was testing in neutral settings.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      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.

      http://mygolfspy.com/mygolfspy-cg-driver-locations/

      xjohnx

      7 years ago

      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?

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      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.

      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.

      Jim

      7 years ago

      I’m surprised by the Epic Sub Zero as well. Even on Callaway’s site they bill it as their lowest spinning driver. So the higher spin rates are a bit surprising. Also that it didn’t finish in the top 5, but at least the normal Epic did which may mean that normal golfers need a little more forgiveness than the SZ can provide? Great test overall, but as Ping loyalist I’m surprised they didn’t do a well overall, but it could be that they are essentially last year’s models.

      xjohnx

      7 years ago

      Tony, that’s a great explanation and a much more logical way to look at it. Like I eluded to and you’ve said. It all comes down to marketing. Just because one oem calls it low spin, it has no relevance or comparison to any other drivers. Your twenty year Big Bertha test last week proved that the last ten years have certainly been more marketing than technology. But I’m as guilty as anyone. New stuff is fun and engaging.

      DD

      7 years ago

      Very surprised to see the Titleist performing near the bottom. That large spin rate and lower ball speed can’t be helping things.

      Reply

      xjohnx

      7 years ago

      Awesome stuff. I love a good darkhorse. Can you explain how the averages work and why the ball speed numbers are quite low for the clubhead speed?

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      Averages are as they come off the launch monitors. Keep in mind, we’re taking the average of each column separately, so it’s hard to construct something akin to a single shot from them.

      Reply

      xjohnx

      7 years ago

      I believe you but still don’t understand how average swing speed and average ball speed wouldn’t be more in line with each other. But I’m not a clubfitter and do not claim to be an expert. Another question, if optimal settings for each tester were used, were different shafts used too? Would you agree that if time was spent to properly fit each tester to each club 100% would provide any different results?

      randjf

      7 years ago

      So, Srixon/Cleveland is not only a maker of great wedges and irons. Congrats to them! (I have a 588 Altitude, but I game an R11.)

      Reply

      Thomas Murphy

      7 years ago

      7 yards difference top to bottom is a bit more than you would think. I like that Srixon is just “simple” yet performs. I do think it would be interesting to take a few of these and go one step more: how does fit affect them, so select 3 golfers from top, mid, bottom of your spectrum of testers, get their best club and their worst and see how a “quick” fit changes things. Does gap stay the same/decrease/increase.

      Reply

      Bignose

      7 years ago

      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.

      Reply

      KCLeo12

      7 years ago

      Not surprised the Srixon lineup is fantastic. I have been getting incredible numbers from my Z765. Finally people will start to pay attention. Everyone I have had try my clubs has fell in love with them.

      Reply

      Fozcycle

      7 years ago

      A bit disappointed in the Triton results, BUT I have seen gracious increases in driver distance and accuracy from MHz Triton, setup a bit different than standard. My Triton has outperformed both my Cobra King Ltd and my Powerbilt AFO DFX.

      I’m sticking with what works for me.

      Thanks MGS for the eye opening test.

      Reply

      Rob

      7 years ago

      With so much adjustability in the Triton I’d be interested in what combination they used for the test. I’ve seen drastic differences in different sole plates and weight placements.

      Reply

      Milo

      7 years ago

      Good showing for Srixon, will have to take it for a test drive.

      Reply

      Ryguy

      7 years ago

      Not a bad showing for the Fusion. Might have to look at the ones that finished above it…

      Reply

      Rob

      7 years ago

      That Fusion is one of the absolute straightest drivers I’ve hit and the spin was surprisingly low for such a game improvement club.

      Reply

      Rob

      7 years ago

      Awesome for Srixon!

      Reply

      AC

      7 years ago

      Not surprised with the srixon product, their irons are one of if not the best out at the moment. I have the Z355 driver and absolutely love it – might have to look into the Z565…

      Reply

      Damon

      7 years ago

      I knew it! I have last year’s model and it is a great performing driver. I figured the changes to this year’s model would put it over the top. Srixon is turning out under rated great performing drivers.

      Reply

    Leave A Reply

    required
    required
    required (your email address will not be published)

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

    Partner Content
    Feb 22, 2024
    What Club Should You Use to Get Up and Down?
    adidas tour360 24 adidas tour360 24
    Golf Shoes
    Feb 22, 2024
    adidas TOUR360 24: The Return of an Icon
    News
    Feb 22, 2024
    Opinion: Pro Golfers Should Still Keep Score—But Let’s Reduce the Penalty for an Incorrect Card