2014 Golf’s Most Wanted Driver – It’s Go Time!

Post image for 2014 Golf’s Most Wanted Driver – It’s Go Time!
And now for the moment you’ve all been waiting for…the answer to who really makes the #1 Driver In Golf?

Tomorrow, kicks off 4 days of Golf’s Most Wanted Driver coverage on MyGolfSpy.

4 Days? I know…it’s insane. Would you expect anything else from the most complete driver test in golf?

When you’re as thorough as we are, it takes nearly as long to get through a single club test as it does some others to get through an entire bag of clubs (not to mention the bag itself). Quite frankly we don’t even have time to do Morning Drive (full disclosure, they didn’t exactly invite us).

Maybe next year.


The "Most Wanted" Testing Philosophy

At MyGolfSpy our club testing is Datacratic. We don’t care about the names on the clubs. We care about performance – and performance only. The best drivers in each of our categories are determined based on the data, and not a damn thing more.

Because we refuse to accept advertising from the biggest names in golf, we don’t have to worry about keeping the golf companies happy. Nobody gets a medal just for showing up. The Most Wanted Driver Test isn’t a 3rd grade science fair. Not everybody gets a trophy.

This Year’s Test

Had Titleist, Bomtech and Miura not declined our invitation, and if Wishon, Geek, and others had new product available in time, we quite possibly could have reached 30 drivers this year.

Once again, maybe next year.

Despite those absences we still managed to amass a field of 23 drivers.

To See all 23 drivers in our test, click here.

In addition to most of the top-selling brands in golf (Callaway, PING, and TaylorMade), we are extremely excited to have tested drivers from lesser-known companies like Yonex, ONOFF, Krank, Powerbilt , Sinister Golf and Tommy Armour.

Mighty Titleist declines to participate, but Tommy Armour and Sinister Golf step up. How can you not love that?

What To Expect from the Results

In a word, SURPRISES.

Certainly some of the clubs generating the buzz right now met, or even exceeded expectations. Some others fell short, and a select group of clubs many of you might never have heard of, or might never have considered, proved beyond any reasonable doubt that they deserve a seat at the grown-up’s table.

To an extent, the results are exactly what we’ve come to expect. A small number of clubs overperform. A small number underperform, while the overwhelming majority occupies the middle - separated by only tenths of yards.

Even with that said, we’re certain this year’s results are going to turn heads, ruffle feathers, and spark debate. That’s inevitably going to happen when your results are 100% Datacratic.


How We Tested

  • All drivers were tested in their stock configuration (off-the-rack). Where multiple stock shafts are available, we tested with the combination that produced the best results for each individual tester.
  • Prior to the start of our tests, drivers were randomly placed into 3 groups. No manufacturer had 2 clubs in the same group.
  • The order that clubs were hit was determined at random, but was balanced such that a given club was hit equally in the front, middle, and end of each rotation.
  • After being given sufficient time to warm up, testers hit 3 to 5 shots at a time with each club before moving to the next one. Testers hit between 60 and 90 shots during each testing session.
  • Each tester hit each club in our test on 3 different occasions (each tester hit each club group on 3 different days).
  • While individual numbers varied, each tester hit the same number of qualifying shots (non-misreads, solid contact) with each club in the test.
Simplified Scoring

This year we’ve introduced a reference club to the scoring equation, which will drastically improve the decision making process for consumers on all drivers tested now and in the future. Both Distance and Total Driving (Best Overall) rankings are based on how many yards were gained or lost compared to the reference club.

The winners are the clubs that outperformed the reference club (and every other club in our test) by the widest margins.

For accuracy there is a complex proprietary scoring calculation, so to make it as easy to understand as it possibly can be, we’re showing you our calculated accuracy score along with the average number of yards offline and the percentage of fairways hit with each driver.

The Most Wanted Driver Schedule

Day 1 (Tuesday, February 11) - Distance

Distance Day is for those of you who either never miss a fairway, or don’t care where the ball lands so long as the ball goes far. When we look at raw distance, we do so without any regard for accuracy whatsoever.

300 yards is 300 yards. Dead straight or dead left, it doesn’t matter. Grip and rippers out there, this one is for you.

Day 2 (Wednesday, February 12) – Accuracy

Looking at accuracy in a vacuum is a challenging proposition, but for those of you willing to give up yards (and in some cases it’s more than a few) to keep the ball closer to the center of the fairway, you’ll love accuracy day.

If you’re happy to trade 230 in the fairway for 250 in the rough or worse, this one is for you.

Day 3 (Thursday, February 13) – Golf’s Most Wanted Driver

To determine Golf’s Most Wanted Driver we look at Total Driving (total distance – yards offline). The club that produced the biggest gains (compared to our reference/control club) is our best of 2014. Quite simply, it's Golf's Most Wanted Driver.

Day 4 (Next Week) – Beyond the Data

We go beyond our numbers to give you the inside scoop on why some clubs performed well, why others didn’t, and hopefully give you some additional guidance towards your 2014 driver purchase.

Full 2014 Most Wanted Driver Coverage

:: Coming Soon - MyGolfSpy's 2014 Most Wanted Driver Test
:: 2014 Golf's Most Wanted Driver - It's Go Time
:: 2014 Most Wanted Driver - Distance Awards
:: 2014 Most Wanted Driver - Accuracy Awards
:: 2014 Most Wanted Driver - Overall Winners
:: 2014 Most Wanted Driver - Tester's Pick
:: 2014 Most Wanted Driver - Beyond the Data
:: 2014 Most Wanted Driver - The Data 

About Tony Covey

Tony is the editor of mygolfspy. His coverage of golf equipment extends far beyond the facts as dictated by the companies that created them.

He believes in performance over hype. #PowerToThePlayer

Visit Website
View All Posts

Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)

Your Subject (required)

Your Message (required)


{ 96 comments… read them below or add one }

Andrea Hodel February 11, 2014 at 6:30 pm

You guys are a bunch of babies. Go with it. Embrace the impartial testing. At least someone is doing it so we don’t get sucked into the great golf industry marketing trap.


BClark February 11, 2014 at 10:46 am

I wish people would stop pointing out what they see as negatives about this test and focus on the fact that this is way better than any other comparison out there. It may not give everyone the data how they would like it, but it does give everyone data they need so they can make an informed decision to narrow down their list of choices. Then we can test the top few at a range or golf store and be satisfied that we got the club we wanted.


Tony Covey February 11, 2014 at 10:48 am

Somedays I wish that too, but the reality is that reasonable criticism is part of how we learn and how we get better.


Jim February 11, 2014 at 8:26 am

Why are all u automatons so fixated on robotic testing ? Robotic testing would provide little insight into the real world performance of a driver. Getting a robot to replicate the myriad of attack angles, swing speeds, tempos, face angles and club paths would be impossible.

Any worthwhile test of a product will look at a wide range of conditions including the upper and lower limits of performance and everything in between. With that in mind, human testing will be a superior method when compared to robotic testing.


Skinndeep February 11, 2014 at 4:34 am

Hi Toney,
I think your approach is refreshing different and I’m exited to see the results, however I would like to know why did you choose 6 testers and not a robot like most of the leading Golf Mag’s do. They do it in order to take the subjectivity out of play , 6 testers means to me that every shot has to be slightly different that’s the nature of the beast so to say. Sure you can say that you have never seen a robot on course I haven’t either but that’s not the point. My point is how reliable are these results from the testers (beasts :-)),
If you take the 3256 shots / by the 6 testers/ by 4 day’s you get 136 drives per person per day,
not a awful lot but still are we able to hit with the same concentration and power 136 shots, are the once from the morning better than from the afternoon??? and we haven’t even touched the topic of the variances in swing speeds launch angles etc from shot to shot from person to person.
Look in now way I wanna contest your test methode I just would like to hear your opinion.
Greetings from Germany



Tony Covey February 11, 2014 at 7:46 am

Your math is wrong. 6 testers, 6 days each (that’s 36 sessions). Depending on mishits, guys hit, on average, well less than 100 shots in any given session, and nobody had more than one session per day.

We intentionally selected golfers of varying ability levels. Swing speed range is low 80s to right about 120. Launch angles range widely as well. We have a low ball hitter in the mix, along with a higher ball hitter with most of our guys falling closer to the normal range.

One of the criteria we use for dropping shots is variances in things like launch angle, spin rates, and distance. Any shots that fall outside of each individual’s ‘normal’ range are discarded.


Sluggo42 February 11, 2014 at 12:35 am

Ping i25 will be the winner. Significantly so I might add.
And that is that.


Shark February 10, 2014 at 10:53 pm

It’s ironic that some golf magazine annual review sections on golf equipment used to be unbiased, critical and honest. Then advertising grew and grew to where the info is glorified ad revenue pablum.
But…! My golf spy is the digital version of the old reliable club test. I greatly look forward to the results. I’m stoked! Let’s get it on eh! (sorry… Canadian I had to throw it in lol)


David February 10, 2014 at 10:48 pm

Thanks everyone involved in test. I really look forward to this test. I will use this in reference to my purchase. Give me a base to start my own test. For my quest to find that mistake proof driver. Just joking. A lot of new drivers this year. Interesting to see what the data says tomorrow.

Thanks again.



Adrian February 10, 2014 at 10:47 pm

Should be a very interesting test. Look forward to seeing results.


Wayne Bosley February 10, 2014 at 10:02 pm

Here is one of the bigger hurdles for these type of trials, the balls that are used?
You could fit the right ball type per player in theory but that still makes a variation
in overall results,,,and different balls will definitely give you different results and
if there is any breeze around certain balls do perform better in the breeze than
others ,,,,, tough to really get the right detailed results that might truly help.

it is interesting to see new models each season nowadays,,,its like seeing new ball
models each season or as with the majors each 2nd year is this what we need to
retain interest in purchases nowadays?


hud February 10, 2014 at 8:56 pm

what about the shafts? all the same??


Tony Covey February 10, 2014 at 9:07 pm

We test as the average consumer buy; off-the-rack stock. As much as we advocate for custom fitting, the sad reality is that it doesn’t represent how most golfers buy their clubs.


BClark February 10, 2014 at 8:30 pm

A couple days ago, I was disappointed by Golf Magazine’s club test and thought there had to be something better out there. Just found your site yesterday and have spent way too much time here reading and absorbing all the great reviews. I’m glad I found the site and am really excited for the accuracy results. I’ll be donating because I want to make sure you can do this yearly. Any plans for an iron test like this?


Tony Covey February 10, 2014 at 8:40 pm

First. Welcome to the site. Sounds like you found us just in time. We have some MAJOR plans in the works for 2014. The final chips should fall into place sometime this week, but regardless of where they fall, you can expect more emphasis on reviews than ever before. As proud as we are about what we’ve accomplished, believe me when I say we’re only getting started.

And to actually answer your question; yes, we fully expect to do a big iron review this season.


MCoz February 10, 2014 at 7:42 pm

No matter what the test and how extensive it is there really is no one test that is perfect. Think of this as a guide! The problem with ranking is that it may tell someone what is the overall best based on the test criteria. The only sure thing is to test them yourself to determine what is best for your game. That may not be possible for everyone.
So when the results come out the first place club may not be the best for a specific individual, the 3rd best might be the better choice.
What we (in the collective sense) should do is narrow the field of choices by ranking and description and then try to test the 2-4 clubs that makes sense (price may be a considerarion for some also). Look at TaylorMade, they are gtting huge play for their SLDRs, but there is a very surprising number of Tour players who have gone to the Jet Speed by choice. The new Callaways are seeing both Big Bertha models being put into play along with X-Hots by their staff players. Is one clearly better? Not necessarily for a group but for the individual.
I have been fortunate enough to test many of these already (including the Titleists for my game and I have made my decisions. But my choices will not be the best for the masses. I am playing the SLDR 430 head with a special Fujikura shaft that is not commercially available. It may be too low spinning for the large majority here. I believe the 460 is better for more players. But this year has a nice selection of drivers to choose from. I am curious as to the results of the group also.
To the person who mentioned the balls, it can make a difference, absolutely! But it is impossible to conduct a broad test for different players. Thus as I said earlier narrow the choices and then if you try demos on the course you can try them with the ball of your choice also.


Bala February 10, 2014 at 7:38 pm

From the above address, my believe is that, the results will be reliable and can be referred to by general public for guide to future purchases. But my only concern is the reliability with Golfers doing the testing(no 2 golfers drive the ball the same way) against a reference for comparison. I may have missed something but would recognize that for best results and consistency, using a Swing m/c will give very accurate data for comparison and evaluation against stipulated data boundaries.. Hence selection by people cannot question the testing methodology and fault the results


Wayne Bosley February 10, 2014 at 7:33 pm

The stock offerings are one thing but everyone knows there are better shafts that
are not in play and by 2014 with the screw on heads shouldn’t we all be getting
a much more custom fit of shaft and head by now,,,stock OEM shafts are just not
the same on so many products as the after market they are made to hit a price as
a priority with enough performance.

One of the best shafts we have tested over the years is called a Fineone (Korea) that
looks like a silver bamboo shoot in the main model, Pro long drive have known about
it for a few years but mainstream USA have never even heard of it ,,,,

OEM products through big box retail in particular are just so generic and the player
is just treated like a sale not a player at all, and hitting a ball into a net in store with
a computer giving you the results is not the way a proper player would find a new club
to potentially include in their bag ,,no wonder TM can keep loading up the market with
new drivers as so many are sold to players that in the end are just a bit disappointed in the
real world results on course and then hope to buy a better driving game with their next
Plus why did drivers have to be so long in length 44.5″ + when accuracy is the real deal
in making players play better,,,,,,more fairways =more greens = better golf.

The reduction in custom repair shops since the GFC hit is the one area that has truly
hurt players from finding the RIGHT set-up,,,,,plus a series of GOOD lessons can
make most players so much better but in our time poor current economy its hard to
find enough time and patience to do this.


John February 10, 2014 at 5:38 pm

Question for you all. Why aren’t you using Iron Byron for these tests and what balls are you using for the test? This does make a difference. Have six guys hitting balls over 3000 does not seem like a good test to me.


Obee-Kay-Bee February 10, 2014 at 5:54 pm

Does anyone read the other comments posted in the thread. I think they have explained this more than once…….. Here it is.


mygolfspy February 10, 2014 at 5:56 pm

Congrats Obee-Kay-Bee! You just were chosen as the “Comment Of The Day!”

Shoot me an email to contact (at) and I will get out a thank you package.

Thanks again!
GolfSpy X


Adam February 11, 2014 at 11:34 am



TxStCatman February 10, 2014 at 4:32 pm

Really looking forward to this test. I sooo want to get my hands on the W/S FG Tour M3 with the Phenom NL shaft, but I’m also really piqued in seeing how the SLDR and Covert 2.0 models do. If you need a home for any of these post testing, let me know! 😛


Eidolon February 10, 2014 at 4:29 pm

No Titliest driver tested so….No Contest! Bought one of those that is being tested and it was the worse feeling, worst sounding driver I have ever owned and I own a lot of them. Gave it awat to charity!


dru_ February 10, 2014 at 9:42 pm

Bear in mind that the vendors had to choose to participate. Titleist declined.


Juan Gutierrez February 10, 2014 at 4:24 pm

This is a great review, and I now entirely base my purchasing decisions on the data you provide!! I last bought my PING i20 two years ago because of the data you provided, and results have been incredible. That being said, and on the same line as other comments about comparisons from previous tests, do you envision your reports in the future as a way of telling people when it really makes sense to change a driver???


DAVE February 10, 2014 at 3:42 pm

i loved reading about last years results and just as excited for this years. i would also like to know how i can become a tester for next year…great reads guy…keep it going !!!


Andrea Hodel February 10, 2014 at 3:41 pm

I notice that they hardly use any women testers in the tests in the golf magazines. I play between a 4 and 9 hdcp during the year. Maybe you could someday include a women’s test. You could you collegiate women golfers. I myself swing stiff graphite shafts. There is never any information out there for better women golfers. I say this because women swing differently than guys. Here the industry is trying to grow the game but they exclude women from testing and put out crap in the way of equipment for them. Any better women players that I know, including LPGA players, do not use women’s equipment. I respect this website so much because they take the marketing BS out the information they give us. THANKS!


SandyR.Karse February 10, 2014 at 3:19 pm

It is about time that the facts came out.. Most golf club manufactures want to sell golf clubs and nothing else.. There are so many millions of golfers that struggle with their game. Even after getting so called properly fitted, they struggle. It would be nice to have the right club and go out there and enjoy regardless on what we shoot.. yes – straight and long would be nice and putt.. Let me know, nice to see your email today, best regards.


Mbwa Kali Sana February 10, 2014 at 2:57 pm

All this fuss about what’s THE best driver is absolutely disproprtionate and ridiculous !
If you are a sensible LOW handicapper ,your driving is good whatever THE club you use !
If tried Many ,Many drivers ,sure they are différent ,don’t give THE same feel,but THE distances they shoot are not that far apart ,and their consistency is comparable .
Work on your body and your technique and don’t fuss about THE best driver ever!
Mbwa Kali Sana .


mnfats95 February 10, 2014 at 3:08 pm

Not everyone who reads this site is a low handicapper. I think it’s been very well documented that getting fit for clubs and finding equipment that fits you can be a very big help in improving your game. If anything it would make sure you aren’t playing equipment that is hurting your game.

The information provided by this testing is a huge asset when deciding what clubs to go and try when you are shopping for a new driver. You may not benefit from it, but there are hundreds here who do.


mygolfspy February 10, 2014 at 3:17 pm

WIth 100% certainty I can improve 100% of golfers equipment. That means you too Mr. Low Handicap 😉

No, on a more serious note. You could not be more wrong, if I am going to put it bluntly as you did.

Just 1 quick example for you to think on: There are huge distance and accuracy differences between lower swing speeds and higher swing speeds. Golfers are not just defined by handicap and neither is equipment. Also handicap is not broken down by a part of your game. For example some 0-5 handicap golfers are better off the tee than others. Therefore more to be gained by a sector of niche categories within a category. I could go on and on…


mnfats95 February 10, 2014 at 2:49 pm

If any of us could swing as consistently as a machine then I would say include results from one. But since none of us can why does it matter? Just because one driver performs better than another when it’s hit with an identical swing with a machine doesn’t mean it’s the better driver for you unless your swing is identical to the machine’s swing which it never will be.


JerrytheBell February 10, 2014 at 2:49 pm

Exciting stuff…look forward to the results. Tony, if you can please date your reviews. Helps when looking back to know when equipment hit the market. With so many releases its easy to get lost as to when clubs came out.



Tony Covey February 10, 2014 at 2:46 pm

Freakin’ robots again?

A couple of points…first, if somebody would like to donate 100K…actually make it 200K (we have some things we’d like to spend money on before we spend 100K on a robot), please use the DONATE button at the top of the page to help us get started.

2nd point…Take all the issues with testing with robots that we’ve already discussed off the table, and we still have to talk about the precision involved in setting up a robot test. It’s not a matter of simply sticking a club in a robotic arm and having him swing away.

The right (only valid) way to do it is to precisely locate the CG of each driver, and then make sure the robot makes contact on exactly that spot…can’t miss by so much as a millimeter.

I was on an OEM visit last year…our marketing escort tossed a question to one of the guys responsible for robot testing. “What’s the longest it’s ever taken you to get the club aligned in the proper position?”

His answer: 2 days.

Think on that for a bit.


Tom54 February 10, 2014 at 2:59 pm

Can’t believe everyone’s stuck on robots still when it’s been proven that zombies are the future.


markb February 10, 2014 at 3:54 pm

I, for one, DO NOT WANT ROBOT testing. I don’t care about results from how a machine or touring pro hits in on the sweetspot every time. I care about the average distance and dispersion from how a hacker like me hits it when he’s erratically moving around the face.


Adam February 11, 2014 at 11:31 am

I’ll come and wear a robot costume next year if you want.


JBones February 10, 2014 at 2:43 pm

I believe I said the SLDR would take top honors in all categories and after hitting it, I’m sticking with that. I also said the AirForce 1 would be the sleeper. Can’t wait to see if my inclinations are anywhere close or just my own theories.


MCoz February 10, 2014 at 2:42 pm

I have been involved in product testing and competitions since the 80’s both as a “judge/tester and as an organizer. It is tough and somewhat thankless. EVeryone feels theirs is best and there will be a few that are happy and a bunch that will not. Some will cry foul. In trying to do this test to it’s best it might have been advisable to actually purchase the Titleist clubs to more complete the results. Unfortunately it sets a precident that you don’t want. But the issue with acquiring the clubs from the OEMs specifically for this test is that there may be some clubs sent (purposely) that may exceed the legal COR thus possibly gaining a length advantage. All of these companies have to test clubs (especially for tour use). At the very least any company with extensive tour play will be sending clubs that at least meet the maximum COR. What I am saying is that unfortunately that may not be what you can or will purchase.
As for Titleist they really have nothing to gain. They know that length wise while their clubs have good accuracy and control it is very unlikely that their current clubs will match the length of the newer technology of TaylorMade or Callaway. They know it and they have their core customers that will buy what their brand no matter what unless it can lose credibility. They will participate it the Golf mags ratings for two reasons, one is that it really isn’t a numerical rating and two they know that the print boys want and need their ball ads. Titleist makes it’s money on balls and has a little but steady club business that follows. They have nothing to gain on this driver test. Thus no reason to play.


Wiz February 10, 2014 at 10:27 pm

Hey MCOZ, I agree, and I’m playing a 913D3. It is the most “playable” for me, not as long as my two TaylorMades or G25, but more playable for my game (at the moment :)) and it’s a game Titleist can’t win right now.
PS. Good to see you, I miss your posts on the old site, especially in the wine threads.


MCoz February 11, 2014 at 7:24 pm

The Titleists tend to be very straight and controllable. My biggest issue personally with them is the shape of the rear of the heads. Hard to describe here without showing it. Believe it or not it affects the way I take away the club. There are others that bother me also, the G 25 the TM R11S (regular head), the R1 460 head (I played the smaller 440), the RBZ Stage 2 (played the original RBZ Tour). Didn’t like the TM Super-Tri, much preferred the Super Deep.
Many of the Cobras with a closed face look and others.
So I can’t be accused of brand prejudice. For me the look at address and performance is very important, the look of the clubhead soles while in a bag . . . not so much.
Hang in there!


LeftyGolfGuy February 10, 2014 at 2:34 pm

Question…. When it comes to drivers and driver distance isn’t the shaft the most important aspect? If you get the correct shaft to match your swing isn’t that how you maximize distance? doesn’t having the correct shaft play a bigger role than which head you use? I could be totally off base but my understanding of how to go the longest off the tee has much more to do with matching the shaft with the swing then finding the head you like best, and yes out of all the clubs driver head makes a bigger difference than iron heads but the head isn’t as big a factor as the shaft? I could be totally wrong – would love to get your take on shaft vs head.


markb February 10, 2014 at 4:23 pm

Yes and no. I have 4 identical shafts tipped with 4 manufacturers tip adapters that are cut so they play to the same overall length when installed. This should, in theory, give me an absolute comparison when testing drivers because I have long experience knowing that this shaft’s weight, launch, torque and flex all work for me. But manufacturers have different length hosels, producing different kick points on the same shaft. My Cally shaft is 1/2″ SHORTER than my TMag shaft. Results still vary.

I also think manufacturers go to great lengths to try to match shafts to their club heads (while keeping costs in check). So it’s very possible that a Fubuki in one head isn’t as well suited to the head as a Fubuki in another.


W. Scott February 10, 2014 at 2:32 pm

I’ll second the vote for the Iron Byron or similar device, at least as a Reference.


mygolfspy February 10, 2014 at 2:46 pm
Keenford February 10, 2014 at 6:11 pm

Give it up guys. The Iron Byron is not happening and we’ve been told over and over why.


jpball February 10, 2014 at 2:30 pm

Okay, with all deference to another sport, I have taken the bait; hook, line, sinker and will be checking back often!


GreenDoor February 10, 2014 at 2:23 pm

Masterful stroke to coincide with the historical print publications illusions of a club test! The comparison of data to dollars-spent will be hard for any rational golfer to deny. Great Job!


mygolfspy February 10, 2014 at 2:47 pm

Thanks for noticing GreenDoor.


Bill February 10, 2014 at 2:21 pm

Any thought to providing a head to head with a constantly repeating machine, ie Iron Byron, I know the human element is lost is machine testing, but the advantage is that the human element is lost. Thanks for your good owrk


mygolfspy February 10, 2014 at 2:47 pm
PGAGOLD February 10, 2014 at 2:14 pm

It would be nice to see one of the testers be an Iron Byron, just for stats


mygolfspy February 10, 2014 at 2:48 pm
SirBigSpur06 February 10, 2014 at 1:47 pm

Can’t wait to read the results. I have many more “important” things to do at work this week, but work BE DAMNED!

That said, it’s a bit of a disappointment that Titleist declined this year… esp. after they seemingly did so well last year – I believe they had one of, if not the most Accurate drivers and were near the top of the Most Wanted final list. I’m very interested in Accuracy so that’s a bummer, but I suppose a big reason the 913 D2 was so accurate is b/c it had the shortest shaft of any offerring in the test last year. With that being the case, I can just assume it will still be very accurate compared to this year’s field. Did they give you a reason at all why they were declining? Seems odd.

Thanks again for the hard work!


Chal February 10, 2014 at 1:45 pm

Just got my H** L*** magazine today. I will say it is good for viewing the different clubs that will be coming out from the Bigger OEM’s. And that is all it is good for. Pictures.


SirBigSpur06 February 10, 2014 at 1:52 pm

The HL is garbage. Frankly, if you’re going with any of the big publishers lists, Golf Magazine’s Club Test seems to be the best and most unbiased (although I’m sure it isn’t). At least they just give you the facts, pros/cons and tell you about how well a club performed compared to the rest of the field. At least they don’t give silly, arbitrary star ratings.

That said, I can’t really blame the big boys for doing that… with the print industry bascially clinging to it’s last gasp of air, they gotta pay the bills somehow…


Tony Covey February 10, 2014 at 1:57 pm

Sad but true. Print is dying, and however we perceive the actual value of The List, it does move the needle over there. It’s almost a shame really, there are some absolutely terrific writers on staff there. Storytelling is a dying art, but they have some of the best in the business. The equipment coverage takes away from that, but like you said…what can you do? Even if you accept that it’s not a direct payment for their place on The List; one way or another golf company dollars are what keeps the lights on.


annsguy February 10, 2014 at 1:45 pm

I have been checking every day for the results. I look forward to seeing the results. I hope the Wilson Staff FG driver has a good showing. Sure is pretty.


Tom54 February 10, 2014 at 1:36 pm

Really looking forward to the reviews. It’s funny, for years I always looked forward to the H** L*** (fun with asterisks!) by the rival of G***. I’m a little slow, but it finally dawned on me that it’s the exact same article every single year. So it’s great to read something that starts from zero every year and produces a winner that earns it.


blstrong (SeeRed) February 10, 2014 at 1:18 pm

Fantastic, guys. Thanks for all the hard work. Can’t wait to see the results!


d February 10, 2014 at 1:18 pm

Will you compare this year’s results to last year’s winner? I recall it was the Callaway X-Hot. It would be insightful to learn if there is any meaningful change year to year.


Adam C February 10, 2014 at 1:10 pm

Finally!!! I to read t G*** Magazines test out of boredom last night. No definitive data what so ever. Can’t wait to read the real reviews @MGS!


Steve February 10, 2014 at 1:08 pm

is there a driver manufacture in this thread reading that would be interested in R&D of a new titanium ceramic coating? I am looking to have a discusion on a conversion coating to coat a driver or driver face with Ceramic. Not sprayed or dipped ceramic. It is atomically bonded and very ductile, Basically an oxide is formed and it’s ceramic. Cause & effect TBD but could prove interesting


markb February 10, 2014 at 1:05 pm

I’m so excited to read some actual driver test results! Some number, any number is appreciated Tony. I just read G*** Magazine’s driver review (March 2014) and got to the 3 page layout of their 40 club testers’ pictures and detailed bios and thought, wow just wait till I get to the ratings table!

I had to read the whole magazine 3 times before I realized THERE WAS NO RATINGS TABLE OF ANY KIND. Nothing beyond brief Pro and Con review blurbs that resembled fortune cookie predictions — generally complimentary and heavily diluted to everyone. I mean honestly, why even bother with a “test”.


Tony Covey February 10, 2014 at 1:09 pm

Wny bother? That’s easy. Did you know that the publication in question charges a licensing fee to use their awards. Any golf company that wants to use the “seal of approval” must pay to do so. Simply put…the more awards they give out, the more revenue by way of licnesing. When everybody wins, so does the publication.


blstrong (SeeRed) February 10, 2014 at 1:26 pm

No! Are you implying that it’s all about the money with some of those other publications, and not the objective comparison of equipment available to the golfing public? Surely you do not mean to imply that they do not have the golfing consumer’s best interests as their top priority. Say it ain’t so!


markb February 10, 2014 at 3:49 pm

Perhaps I should have said, “Why bother to agree to be a tester for such a ‘test'” if nothing you say or perceive will make it to print or be used in anyway and the “results” are foregone conclusions. Those 40 testers might as well be 40 eunuchs guarding the advertising harem.

Anyway, we appreciate your efforts to give us something tangible to work with.


Craig February 11, 2014 at 1:30 am

Apparently the fee golf digest charges for their hotlist
is $ 25,000.


SirBigSpur06 February 10, 2014 at 1:56 pm

I think it’s better that Golf Mag doesn’t rate them… at least they’re not telling us one club performs better than another based on no data (that they’ll reveal) whatsoever. That’s basically lying in my book.


Albert Sewill February 10, 2014 at 12:30 pm

What a tease!!!

Question. Any of the drivers crack or have any mechanical failures? No names, just a number.


Tony Covey February 10, 2014 at 12:37 pm

No failures at all this season. I think in 4+ years of doing this we’ve only had 1 face crack, and only 1 broken shaft. The most common damage is actually crown dents, and it’s hard to fault the manufacturers too much for that. They’re not exactly rated for impact.


Albert Sewill February 10, 2014 at 12:47 pm

That’s really interesting!


Drew February 10, 2014 at 12:22 pm

Still thinking the cheap Tommy driver will upset some of the big boys. We shall see!


Brian Kuznia February 10, 2014 at 12:19 pm

Its a long shot (no pund intended) but what’s the chances for some video action of the various drivers? I would be curious to hear the sound of the driver and player feedback. Love your site, check it multiple times a day for updates. Keep up the great work!


Tony Covey February 10, 2014 at 12:42 pm

It’s being discussed. Our goal is to take this thing to a whole other level next season.


Kris February 10, 2014 at 1:04 pm

Sweet. I know I’ve thought the only 2 things I’d like to see are sounds referenced by SS (maybe 1 day release sounds of every driver hit by different swing speeds but without telling us which is which, then day 2 labelling which driver makes each sound), and more than 6 testers. The latter is completely greedy (I understand fully how much time it takes you guys to do it with just 6…though a woman or 2 thrown in would be nice for your lady readers), but I think the sounds would add a lot to your testing. Either way, awesome job and please keep up the great work!


Salmon February 10, 2014 at 7:33 pm

Could do a guess the driver sound competition or something to really build the suspense prior to the results being released lol


Adam H February 10, 2014 at 11:43 am

Well all i have to say is thanks for giving me something to look forward to while I watch the snow pile up. This winter is depressing the crap out of me.


Kris February 10, 2014 at 11:40 am

Can’t wait for Wednesday! I honestly care very little for distance. The only time distance would come into my decision making process is if there were a small number of drivers that were all similarly accurate and had similar feel when I tested them. Can’t wait for the numbers :). Were testers given time during warmup to alter settings on the adjustable drivers to try and find what fit them best?


Tony Covey February 10, 2014 at 12:44 pm

Testers were given as much time as they felt the needed to warm up. That said, we did randomize the order (making sure each club was hit once by each tester in the front, middle, and end of their respective rotation) to try and minimize the implications of fatigue and over-freshness.

Absolutely…we made full use of adjustability where we we could.


blstrong (SeeRed) February 10, 2014 at 1:22 pm

I’m going to use “over-freshness” in the future to explain the occasionally miserable start to a round.


John Willhoite February 10, 2014 at 10:51 am

Why can you not use the data from last years Titleist?


Tony Covey February 10, 2014 at 10:54 am

Different testers, different swings…just different. Apples to Pears. We could guess where we think the Titleist would fit, but it would be just that. We have an ongoing open dialog with Titleist, so I remain optimistic that they’ll agree to participate in future tests.


Ron Moffett February 10, 2014 at 10:43 am

It’s like Christmas Eve…………..CAN’T WAIT. Rooting for the Nike and Mizuno JPX EZ


Jon February 10, 2014 at 10:23 am

I have been refreshing this website for the good part of the month. I will be basing this year’s purchasing decisions heavily on this report.

Also – you have your dates a bit off. Feb 14 is Friday, but I’m all for earlier results.


Tony Covey February 10, 2014 at 10:30 am

Apparently I’m not good with a Calendar. Fixed.


Hula_Rock February 10, 2014 at 10:21 am

I’d like to see Weather conditions e.g. temperature, wind direction, etc. for each day….. AND as hckymeyer stated, the comparison to last years lineup….. It would be cool to see any performance gains….


Tony Covey February 10, 2014 at 10:28 am

We test indoors. It takes the elements out of it and levels the playing field.


Flaglfr February 11, 2014 at 2:25 pm

Must be one heck of a building if you can hit drives in it!


hckymeyer February 10, 2014 at 10:15 am

I’m sure this will get asked a bunch of times, so I’ll start it out. Can you give any insight to the reference club? What it was, how it was chosen? Was it an actual club that testers hit or something from last years results?

Will there be any sort of comparison to last years clubs when it’s all over?


Tony Covey February 10, 2014 at 10:27 am

We’re not naming the reference club. It was chosen basically for convenience, and we definitely don’t want future testing to be “can it beat…” It’s there as a control to make it easier for us to compare today’s results to one-off’s throughout the year, and subsequent driver tests.

Figuring out how to make reasonably accurate comparisons to past tests is why we introduced the reference club. The short version is we wanted to be able to make apples to apples (or at least very close to that) comparisons from one point in time to another in circumstances where we might not have the same testers (and the testers we have may have different swings), or even different launch monitors.

The control club brings us closer to that.


hckymeyer February 10, 2014 at 10:31 am

Thanks T, I can live with that :)

Would it be safe to assume that the reference club was something “middle of the road” performance wise?


Adam February 11, 2014 at 10:57 am

I would think it would have to be something fairly accurate actually. Hard to test against something that was all over the board and something that was easy to fit to all the golfers they test with.
It would be beneficial to test against something fairly straight and therefore forgiving and inherently probably not as long. Easier to get a measurement I would think. Like the 913 from last year for example. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that was what they were using.


Blade February 10, 2014 at 2:33 pm

Excellent idea.


Peter February 11, 2014 at 4:38 pm

Why no Titliest?


Leave a Comment