Callaway Mavrik Driver 2020
Drivers

Callaway Mavrik Driver 2020

Callaway Mavrik Driver 2020

2019 was a good year for Callaway drivers. Epic Flash was #1 at retail and was the most used driver across all worldwide tours. Epic Flash Sub Zero took home Most Wanted honors, and the standard model wasn’t far behind.

2019 was a bad year for Callaway drivers. On Tour, Epic Flash led the league in failed USGA CT Tests, and while it’s purely speculation on my part, likely sent more golfers to the ER with bleeding eardrums than any other 2019-made driver in golf. It didn’t sound good; a little pitchy, dog.

callaway mavrik drivers

The big selling point, of course, was that Epic Flash was the first driver design powered by AI and machine learning. The continuation of Callaway’s AI strategy, the Mavrik name serves to convey the message that bringing the product to life required unconventional thinking (and perhaps unconventional spelling). Fun little fact: it’s not that the guys at Callaway can’t spell (most of them probably can), but working around existing Trademarks sometimes requires a bit of phonetic creativity.

Epic Flash Rewind

AI was the reason, according to Callaway, that Flash produced more peak (dead nuts center contact) ball speed than other drivers (higher COR), while still staying under the USGA CT limit – most of the time, anyway.

Before we move on, let’s acknowledge that this is exactly the kind of claim golfers who can’t be bothered to understand the physics dismiss out of hand. Don’t be that guy. The reality is that the correlation between CT (the USGA’s current face deflection metric) and COR (the former standard) is not absolute. The theory is that it’s possible to stay under 257 (the absolute CT limit) while pushing COR above .830 (the limit under the old metric). That’s not to say Callaway has done it, but every club engineer I’ve spoken with agrees that it’s possible – and most acknowledge they’re trying to live somewhere in the space between.

For the sake of clarity – none of this is meant to suggest that 10 more yards is a realistic possibility. The point is that, in spite of assertions to the contrary, the gray area between CT and COR provides a legitimate opportunity for incremental (and small) peak ball speed gains within the USGA rules. A couple of 10ths of a mile per hour may not sound like much, but it’s infinitely more than zero.

So, long story short, Callaway did some cool, potentially ground-breaking things with Epic Flash, but it wasn’t without its issues. So, before we dig into the fixes, let’s take a brief moment to list the problems.

  • Off-center ball speed was lacking
  • The Flash face was significantly heavier than conventional designs
  • It was arguably the worst sounding driver on the market
  • CT Creep (faces getting hotter over time) caused issues between the Callaway Tour staff and the USGA
  • The track weighting system, while versatile, brought a performance compromise

So how did Callaway resolve the issues with its 2nd generation of AI-driven drivers? It turns out that AI is a bit like cowbell; sometimes, you just need more.

Left to Right: Mavrik, Mavrik Sub Zero, Mavrik Max

The Computer Doesn’t Know What it Doesn’t Know

What sometimes gets lost in the excitement of machine learning is that the machine boots up as dumb as a box of rocks. It’s not like you flip a switch and the computer knows how to design a golf club – or even what a golf club is. You have to teach it, and even when you reach the point where the machine understands the task at hand, if you don’t tell it exactly what you want, you’re unlikely to get exactly what you need.

“If you don’t ask the right questions, you don’t get the right answers,” says Dr. Alan Hocknell, Callaway’s VP of R&D.

Last time around, Callaway didn’t ask the right questions, or perhaps, more accurately, it didn’t ask enough questions. With more computing horsepower at its disposal and a better understanding of how to leverage it, Callaway’s use of AI has evolved from a research tool to a design tool. As part of that evolution, the company began asking more difficult and more sophisticated questions.

That’s half the battle, but to keep the machine in line, you need to establish some rules. So this time around, Callaway added some constraints. It’s still giving its server farm plenty of room to out-think the humans, but it’s also forcing it to color inside the lines in some areas that it didn’t address the first time around.

On paper, it works a bit like this:

  • Peak ball speed is excellent. Keep that, but make sure to consider off-center hits as well.
  • Hey Siri, let’s take some weight out of the face. If we need to leverage a new material, so be it.
  • Alexa, figure out why our CTs are creeping, and then design against it.

Seriously, is there anything you can’t do with an iPhone and an Amazon subscription?

There’s a small chance I’ve oversimplified some of this.

So, how do these solutions manifest themselves in the real world? If you’ve been paying attention for the last several years, the answer won’t surprise you. Even with supercomputers, it still boils down to materials and geometry.

SS20 Face

Callaway says it new face material combined with new face geometries solves a good bit of the problems I listed above. Branded SS20 (Super-Strength for 2020), the material is actually an FS2S titanium alloy. It’s your basic strength to weight ratio story, but the key bits are that SS20 allowed Callaway to reduce the weight of the face by 6-grams (that’s a significant amount in driver design), while also making the face itself more resilient.

The resiliency bit is particularly important as it makes Mavrik faces significantly less prone to CT creep. “[With Epic Flash], we definitely bogeyed some part of that,” says Hocknell. Inconsistencies with gauges and other assorted issues with the USGA’s methodologies notwithstanding, Callaway is optimistic its tour staffers won’t need to rely on their backup drivers this season.

With increased off-center ball speed on its to-do list, the computer updated its Flash Face geometries to perform better when golfers swing like actual golfers. Peak speed is nice, but we all miss the sweet spot more often than not. Suffice it to say that we’ll be keeping a close eye on ball speed consistency in this year’s Most Wanted test.

As you’ll learn in a moment, how the company achieves better off-center performance is going to be the most significant point of differentiation between Callaway and its competitors this season.

Lower MOI by Design

MOI (Moment of Inertia), in straightforward terms, is a measurement of an object’s (in this case, a clubhead) ability to resist twisting. A higher MOI club is more stable when hit off-center, which helps to preserve ball speed on mis-hits. MOI is a significant component of what gets branded as forgiveness. While face geometry (bulge and roll, in particular) also plays a role in producing consistent results, MOI is typically a good indicator of how a driver will perform when you miss the sweet spot.

As we’ve discussed in TaylorMade SIM and Cobra Speedzone driver launch stories, designing for higher MOI often means tradeoffs elsewhere. Specifically, high MOI shapes are typically less aerodynamically efficient (many golfers swing them slower), and boosting inertia usually mandates higher centers of gravity. That can give you more spin than you want. It can also contribute to comparably slower ball speeds and, in some cases, declines in head speed too.

TaylorMade and Cobra solve this problem by reshaping their drivers. Both raised the crowns and skirts (the section between the crown and sole), and placed what are essentially big heavy bars on the rear of the sole to push weight low and back. With these designs, you get high MOI, improved aerodynamics, and because the center of gravity is low, high launch with low spin.

Win, win, and win. Perfect.

Not so fast.

callaway mavrik driver cg

Another Compromise?

TaylorMade and Cobra see their shapes as the current and foreseeable future of driver design. Callaway sees them as yet another compromise.

As the center of gravity moves away from the face – as is the case with high MOI designs – spin robustness (spin consistency) drops off. I’d be remiss not to point out that the problem with forward center of gravity designs is that they mandate low MOI.

Before we move on, there are three things I should say. The first is that companies that produce drivers with high top-to-bottom MOI (Ixx) will almost certainly dispute any suggestion of a lack of spin robustness. Secondly, others have used face textures to both lower spin and increase spin robustness. It appears that Callaway is doing something similar as Mavrik drivers feature an appreciably more textured face than its previous driver offerings.  Finally, stories that argue that MOI isn’t as important as its made out to be invariably come from companies who produce low MOI drivers.

So is the Callaway Mavrik a low MOI driver? Hell yes, it is. Callaway says the total MOI of the Mavrik driver is in the 7000 range. By way of comparison, the highest total MOI drivers on the market exceed 9000, and the overwhelming majority are in the low-to-mid 8000s. By any reasonable comparison, the Callaway Mavrik is a low MOI driver. “And we’re actually kind of proud of that,” says Hocknell. Low MOI doesn’t have to mean unforgiving.

Not only does Mavrik boost off-center ball speeds over Epic Flash, but it also improves them to the degree that Callaway doesn’t need to rely on MOI to maintain ball speed. The face does most of the work. That allows Callaway to shift the center of gravity forward, which provides that spin robustness we were just talking about.

Callaway says Mavrik is more forgiving than Epic Flash. To put a number on it, the company says, despite the lower MOI, its new face design improves downrange dispersion by 13%.

Improved Sound

As the risk of damning Mavrik with faint praise, Callaway says that it used AI to improve the acoustic properties of the driver significantly. While there will always be an element of personal preference where sound and feel are concerned, it’s also true that there are frequencies the collective we find pleasing and those we don’t. We didn’t like Epic Flash.

Improving sound involves altering both pitch and the duration over which specific frequencies resonate. Through the AI-driven placement of internal sound ribs, Callaway says it was able to resolve the sound issues.

Hocknell says that “more elaborate on the outside often means more elaborate on the inside.” Within the context of Mavrik, the lack of a track to facilitate the movement of weight around the perimeter likely simplified the task of building sound dampening structures within the driver, but regardless, the feeling inside Callaway is that Mavrik offers a much more satisfying experience at impact.

Aerodynamic Cyclone Shape

By traditional design standards, TaylorMade and Cobra’s tall skirt designs would be considered unconventional. There’s a case to be made that Callaway has taken things a step further. Because it can achieve speed and spin robustness without a big body, Callaway was able to do some things with the shape of its driver to improve the aerodynamics.

With Mavrik’s Cyclone Aero Shape, more so than TaylorMade and Cobra, Callaway flattened the crown a bit and raised the skirt sections of the driver, while keeping the trailing edge high. The standard Mavrik is noticeably shorter from front to back, and to my eye looks a bit like Callaway took Cobra’s Speedzone and made a diagonal cut from the trailing edge of the crown to the front of the sole to remove everything that serves to create low CG and high MOI.

callaway mavrik driver

As with any aerodynamic feature, the design is all about reducing drag. Callaway claims a 68% reduction over Rogue and a 61% reduction over Epic Flash. That translates to a bump of 1 and 1.5 MPH of clubhead speed, respectively.

This is the part where we add the disclaimer about aerodynamic improvements disproportionally benefitting higher swing speed players, but it’s worth noting that Callaway’s numbers are based on an average swing speed of 95 MPH. That’s nearly 10 MPH less than TaylorMade’s baseline and about 5 MPH slower than Cobra’s. Your takeaway should be that, if all of this pans out (and I can’t promise that it will), slower swing speed golfers would be more likely to see a speed benefit from Mavrik than most other drivers.

The other requisite disclaimer: Your actual mileage may vary, so get fit.

3 Models

callaway mavrik driver comparions

Before we dig into the model breakdown, I want to briefly touch on the fact that Epic and Rogue/Mavrik are inherently different platforms. Mavrik doesn’t replace Epic Flash; it replaces Rogue. While at one time, shape was a differentiating feature (Rogue was a bigger body driver), with Mavrik’s compact shape potentially representing the future of Callaway design, the distinction moving forward will likely be limited to the type of adjustability – sliding weights for Epic, swappable weights for Mavrik.

With Mavrik, there’s less of a mass penalty associated with the structure to support weights. You do lose a bit of fitting flexibility, but simplicity brings advantages. “When you don’t have [sliding] weights and have three models,” says Alan Hocknell, “you can design for a variety of issues, CG, MOI; prioritizing speed, and targeting heads for different golfers.”

Along those same lines, as was the case with Epic Flash, each of the three drivers in the Mavrik family features a unique implementation of Flash Face intended to produce the best results for the target golfer.

Mavrik

callaway mavrik driver

Of the three models, Mavrik (no suffix) is the only one that features a true Cyclone Aero shape. Callaway describes it as a mid-spin offering, with perhaps just a tick of draw bias. The company believes it will be the best fit 60%-70% of golfers.

It features a single, 5-gram rear weight for swing weighting purposes only.

Mavrik is a 460cc design that will be available in lofts of 9°, 10.5°, and 12°.

Mavrik Sub Zero

callaway mavrik sub zero driver

The Sub Zero is positioned for the better player, or at an absolute minimum, the higher swing speed player. It’s a 450cc offering that’s based on last season’s tour-only Sub Zero Triple Diamond chassis. It lacks the Cyclone Aero shape. The thinking is that the target player already has the speed, so it’s worth giving up a bit of aerodynamic benefit to push the CG lower.

Along similar lines, off-center ball speed is prioritized less than it is in the other Mavrik designs. Your takeaway should be that this iteration of Sub Zero is legitimately intended for better players.

While the design can be expected to produce lower spin, Callaway didn’t obsess over creating the lowest spinning driver it possibly could. Instead, based on tour player feedback, it concentrated its efforts on making a driver that would produce the desired shot shape. Effectively it’s about hitting the target line and then having the ball fall in the desired direction over the final 3rd of its flight.

To get there, Callaway flattened the lie angle a bit and removed any directional bias. Baby fades, that’s the goal.

Mavrik Sub Zero offers swappable 14-gram and 2-gram weights that can be expected to tweak spin by 200-300 RPM. It is available in 9° and 10.5°.

Mavrik Max

callaway mavrik max driver

Billed as PING Killer, Callaway says Max is almost two drivers in one. Unlike the standard Mavrik, Max offers a more conventional take on forgiveness. As with Sub Zero, that means a less pronounced cyclone shape. It still gets plenty of forgiveness from the Flash Face, but the thinking here is that the target golfer needs every bit of forgiveness he can get. In many cases, that golfer will be a slower swing speed player, so opportunities to benefit from improved aerodynamics are inherently limited anyway.

That might sound like a compromise, but it’s also inarguably true.

With its 14-gram weight in the rear position, Callaway puts Mavrik Max’s MOI at around 8700. That’s not quite PING G400 MAX / PXG 0811XF territory, but it qualifies as exceptionally forgiving by conventional measures. When the 14-gram weight is in the heel position, it’s a slice killer.

Mavrik Max is available in 9°, 10.5°, and 12°.

Stock Shafts

callaway mavrik max driver stock shafts

With the Mavrik line, Callaway is offering three stock shafts.

For those seeking a lightweight option to promote higher launch, the UST Helium (40/50-grams) has become the de facto standard.

The Mid launch/meaty part of the market offering is the Project X EvenFlow Riptide (50/60-grams). Project X maintains that its OEM offerings are identical to the namesake Small Batch versions sold through premium fitters. The only difference is that Small Batch shafts are manufactured to tighter tolerances.

The low-ish launch offering is the new Aldila Rogue White 130 M.S.I. (60/70g). The White joins the Black and Silver in the Rogue 130 lineup. From a launch and spin perspective, it’s’ designed to fit between those two, though Aldila says it’s intended to fit a broader range of golfers than either. That’s likely a result of how the high-modulus 130 M.S.I material is leveraged in the design. There’s also less of it, which contributes to the lower price point relative to other Rogue 130 offerings.

Typically, when you see a $350 shaft in a $500 driver it’s a red flag. According to Callaway, it’s not a made for shaft, and Aldila confirms the shaft is not exclusive to Callaway. It’s available in the aftermarket, one was in play at the Sony last week (Aldila hopes it will get more tour play), and there’s no reason why it couldn’t find its way into other OEM lineups.

There’s an inherent risk with putting a premium shaft in an OEM lineup, but Aldila is willing to roll the dice as it works to reestablish itself both in the US and overseas (where the brand’s footprint is minimal). That’s potentially a story for a different day.

Stock Grip

Because Callaway’s Opti-Fit hosel maintains shaft orientation regardless of your loft setting, Callaway can offer Golf Pride ALIGN grips on its drivers. Last year, the MCC ALIGN proved popular. This time around, it’s going with a Black and Silver version of the Golf Pride Tour Velvet Align.

One Last Thing

Now I know what you’re thinking. “Hey Tony, this Mavrik stuff sounds pretty good, but I’m not sold on the orange.” The first thing I would say is, “Settle down, Chief. It’s not orange; it’s Sunset.” But for those of you uninterested in Home Depot paint aisle semantics, the more relevant point is that if you don’t like Sunset, you can fix it through Callaway Customs. You can have your Mavrik your way. This time around, you get 3 different paint zones and 12 different color options. That’s 1,440 opportunities to get it just right.

Left to Right: Mavrik, Mavrik Sub Zero, Mavrik Max

Overall, the Callaway Mavrik is compelling. The use of AI could be groundbreaking, but more interesting in the present day is the contrast in design principles between Callaway and its competitors. Mavrik is decidedly different, and while that’s not always a good thing, early returns from MyGolfSpy’s Most Wanted testing suggest there might just be something to it.

The Callaway Mavrik family of drivers retails for $499.99. Retail availability begins on January 23rd, 2020.

For more information, visit CallawayGolf.com

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.

      Pete Player

      4 months ago

      I’ve now played the Mavrik Sub Zero for a couple of seasons. Since finding the right shaft to it, it has become my favorate club in the bag. Namely HZRDS Smoke Yellow 76 g stiff.

      What I found with two Tensei shafts; AW Blue 65 and CK Pro White 65 stiffs, was that the mishits were awfull. The club felt really light and could not hit the center, unless slowing down my swing significantly. With the heavier Px shaft the club light up.

      Now, after two full seasons the face has started to give a more tingy sound at impact on heely hits, which ai find weird. Is it possible the Jail-break structure has given in? Has anybody else experienced the same?

      Reply

      Zach Smith

      9 months ago

      I have had the Mavrik for 2 years now, and it has helped my game a bit. I would like to note that I was originally using 20 year old hand me downs from my Grandpa. I will say that the distance in this club is a bit disappointing, I used my brothers TaylorMade and launched the ball about 30 yards further down range. I think I’m going to upgrade to something different here soon. I would say that this is a great starter club for the price, but that is about it.

      Reply

      Danny C

      4 years ago

      I went into the Boston-Braintree PGA Tour Superstore to get a fitting for a Taylor Made Driver. I left with the Mavrik and I’m glad I have it in my bag. I have the 50 Gr Project X Riptide and a 9.0 head adjust up to 10. This drive outperformed PING, Titlest T3, All TaylorMades on the monitor. My swing speed is about 98 MPH. Spin rate with the Mavrik dropped from 2600 with my titleist to 1700 with the Maverik. Carry went from 220 to 232 and total distance from 242 to 261. I’m a 5 handicap, obviously not a bomber with my swing speed being under 100 but this club produces an amazing, low spin ball flight and rolls like mad when it lands. I highly recommend this club!

      Reply

      Jerry

      4 years ago

      Bought a Mavrik 10.5 for my son – it feels like a soft forging off the face with a pleasing, muted sound. Seems as long as my Ping G400 Max 9 but the shaft did not fit me. If I wasn’t waiting for the next Ping, I might have a shaft fitting with the Mavrik. But nice driver, easy to hit center …

      Reply

      Bob

      4 years ago

      Not sure why orange is getting a bad rap here. No Cleveland Browns fans in the house?

      Seriously, I think the price is more unappealing than the colo,r, and it’s not as garish as the Cobra yellow, IMO. That said, I’m appreciate less flash. Bright colors and chrome do more to advertise the driver’s presence in my bag than anything else. I just wanna hit well, dammit.

      Reply

      Spitfisher

      4 years ago

      Boy I’m reading these reviews and comments, not much in the way of positive vibe for this driver. The halloween color combo doesn’t do it for me personally.. Looking at the sole of the driver reminds me of the TM M2 (2nd gen) .

      With all this tech and super computer how can a manufacturer miss out on the sound from its predecessor? Results are one thing, but sound is often a deal breaker for better golfers..Hey Doc, call me next time.

      Reading Tom’s reply I was always lead to believe there is more aerodynamic inefficiency at the hozel than anywhere else.

      Reply

      David B

      4 years ago

      For $500, I can take five 1-hour lessons from one of our pros. Betcha my $500 improvement in technique beats anybody else’s $500 improvement in equipment. Realistically, I’ll take two lessons this year, one for my long game and one for my short game and leave all my gear as it is.

      Reply

      NH Golfer

      4 years ago

      I bet it doesn’t.

      Reply

      Jeff

      4 years ago

      You don’t think that golf instruction is a better way to improve than buying new gear?

      If all the comments on all the articles on all the internet that might be the most idiotic.

      I hope you’re really not placing actual wagers with that type of logic.

      Gerald Teigrob

      4 years ago

      NH If we are happier spending that money on a good set of irons, that’s our prerogative! I’m with David B on this one! who has that kind of money for a driver? Certainly not me! I don;t spend any more on clubs than I can afford and just because I don’t get the latest in so-called technology doesn’t put me at a disadvantage! Scoring the same on my home course of 12 holes where I work says more than spending all this money on newer technology and not having anything to show for it on the scorecard! To each his own…and I would bet any money that the investment I am putting in to upgrade to an F7 driver and 3 wood is worth more than spending an exorbitant amount of money on something that might or might not improve my game! I will leave that kind of speculation to investors!

      Shooter

      4 years ago

      Considering this is a website based on equipment and the gains and improvements that new models will provide along with the talk about all the tech and engineering I think it’s an interesting call about taking lessons. Sure $500 is a lot of money and the years of 10 meter gains might be gone but that’s why we come to look at the website to see what is new and hopefully improved. In the end not many will have much equipment in their kit that is over 10 years old where their would be a big change from the new gear.

      Reply

      Dave

      4 years ago

      I did both. Got a lesson and bought the driver. Really happy with the mavrik. Very forgiving, I’m hitting more fairways than anything and the lesson definitely contributed.

      Tom Wishon

      4 years ago

      Please stop with this “aerodynamic shape brings higher clubhead speed” nonsense. And to say “we’re going with a lower MOI because to go higher in MOI means we have to use a head shape that generates more drag that will slow down your clubhead speed???” Puhlease. . .

      The companies that tout a streamlined aerodynamic shape for higher clubhead speed like to verify their shape change in wind tunnel testing. You’ve seen the images of the smoke/vapor hugging the head in the wind tunnel with less drag at the rear. I agree, it does cleverly make you think that you could swing such an aerodynamically shaped head faster and get more distance.

      BUT – ask yourself the question – just how long is the head traveling in a position with the face coming straight into the ball to supposedly encounter enough drag to slow it down? Now think about it. The head is constantly rotating, and rotating a LOT during the backswing and downswing. Like approaching 90* of rotation during the backswing and then reversing that on the downswing. As the clubhead accelerates on the downswing, the face is not even close to leading the head through the air. In fact it is only in the last few inches of the downswing when the face is fully presented perpendicular to the flow of air, like for less than two tenths of a second.

      And by that time the head is already at it’s full clubhead speed because the golfer has completed releasing the club. Besides, the area of a driver face is completely insignificant when it comes to being large enough to create enough drag through the air to slow down a golfer’s natural clubhead speed.

      Don’t believe that? Go out and take a 3 wood head and build it with the same shaft at the same exact specs as your driver. After warm up, swing both 6-8 times on an accurate launch monitor and look at the clubhead speeds. The 3 wood has less potential for drag through the air because it’s so much smaller than the driver head. But you’d see if both clubs are identical in every spec there won’t be a clubhead speed difference. That’s because what controls clubhead speed is the length, shaft weight, total weight, headweight and for some, the additional effect of the bending feel of the shaft on your release/timing as well as how the grip size relaxes your hands/wrists to achieve a more free release, not the shape or size of the head.

      It’s just not possible to accumulate as much drag in that short of a period of time as what those cool wind tunnel images want to convince you of. Sorry, but I really dislike misinformation that is spun to get people to spend their money.

      Reply

      Funkaholic

      4 years ago

      Thank you Tom, always the voice of reason.

      Reply

      Walter

      4 years ago

      Hi Tom, Glad to see you here putting the voice of real club head design to these BS claims that come out every year by these manufactures.

      From a guy who knows what he’s talking about, everyone should read your books on club head design.

      I’m still using your driver, no reason to change.

      Reply

      Gerald Teigrob

      4 years ago

      Tom, you hit the nail on the head! It shouldn’t be about spending money on he latest gadget to keep up with the Joneses….when you spend money to invest in a club you expect that the manufacturer cares about you more than just another sucker. well said, Tom, and hopefully other companies take these Wow factors into consideration before they jump to the next R & D project!

      Reply

      Steve

      4 years ago

      Is capitalism now a crime? Bottom line is they are in business to make money, sorry to hurt your feelings. Besides, this driver is nothing short of fantastic.

      Pete Player

      4 months ago

      I would argue on the club head orientation. Since we observe the muving club and body from a fixed position, it looks to be twisting and turning throughout the whole swing.

      However if we change position, where we look at it, it becomes pretty stable in relation to the swing path and arc it travels. Modern way of moving the club has very little arm rotation in it and therefore the face is a lot longer perpendicular to the path.

      I think it would be something for MyGolfSpy to scrutiny more.

      Reply

      John Marsh

      4 years ago

      Intrigued by the Matrix cyclone shape as that would seem to prevent a ballooning drive – similar to my Ping G LST – should be fun to demo both on the golf course come spring in upstate New York

      Reply

      Ima Fitter

      4 years ago

      If you’ve bought a new driver within the last 4 years, save your money. Having new equipment brought to the market every 6-12 months, your resale is virtually worthless. Golf Galaxy, for example, marks up every trade-in 100%. So if you have an Epic Flash, paid $550, your trade-in value, according to the PGA guide which GG uses, is $144. GG will sell it for $299. They love it, because on the Mavrik they will make $100 net profit (20%), but on your trade they make $150 (100%), plus $100 on your new driver. GG and Dick’s also makes 60% on balls and 100%+ on clothing. They absolutely love their customers money! Too bad they only pay their fitters $9/hr.

      Reply

      Matt

      4 years ago

      First learn basic math when talking about profits. How is it possible to get over 100% (100%+ as you said) profit? 100% profit would mean that the product is given for free to the retailer or the retailer has stolen it… You seem like a normal customer without any idea of profit margins…

      Reply

      Funkaholic

      4 years ago

      That is one ugly driver, if it sounds as bad as the last generation I won’t give it a second thought. The new Taylormade looks sharp though. Before you Callaway fan boys flame me, I have yet to find a driver that impressed me enough to kick my Mizuno JPX900 out of the bag. I like what I like.

      Reply

      gv44

      4 years ago

      Not pretty, not ugly, except for the color. Yes, the TM looks nice. The worst part of the Callaway to me is that awful sound. Hopefully, they fixed it well, not just a little.

      Reply

      Bill

      4 years ago

      I play the Mavrik driver. The sound is wonderful IMO. Callaway did a great job in this category.

      Funkaholic

      4 years ago

      Well, I was wrong, the driver is fantastic, I got fitted and ended up in a Callaway custom shop version, all black.. I wanted to fit the SIM, it just hit too low no matter what shaft we put in it. The Mavrik sounds great and I don’t have to look at the “sunset” default orange. JPX is now gathering dust, this is why I am a brand agnostic golfer.

      Reply

      Norm

      4 years ago

      I play about 120 rounds a season and 15 tournaments. What I’ve noticed is a proliferation of Epic Flash, Ping 410 and Taylor Made M6 drivers. To a man, the Epic Flash is the hot driver until i guess the new one comes out. Each season the top brands seem to improve their products; especially drivers. I can say from experience that its not hype. The newer drivers are substantially better than even 3 years ago. Your deluding yourself if you think otherwise. Or you won’t get fit.

      Reply

      Jeff

      4 years ago

      Not long ago a well followed equipment tester put exactly that theory to the test. He went back year by year through the Callaway models.

      The result, just like his test of the Mav vs the Epic, showed that it’s marketing sauce addled sheep that are deluded. Some models are even a step back from the one they replaced in performance terms rather than the annually promised 7-10 yards.

      Are you hitting it 75-80 yards longer than 10 years ago? No. You’re not.

      Reply

      walter

      4 years ago

      Rick Shiels just compared the new line to the Epic flash and the epic flash won out. Or is Rick not good enough to perform such a test. You sound like a tour pro, 120 rounds, 15 tourneys, you must be the voice of knowledge, so we should listen to you and not delude ourselves? Actually Rick is not the only PGA guy to compare these new drivers and they all came to the same conclusion. Maybe you work for Callaway or are connected somehow(shill?).

      Reply

      VF

      4 years ago

      If you were actually paying attention to Ricks test, you could clearly see that he gained almost 2 mph of club head speed, but that was not translating to ball speed. Could easily be the case that the driver is not suiting him in terms of the strike part (go get fitted yo).
      Him stating in an absolute that “it doesn’t go farther” is such a simplification, but I guess it is enough to feed the people that watch him that just wants the “executive summary”..

      Guanto

      4 years ago

      The drivers don’t impress me at all but those black/silver align grips are awesome. Will have to find a set floating around in a few months on eBay. Good write up.

      Reply

      Dr Tee

      4 years ago

      Have never found any Callaway driver of any iteration or generation that tops my Titleist TS-1 for distance, looks, sound, dispersion.. Dr Hocknell–eat your heart out.

      Reply

      David

      4 years ago

      Nice look on the Crown, It appears Callaway , Taylormade, are accepting
      Ping as the winning standard to dispersion. Mavrik going to be a great
      seller for 2020. Sound is finally address. Raising rear back . Color scheme
      pretty fine. Puts the Flash in the pan. . Will have to see how is does organist
      the TS3 .

      Reply

      Bob Lawrence

      4 years ago

      Great review, Tony. I spent some of this morning watching the Callaway blog; it was interesting, but too quick to digest all the Information. Then I saw MGS message and read it all…. You killed it with your post.of very clear observations, and comparisons between the top three club makers; better than the three Callaway guys. that had to stay on message.. GREAT Job!

      Reply

      paulSD

      4 years ago

      Ditto

      Reply

      Jeff

      4 years ago

      Testers are finding that Callaway has promised added performance that doesn’t exist, as usual.

      Reply

      John Smith

      4 years ago

      I will be hanging on to the Epic for at least another 2 weeks, until I convince myself that the promise of the additional distance is real this year.
      This is starting to be a math issue. If I achieved the 5-8 yards of additional distance, based on buying a new driver every year, I should be hitting it over 300 yards now based on the cumulative year over year gain. 1 + 1 = 3 in the golf marketing world

      Reply

      Marty

      4 years ago

      Cool! Play Funky Town!

      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