Q&A: MyGolfSpy’s 2013 Most Wanted Driver Test

When we published the results of the 2013 “Golf’s Most Wanted” Driver Test we knew there’d be questions. And once we had results that showed TaylorMade had produced the 2 longest drivers of 2013, and that Callaway’s Xhot was the best overall, we figured we’d get pelted with a plethora of profanity laced accusations. We’re happy to report there wasn’t much of the latter (a testament to the quality of the individuals in the MyGolfSpy Community), but there were definitely some polite questions that deserved answers.

The following questions were plucked from emails sent to [email protected] as well as from the comments section of the 3 articles in the test.

You asked, we answered.

The Mailbag

While phrased 20 different ways, the most common questions (or statements letting us know in no uncertain terms that we did everything wrong) were focused around what you might call the conditions of our test.

Much to more than a few readers’s dismay we made what I can assure you is a very well-informed decision to test 100% stock vs. stock. In almost every case that meant clubs were received as described (with respect to shaft make/model, and length) on each manufacturer’s website. Some readers don’t think it’s fair to compare a 44″ Wishon to a 45″ to a 46″ Callaway to everything in-between. It’s not a question of fair vs. unfair, it’s a simple question of reality, and that reality is two-fold.

1. Manufacturers design drivers with certain performance specifications in mind. There is a philosophy behind every club design. The engineers at Titleist chose 45″ for a reason, just as the guys at Callaway chose 46″, and every other manufacturer in this test chose their stock specification with their unique performance specifications in mind. We tested as the manufacturer intended.

2. The average consumer still buys off the rack. The conservative number being thrown around is 60%, my guess is it’s significantly higher. Why there are plenty of us who agonize over every detail, the majority of consumers don’t give a damn about shaft length, or even what the stock shaft is. We buy with certain performance characteristics in mind. For a few it’s all about accuracy. For most, it’s all about distance (which incidentally is very likely the design philosophy behind the 46″ shafts found on the XHot and Wilson D-100).

So while some would have liked to see us stick an Oban Kyoshi in everything, cut it to 44.5″ and then test, that scenario doesn’t accurately represent how the majority of consumers buy their drivers. When most attend a demo day, or simply walk into a shop to hit clubs, they test one stock model against another and make their decision. It’s almost always stock vs. stock.

If you checked drivers at any club in the country, the exception would be to find more than a handful of non-stock upgrades on any given day. The average golfer doesn’t want to spend a penny more than he has to on a driver. A $250 shaft upgrade…c’mon. The reality is it seldom happens.

That’s not to say we didn’t consider testing with a single shaft, or custom vs. custom, but in those other scenarios you end up testing something else as a consequence. Put the same shaft in every head, and what you’ve done is not only test in a way that’s not relevant to how the world buys, you’ve tested how well a certain shaft (one that might not actually be available as a factory upgrade) works in a given head. That’s great, but it doesn’t come close to giving the definitive last word on how that head will actually perform for the average guy who buys it.

Even if we did custom vs. custom, unless we used the same fitter for every club (basically impossible given the variety of clubs in the test), you’re not simply testing the club, you’re also testing the quality of the fitter, or the number of options at his disposal.

While stock vs. stock does not cover every nuance and possibility, it most represents that which the average consumer considers when making his buying decision.

With that out of the way, let’s move on to the other questions…

Q: For the average golfer to get a comparison with their own ability we would need to know more about the tester. Their age and handicap etc?

A: Handicap is not a sufficient indicator of a player’s abilities. Handicaps are what they are for a variety of reasons. For example: Some guys can’t hit a driver, some have mediocre iron games, and for others the trouble only starts when they get near the green (2 chips and 3 putts, and we’re outta here), and all three might have the same handicap.  But since more than a few asked, here’s a little chart that might be helpful.

Q: Sorry if this has been stated or asked already. Was the testing done inside or outside?

A: All of our testing was done indoors. When you’ve got 6 guys testing 17 clubs over an average of 6 sessions, it’s imperative to keep the playing field level – especially when you’re testing primarily for distance. That means controlling the elements (temperature, humidity, wind). Indoor setups are perfect for that.

Q: What happened to the Ping I20 – #1 last year

A: Initially the plan was to limit each manufacturer to a single driver. We expanded the field to allow a 2nd driver from a few companies, but as the oldest driver in the PING lineup, the i20 wasn’t an ideal fit for a 2013 driver test.

Q: I’m curious why your top driver for “12, the Bridgestone J40 was not in the test.  I have it in my bag.

A: The J40 tested exceptionally well for us, but when we were putting together a list of drivers to include the facts are that the J40 was released more than 2 PGA Shows ago (sort of an unofficial measurement of time we use around here). While it’s still the current model for Bridgestone, a driver we reviewed in 2011 wasn’t an ideal candidate for a 2013 test.

Q: Looks like while it may be the best of 2013 it’s still not better than older technology, assuming the scoring algorithm hasn’t changed. Someone from MGS care to weigh in?

A: Fundamentally the system is largely unchanged in terms of how we look at the numbers themselves; however, there were a number of adjustments that had to be made to better allow us to compare 17 drivers simultaneously. Given that each tester’s score with a given club is relative only to his own ability (not the group as a whole), and that testing spanned multiple sessions, it’s very difficult to draw a true apples to apples comparison with previous reviews.

Q: The TM Stage 2 driver, was it the reg. stock model or was the Tour or possibly the Tour TP model.

A: Sub 100 swing speed players tested with the Standard model while testers with swing speeds above 100 MPH used the Tour model. TaylorMade did not provide TP models of the RBZ for testing.

Q: Would you say that the shaft is more important than the club head?

A: There’s no question in my mind that you can impact the greatest change (increasing/decreasing loft/spin) with the head. Tom Wishon will tell you that for golfers with an early release, a shaft change (other than a switch to a heavier model) will have almost no impact on ball flight. It’s not going out on a limb to suggest he’s right. I advise golfers to start with the head, and then use the shaft to fine tune, and hopefully achieve the ideal numbers.

Q: Did testers always use the same loft and flex?

A: That was originally the plan, but we definitely did some rudimentary fitting out of the gate. While most players were fairly consistent, Blake for example migrated between flexes (and even loft) depending on what club he was testing. Blake for example saw outstanding  (near ideal) results with the PowerBilt AFO DF in 9.5S, however; with the Wishon 919THI, the 8.5 X provided better results than the 9.5 S.

Q: Were the Titleist results for this group of testers generated using Titleist’s lighter driver shafts (Bassara 50 and 55)?

A: Most of our golfers tested the 913’s with the Diamana Plus series shafts. The one exception was our most senior tester who used a 50g Bassara in regular flex.

Q: Can you give a a better explanation regarding the meaning of Global FW %; are you saying that every tester hit exactly the same number of counted shots with each of the 17 drivers? And therefore, the 7% versus 5% example you give in the current explanation means that the testers hit 40% more fairways with the 7% driver?

A: Each tester individually hit the same number of shots with each driver, however, some testers hit more shots than others (e.g. Blake hit more shots than Mark – the range was 25-35 shots per golfer per driver). It’s an issue of fatigue level coupled with the late addition of a few clubs to the test. The best way to understand the numbers is to look at the Raw Data which shows FW% for each tester in the traditional format.

Q: It would be interesting to know how effective the adjustments on adjustable drivers were. Do they really work, or are they just hype?

A: We absolutely did take advantage of adjustability. Since most agree that with the exception of Nike’s FlexLoft system (and even that has some debate surrounding it)  it’s not possible to adjust loft and face angle separately, the application of adjustability becomes almost philosophical. My approach is to find the fixed loft head that best fits the golfer (not possible with the R1 and AMP Cell models), and then use the adjustability to hopefully effect where the ball starts (face angle). Depending on the tester that might mean opening the face (reducing loft), or closing the face (adding loft). While there are few if any absolutes in golf, more often than not, the guys who benefit from opening the face, either benefit, or at least don’t suffer, from the corresponding reduction in loft.

A perfect example of this from our test would be Joe with the PING G25. After his first few swings it became apparent that he was starting (and leaving) everything out to the right. There wasn’t much curvature to the ball flight, just a straight push. A quick adjustment to the closed position (more loft) produced much more desirable results.

Interestingly, the changes weren’t universal. A guy who got his best results with a closed face in one driver, often got better results with neutral in another.

The R1 and AMP Cell provided unique challenges from a fitting perspective. While both have a mechanism to either square (Amp Cell) or Open, close, or square (R1) the face when soled, the wide range of adjustability can create issues. At the highest lofts, both appear very closed, while both are noticeably open at the lowest lofts. Compounding the issues was the tendency for our testers to need less loft with the AMP Cell (more open than some testers like), and more loft with the R1 (sometimes more closed than our testers like).

Q: Great test, well conceived and carried out. I just can’t understand why you didn’t load up with all the guys who write reviews on retail and OEM web sites detailing their “300 yard, with a slight draw” exploits… Those reviews are above reproach, right?

A: Actually every one of our testers is capable of carrying it 300 yards…maybe even 400 (even 60 year old Lou who swings in the low 80s…it’s really fast 82MPH). We wanted to make our results of this test relevant to lowly hackers, so we turned on a strong headwind, and enhanced slice spin to give the appearance that our testers aren’t actually the god-like driving machines you find elsewhere. They are. We’re talking about super-human, Hulk-Like. Iron Byron with feet and an attitude. Hell, I just hit one 500 using only my mind and a 9 year old Maxfli Noodle. My brain is the longest driver in golf. I’m that good.  There goes another one.

And finally there was this guy…

Q: Don’t agree with this at all. We’ve done hundreds and hundreds of fittings at our facility this year and this isn’t even close. Covert should be much higher, did you not test the Tour model?
The Xtreme is junk, and X-Hot is consistently longer…
How much did TaylorMade pay you for this?
Your testing is so bad, and so incorrectly done this type of crap is a disservice to people wanting information.

Mind you that in addition to completely missing the boat as far as this test not being about custom fitting, he never says where he works (even used a fake email address), but apparently he knows every detail of our testing methodology, which if his assertions are to be believed, involve little more than TaylorMade making a deposit into our bank account (I never even gave them the routing number).

The accusations are comical for several reasons (and I won’t even ask how much Nike paid him):

Firstly…there’s that crazy thing where we don’t take money from big golf companies. If anyone can find another golf site the size of MGS that doesn’t have a single big OEM advertisement anywhere on their site, then maybe we can start a conversation about the impropriety of influence, but the reality is you won’t find, and the reality is we don’t take their dollars, and that means our reality is we can print the actual results of our tests without fear of financial repercussions. And when all is said and done, sometimes the reality is that TaylorMade has a really good product.

Secondly…When these types of accusations get hurled it’s almost always TaylorMade who is paying us. Never Callaway, never Cobra, never…well basically never anyone else we’ve ever written anything positive about. TaylorMade is always the evil one. It couldn’t possibly be anyone else. And we’re the ones who supposedly have a bias.

Thirdly…and this is the real spikes-up, cleated kick in the junk. For those of you who haven’t been counting along, Callaway actually took home more awards than TaylorMade in this test. So if our friend’s logic is sound, TaylorMade paid MyGolfSpy to give more driver awards to Callaway. Makes perfect sense.

Paging loud-mouthed jackass, party of one…

Still Have Questions?

If you have any other questions, ask them in the comments section below and we’ll do our best to come back and answer each and every one of them.

Be sure to come back one more time (tomorrow) when we go beyond the data to share some inside information from MyGolfSpy’s 2013 Most Wanted Driver Test.