TaylorMade’s M2 Fairway Wood is 13.1 Yards Longer than RocketBallz!
Holy hell, what a claim. You don’t see many like this these days.
Despite what you may believe, the era of 10 More Yards (be they real or imagined) has mostly been over for a while. Almost nobody promises absolute distance anymore. With the possible exception of Callaway’s fairly non-specific “Up to 2 clubs longer” claim that accompanied the launch of the Big Bertha irons, we haven’t seen a statement this bold since TaylorMade proclaimed RBZ Stage 2 to be 10 Yards Longer than the original RocketBallz.
The Video
In case you missed it, here’s the video where TaylorMade makes the claim that caught our reader’s attention.
TaylorMade’s Fine Print
Now is probably the time to discuss the fine print. Here it is:
For those of you who aren’t graphically-inclined, here’s the plain text version:
DISTANCE CLAIM BASED ON ROBOT TESTING OF 3-WOODS AT TOUR PLAYER HEAD SPEED
We’d suggest that the phrase tour player head speed lacks the specificity that should accompany any claim of this nature, so we reached out to both TaylorMade’s Chief Marketing Officer and its PR Manager to see if either would be willing to provide us with a definition, or a specific number (presumably in miles per hour). We also asked for specifics around shaft lengths and flex (less important in a robot test), while inviting TaylorMade to share any other relevant information, pertinent details, etc. about its test conditions.
Those emails were not returned.
You’ve frequently asked us to test older models against new ones, and given the bravado of TaylorMade’s claim, coupled with the ambiguity of its fine print, we thought this would be something you guys would really be interested in seeing. We put together a test to learn what kind of performance differences actually exist between the two.
One quick note about our respective tests; while TaylorMade used its robot, we used actual human golfers.
How We Tested
- MyGolfSpy purchased 15° RocketBallz and M2 Fairway Woods from an authorized TaylorMade dealer.
- Both fairway woods were stock, off-the-rack models. Stock shafts, stock length in stiff flex. It should be noted that the stock length of the RBZ is ¼” longer than the M2.
- 10 golfers, all single-digit handicap golfers with above average head speed (95-115 MPH 3-Wood Speed) participated in this test.
- All shots were hit from a tee since that’s what’s shown in the video, and that’s how robot testing is generally done.
- Each tester hit 14 shots with each club (rotating between clubs after each 3-4 shot sequence).
- Any gross mishits and shots resting more than 50 yards from the center line were eliminated and were not counted among the 14 shots.
- Remaining outliers were identified using Median Absolute Deviation (both distance and offline), and dropped prior to our averages being calculated.
- All testers hit TaylorMade Tour Preferred X golf balls.
- Ball and clubhead data were recorded using ForeSight GC2 Launch Monitor with HMT.
The Data
We have broken the data down several different ways in order to determine where TaylorMade’s claims can withstand the scrutiny of player testing, and where those claims might fall short. Without a concrete definition of Tour Player Speed (and other specifics of TaylorMade’s test), the validity of the company’s claim is open to interpretation.
Here’s a closer look at the numbers TaylorMade provides in its video.
Here are the results of our test:
TOUR PLAYER SPEED
As noted, 4 of our testers are solidly within the Tour Player Speed definition based on actual tour player average ball speed with a 3-Wood. An additional tester generates what we think qualifies as tour player head speed, however, his resulting ball speed does not meet our definition of tour level. His exclusion from this dataset adds to the M2’s distance advantage.
Observations
- At “tour speed” the M2 produced, on average, 10.54 yards more carry and 12.31 more total distance.
- Both head and ball speeds favored the RBZ (again likely due to shaft length), M2’s distance advantage is the result of higher launch with significantly less spin.
- While not quite 13.1 yards, the 12.32 difference is impressive and does get us close to TaylorMade’s number.
- When we reduce the dataset such that it contains only the 3 testers that generate 160 MPH (or more) ball speed with a 3-wood (above the PGA Tour average) the M2 is shown to produce 12.65 yards more carry, and 14.71 yards more total distance.
- This represents a significant distance increase, which suggests that TaylorMade’s specific claim is likely valid.
All Testers
Our testing pool, which contains 4 golfers who we would place solidly in the tour head speed category (actually, we base that determination on ball speed) and 6 who we would place below that threshold, generated significantly more distance than TaylorMade’s tour-head-speed-configured robot. If nothing else this illustrates how important it is to define a term like tour player head speed.
OBSERVATIONS
- Despite producing lower clubhead and ball speeds, across all testers, the M2 produced 5.77 yards more carry, and 7.3 yards more total distance.
- Once again, M2’s speed deficits can be attributed to RBZ’s longer stock shaft which produces greater club head speed, and consequently, greater ball speed.
- M2 distance benefits can be attributed to higher launch angles and significantly lower spin.
BELOW TOUR SPEED ONLY
While the golfers who participated in this test produce greater than average (by normal golfer standards) head speed, we wanted to breakout the data for our 6 non-tour speed golfers to get a rough sense of the performance differences at non-tour speeds.
It should also be noted that this non-tour group produced the average distance numbers most similar to the ones proved as the basis for TaylorMade’s claim.
Observations
- Within this set, the M2 was shown to produce 3.71 yards more carry, and only 5.13 more yards total distance.
- As with our other segments, club and ball speed favored the RBZ while the M2 benefits from higher launch with significantly lower spin.
- The data suggests that golfers with below tour-level head (and ball speed) are unlikely to gain 13.1 yards.
Slower Swing Speeds ONLY
Finally, while even our lowest swing speed testers are well above the average for the entire population of golfers, we wanted to see how the data shakes out at club speeds below 100 MPH.
Observations
- Among our slowest swing speed testers, the M2 was shown to produce 6.55 yards more carry, and was, on average, 7.53 yards longer (total distance).
- The jump from the previous chart can be attributed to the fact that golfers in this group were the only ones to produce both more club speed and ball speed with the M2.
- While not 13.1 yards, the data suggests significant distance gains are attainable for some golfers with club head speeds in the mid-90s.
Additional Notes:
Average carry and distance numbers provided in the TaylorMade video fall well short of what would be produced under any reasonable definition of tour player head speed.
The two most likely explanations for the discrepancy are:
Wind: The video suggests that robot testing took place at the TaylorMade Kingdom in Carlsbad, California. The range at the Kingdom plays into a head wind. Particularly strong winds could account for the the dramatic difference between our Tour Speed numbers and TaylorMade’s.
Specific and Unreported Test Conditions: It’s well-known inside industry circles that golf companies routinely devise test scenarios that will benefit the club for which they are making a specific claim. It’s certainly not outside the realm of possibility that TaylorMade’s data is based on specific, non-centered contact, which would explain how it was able to achieve a 13.1 yard advantage despite carry and distance numbers that fall well below expectations for tour player head speed.
The Verdict
- The validity of TaylorMade’s M2 distance claims hinges on how it defines Tour Player Head Speed. Thus far, TaylorMade has not provided that information.
- A distance advantage of 13.1 yards is likely attainable when 3-Wood ball speed approaches 160 MPH; 2MPH above the actual tour player average.
- At Tour-level ball speeds, the M2 Fairway Wood was 12.32 longer than RBZ; a significant distance gain.
- While TaylorMade’s claims do not specifically address expectations for non-tour speed golfers, with data from all testers considered, M2’s distance advantage is 7.3 yards.
- M2’s comparative distance advantage will generally decrease as ball speed decreases, making it unlikely that an average golfer will gain 13.1 yards with the M2 (when compared to the RBZ).
MyGolfSpy is the only major golf media outlet that declines advertising dollars from the biggest names in golf. You won’t find their banners here. We truly believe it’s the only way to remain above the influence, publish real results based on real data, and continue to provide honest opinion and commentary about what’s happening inside the golf equipment industry.
If you found this guide useful, meaningful, or just interesting, please consider making a donation to help support MyGolfSpy’s independence.
AverageJoe
3 years agoI have only just picked up an RBZ stage 2 for just £30 quite possibly the best three woos I have ever owned. Very forgiving and goes long. Would recommend to 10+ HC golfer
DanL
3 years agoThis is exactly what I want to see from GolfSpy! Articles that the mainstream golf mags/websites would never touch.
I would really love to see more of these. Ping G20 vs G30, things like that. Or hell, put a few older drivers in the mix when you do the Most Wanted Drivers of the year, just to see the difference.
BR
3 years agoThanks for test. Couple of comments. Robotic testing could have used near perfect/center strikes only.. IF so, I doubt humans achieved center strikes consistently….
One of many variables differentiating the numbers. Second, the launch angle/spin of M2 helped the slow swing speed golfers achieve their gains (which is good).
Very much appreciate/support MGS.
ryebread
3 years agoGreat, great test. Frankly, exactly what most of us would like to see. Some quick thoughts:
– I agree with your post above about GC2, Trackman and Flightscope producing similar results. I own GC2. I can put the data into the Flightscope calculator and produce almost the identical calculated results given the measured inputs (like .1 yards different). I’ve also hit off of Trackman inside (where wind isn’t impacting things). They all read about the same. There’s more variation in my ball strike. I do get the point that radar units can be impacted by the weather, but I think that’s one of the nice things about GC2 for doing comparative club testing.
– Higher launch + lower spin = longer product. It may not necessarily mean a better product (i.e. forgiveness, holding greens, etc.).
– I think TM did a good job with the M2. I think it looks and sounds better to me than RBZ. I think it’s an improvement over the Aeroburner, which I played for a few rounds and liked.
– The RBZ was a great FW though in its own right. It was the first time that I personally hit a steel faced FW that could perform like titanium models. I still see a lot of them in peoples’ bags. For that reason, I can see why TM is trying to market M2 in a comparison against RBZ — to try to get those die hard RBZ people to upgrade.
– Distance gains with respect to yardage are always a function of swing speed. Your testing shows this time and again in the splits between high and low swing speed players.
– There’s a certain point for lower (i.e. average) swing speed players where a bit more spin isn’t a bad thing, particularly if that means getting some increased launch or forgiveness. We don’t necessarily see additional launch here from RBZ, but if a bit of extra spin helps with carry distance or in keeping the ball in play, then it’s probably better.
– I too would like to see companies trying to market the importance of “the straightest.” That’d speed up the game and drop scores more than chasing an additional 5-10 yards. I’m not sure how much can actually be done tech wise here because it’s all going to be a trade that would impact distance, but I’d like to see the average consumer more conscious of the value of keeping the ball in play. It’d make the game better for all of us if the average player were willing to give up 5 yards for 20% more fairways hit. I know that’s a trade I’d make in a second.
John K Magley
3 years agoI have to agree with Steve M. TM has flooded the market. I have three TM drivers that were obsolete within a year and half. Switched everything to Titleist. Only play the TM perfered ball.
Michael Woods
3 years agoThe shaft cry didn’t take long
Mike Mueller
3 years agoThe M2 isn’t really longer than my other gamer. I’m not mentioning what it is – doesn’t matter. What I will say is that it is substantially more forgiving for being a lower spin head. Insane improvement from the SLDR which in my opinion was a bust.
Aleksi Lepistö
3 years agoThe SLDR only worked for 10% of the golfing public. Yet 90% tried to buy it.
I had to fit so many people out of SLDRs and into the Jetspeed it wasn’t funny.
Mike Mueller
3 years agoI actually liked the aeroburner especially at the price point.
Directly from the words of an unnamed executive at taylormade who I had the pleasure of speaking with – he said they try to market drivers in such a way that people thing they need them to get better.
Yes custom fit clubs help IMMENSELY for GOOD players. But just because it’s new, doesn’t mean it’s right. But they did a nice job with the M2 IMHO.
Eric Millis
3 years agoFor the last 20 years every new driver is 10-15 yards longer then the last one… If this were true we would all be hitting it 500 plus yards by now! It’s called false advertising (that happens to work on idiots who fall for it after they change the paint job on the head a few times). I still hit the R7 425 TP… Can’t tell you my numbers and don’t care but I can tell you that it goes 300 plus and more times then not where I can hit it again.. Good enough for me.
Aleksi Lepistö
3 years agoIf you read the fine print they’re actually talking about people who arent fitted, etc.
You can give someone 15 yards most often by tweaking ball position, tee height and driver loft. So you can make the claim.
But yes, most people take it like 15 yards additional each year.
Phillip Vfl Werner
3 years agoI need one
mcavoy
3 years agoThis is by far the best and most informative comparative test I have seen MGS do to date. I enjoyed it very much. I would like to see more of this “credibility test” for lack of a better term done more often. And yes, the results surprised me.
Jason Pereira
3 years agoHow does everyone determine what’s the best shaft for yourself?
Steven C
3 years agoGreat test. I really like what you have done here.
Troy Vayanos
3 years agoI wonder when TaylorMade will bring out a club that guarantees ball flight to be 10% straighter. Problem is golfers are still overly obsessed with distance and it probably wouldn’t sell.
It’s an idea any way!
Brandon Foster
3 years agoMan, I should be hitting the ball like over 500 yards now with all this extra distance every year.
Florent
3 years agoHi great test!!! Please do more often, using several models from several makes and several eras. Just to know how many years are needed before significant change is felt – let s say 5%. What about accuracy?
Also did you compare actual loft? This would impact results if M2 loft vs rpm is more optimized for high speeds.
Mark D
3 years agoIf The Rbz stage 2 was 10 yards longer than the original then surely the outcome of this is that in actual fact if you want an M2 you should rethink and buy a stage 2 for a loss of 3.1 theoretical yards but a saving of easily 75% cashmoney!
KingHozelRocket
3 years agoHow did you guys account for the difference in launch monitors used for the test? In the TM video they obviously use GC2 with HMT, but that’s most likely just being used to track the head since it’s a camera based tracking system. What is less obvious is the Trackman behind the robot that they were most likely using to produce their ball data since the radar tracks the actual ball. So could some of the discrepancies between your distances and TM’s be from the lack of a ball tracking system during your test since GC2 only returns estimated distances using calculations based on impact conditions?
Tony Covey
3 years agoTrackman, FlightScope, and Foresight all produces similar results. Each has things its measures directly, each has things it calculates, but when all the math is done, the results are very close. FlightScope’s trajectory optimizer (effectively a shot simulator) is readily available on their website. I can’t recommend enough that golfers try it out. Those who do will find that our numbers pan out while TaylorMade’s distance numbers require ball speeds of roughly 135-140 MPH. Actual tour ball speeds are significantly higher than that, as are the correlating swing speeds. 260-290 would be a large ballpark range for the Tour.
Rocky Raccoon
3 years agoThey lie. It’s barely 14 yards longer than a Persimmon driver.
Sean
3 years agoWhat’s the point of getting more yards??? I have a 13deg rbz 3 wood and I stopped using it as it goes a similar distance to the driver. Then I have a gap in my yardage.. I would need another club to fill. While your all obsessed with yardage in the USA, we concentrate on gapping.
Robert M Hignite
3 years agoMore of this type testing please and thank you…
Duncan Castles
3 years agoAgreed.
Peter D. McCallum
3 years agoWell to be fair it did say tour level swing speeds…
I’ll pick one up next year when they are $75 new
Nate Peters
3 years agoI hit it, not true
Invention Patenting Group
3 years agoInteresting thanks this is really good
Invention Patenting Group
3 years agototally couldnt agree more 😀
Paul Kielwasser
3 years agoAwesome!!! Glad someone isn’t scared to do this stuff!!!
Matty
3 years agoSince you did the fairway wood tests in 2012 and 2014, will there by a Most Wanted Fairway Wood test for 2016? If there is, I’m guessing you would be testing the 3 Woods, but I wonder what metrics you would use for the test?
Carolina Golfer 2
3 years agoA good read and solid test in my mind. Great job, it’s nice to see that TMAG advertising claims are being validated by an independent fair testing.
Ray Brandt
3 years agoI am a senior and fall into the category of “slower swing speed”. I noticed that testing was performed with a stiff shafted club. I do not believe many golfers with “slower swing speeds” would be using that shaft.
Mat Davis
3 years agoAll the players in the test were at tour swing speeds or above.
LAbillyboy
3 years agoVery interesting test, thanks!
I already hit my TEE 3 wood 260 off a tee… any more and it’s a driver. My buddy with a TM fairway hates the slot in the bottom… fills up with dirt on every swing, he takes his practices swing, then has to clean the slot before hitting sometimes… Rotten design. Still haven’t found a better 3 wood than the TEE of 5 years ago…
Dana
3 years agoAs a 62 y.o 3 handicap with a swing speed of 91 mph, I can tell you I bought the M2 high loft 3 wood (stiff) and compared it to my RBZ Stage 2 High loft 3 wood (stiff). My ball speed with a M2 DRIVER is in the 135 mph and about 1.5 smash factor range as determined by Club Champions launch monitor last week.
My results on the course playing the two fairway woods do not agree with your findings with swing speeds at tour club speed. For me, the RBZ Stage two with the stiff Rocketfuel shaft has a longer carry and total distance than does the M2 3 wood with the Fujikura Pro 65 shaft. Sorry, I’m keeping the RBZ stage 2 and have sold the M2 last week.
Undershooter30
3 years ago@Dana they are not comparing the M2 HL to the RBZ stage 2 HL but rather the original RBZ. Tmag actually claimed that the RBZ stage 2 was 10 yards longer than the original RBZ. Also it is likely that the specs on your HL are different than the M2 HL that you are comparing it to but I am not sure about that. Glad you enjoy your older RBZ S2 HL, I can’t find anything to beat out my 4 year old driver either.
Benjamin Lee
3 years agoWith all the added distance claims, I should be hitting my ball 500 yards by now with all the drivers I have had.
Rainbow Tech
3 years agoHell yeah!:)
David Price
3 years agoStill playing RBZ stage 2 fw woods. Have customized shaft and grips , still love the heads. Long, accurate and predictable. What more could you ask?
Dan W
3 years agoAs a couple of people have noted, ball spin rates are crucial when it comes to launch monitor evaluations. I am very familiar with GC2 data and FW metal trials, and the lower spin rates with the M2 FW are by far the significant variables in these tests. Launch angle differences are noticeable but this test has a relatively small sampling, and is also based on human trials. Head construction and weighting, along with likely shaft differences that result in lower spin rates will normally give you better distance calculations but certainly not help you stick a shot on the green from 250 yards out. If you added one more element the GC2 provides – ball descent angle – you would certainly see a shallower reproach. Great for tee shots but not always great for second shots on long holes.
Ben Clabaugh
3 years agoGoes to show you launch and spin is where it’s at. Crazy that their claim was actually true. Next time they promise 17 yards, I’m gonna believe them. Lol.
Steve Mallin
3 years agoI find it funny that even though the RBZ fairway wood is 8 generations back they could still find a store that they could purchase them from. Further proof of how TM has saturated the market with product that hasn’t sold through yet! Good job TM for totally screwing up the market.
Invention Patenting Group
3 years ago+1 this
Guy Crawford
3 years agoWow truth in advertising
Markus Viljanen
3 years agoWasn’t the original RBZ numbers tested with 150mph clubheadspeed?
Jack Friesl
3 years ago150mph ball speed.
Christopher Polsinelli
3 years agoI would think it would be rather easy to obtain those tour player numbers….I’m sure Jason day, DJ, Justin rose and a few other have their numbers online, those are the numbers they likely use to obtain those upper level speeds since those guys are the brand ambassadors, and 2 of the longest hitters on tour
Johan Botha
3 years agoVery cool and just shows how important specifics are, also shows that what is good for the goose is not always good for the gander. I had a look at the 2015 and 2016 Most Wanted Driver lists and the Fly Z actually produced (although VERY slightly) better numbers than the F6. I would like to see a side by side of each brand’s 2015 and 2016 offerings.
revkev
3 years agoThanks for the data and the test. I have to say that I was surprised at the results but should have recognized that one could devise a scenario under which claims are true. Even the 5 yard gain with the “slower” tester swing speeds is significant.
While it was beyond the scope of this test it would be interesting to see results with a ball speed in the 120’s.
Fun read!
chemclub
3 years agoI’m willing to bet that the M2 has a higher loft than the RBZ but still within the manufacturer’s tolerances. That would explain the yardage difference with slower swing speeds.
Largechris
3 years agoVery good, more of this sort of testing please.
From the original TM video, it was clear from the greater run out that the improved carry was going to be achieved with lower spin and higher launch.
3000rpm is getting towards driver spin levels. This is not a club that is going to hold a green on a long par 3.
I’m just saying that there is no magic here, it’s not a development of an exotic face, it’s just geometry and c of g changes that give different numbers. Whether these number are what the player is looking for is for them to decide.
Largechris
3 years agoIn other words the M2 performs more like those mini drivers from 3 years ago while the RBZ is a more traditional fairway wood.
Lou
3 years agoWow I didn’t expect that. I guess it takes some pretty big balls to say that and than back it up. Very impressive
Clem Kaikou
3 years agoHigher launch angle & less spin, it could be more interesting to compare the heads with the same shaft…
MyGolf Spy
3 years agoWe test how consumers purchase. Otherwise we are doing a disservice to golfers. That being said, consumers do not buy an M2 with a RocketBallz shaft.
Clem Kaikou
3 years agoYes, this is the main problem, how consumer purchase, they are almost always focus on the head and don’t care about the shaft but you know better than everybody that the choice of the shaft is very important ! ?
David Price
3 years agoHave customized all my woods and hybrids. Actually all bag is wrenched on to various degrees. All with midsized grips, bent to loft and lie.
Aleksi Lepistö
3 years agoShaft can be important, but it depends on the golfer and their release.
Head ultimately makes the biggest difference.
At least give TM the ability to claim the whole club is longer, not just the head.
toots
3 years agoGreat work. Please do more of this!!!
chemclub
3 years agoCurious if you measured what the actual loft on each wood was. I understand it says 15* on the bottom but the acceptable loft tolerance during manufacturing means the testers might not be hitting the same loft of club. Likewise, for a true head to head comparison (pun intended), these heads should be hit with the same shaft shouldn’t they? The M2 launches higher in all tests with could be the result of both shaft and loft differences. Higher launch produces more relative distance as swing speed declines.
Spitty
3 years agoIn addition to shaft and actual true loft, TM’s M2s speedslot is much larger, wider and deeper than the original RBZ, this too can account for a slightly higher launch angle and spin reduction and the resulting carry and roll out.
The distance claim of 13.1 vs 12.x to me at least isn’t really significant Both distances are great & enough to have the millions of 4 -5 year old RBZ users to replace them with the M2
Tony Covey
3 years agoThere are always one-hundred different ways to do a given test, but in most cases we go with what’s most relevant to the consumer. Within that framework we must accept that the average consumer, when making his club purchasing decisions, isn’t in the shop with a loft gauge, he’s not making sure the old club has the same shaft as the new – he’s simply pulling one club off the rack often comparing it to another that he pulled off the rack. What you’re suggesting is (and regrettably) not in line with how most buy golf clubs.
The answer is always go get fitted, but again…that’s not relevant to the majority consumer.
It’s also important to again mention that we offered TaylorMade an opportunity to provide additional specifics which may or may not have addressed questions around actual loft, flex, length, etc., but they declined to provide them.
chemclub
3 years agoThanks Tony. I agree and support that your tests are trying to inform the vast majority of OTR consumers.
With regard to my comments about loft—manufacturing tolerances are +/- 1* of what is stamped on the club.
(citation: http://www.mygolfspy.com/mygolfspy-labs-the-worst-kept-secret-in-golf/)
That means that an OTR consumer could expect to find that same loft differential. By only testing one club each and not confirming that the lofts were the same, you may mislead a consumer that by chance selects a 3 wood that is -1* and launches low. Surprise, that RBZ that was +1* would have been better. Obviously, there are restrictions on how much you can do in the absence of unlimited funding, but I suppose I take issue with the blanket statement that the M2 is ~10 yards longer.
I don’t really have an issue with the shaft. TM likely selects the shaft that would “fit” the widest population of consumers. So an ORT shaft option is valid.
Uhit
3 years agoHmm, well, I didn’t expect, that the TM marketing claim seems to have that much beef…
…now, how much beef is in the mentioned Callaway marketing claim?
Fozcycle
3 years agoThanks Tony, great analysis of the Taylormade claims…….If I were a Taylormade fan I would def be interested in the M2. While you are on a comparison kick, why not try the Cobra F6, F6 Baffler & King Fairway woods…….all 3 are 2016 models, but have totally different charachteristics.