MyGolfSpy Labs: 2017 DRIVER CG Report
Drivers

MyGolfSpy Labs: 2017 DRIVER CG Report

MyGolfSpy Labs: 2017 DRIVER CG Report

You care about your driver’s center of gravity. You may not realize it yet, but you do. It’s the single biggest influencer of how your driver performs.

While the average golfer may not know what center of gravity is, or why it matters (in fact, he may not even care), there’s a reason why it (CG) is a part of the discussion that accompanies nearly every driver release.

PING’s centers of gravity have traditionally been low and back. With SLDR, TaylorMade set the bar for low and forward. Last year, Cobra went Zero CG, and Callaway went Sub Zero.

The point is that every driver has a center of gravity, and no two are the same.

But what does any of that mean, and of equal importance, who is telling the truth about CG location?

That’s what this annual post is all about.

Today we’re going to show you exactly what’s real when it comes to the actual center of gravity placement of this season’s hottest drivers. By the time we’re done, hopefully, you’ll understand why CG matters too.

Interpreting the Data

DSC_0112

For those of you who are stumbling across our CG charts for the first time, and may be wondering what they are, and why they matter, we’re not going to rehash all of that here. I would encourage you to check out any and all of our previous posts on the topic.

DSC_0141

THE FINE PRINT

Before we get to our charts, it’s important to understand that although heads were measured according to USGA standards, tolerances (both in measurement and in manufacturing) come into play. The tolerance for our measurements is approximately .7mm. To account for this, we represent CG using large dots rather than a smaller absolute point.

We should also note that of the companies that publicly state driver CG locations, most do so based on measurements from CAD drawings. Between manufacturing, assembling, welding and polishing, CAD projections don’t always align with the finished product. Our data comes from actual retail parts.

Where the dots in our charts are touching or are in close proximity to one another, it’s reasonable to assume the heads have similar performance characteristics.

Finally, although we’ve blown these charts up to make them a bit easier to read, every last one of the CG locations represented is within that tiny little 14mm x 12mm box previously described in our CG Primer.

Interacting with the Charts

For each of the charts displayed below, we’ve defaulted to new (2017) drivers only. Provided filters allow you to add or remove clubs based on any combination of Year, Manufacturer, and Model. We recommend that, for additional context, you view the charts with previous year’s models selected. Additionally, you can:

  • Click on any model name at the top of the chart to isolate that club
  • Hold down Ctrl while clicking to isolate multiple clubs
  • Hover over any dot to reveal additional information, including the relevant weight setting and the actual measurements

With all of that out of the way, let’s get to out 2017 data:

CG YZ (CG RELATIVE TO FACE CENTER)

The chart below shows the YZ (top to bottom/front to back) CG location relative to the center of the face for the drivers measured. Effectively, the area shown represents that 14mm x 12mm box within the clubhead. These measurements depict CG locations without consideration for their relationship to the neutral axis. As such they are not loft dependent. Basically, the chart shows the actual CG location for each driver measured.

CG YZ Chart

Observations:

  • We are planning on adding some additional drivers in a future update, the count of 2017 drivers is a bit lighter than past seasons.
  • Compared with the 2016 model, TaylorMade significantly increased the range of CG movement with M1.
  • Callaway (Epic Sub-Zero) and to a slightly lesser extent Cobra (F7 and F7+) offer significant CG movement, while front to back and top to bottom CG movement with the Titleist 917 (D2 and D3) is comparably limited.
  • CG Position of the Wilson Triton can vary significantly based on both the sole plate used and the weight placement.
  • Of the newly measured models, Callaway’s Big Bertha Fusion has the lowest center of gravity, the Triton has the highest, the Cobra F7 has the more rearward, and the M1 is the most forward.

CG Relative to the NEUTRAL AXIS & MOI

As illustrated by the image above, the neutral axis is an imaginary line running perpendicular to the center of a lofted driver face. Before you ask, let me tell you why that matters. As the center of gravity moves closer to the neutral axis, you get less gearing (twisting), and a more efficient transfer of energy between the club and ball. As with everything else in our CG discussion, the distance from the center of gravity to the neutral axis (or CG NA as it’s called for short) is measured in millimeters and those millimeters matter.

Many golf companies advertise some variation of fast and forgiving, and while you might not realize it, that has everything to do with the center of gravity relative to the neutral axis. If we assume reasonably centered contact, to be fast – to reduce gearing at impact, and to maximize the efficiency of the strike – the center of gravity needs to be near the neutral axis. To be forgiving, MOI (also shown below) needs to be high. Despite what various marketing claims may lead you to believe, truly fast and truly forgiving is perhaps the most difficult combination to achieve.

Note: because both the data and the scale is fundamentally different, this chart cannot be directly compared to the Front to Back CG YZ chart above.

CGNA & MOI Chart

Observations:

  • Unlike last season, none of the drivers measured has a CGNA location that falls below the neutral axis
  • The Callaway Big Bertha Fusion and the Cobra F7+ have the lowest CG (relative to the neutral axis), while the Titleist 917 D2 has the highest.
  • Surprisingly, at just above 5000, the MOI of the Callaway Epic Sub Zero is the highest of the 2017 drivers measured.
  • The CGNA of the new M2 is significantly higher than the previous model. It also offers higher MOI.
  • The M1’s CGNA is similar in the forward position; however, the MOI of the 2017 model is higher than the 2016 version when the weight is in the rear position.
  • The Cobra F7 and F7+ show similar patterns with the F7+ being the more low/forward design while the standard F7 is the more forgiving of the two.
  • In any configuration, the Wilson Triton, Titleist 917 Series, TaylorMade M2 and Callaway Big Bertha Epic should be considered mid-to-high CGNA designs relative to the other 2017 drivers measured.

CG XY (Heel/Toe CG)

While the data provided in this chart is certainly interesting, it also comes with a disclaimer of sorts. CG XY is not a straightforward measurement. For example, we mind find drivers with similar XY CG locations, yet very different face heights, face shapes, crown curvatures, bulge and roll radii, etc..  XY CG similarities aside, those other design factors will likely cause the clubs to play quite differently from one another. So while this chart will give you some indication of CG movement along the club’s x-axis as well as any inherent draw or fade bias, the CG NA and MOI chart should prove to be a much better performance comparison.

CG XY Chart

Observations:

  • The vast majority of drivers and settings show a moderate to pronounced draw bias (heel side CG).
  • The Callaway Big Bertha Epic shows versatile weight placement allowing for pronounced fade and draw bias settings, as well as a near true neutral setting.
  • While the range is not as broad as it is with Epic, both M1 and F7+ allow the CG to moved to either side of center.
  • While the Triton offers a fair amount of horizontal CG movement, the CG remains significantly heel-sided in every configuration.
  • Titleist’s 917 series offer a reasonable range of horizontal CG movement; however, the CG remains on the heel side in every configuration, with the D2 offering among the most draw biased CG of the drivers measured.

SO WHICH CG LOCATION IS BEST?

There is no single center of gravity location that is ideal for everyone. Different manufacturers have different philosophies and different design and manufacturing capabilities.

We believe that the widest part of the bell curve will achieve the best results with relatively high MOI and relatively low CG drivers. Slower swing speed players, who need help keeping the ball in the air, generally do well with high/back designs. Golfers who are in desperate need of spin reduction (often aggressive swingers who hit down on the ball), will likely get better results with low and forward CG drivers, even at the expense of forgiveness. High MOI is not for everyone. For golfers who consistently hit the ball high on the face, a higher CG driver may produce better results, while golfers who habitually strike the ball low on the face will likely benefit from lower CG clubs.

As we’ve said countless times, in golf there are no absolutes, but we believe that by identifying a general center of gravity location that works well for you, you’ll be able to quickly narrow your focus to a few clubs that offer the highest probability of producing good results.

YOUR HOMEWORK

As we have in the past, we encourage you to conduct an experiment on your own. Try splitting our chart 4 ways. If you’re feeling motivated, split it 6 ways. Go out and compare clubs from the different areas you define and see if you find that clubs perform more similarly within boundaries, and quite a bit differently across them. See if the drivers in one section work better for you than those in a different area.

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
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.

      Erock

      5 years ago

      any plans to update with the 2018 drivers?

      Reply

      Joey

      6 years ago

      ETA on 2018 results? Or M1 with both weights in front track?

      Thanks!

      Reply

      Saunterer

      5 years ago

      Would love to see the 2018 cg data. This lab provided the best information to dig through and identify which new drivers could work for a particular player… better and more specific data than the “most wanted” lab in my experience. I relate it to shaft ei profile, THE best predictor of what will work for me in a driver. Doesn’t matter what the brand, tech, hype or marketing, this is scientific data and the numbers don’t lie. Love what you guys do, of all of it, this data is the best… and not available anywhere else!

      So what’s the word Tony? Are we going to see a 2018 cg report?

      Reply

      Tim

      6 years ago

      Any plans for a 2018 CG review?

      Reply

      Rob

      6 years ago

      Were there ever going to be any updates as mentioned in the article?

      Reply

      Casey

      7 years ago

      Are there plans to add Srixon Z565 and Z75 drivers to the chart?

      Reply

      Jeff

      7 years ago

      Hi Tony, if the M1 460 MOI can go from 4035 with the back track in neutral to 4404 with the weight back is it possible by moving the 15gram weight from the front track to the back and in back position and move the 12gram weight from the back to front track to raise the MOI enough to make the M1 460’s MOI higher than the M2 or maybe more than the Epic sub zero?

      Reply

      ole gray

      7 years ago

      I currently game a Callaway Fusion driver which (correct me if I’m wrong) has a back and low center of gravity. I’m a high face striker type of guy where all my ball marks are from the top of center and up. I have a slow driver swing speed 88 -92 ish so I’m wondering if I have enough horsepower to swing a forward center of gravity type driver to help with the high face strikes?

      Reply

      joro

      7 years ago

      I just got the Triton and played one round. The fact is hot, the ball comes of fast and feels great. Seems the best hits above ctr, in the middle. High, straight and long. Bad misses are bad. It is a tinkerers dream so I will be tinkering. Lot to play with, but the Triton is the real thing and not a joke.

      Reply

      Adam

      7 years ago

      any chance of adding the M1 440 to this data?

      Reply

      Terry Leahey

      7 years ago

      I think it is a very good article. It may help visually if you show the actual club face and where is the best place to hit it. If it doesn’t match where you normally hot it, it is not the club for you. I just got fit for a new shaft and the fitter showed me where the sweet spot on my head was. 15 real yards different when I actually hit it. The older I get, the smarter I get, which makes up for my slowing swing speed. Need all the help I can get.

      Reply

      Thomas Murphy

      7 years ago

      I wonder how many companies and fitters effectively use this in fitting. On one hand you may buy a head that “fits” where you currently tee it etc. On the other you may be comparing drivers all teed and struck in same place and not realize the best performance that head may provide you. A good fitter should be able to work with your swing path and tee height to help your “good swings” hit the target

      Reply

      ryebread

      7 years ago

      Great work yet again. This is the post that I most reference through the course of the year.

      Are you going to do another FW one?

      Reply

      Bogeypro

      7 years ago

      Looking at 2017, 2016, and 2015 charts…. It is interesting to note how for 15 and 16, there were many drivers trying to get the weight closer to the face, but for 17 there are much less (look at the number of dots closer than -32mm from the face in previous years). Also, manufacturers are definitely getting the weight lower this year.

      Reply

      Uhit

      7 years ago

      Manufacturers are definitely NOT getting the weight lower this year! The XR 16 Pro is roughly the same in this department, like the Epic Sub0! And there is no driver this year, that comes close to the King Ltd (Pro), F6+, Sub0 and M1 430…
      …you have to look at the numbers on the axis of the charts!

      Reply

      Weston

      7 years ago

      It’s true. I love my LTD Pro. Nothing better for me! It’s at least 1-2 years ahead of the rest, and it came out last year!

      Dan

      7 years ago

      I like the way MGS gets you thinking about the way things affect golf clubs. With that said, I still believe you need to get fitted and that includes the best CG, shaft, etc. for your SS, tempo and other factors. It may take a while for the fitting but, it’s better than shelling out $400 to $500 for a driver that isn’t going to work for you.

      Reply

      Jamie-Bonnie Dugger

      7 years ago

      Does this mean you’re going to release your most wanted driver testing results soon? Or are you in the “CG” area right now and going to give the same info on the fairways?

      Reply

      Frank Cruz

      7 years ago

      Why wasn’t Ping included?

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      Out of spite. Kidding…

      Actually, it’s because PING hasn’t released anything new for 2017 yet. You can use the filters to display models from 2016 and 2015. That will get you both the G and G30 series.

      Reply

      Robert

      7 years ago

      I’m most surprised by the Callaway changes in regards to how much higher the CG is to the Neutral Axis compared to last years models. I know as someone who prefers to hit it a little higher on the face, the lower CG models of last year were terrible for me. I’m crushing the GBB Epic now and I’m guessing that the CG change has something to do with it. Aside from that, I’m blown away that the Fusion has that low of a CG. I wonder why it still spun like a top for a lot of people? The stock shafts?

      Reply

      Uhit

      7 years ago

      This was also my biggest surprise, because the Epic Sub0 isn´t Sub0 anymore, but more like the XR 16 Pro!
      That the Fusion is rather Sub0, than the Sub0, and (despite of this) spins like hell, is also fascinating…
      …maybe the construction is too instable without jailbreak?
      …and the Epic solution for this problem was jailbreak.

      Reply

      MG

      7 years ago

      I too would like to hear some kind of explanation for this. Shouldn’t the fusion be really low spinning? It seems like the fusion should be the ultimate low spin, high forgiveness driver! And why does sub zero have a higher moi than the regular epic? Usually, like with cobra, the driver that spins less has a lower cg but then they have to reduce the moi. Seems like some weird stuff is going on with Callaway.

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      The Fusion is a curiosity for sure, as my experience also supports the notion that it’s a higher spinning driver. I reached out to a couple of R&D guys this morning to pick their brains and here’s what we’ve come up with.

      You’re dealing with opposing forces when it comes to the high launch/spin characteristics of back CG and the spin benefits of low CG. With Fusion the simple explanation is the back cg is exerting more influence over the launch conditions.

      We also have to consider impact location. Fusion is a little squat by comparison, which means less high face area, and less potential to take advantage of low spin (happy), high-face gearing.

      Finally, the stock shafts of the Epic are all somewhere in the mid-high spin range, so above and beyond the head, you’re getting a good deal of influence from the shaft as well. In this case, the stock offerings are adding dynamic loft and with it, spin.

      Steve Dodds

      7 years ago

      I’m not sure the Fusion is as high spinning as people assume. I’ve seen two independent tests. The one at Golfalot had it spinning at 330 or so, which is indeed high. The one at Pluggedingolf had it spinning at 1830, which is lower than the same reviewer got for the Epic. I haven’t tried the Fusion, but I have tried the stock Recoil in an Epic and got more spin than other shafts I tried. Given the figures above, I’m tempted to try it against my LTD.

      mackdaddy

      7 years ago

      Ok let me see if I have this right? I have an M1 set in neutral and back setting. If I were to add weight to the back center with lead tape of hot glue it will make it more forgiving and move the point of contact for the most power higher and more toward the heel?

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      Moving the weight back increases MOI, while raises the CG and moves it slightly heelward.

      Reply

      mackdaddy

      7 years ago

      Thank You Tony. If I add the weight back and slightly toward the toe would that move the cg toward the center?

      Tony

      6 years ago

      So putting 2 weights at the back of an M1 will make it more forgiving and spin more with the raised CG?

      Would you guys be able to do a test next year to show how much MOI can be increased by adding weight to the back of a club?

      JIM

      7 years ago

      Superb article
      I now invison 7 hr. rounds with computers and screw drivers used by everyone. Just kidding, most of the mfgs will come up with a settings sheet, maybe.
      I have know this for a long time. It does not just apply to drivers it applies to all clubs. There isn’t any quality control or production control to make the CG or MOI in the center or sole of the face sometimes just by chance sometimes by design.
      Great article! The graphs are great could be a bit easier to interpret.

      Reply

      Adam

      7 years ago

      From this year’s results, it looks like the manufacturers were clearly looking to increase MOI rather than get CG lowered minimally. Maybe the lesson is that since most of us can’t find the center of the clubface consistently, we’d benefit more from higher MOI rather than a lowered CG location by a millimeter or two.

      Reply

      Jonathan

      7 years ago

      This is incredible information. Thank you for taking club testing to the next level.

      Reply

      Harold W

      7 years ago

      Tony I have been in golf business sense we started Lynx, Stag, Pinseeker. And I must say you are the best when it comes to reporting the facts about clubs or anything else in golf. Keep telling it like it is and mix no words. Thanks

      Reply

      Heath

      7 years ago

      I anticipate this data more than any other golf club related article all year. Keep up the good work guys. How are people confused by what’s presented in this article? This data backs up exactly what I’m seeing in my recent comparison of my LTD Pro and GBB Epic. Now I can see why I hit the Epic considerably lower. I also saw a large ball speed jump with the Epic which likely means my strike is toward the top of the face more times than not.

      Reply

      Nosoup4u

      7 years ago

      You got the epic lower because the loft is strong. I.e. A 9.5 is more like 8.

      Reply

      Heath

      7 years ago

      I played my LTD at 7.5*, so don’t agree with you there. The CG is considerably higher in the Epic. Not to mention, there’s no way of knowing what the true loft in my Epic is. With manufacture tolerances, that obviously varies. In this very test, the Epic has a measured loft of 9.6* instead of the stated 9*.

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      With driver loft you have several factors in play. There’s stamped loft (the number on the driver). There’s intended loft (manufacturers often intentionally understate loft, such that a head stamped 9.5 might be closer to 10 not because of tolerances, but because that’s the intent). Finally, you have the actual loft, which is basically intended loft +/- tolerances.

      Recent trends show the majority of OEMs are bringing intended loft closer to stamped loft.

      Tolerances are better than what they used to be as well. So even if an OEM has a stated tolerance of 1° the overwhelming majority of heads will be closer to the true spec. So with that in mind, we can make some reasonable inferences about the intended loft of the clubs measured.

      My guess as far as stamped vs. intended for the new models:
      Titleist: 9.5 / 9.5 (Titleist has generally been true-to-stamped in the past)
      TaylorMade: 9.5 / 10 (Recent history – generally within 1 degree of stamped, but R15 nearly 2° weaker to offset forward CG)
      Callaway Epic SZ 9 / 9 (Recent Callaway history – as much as 1.5° above stamped, but less in newest models)
      Callaway Epic: 9 / 9.5
      Cobra F7(+): 9.5 / 9.5 (Recent history – true-to-stamped for most models, LTD perhaps intentionally stronger)
      Wilson: 9 / 9.5 (maybe a bit more) (Recent History – .5 degrees above stated).

      With regard to NOSOUP4U’s comment, it’s HIGHLY unlikely Epic heads would be strong to spec. Given its position in the Callaway lineup, we would expect Callaway to be true to loft, or slightly weak. Based on the measurements we have, half a degree weak appears correct.

      jcc

      7 years ago

      Great info as always Tony, I appreciate the ability to select model years, manufacturers etc.

      Surprised to see there is a tendency to move the cg slightly up relative to last year’s models from callaway and cobra. Perhaps reflection of the desire to hit it higher on the club face to take advantage of the bulge/roll ?

      Reply

      Bryce

      7 years ago

      Why is King LTD not included on this chart?! I was told King LTD should have a CG Neutral Axis of 0. That would be much different than any other driver on this chart.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      The KING LTD is there. You need to use the provided filters to add 2016 drivers to the charts.

      Reply

      Bryce

      7 years ago

      Thanks! Good ol’ filters got me again. Looks like the industry as a whole trended toward higher CG NA in 2017 from 2016.

      Riley Olsen

      7 years ago

      Hello,

      I currently play the M1 ’17 stamped 9.5 degrees.

      It is set to 8 degrees of loft.
      It is set 1 notch low.
      And 1 notch draw.

      My AoA is approximately 4 degrees up and I tend to hit higher on the face. My SS is about 107mph..

      Based on your research of CG and other factors what setting would you suggest for best results!

      Thanks!

      Reply

      Preston Bonner

      7 years ago

      I always look forward to this article every year. Great job as always!!

      Reply

      KC

      7 years ago

      It’s interesting to see the contrast between the various driver heads. Given that mfg tolerances can create some significant difference of loft and face angle within the same model head, I wonder how much CG varies.

      Reply

      Jeff

      7 years ago

      Thanks Tony, love the data which basically supports what I have been seeing from my comparison tests. Thanks for helping to educate golfing consumers. I’m looking forward to the complete list specifically the M1 440.

      Reply

      Jon

      7 years ago

      Tony, glad you are here to sort this out for us. But I am confused. I hit down on the ball, a lot, I have an SLDR. Sounds like the forward low CG is right for me.

      Just for fun, I went to an Epic fitting, between the two Epic Drivers it turns out that I hit the Sub zero best. The fitter says I hit it 30 yards further, I doubt it is that much at all, but it certainly is a lot further than the SLDR.

      That result seems counter to what your article says. I must be missing something.

      Thanks for shining a light on this subject.

      Thanks,

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      CG is the starting point.

      There are several factors in play. One rule of thumb (and there’s not universal agreement here) is that an ascending AoA is generally suited for mid-cg, descending fast – forward, descending slow – back.

      Where you impact the ball on the face matters. If you’re a consistent high face guy, regardless of AoA, higher CG may work better, where low CG generally works best with low face impact. This is true of toe and heel side as well. The best results come when the CG and impact point are aligned.

      That’s one piece. The shaft plays a role in performance as well.

      Finally, to your specific case, Callaway is claiming a technology benefit from face/jailbreak technology. The actual performance implications of fact technology can’t be accounted for beyond the influence they have on CG location.

      Reply

      Gil

      7 years ago

      How about x referencing these results with actual data from foresight or trackman? You already have both data if I am not mistaken. How does CG-MOI really affect ball flight and spin. Also does shaft properties affect these results?

      Reply

      Mbwa Kali Sana

      7 years ago

      I don’t give a damn for the CG or its position .I just take the club to the golf course (Never the range !)and find out if suits me or not .
      I’m a good enough golfer to play a fine round with any reasonably built club .Differences are infinitesmal .
      “It ‘s the INDIAN ,not the ARROW ,stupid “

      Reply

      LayDown TheSteroids

      7 years ago

      Why would your Trump voting mentality even read and respond to a tech article? If you don’t give a damn about facts, move on and get out of my way.

      Reply

      Joe

      7 years ago

      Judging from the comments the typical attention span of your modern day human is 1 second.

      The androids will rule….

      Reply

      Gary

      7 years ago

      This is excellent! For 40 years, I’ve been telling customers that center of gravity is one of the most important and most overlooked part of the golf club. And most golfers believe that the whole clubface is one big center of gravity (aka “sweetspot”). Of course, that is based on the OEM marketing dept. telling them.

      Reply

      Thomas

      7 years ago

      Now, I’m totally confused. Maybe all the blah blah would be easier to understand if a study was done using white rats and monkekys?? Just saying

      Reply

      Joey

      6 years ago

      Go here http://mygolfspy.com/golf-club-center-of-gravity-cg/

      They’ve explained the relationship between CG with Launch,Spin, and forgiveness.

      Reply

      Adam Kaplan

      7 years ago

      In a world of adjustable drivers, this is invaluable information. Obviously, do what works for your unique swing. With that said, having this type of information can help any golfer adjust their club with greater confidence knowing what the probable outcome will be. Thanks for the clarity in your work — good stuff!

      Reply

      MyGolf Spy

      7 years ago

      Jonathan Winner Did we cure your insomnia?

      Reply

      Grant Gulick

      7 years ago

      Awesome!

      Would love to see an in depth review/comparison of the XR 16 Sub Zero and the GBB Epic Sub Zero

      Reply

      Carl Wigglesworth

      7 years ago

      i got 2 paragraphs in and really confused

      Reply

      Jonathan Winner

      7 years ago

      Think i’ve just fallen asleep

      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