Tested: Cobra KING LTD vs. TaylorMade M1
Drivers

Tested: Cobra KING LTD vs. TaylorMade M1

Tested: Cobra KING LTD vs. TaylorMade M1

Written By: Tony Covey

Not only is King vs. M1 the most requested review from our readers this season, it’s quite possibly the single most requested test we’ve ever had.

The Cobra KING LTD and TaylorMade M1 have quickly become two of the most anticipated and discussed drivers of 2016. Both products have generated plenty of excitement, and that’s not the least bit surprising given that the two companies are responsible for our last two Most Wanted Drivers (TaylorMade SLDR – 2014, Cobra FLY-Z – 2015).

The King and M1 are each flagship products…the top of each company’s respective line, and both claim performance benefits from carbon fiber components and other weight savings that allow the center of gravity to be shifted closer to the neutral axis.

Dont’ worry, we’re not going to bog you down with techspeak today. If you came here hoping to find out exactly how the drivers perform, you won’t be disappointed.

3 New Ways To Look at the Data

With today’s test, we’re providing you with something you’ve never had before; three new and distinct ways to digest our data so that you can make the most informed decision possible. Some of this data has never been made available to consumers before.

What you’ve come to expect from typical reviews is of little little value to the individual. We think you deserve more. Moving forward we hope to move beyond the typical data provided in most reviews in favor of results geared to you, the individual golfer.

The three ways we’re presenting our data allow you choose the format that works best for you. Our Basic Results provide a simple look into 3 performance metrics. Our Interactive Results give you even more data while providing  you with the opportunity to tailor the information to your swing. Finally, our Advanced Results give you the ability to dig even deeper into our data that ever before, and hopefully identify the club that will work best for you.

This is truly #Datacratic.

We encourage you to explore the data, and by all means, let us know what you think.

KINGvM1-Crown-View2

How We Tested

Aldila-Tour-Green-Shafts-101

Instead of testing Most Wanted Style (off-the-rack), for this test we did something a bit more apples to apples:

  • Both clubs were outfitted with Aldila Tour Green Shafts (65 gram, stiff flex), finished to equivalent playing lengths.
  • To provide additional consistency, a brand new NO1 50 Pro grip was installed on each club.
  • Both clubs were set to play at what the manufacturer defines as 10.5°. In the case of the M1, a 10.5° degree head was used. The KING LTD was set its nominal loft (also 10.5°). No additional hosel adjustments were made during testing.
  • As adjustability is a point of differentiation between these clubs, we did make both front to back and left to right adjustments with the M1 to better fit our testers.
  • Testers were asked to hit a series of shots with each club (alternating frequently between drivers). To provide us with a better sense of forgiveness along with total performance, we kept a higher percentage of shots than in previous tests; only eliminating the most severe mishits including any shots greater than 55 yards off the target line.
  • All testers hit new Bridgestone B330-RX golf balls and data was collected using a Foresight GC2 Launch Monitor with the Head Measurement Unit (HMT) attached.

Basic Results

The Best Peformance For Your Swing

The graphic above provides the basic data that most of you want to see. For those of you who want  more…for those of you who want to dig a little deeper to determine which of these two drivers will work best for your swing, we’ve rolled out some exciting tools to help you do just that.

KINGvM1-Face-View2

How much do you know about your swing?

How fast do you swing the club? What’s your handicap? What’s your Angle of Attack? Do you hit the ball high on the face, low on the face, or somewhere in-between?

The more you know about your swing, the more we can help identify the best driver for you.

Both of the charts below contain 6 filters. By adjusting any (or all) of the filters on the top of the Ball Data and Club Data charts, you can dynamically recalculate the averages from our test based on the data that’s most relevant to your swing.

If there’s something you would like to see added to our filters, by all means, let us know.

Interactive Results

Advanced Results

advanced-data

With these two drivers being so similar in performance, how can you make the most informed decision? Use our data filters to narrow the results based on characteristics that more closely match your swing? Want even more, check out the King LTD vs. M1 Advanced Guide where we’ve made even more data available for you to sort through and digest.

Finally, we’d be remiss not to recommend that you go out, try both drivers for yourself, and most certainly, work with a professional fitter to get dialed in to whichever model you choose.

View the Advanced Guide

For You

For You

We Tried It
Feb 19, 2024
This Training Aid Will Make You Hit a Draw
News
Feb 19, 2024
Testers Wanted: TPT “3 Shafts, 1 Feel”
News
Feb 18, 2024
Testers Wanted: Maxfli Tour Golf ball with MAX ALIGN Technology
Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony is the Editor of MyGolfSpy where his job is to bring fresh and innovative content to the site. In addition to his editorial responsibilities, he was instrumental in developing MyGolfSpy's data-driven testing methodologies and continues to sift through our data to find the insights that can help improve your game. Tony believes that golfers deserve to know what's real and what's not, and that means MyGolfSpy's equipment coverage must extend beyond the so-called facts as dictated by the same companies that created them. Most of all Tony believes in performance over hype and #PowerToThePlayer.

Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony Covey





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

      AL

      8 years ago

      I am a senior golfer and about a 80 mph swing speed. I just bought a new set of Adams for Christmas. The don’t perform near as good as my old set , (a cobra knock off). Now I cant get my old set back as my friend has them.
      I am about 20 to 30 yd shorter with all clubs from my old ones. I will be looking at maybe a new set of Cobra soon.

      Reply

      Alejandro Lacayo

      8 years ago

      Also it is a matter of confidence, I dont know why, I felt more confident hitting the KING LTD,
      therefore I bought it

      Reply

      Robert

      8 years ago

      Would like to know your opinion to a problem I have I currently use a m1 driver on 7.5 degree loft
      Low kick stock shaft it gives me the best gc2 hmt numbers s/s is 106 average 2000ish spin 15to16 degree launch often shows carry of 270 -280 carry average say 260 in realality on the range and course my carry is 245 to 255 max ii know most people have the opposite problem with low launch monitor reading
      Do you think I am fitted correct or should I ignore the launch monitor as a club that may preform worse on the gc2 may well preform better in real life would love to hear what you think

      Reply

      Brent Mitton

      8 years ago

      Both clubs have to much going on and make golf harder for beginners. Golf companys get a clue and go back to making simple clubs that work. Golf is hard enough not to make clubs that make it even harder

      Reply

      Victor Tuvesson Wehagen

      8 years ago

      I know that the M1 weighs is at 325g with the kuro cage shaft. Dont know the cobra

      Reply

      Justin V Dunn

      8 years ago

      I LOVE my M1 but I hear great things about the Cobra as well.

      Reply

      Colin Schenck

      8 years ago

      I’ve had two M1s crack on the bottom of the head by logo so I’m going Cobra on this one

      Reply

      Matt W

      8 years ago

      Tony,
      In recent years I have been a big fan of Cobra Golf. I had been gaming the fly z+ with a tour only issue shaft. I was eagerly waiting for the King to be available to hit. That was until this article came out. I punched all my swing specs in only to find the M1 is the better fit. I went to my local golf store and started hitting the M1. Unbelievably my numbers were spot on with your charts!!! I mean spot on, spin rates and distance. I took over an hour hitting a number of settings and shafts. While the M1 was only 6 yards farther than my Cobra (yes, I hit 20 with my gamer to ensure my numbers) the M1 dispersion rate was 14 yards tighter.
      I have now played 2 full rounds with the new stick and love it.
      Great analysis
      You have set the bar for golf club reviews.
      Thank you

      Matt

      Reply

      Rafael

      8 years ago

      I think the most interesting review would be one that compares this new drivers to older models, so golfers could know if worths spending money in the new ones. Great review though

      Reply

      Chris Komas

      8 years ago

      M1 is better.

      Reply

      Nick

      8 years ago

      Always been a fan of Cobra, but I have recently found a new love for Ping drivers. Now I’ll have to give Taylormade a go :)

      Reply

      Jamie McCormack

      8 years ago

      I’ve heard that these are the go to drivers for 2016 especially the Cobra the company are really pleased with this driver

      Reply

      Boykie Prasadh

      8 years ago

      Now this is how clubs should b tested ,wish we could get all new drivers data as such Well done

      Reply

      Johnny Ra Ra

      8 years ago

      Cobra is on a roll big time with their drivers and fairways

      Reply

      Johnny Ra Ra

      8 years ago

      Just hit the king,wasn’t my cup of tea. Had better results with fly z + & bio cell+.

      Reply

      Chris Peyton

      8 years ago

      Justin Rose picked up 13 yards

      Reply

      AndyUK

      8 years ago

      Are you planning to update the CG chart following the release of the M1 and King?

      Reply

      Dandaman

      8 years ago

      I’m very interested to see where M1 falls on those charts too. Saw your MOI plot of the King LTD and Pro in the head review and wow, but still hope to see M1, in various weight configurations. Awesome comparitive writeup here. Genius to be able to filter so many dynamics. You need to patent that. The OEMs probably would rather we be kept in the dark but it would sure serve consumers better if your comparitive methods became the standard.

      Reply

      Terry

      8 years ago

      Are the heads the same weight? And were the shafts tested before being installed in the heads?

      Reply

      Darrin Sloan

      8 years ago

      Well, i tweaked the interactive data to align with certain aspects of my game and the Cobra apparently blows away the M1. Very interesting when compared to the basic results. Definitely gonna look at the cobra!

      Reply

      gene still

      8 years ago

      great job, but little info for us in our latter years with slower swing speeds. Any tests done with senior shafts?

      Reply

      Howard B.

      8 years ago

      I also woud like to know results with a senior shaft.

      Reply

      Joshua Mcintosh

      8 years ago

      Simple shaft adjustment to X flex and higher kick point will see those numbers down very easily.
      My 70g X flex whiteboard will have it spinning at 2000 I think

      Reply

      Joe Webber

      8 years ago

      Pretty impressive, id like to see that launch angle up and spin rate down a bit more ?

      Reply

      Joshua Mcintosh

      8 years ago

      Joe Webber pretty good numbers

      Reply

      abraham

      8 years ago

      In my estimation it would be of great importance if the club head speed and shaft were tested for the majority of average players, Regular shaft swing speed in the eighties and different brands of golf balls. or suggestions on different brands of shafts. I would like to read replies .

      Thanks

      Reply

      Chris

      8 years ago

      (maybe I missed this in the article, but I looked a couple of times)

      Side question:

      Were the same number of balls hit for this test as the most wanted test? with same representation of swing speeds across the board, and raw number of testers? If so, a 13 to 14 yard distance gain over the top distance model from last year (816DBD), is quite impressive.

      Reply

      Jim Jones

      8 years ago

      The adjustability of M1 seals the deal for me. Heard the sound is great too.

      Reply

      Steven

      8 years ago

      Tony,

      Great job, as always. I really like what you have done here with the different ways to look at the data. I am looking forward to seeing what the filters do for the forgiveness and consistency data. I am curious to see how the shot area changes by distance and handicap.

      I have one additional thought about how you could set this up to make it even more useful for MyGolfSpy readers. It would be really helpful to see how many shots are being used when you look at the data. One thing that I found as I adjusted the filters was that I could adjust them to the point of eliminating one of the drivers if I wasn’t careful. That made me wonder if some of the time I was looking at the results or 2 or 3 shots total between the two drivers. I prefer bigger sample sizes, or at a minimum to know what the sample sizes are. Could you show the number of shots that are being included so that readers can see that as they adjust the filters.

      Thanks,

      Reply

      Ryan Wilson

      8 years ago

      Does it tell you which one is lighter?

      Reply

      Benjamin Lee

      8 years ago

      I like how on the M1 you can control the front/rear weighting. That should be able to change your trajectory as well as spin rate. Then you may not have to change to a another shaft with different kickpoint if your spin rates and/or trajectory is off.

      Reply

      Mark

      8 years ago

      Interesting head-to-head comparison. Now the fun part will begin when you compare these to the new Callaway, Nike, Titleist etc. Should make for a very interesting 2016 best driver line up!

      Reply

      Jeff Mounts

      8 years ago

      Save the click, m1 just barely wins. They are extremely close in launch monitor data

      Reply

      MyGolf Spy

      8 years ago

      You are referring to the overall data. Interacting with the data provides an entirely new story to this review and all other reviews in the future for consumers.

      Reply

      Jeff Mounts

      8 years ago

      Yes, I was referring to the overall data, which is what most readers will look at. M1 by a hair.

      Reply

      MyGolf Spy

      8 years ago

      We agree. But we hope golfers learn to go beyond the very basics of what has been available to them (the overall). Overall stats have little significance to the individual. The real value is what is the “overall” data for just “you”.

      Reply

      Manuel Cote

      8 years ago

      High on the face(where we should hit it) the cobra is ridiculously long!

      Reply

      Jaroonroj Jeenasiri

      8 years ago

      M1 Very good

      Reply

      Sam Peterson

      8 years ago

      I’m really interested to see where these stack up against the M1 430 and the LTD Pro….I launch kinda high for these two clubs.

      Reply

      Chad Mardesen

      8 years ago

      Switching to the 430 or the LTD pro is more about spin than launch. While both soon less, it’s not significant in either…I think the 430 reduces spin from 200-400 rpm, the LTD, slightly more reduction, 300-700 rpm, depending on your swing speed and angle of attack.

      I prefer a very low spin and low launch driver, like you I have a high ball flight with the driver, and the 460 was better for me. My better hits were way better with the 430, but the dispersion was way bigger as well (both distance and accuracy).

      Hope that helps!

      Reply

      Dave S

      8 years ago

      Basically what this says to me is that there is very little room left to distinguish one driver from the next nowadays. These two drivers (presumably) use totally different marketable technology, but perform nearly identical.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      8 years ago

      @Dave S – I don’t think I’d draw the same conclusion. Taking the adjustability features of the M1 out of the equation, what you have are two very similarly positioned drivers. The main selling point for each is the center of gravity’s proximity to the neutral axis. It’s not surprising to me that the overall results yielded no significant statistical differences.

      I think if you compared either to a mid or high CG offering…Titleist, most anything in the Callaway lineup, on up to the Nike offerings, you would see appreciable differences, particularly when you start to narrow the data based on individual swing characteristics.

      Reply

      Greg C

      8 years ago

      So, are you going to do those test too?

      ryebread

      8 years ago

      Tony: I would love to see these two against a high and forward as a control. These two look very similar.

      gunmetal

      8 years ago

      And someone will see this test and say, “I better run get the M1 as it’s longer than King.” .2 yards longer? What does that even mean? .2 yard? What is the tolerance on the launch monitor?

      For all intents and purposes (including practicality), it would be statistically correct to say these drivers were equal in distance, right?

      Reply

      Art

      8 years ago

      Or you could say you can’t make a statistically significant conclusion. (we really have no idea how “equal” the two clubs are)

      It doesn’t matter how much statistically insignificant information you collect, you can never come to a significant conclusion. NEVER.

      It’s is a fun read, however. Makes me want to get on a launch monitor.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      8 years ago

      I’d agree with your assessment to a point. We think that as we gather more data appreciable differences will emerge based on individual swing characteristics.

      Reply

      Art

      8 years ago

      Tony,
      With which point do you agree, and at what point does your agreement diverge?

      Ken S.

      8 years ago

      Please do a ball test showing cold weather performance. We play at 40 degrees and lower and would like to know the best winter balls.

      Ken

      Reply

      Dodo

      8 years ago

      Great info thanks
      The differences gets much bigger if I put my info in
      Low Handicap
      up swing
      104 mph
      center face

      The Cobra is 16 yards longer then the M1

      Reply

      Ryan B

      8 years ago

      Wow! The data you have provided is really valuable to golfers of a wide range of skill level, thank you for doing this comparison!! I know this might be asking a lot and to soon but is there any chance you guys could do the same comparison between the KING LTD Pro and the M1 430? You guys continually raise the bar when it comes to providing real knowledge and facts to golfers and I hope you never stop.

      Reply

      flaglfr

      8 years ago

      Great test and tools. I (like others) would like to see the 430 tested. I hit the 460 and the 430 and it wasn’t even close. The 430 feels much better and imho hits the ball more solidly than the 460. For those who think this is the same as the sldr or the R15, it really isn’t. They are not even close. I was hitting a G30 LS tech until I tried the M1 430. Nothing made by TM outperformed the G30 for me until the M1.

      Reply

      DB

      8 years ago

      So… the vertical impact average with Cobra was negative 1.72mm? Negative to centerline? And the TM was positive 3.91mm? That’s over half a centimeter difference on average impacts. Obviously the higher impact above centerline (TM) will produce higher launch, less spin, and more distance.

      Just this alone throws a huge wrench into the testing, no? What am I missing?

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      8 years ago

      Absolutely the single biggest curiosity of the test for us. I will say that in side by side ‘field testing’ I found that my impact position with the M1 was noticeably and consistently higher on the face than with the KING. Of course, I was using a M1 430 and assumed that it was largely due to the size difference in the club. So yeah, I was a bit surprised to see the results repeated. I double-checked the data, and at the indirect suggestion of one of our statistically inclined readers, I took a look at the median values (as opposed to the mean), and while that does tighten things up just a hair, the difference in impact position significant.

      A friend of mine in R&D has given me a few reasons why we might see this, but I don’t have a concrete explanation at this time.

      It’s fascinating, isn’t it?

      Reply

      DB

      8 years ago

      Very interesting. Thanks for the reply, Tony.

      Jack

      8 years ago

      Tony/DB This was very interesting to me also. For me I swing on avg 92.0 avg with strikes Center to high on face. When I change the parameters to Low strikes the LTD was consistently 10-15 yds longer. Center or High (as I generally impact) 13-20 yds longer with the M1. Amazing and great stuff Tony

      Fozcycle

      8 years ago

      Good point Jack, I game the Bio Cell and also strike a bit high of center. Never really thought about where I was striking the ball…..Hmmmmmm.

      Flaglfr

      8 years ago

      Hold up a minute partner…
      You just stated that you hit the 430 driver. Was your data included in the test? The reason I ask is the 430 is a SIgnificantly different driver from the 460. I have hit both and now own the 430 so I know of what I speak. IF you did use data from the 430, it should be in a different column.

      Tony Covey

      8 years ago

      No you hold up a minute partner…

      What I said was in ‘field testing’…meaning on course. Nobody hit the 430 during our test. But yes…430 is significantly different.

      Brad Smith

      8 years ago

      re: Presentation and Definition of Data-Constructive Criticism and Questions
      It would be helpful to know how many testers there were or how many data points are included in any result. You used to show individual data by tester. Define your numbers better…..for example, when you present the data, is it the average for all testers in the defined range? All swings, or only reasonable decent contact swings? For comparison, Consistency and Shot Area are explained really well.
      In the Advanced section, regarding Tru Accuracy. Total distance only 0.2 yds difference.
      Yds offline, only 1.6 yds difference. Yet true accuracy (whatever the numeric values really mean???) shows that one of those results is about 50% (better or worse??) than the other. Either that is a mistake or it needs to be explained.
      Also, in Advanced section regarding Yards to Green. If M1 was 0.2yds longer. And M1 was 1.6 yds less offline. How can that yield the M1 being 5.6 yds further from the green? Again, either an error or additional explanation needed. Re Strokes Gained. For PGA Tour data, it is gained or lost against the tournament’s field that week (I think). What are you measuring your data against?

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      8 years ago

      @Brad – We touched on some of this in the How We Tested Section. This was a smaller test, 6 testers. The criteria for dropping shots was greater than 55 yards offline and severe mishits (there is a subjective element to that, but it includes things like pop-ups, dribblers, worm burners and other miscellaneous atrocities). While we were less aggressive in dropping shots than we’ve been in the past, I’d say reasonable contact is a reasonably accurate description.

      Regarding truAccuracy, it was a curiosity to me as well, and I’ve refactored it within our data sheets (in the originally published versions, we did the calculations in Tableau). It’s a simple formula – the average of total yards/yards offline – across all testers. No one accuracy measurement tells the complete story. truAccuracy favors gives significant weighting to shots that are long and straight. The same point can be made by reversing the formula (yards offline/total distance). The gaps are less substantial (and less sensitive to skew), but it requires a smaller is better mindset, and that is often lost on the casual reader. I may use the reverse formula going forward, as I think it probably is a more accurate representation of the metric we’re trying to detail. Like most everything else, it’s a relative value.

      Regarding Stokes Gained – The Strokes Gained Driving stat assigns a value to the starting position of the shot based on distance (430 yards) and lie type (tee box) and then subtracts (based on Broadie’s shotlink research) a value based on the remaining distance to the hole and the resulting lie condition (fairway, rough, etc.). Basically the formula allows us to better account for the fact that 250 into the fairway is better than 250 into the rough. Using this method, a Strokes Gained driving value can be calculated for each shot (using our theoretical distance to the flag as a starting point). We’ve modified the formula to account for the fact that our testers aren’t PGA quality, but the value displayed is the average of all testers/all shots under the modified formula.

      Regarding the difference in Yards to Green…you might need to clear your filters. Under the base sort, I see only a .6 yard difference with the M1 being the closer of the two.

      As for why we didn’t add a sort by tester as we have in the past…it might sound like a radical concept, but the individual tester doesn’t matter. This is a proof of concept for us (we have bigger things planned), but the idea is to make the data more relevant on an individual basis. To that end, the tester is inconsequential, it’s everything about the swing and the shot that matters (swing speed, ball speed, launch, spin, impact location, angle of attack – not who actually made the swing). The more you know about the general characteristics of your swing the better you’re able to isolate relevant performance differences between clubs.

      Basically, across a group of testers (and the larger the group, the more the group averages can be expected to narrow), there will be great similarity between clubs. When you start to focus on individual elements of the data, we expect we’ll find clarity in what clubs perform better for a golfer whose tendencies are X, Y, and Z.

      I swing between 103 and 107 MPH – I have a neutral angle of attack – I generally hit the ball low on the face… whatever it is the a given golfer knows about his swing can be parametrically filtered (essentially searching data and recalculating averages on a shot by shot basis, based on the parameters you specify) to find the club that performs best for your specific swing characteristics. It’s a more granular approach, and ultimately much more relevant.

      In this case we have two drivers that are probably as similar as most any other two on the market. Replace the M1 with say an AeroBurner or even a Great Big Bertha, and those ‘best for who’ characteristics should become more apparent.

      Reply

      Regis

      8 years ago

      You got everything right-at least from my perspective. This head to head is exactly what I was awaiting. I own and like the SLDR (perhaps my favorite) the R15 and the Fly Z. All great performers. All purchased based on your reviews. I played in an outing yesterday with about 40 passionate golfers ( mid handicaps, 80-95mph swing speeds , and in their 50’s and 60’s) and more than half were gaming SLDR C drivers (fixed hosel) with stock shafts. The SLDR gets knocked for lack of forgiveness but guys I’ve played with over the last year don’t seem to have a problem. Yesterday I was gaming the R15 but it could have been the SLDR or the Fly Z as I like to match heads with my best fitting shafts. So the next question: Will the M1 and/or LTD be compatible with the prior version (SLDR, Flt Z) shaft adaptors. Christmas is around the corner and Santa needs to know. Thanks

      Reply

      Raj LP

      8 years ago

      Maybe I’m missing something. The M1 has tighter grouping of shots and fewer yards offline. Why is the Fairway Percentage lower then?

      Reply

      mcavoy

      8 years ago

      That’s the one that got my attention.

      Reply

      RLG

      8 years ago

      Wow!
      Incredible amount of data, but so easy to understand.
      This is truly scientific and meaningful data, although it shows both clubs are almost equally good, so it makes choosing between them even more difficult. Great job MyGolfSpy.
      One question I have is the Vertical Impact Location – how does this relate to spin and efficiency of contact, as I have heard a lot about hitting the ball slightly above the center of the club face.
      Also, why do we see such a difference, although the clubs were hit with the same testers?

      Reply

      Allen

      8 years ago

      Great review! Unfortunately there’s little to no data in the higher swing speed and attack angle category. Guess I’ll just have to compare them myself! I’ve already hit the M1 and it’s a bomber! Found it to be a little bit higher spinning than I expected despite having it set to low spin. Not the most forgiving driver either.

      Reply

      Justin

      8 years ago

      This was my exact thought… no data past 109 MPH swing speed! There are a lot of amateur golfers who swing 110+ MPH and these are the guys who are most concerned with spin rate if you ask me. Although it is fair to say that at those swing speeds the shaft settings play a large part in the results as compared to the head of the club. Since the shaft is the main player here, I’m more drawn to head shape and aesthetics. Personally, I can’t stand the head shape of the M1 or any Taylormade drivers for a long while. I’ll have to check out the King for myself (the forthcoming King Forged irons look tasty!)

      Reply

      Pete S

      8 years ago

      Great test. I’m happy with my current driver but it’s an R7. Might have to take a look at both of these next season.

      Reply

      Ron Kjorsvik

      8 years ago

      Have a hard time believing that I can carry the ball 265y with a 90 mph club head speed and a neg 3 AOA. These must be good.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      8 years ago

      Ron – Not sure what you’re looking at. There’s limited data in that range (and we do recommend inputting a range of values for swing speed and AoA since nobody is the same with every swing), however; when I select a range of 90-92MPH, and an Angle of Attack of -4 to -2, the data reveals an average carry distance of 204 yards.

      Reply

      Dave

      8 years ago

      I would like to see the Taylor Made M1 tested against the Taylor Made SLDR, R15, R11, AeroBurner and JetSpeed drivers. Is the M1 really any longer?

      Reply

      Drew

      8 years ago

      Great review. There has been a lot of blather about how the M1 is heads and shoulders above everything else but these are so close in so many ways. Thanks for the good work.

      Reply

      chris

      8 years ago

      why slide the weights for the m1 but not use draw setting for players it was necessary for the king?

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      8 years ago

      Because it’s not the same thing.

      Cobra’s draw setting is effectively the same as TaylorMade’s upright setting. It’s not a point of differentiation between the clubs. Moving of weights (towards the heel in the case of draw bias) effectively shifts the center of gravity in that direction, effectively moving the sweet spot, and creating additional gear/draw spin whatever you want to call it, on anything to the toe side of the CG position.

      Short version, left to right CG adjustability is a point of distinction, where the ability to alter lie angle (upright setting), is not.

      Reply

      Dennis Corley

      8 years ago

      Tony,
      Awesome data. Really nice adjustable tools. Any way to extrapolate how the LTD Pro would perform in comparison, especially for swings with a positive AOA?

      Thanks,
      Dennis

      Reply

      Skip

      8 years ago

      With the heads being the only variable on the equipment end, and having the results being so similar, I guess performance gains can only be found by optimizing shaft preference. Club heads have reached a limit on performance, it’s all about what “feels” the best, and looks the best to you now.

      Reply

      Ryan

      8 years ago

      First, when are we going to see the M1 430 vs King LTD Pro? That’s what a lot of us really want to see.

      Second, I really love the testing done by you guys, but I actually know the numbers are a little innacurate when using the BSG 330 RX when testing at clubhead speeds 110+. I was a BSG ballfitter for 2 years and everyday we fit people out of the softer compression balls because they actually lost ball speed, distance, and spin rates that were very dispersed when swinging that fast. People think they can’t over-compress a ball but I can surely tell you that one can. My suggestion would be to have 2 seperate groups of testing, one with the BSG 330 RX(65 compression, slower swing speeds) and one with the BSG B330(82 compression, 110+ swing speeds). You will get more accurate smash factors, ball speeds, and spin rates by doing this.

      Reply

      Hula_Rock

      8 years ago

      Goes to show everyone that current “Limits” have been reached…..

      Great test.

      Reply

      Drew

      8 years ago

      Why not include the Callaway driver(s)?

      Reply

      Sharkhark

      8 years ago

      Really drew? Where have you been?
      Why not callaway? Because then went not Nike too, or mizuno or etc.
      Why? These two? Because they are the 2 highest technology drivers to create extreme buzz in years & we all want them head to head.

      Reply

      Mike Honcho

      8 years ago

      Well said Sharkhark. Drew is probably a Cally sales rep.

      dave

      8 years ago

      there is no statistical difference between the Cobra and Taylor Made drivers. And since they were not tested against any standard the only conclusion you can draw is that under these test condition, the drivers are equivalent. They could be 0-30 yards longer than every other driver or 0-30 yds shorter, but I bet they are not statistically significantly longer than other top drivers. I challenge Cobra or Taylor Made to prove they are longer – you will never see the data, because they are not longer. Think about it – the R&D guys go to the marketing guys and say – “Wow, this new M1 is 10 yards longer than the SLDR and 7 yards longer than every Callaway, Titielist and Ping driver. This is the best driver we ever made”. and then the marketing guys say, “OK. Let’s just tell everyone this is the longest driver we ever made. We’ll leave out the most convincing facts, this will sell more drivers”.
      I bet both of these clubs are solid drivers and if you want to spend a lot of $ getting the “latest & same greatest as before” then go for it. Or go to Taylor Made’s pre-owned driver site (or Callaway’s or anyone else’s site) and get a reconditioned one year old driver for 1/4 the price. This is the start of the “Kool-aid” season – drink it if you want, but it is the same “Kool-Aid” as last year, just repackaged.

      golfercraig

      8 years ago

      Wow. Scorching hot take. As you know, you are the first guy to type such a profound response on the internet. Golfers who frequent sites such as this would have never thought of this before you so courageously posted it. I, for one, thank you for your genius input.

      Regis

      8 years ago

      MGS does an extensive club test every year late January to Early March that goes on for weeks. Longest, most forgiving, over 100 mph, under 100 mph. Virtually every brand is invited. But unless you have little or no interest in ongoing equipment advances (which begs the question Why are you here?) The head to head comparison of these two are at this point in time is what is on every club junkie’ s mind. The introduction of the M1 and the King LTD occurred at the same time and are significant departures from their brands current product line. Oh and those two brands happened to have produced the overall driver of the year in each of the last two years

      dave

      8 years ago

      Fine – but “driver of the year” is different from “longest driver ever by 10 yds”. Show the data that proves these are big improvements over last year’s great drivers – this will amaze some and astonish the rest, plus it will make golfers buy these drivers.

      Art

      8 years ago

      Regis,
      Some of us are club junkies AND science junkies. So our interest in ongoing equipment advances might go beyond blindly believing what we read here. I for one would love to see MGS adopt a highly scientific approach to their data collection, imparting credence on their conclusions past just being a fun read.

    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.

    We Tried It
    Feb 19, 2024
    This Training Aid Will Make You Hit a Draw
    News
    Feb 19, 2024
    Testers Wanted: TPT “3 Shafts, 1 Feel”
    News
    Feb 18, 2024
    Testers Wanted: Maxfli Tour Golf ball with MAX ALIGN Technology