2016 Most Wanted Driver

Post image for 2016 Most Wanted Driver
The largest unbiased, DATACRATIC Driver Test conducted by anyone in the golf media industry is now even better.

Test Results You Can Trust


We spent the last year looking for ways to refine and improve the Most Wanted Driver Test; already the largest, fully independent driver test conducted on an annual basis by anyone in the golf world.

We opened a new test facility and again enlisted 20 testers to help us put 28 drivers through their paces. As was the case last year, testing took over 100 hours to complete. In total more than 7500 shots were collected and more than 225,000 individual data points recorded.

All testing was conducted with a Foresight GC2 Launch Monitor with HMT. All testers used Bridgestone B330-RX golf balls.

The goal, as always, remains to empower you the consumer with truthful and reliable data and analysis that will help you identify the best driver for your game.

This guide is for you.

How We Consider Performance

To quantify performance and determine Most Wanted Rankings we developed a new scoring system based on Mark Broadie's Strokes Gained methodology.

This new way to look at the numbers considers not only the distance of the drive, the accuracy of the drive, and also the probable resulting lie condition. As all of us know, it's harder to score from the rough, and harder still to score from a gnarly lie. Strokes Gained takes all this into account. The end result is a system that looks beyond distance and accuracy, while considering other factors that we believe help us to better represents real-world performance.

For more details, see our How We Test page.

For those interested in breaking out the individual components that make up total performance, we still provide you with distance (total yards and carry), accuracy (yards from center and truAccuracy), and Shot Area, which provides an excellent measurements of consistency or forgiveness.

All of that data and more can be found at the bottom of this post. New features will be added to the table as we roll out all of our results.

The Top 5 Drivers of 2016


Test Highlights:

  • Strokes Gained score greater than two standard deviations above the average for the field.
  • Highest Carry Yards and Total Yards average of any driver in the field
  • Top 5 for Accuracy (both Yards from Center (accuracy) & truAccuracy)
  • 15 of 20 testers posted Strokes Gained scores above their individual averages; the best in the field

The Final Word:

TaylorMade’s first UNMETAL wood lives up to the hype. It is the standout performer in this year’s test; a clear and decisive winner of the 2016 Most Wanted Driver Title.

View on Amazon View in Pro Shop


Test Highlights:

  • #2 for both Yard from Center (accuracy) and truAccuracy
  • #2 for Shot Area
  • 14 of 20 posted Strokes Gained scores above their individual averages

The Final Word:

This is the 3rd straight year that Double Black Diamond had shown itself to be the class of the Callaway lineup. While perhaps not as comparatively long as previous generations, the 2016 DBD excels at keeping the ball in the short grass.

View on Amazon View in Pro Shop


Test Highlights:

  • Top 10 for both Carry and Total Distance
  • Top 5 for Yards from Center (accuracy) and truAccuracy
  • 14 of 20 testers posted Strokes Gained scores above their individual averages

The Final Word:

The most versatile driver in the current Cobra lineup, F6+ is yet another in a growing list of top performers from Cobra. The F6+ is an excellent option for golfers looking for a low and forward (ish) CG, a low and back(ish) CG, or nearly anything in-between.

View on Amazon View in Pro Shop


Test Highlights:

  • #2 Carry Yards, #3 Total Yards with only slightly more spin than the M1
  • Top 5 for Yards from Center (accuracy)
  • 13 of 20 testers posted Strokes Gained scores above their individual averages

The Final Word:

The more forgiving alternative to the M1. An outstanding all-around performer in its own right, the M2 completes the most prodigious 1-2 punch TaylorMade has brought to market in several years.

View on Amazon View in Pro Shop


Test Highlights:

  • Top 5 for both Yards from Center (accuracy) and truAccuracy
  • Top 5 for Shot Area
  • 14 of 20 testers posted Strokes Gained scores above their individual averages

The Final Word:

As we’ve come to expect from PING, its flagship G Driver is model of consistency. It’s not the longest driver on the market, but it seldom strays into much trouble, making it ideal for guys looking for consistent results swing after swing.

View in Pro Shop


The Data

The chart below contains data from this year's test. You can hover over any column title to bring up the sort feature, allowing you to sort by whatever columns you feel are most relevant to you. A dropdown at the bottom give you the ability to show or hide whichever drivers you choose.

Please note, for simplicity's sake, we have revised our truAccuracy (an alternative to Yards from Center) scores to display as an "out of 100" score. Clubs with the highest values are the ones that hit the ball farther down the fairway with less deviation from the center line.

More features will be added in the coming days and if there's something specific you'd like to see, please let us know.

trade-in-trade-upFor a limited time, all MyGolfSpy referred customers can get an additional 10% trade-in bonus on the value of their clubs when they use the code SPYTRADE. Valid 06/14/16-06/30/16.

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.

A PayPal account is not required in order to donate.

Choose donation amount:
Anonymous donation

More 2016 Most Wanted

About MyGolfSpy

As the “Consumer Reports of Golf” our mission is to educate and empower golfers. Our goal is to help you get the most out of your time, money and performance.

MyGolfSpy is the only major golf media outlet that accepts ZERO advertising dollars from the biggest golf companies.


View All Posts

Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)

Your Subject (required)

Your Message (required)


{ 167 comments… read them below or add one }

David W November 23, 2016 at 10:35 am

I’m ready to see how the Triton (GC’s Driver vs Driver winner) compares to the new crop. I hope you guys can get one for the next most wanted driver test.


Ken October 24, 2016 at 2:45 pm

Don’t cut open a Ping driver because if you do and then cut open something else you will not want to play anything but Ping. The finish the “inside” of the thing. There quality is top notch. I hit an M1 and FlyZ but if the Ping says 10.5 I guarantee it is close or right on. I am lefthanded and getting quality LH stuff is hard which is why i like adjustables. I found an M1 head at 10.5 that was digitally measured at 11.4 which was absolutely great because I turned it back one notch and got the height I need with lower spin. If it had been at 10.5 I would have needed to leave it there but I get a little face opening by dialing it back which is great for me. Perhaps manufacturers should look at their quality control as to why golf sales are down. When I spend 500 for a drive I expect it to have the stated loft and head weight but most aren’t even close.


David W November 23, 2016 at 10:38 am

So true! This is why I will buy a used club from someone that I have hit and liked over a new one any day. The new one won’t be the same club. Heck, the two sitting side by side on the rack aren’t the same.


David W November 23, 2016 at 10:40 am

Now, that being said, I have hit two different friend’s M1’s and as much as I love my G30 with custom fitted shaft, both the M1’s have been amazing. I will probably game one next year.


James September 8, 2016 at 11:04 am

Interesting to see two TaylorMade Drivers in the top 4 from the test!… they haven’t quite fallen yet but as your other post suggests it’ll be interesting to see how they perform in future tests and whether the impact of new owners will lead to a decline in the quality of their drivers and slower innovation going forward.


Jeff Moore September 3, 2016 at 1:20 pm

I have hit a bunch of them then a friend recommended the cobra f6 best feeling driver a have hut in a long time


Guy Crawford August 31, 2016 at 3:15 pm

I was surprised at the F6 not being higher. The Fly Z (Most Wanted 2015 Driver) rocks and the F6 was supposed to be better. Nope I’ll keep the Fly Z!


Ken October 24, 2016 at 2:37 pm

The M2 is the Fly Z with a little different look. That is a great driver and MGS was right on with the testing. I turned several guys onto that driver and it’s my backup behind the M1 but honestly, I hit them both pretty much the same but hit the FlyZ when I need extra carry.


Torre Naugle August 31, 2016 at 4:39 am

Still like my r11s driver!


Jeff Kren August 31, 2016 at 1:40 am

Xr 16 pro.


Bill Lee August 31, 2016 at 1:34 am

Have you done golf ball testing? Looking for the Bridgestone vs the callaway


Mike Mueller August 31, 2016 at 12:58 am

Actually would it be possible to do an article comparing the two? That would be cool to see. Not sure if you guys have done one yet, but if not – consider it a request from a fan lol


Eder Castorena August 31, 2016 at 12:56 am

I guess it’s the user that sucks! Lol


MyGolf Spy August 31, 2016 at 12:56 am

We have over a hundred thousand shots with Foresight and we find it to be more accurate and dependable on drop shots. Use whatever you prefer. We don’t care what the name is, but in our research we 100% disagree and so did almost all those we consulted with at the OEM level.

Like I said it is a personal preference thing: we only care about two things when it comes to data collection 1) Consistency 2) Accuracy


Mike Mueller August 31, 2016 at 12:53 am

I disagree as I have used both multiple times and have found trackman to be more accurate when taking the results from a launch monitor to the course.

I do agree trackman is more well known and is better at marketing (which I’m positive is part of that less-than-modest price tag) but I really do believe it to be more accurate.


MyGolf Spy August 31, 2016 at 12:51 am

Trackman has done a superb job of marketing, although if you do your research with the people in the industry that use launch monitors specifically for testing you will find more trust Foresight for indoor testing.


Glenn Forsyth August 30, 2016 at 11:55 pm

The best driver is the one that works best for you, not for other people. Try them all at a good green grass shop, get it re-shafted and go from there.


Dave Cammilleri August 30, 2016 at 11:51 pm

I hit every driver I have bought in the last 7 years the same distance. This is all hype.


MyGolf Spy August 31, 2016 at 12:49 am

That is absolutely a thought many golfers have. We are just completing a test to find out if that is true.


Dave Cammilleri August 31, 2016 at 1:59 am

MyGolf Spy cool. I have had 5 Callaway 2 Taylormade and a Cobra and it is the same distance for everyone. Can’t wait to see the results.


Tuan Vu August 30, 2016 at 11:43 pm

The Grenade wasn’t even invited to the dance? How about the Krank Formula 6? Bunch of bullshit tests partial to those that will buy advertising.


Austin Kreger August 30, 2016 at 11:49 pm

This is a joke right? Those heads are trash compared to almost everything else


Tuan Vu August 31, 2016 at 12:21 am

Which heads are you referring to?


MyGolf Spy August 31, 2016 at 12:44 am

Tested both the previous Krank and the Bombtech both performed below average.


Austin Kreger August 31, 2016 at 12:45 am

Grenade is just not good period… and Krank heads need to be hit in a certain place on the face to maximize results (it is not the middle)


Tuan Vu August 31, 2016 at 12:48 am

So the Knuth High Heat is a better club? Please. I am not saying the Grenade or Formula 6 should be 1 and 2, but cmon. If it was below average the show us where it ranked.


MyGolf Spy August 31, 2016 at 12:48 am

BTW, Bombtech was invited, they declined to participate so we went out and purchased their drivers at retail. You can view the results here: http://www.mygolfspy.com/2015-most-wanted-driver-overall-awards/


Austin Kreger August 31, 2016 at 12:54 am

I’m more surprised PXG isn’t in there


MyGolf Spy August 31, 2016 at 12:58 am

Tuan Vu – you are just making up information at this point. At no point did we say the Knuth was better than any other club. No need to get defensive to defend a brand. We don;t care about brand names, we are brand agnostic. We only care about what the data reveals. It revealed that Bombtech was a below average driver.


Austin Kreger August 31, 2016 at 1:25 am

low ball speeds, too much spin, not adjustable, really a step back in time


Gary Fielding August 31, 2016 at 2:38 am

Tuan Vu follow the link a few posts above man… The Grenade hasn’t outperformed any top name brand I’ve hit against, stock vs stock drivers.


MyGolf Spy August 31, 2016 at 12:58 pm

Tuan Vu – Read the article it literally shows you ALL the data.


JohnnyNight September 18, 2016 at 11:48 am

Hi All,

Think many are waiting for 917 results to a decision…

When do you think that would be available..



Kipp Au August 30, 2016 at 11:40 pm

I bet the Grenade by Bombtech Golf can out perform it, do a comparison test!


MyGolf Spy August 31, 2016 at 12:43 am

We already did they performed below average.


Jamie Cull August 30, 2016 at 10:22 pm

What’s good for one may not be good for another. I tried 10 of these and the cobra king LTD worked for me.


Carlos de Barros August 30, 2016 at 10:02 pm

I’ve been using the Big Bertha DBD for 1 1/2 I would have to be dead before someone could ever pull it out of my bag.. Recorded 4 wins – I also found the Chrome soft for me to be as good as the pro v…. Good info thanks …


Keith Parris August 30, 2016 at 9:50 pm

M1 is the by far the best driver out.


Keith Parris August 31, 2016 at 12:46 pm

LOL. I understand that. The stock shaft that comes in it isn’t good at all. I immediately put a high end shaft in mine and it’s amazing.


Isaac Castillo August 30, 2016 at 9:39 pm

And why is there no Tour Edge Drivers?


MyGolf Spy August 31, 2016 at 12:51 am

They declined to participate this year. Somewhat surprising seeing as well as their driver did in out 2015 test.


Marty Kivelehan August 30, 2016 at 9:28 pm

Aye that thing u have is lethal


Miguel Dabu August 30, 2016 at 9:12 pm

i bought an m1 because of the test. I cannot the the shit out of it lol went back to my 915. But last year the driver of the year, Fly z did work fine for me, but not the M1. :(


Joe Gendron August 30, 2016 at 9:14 pm

I demo’d the M1 and M2 and didn’t like the feel of them. Ended up in the Bridgestone JGR.


Miguel Dabu August 30, 2016 at 9:16 pm

Joe Gendron yeah I demoed the m2 too. Felt cheap imo. Might work for others but surely not for my sh*t golf swing. 😅


MyGolf Spy August 30, 2016 at 9:22 pm

Many of our testers in subjective feedback mentioned not liking feel. That being said the performance when we calculated the data proved to be their #1 driver. Often times a golfer thinks that feel equates to performance. They will also often times choose feel over performance. Unfortunate, but a reality for sure.


Miguel Dabu August 30, 2016 at 9:28 pm

nice i got a reply from MGS! Don’t get me
wrong I love what you guys do, it was just not a good fit for me. Too bad because I love white and black.


Joe Gendron August 30, 2016 at 9:40 pm

Performance was less in terms of distance. M1 and M2 were 2-5 yards longer than the JGR but the JGR had a better dispersion. So if I can give up minimal distance for better control and a placebo feel I will. I’m not hating on the M1 or M2, both were very nice swinging clubs I just preferred the feel and accuracy of the JGR to the M family. The price point was nice as well.


Joseph Gabriel August 30, 2016 at 11:06 pm

Was your M1 stock from TM they have a horrid habit of tipping ALL shafts 1″ & ruining their characteristics.

A M1 properly fitted & Tipped is the beat driver on the market in 2016z

A M1 stock from TM not so much unless you swing 115.


jb August 30, 2016 at 3:13 pm

I’d love to know what the clubhead speed was for all these tests along with the smash factor. That would be a good thing to know because something with a lower smash factor would have a huge impact vs something with a higher smash factor. In other words, the higher the smash factor, the easier it should be to contact the ball dead center. That is how I see it anyways.


Sam August 30, 2016 at 8:23 pm

Smash factor is Ball speed/club head speed and is effectively capped due to COR restrictions on drivers. This means that a center strike two drivers should produce almost identical ball speeds if they are both at the COR limit…..it doesn’t really help you find the center of the clubface any easier. A higher smash factor average across 30 balls might indicate that ball speeds are higher for your particular strike point distribution on that club but it doesn’t mean anything though since distance is also influenced by launch angle and spin. Looking at average distance combined with total area of shot distribution is probably the most effective way to compare clubs and shaft combinations.


Justin August 1, 2016 at 12:28 pm

I’ve heard nothing but amazing things about the M1.


JB August 30, 2016 at 3:03 pm

Maybe with the Adila shaft. I’ve spent a few hours testing an M1 with several different shafts and wasn’t impressed enough to walk away from my R15. The distance is basically the same. It may feel better, but I’m an objective golfer and ignore the feel factor and consider performance stats over feel. From a performance stand point I saw no different in carry, distance, averages, offline, etc over my R15.

The Adila shaft is awesome though. I wanted the shaft more than anything. I have the Speeder 757 TS currently and it was on-par with it easy.


James Shepard June 29, 2016 at 11:46 am

I’m interested in more specifics about the data. Did the testers only take about 20 swings with each club, or more or less? If some took more to get 10 to 12 good results with certain drivers then this would matter. Total swings per club could show a problem with getting good results with that club. Also, counting only top three swings for distance is miss leading. We use a driver 14 times on average course, tell us what average distance was for all swings. Same for accuracy. Also show results for swing speeds. Not complaining, love your work.


Oiler3535 June 18, 2016 at 11:51 am

Always one of my must reads of the year. Looks great. Wish I could stand the white crown. I know it’s only half white now, but still. Gotta go google how hard it is to paint the crown. As I say each year, I would love 3 categories for SS instead of just over/under 100. But that’s just being selfish. I’m right around the 100 mark, so makes it hard to differentiate. Would love 105. Likely need more testers then. Still love my Covert Tour 2.0, but always wanting better!


Bill June 17, 2016 at 6:58 pm

Was fortunate to have demo days from both Taylormade and Callaway at my club this week so I got to hit the Big Bertha Alpha, M1 and M2…
Big Bertha Alpha was the best, M2 and then M1 taking both distance and accuracy into consideration. The 45.5 inch shafts threw me off at first. I use a 44.5 and my club was fitted (Tom Wishon) and while not quite as long as the brand names I hit MANY more fairways with the shorter shaft.
I think with a 44.5 inch in the Callaway I could have the best of both worlds but still happy with my Wishon It’s only a few yards shorter and I’ll take fairways over yards anyday.


Bill July 7, 2016 at 4:25 pm

Wanted to update my observations…was visiting a club in Vegas and used their loaner set of M2 irons, M2 driver and Daytona putter.
All were regular shafts and I play stiffs at 2 degrees upright. That said, I was really impressed with the M2 driver. Probably due to the shaft as much as anything, it felt a tiny bit mushy. Distance was maybe a little shorter but comparable to my regular driver…But as the day wore on I realized I was consistently in the fairway. I had to slow my tempo a bit to accommodate the regular shafts but at the end of the day I had only one mishit (operator error). The M2 irons were forgiving but I’m used to playing forged cavity backs and blades in the short irons so hard to compare. But I scored better than I would have expected. Set to my specs, I think I’d enjoy playing these on a regular basis.


jb August 30, 2016 at 3:08 pm

My first impression is anything that is custom fit will preform better hands down compared to any demo. The reason why is the custom fit is built for you based on your swing, where a demo is not.

The length however; is always interesting. I would be curious to know how the length alone would influence everything. This of course would require a demo with the same exact shaft in 45.5″ and 44.5″. I personally use a 43.5″ shaft, and I used impact tape to measure the difference between a 45.5″ and 43.5″. Same shaft and head just different lengths. The 43.5″ was far more accurate and didn’t lose much distance.


Robert June 17, 2016 at 2:28 pm

I’d be curious to see where the Sub Zero would fit on this list. With the way the lower CG drivers seem to be performing best, it would make sense that it would be up there, although the forward part of the CG may only make it good in the distance department.


Benzino Wells June 17, 2016 at 12:19 pm

Solid review. Cobra f6+. Is in my bag. Great driver.


Jonathan Almeida June 17, 2016 at 1:48 am

I would love to see the full specs of the drivers used. I fit for a living and with the 7 stock shafts offered in the Titleist D2 to show a spin rate of over 3,000 is pretty misleading and irresponsible. With a ball speed of 141.8, and I’ll give you the credit of the PGA Tour average of 1.48 smash factor, this means the club head speed is somewhere around 95.7 MPH. If you put them in a 60 gram Diamana Red, even if it’s stiff flex, of course the spin rate will be above optimal. On the flip side if you put them in the 67 gram rogue silver 70 stiff (also stock) there spin rates will probably be in the 1800’s below optimal. Give these people a complete fit, find the best fitted stock shaft in every driver, and then run the tests. Then I might put some kind of trust in your “independent testing.” Unfortunately until you do this, your tests are extremely misleading, and a contribution to everything that is bad with the equipment business right now. And, adds to the difficulty, and confusion amateurs have when buying new equipment.


Rodney L. Rodriquez June 16, 2016 at 8:28 pm



John Porter June 16, 2016 at 6:19 pm

I definitely agree. All that data surely isn’t a bad thing! Kudos on your testing. This is the first TM driver I have ever been impressed with.


Rene Norton June 16, 2016 at 12:31 pm

Were there any women golfers in the test group?


Tom June 17, 2016 at 9:38 pm

Probably all in the kitchen.


MyGolf Spy June 16, 2016 at 3:47 pm

I guess two points…

Firstly – The overwhelming majority of golfers aren’t going to get properly/fully (choose your adjective) fitted for the entire bag. This includes many ‘serious’ golfers (club champions (men’s, women’s, senior men, senior women) at my course for at least 5 years running haven’t been fitted. Serious…not serious the tremendous majority still does not get fitted.

Secondly – While it’s not immediately obvious to the reader, these tests have tremendous value from an educational standpoint. We learn…lots…every year, and a good bit of what the data shows flies in the face of convention. We’re finding that many of the things that have been repeated time and time again that have little basis in reality. Ultimately this leads to better consumer education on a broader scale.

With that said…no BS…if you’re going to make the time investment and the financial investment to get properly fitted, and your budget puts basically anything (all shafts) on the table, well yea, no shit, right…other than a bit of good fun and perhaps a quick look at the data, what do you really need our test (or anybody else’s) for? You and the fitter should sort it out between the two of you. So If you’re going to get fitted (and 90% aren’t), then yeah…it’s absolutely less applicable for you on a personal level, but again, as much as you should be, you are anything but the majority- TC


MyGolf Spy June 16, 2016 at 3:39 pm

Not sure about your shop, or all of Tennessee for that matter, but within the entirety of the US, TaylorMade M series is the top selling driver on the market right now.


MyGolf Spy June 16, 2016 at 3:38 pm

Justin Blair Love the last bit of advice. Golf, or life in general, I think a good many of us would be better off spending our hard-earned money on experiences instead of things. Never mind a little, live a lot. – TC


David Price June 16, 2016 at 2:29 pm

Ping, all day long.


Justin Blair June 16, 2016 at 2:26 pm

That might be true, but when I talk to most people about getting fitted, their eyes immediately glaze over.

They see the commercials, grab the one with the most memorable ad, then continue to underperform. Next model year, they repeat the process.

Golf magazine used to do tests similar to this. It’s a tool, similar to MGS’s, for golfers like I described, not for serious golfers who know the value of being fitted.


Justin Blair June 16, 2016 at 2:20 pm

It’s a “test”, nothing less, nothing more. There’s a lot of info to help people, but it’s always going to be a “YMMV” thing.

Take it for what it is. If a club on the test piques your interest, give it a look. If none do, skip this year and use the $$$ for something else, like a nice gift for the significant other or a golf getaway.


Justin Blair June 16, 2016 at 2:15 pm

In my experiences, there isn’t such a thing as “low” and “high” handicap irons, either. I know three people that game blades, when “conventional wisdom” would suggest they shouldn’t.
It’s a matter of “so, what?”. The golfer is also a customer, and they have to be happy. Forcing a type of club they don’t want isn’t a way to accomplish that.

The point of a fitting is to find specs that allow the (paying) customer to find the “sweet spot” as much as their ability allows, with what they consider an acceptable trade-off between distance and accuracy. So what if they want blades, or a “pro” model driver? Golf clubs aren’t maguc wands, able to overcompensate for poor mechanics.

Ask yourself, Sasa: has Nike ever offered Tiger’s driver? He and Anthony Kim gamed 380cc drivers. Stewart Cink, while with Nike, used a One Tour D ball with a One Tour cover. As Tom Wishon says, the clubs sold in stores are as close to “pro” versions as our cars in the driveway are to NASCAR machines.


Gordon June 15, 2016 at 3:20 pm

Great Job on the testing guys.

Thank you, Sincerely for all the time, effort and energy everyone put in for this.

I am surprised the Cobra LTD was as far down the list as it is, especially since the head to head with the M1 was very close.
As someone who is currently playing the LTD, I have no complaints about it, and it works great for me.
Anyway, great job, and thank you.


Michael Woods June 15, 2016 at 5:43 pm

Hahaha freaking know it all that feel they can do it better. It’s easy when you are the only data that you’re worried about. If you’re sad or upset that your driver sucks that is too bad. These guys work hard for data. It’s not set in stone that the #1 driver will be your #1 driver. But I do like to read about the differences.


Kevin June 15, 2016 at 1:42 pm

There’s just so much Human error involved , that this whole test is really useless, First Iam pretty sure Testers get tired after a certain amount of balls hit, Fatigue isn’t gonna give u the results you’d otherwise have, 2nd, If the Tester knows hes hitting an M1 over say a Wilson Driver, Iam gonna say he’s gonna swing more confidently and really give a go, if he knows what he is hitting its gonna effect his swing…..no doubt. Also, I just don’t understand why this wouldn’t be done with a Robot, then it would be unbiased, NO where do I see any rankings for Feel or Sound,, which would benefit a human tester, therefore if it’s based on Distance & Accuracy there’s no reason to use anything other then a Robot, Test the drivers using 80 up to 120 swing speeds, test on Heel strikes and toe strikes….Test on Low hits and High Hits, Test on Open/Closed club face , test on Swing Path …test on everything that involves a golf swing ….When u do a comprehensive test that factors all the variables that effect The way the ball comes off the face and how the club would benefit us all as golfers….Then it would be a Real Most wanted Driver test , otherwise ur just wasting Space, Time and most importantly Money.


Tony Covey June 15, 2016 at 2:45 pm

We’ve covered the robot stuff ad nauseum. Robots are excellent design tools…not great for performance testing. That’s based on feedback from R&D guys at multiple OEMs, independents like Tom Wishon, and Dick De La Cruz, the guy who basically invented the golf robot. It’s the wrong way to test – and everyone we’ve spoken to who tests clubs for a living, or actually knows anything about club testing is in agreement. It’d note that golf companies rely much more heavily on human testing than robot testing to gauge actual performance. I’d also point out that Edwin Watts tried a robot test a few years ago. The top finishers on the robot didn’t hold up when actual humans hit them.

As you say, there are many variables, so with a robot, which variables do you choose? What’s the right club head speed? What’s the right impact point (worth a mention, guys who tell us to use robots generally have no idea how long it takes to precisely configure a robot to a particular impact position)? What’s the proper angle of attack, swing path, etc.. Yes, with humans we encounter a multitude of variables, and so we’re able to get a good idea of average results and still drill down to help a guy find a club based on the specifics of his particular swing.

Regarding fatigue…NON-ISSUE. It takes over 120 hours, multiple sessions with each tester, with the average session being roughly 65 balls – in a single day. Compare that to our competitors who perform a full test in a single day.

Feel and sound are irrelevant. Performance is the only thing that matters. We don’t publish subjective stuff, but our testers certainly give us plenty of feedback. I’d note that two of the clubs that most didn’t particularly love on the sound/feel front – the F6+ and the M1 – were two of our top performers. Golfers believe these things impact how they club performs for them, but year after year the data shows near zero correlation.

Finally, regarding the influence of brand recognition…in a perfect world we could obfuscate all details. That said, it’s very difficult to intentionally hit one club better than another because you happen to like it. If anything, golfers tend to be more aggressive with clubs they like, but with the volume of clubs we test, along with the way we rotate clubs helps to mitigate that as much as possible.

As for ‘useless’, well, I suppose that’s an opinion, but thankfully not one the majority share with you. Testing clubs is difficult. We learn something new every year, get better every year, but there are no shortcuts. That said, if you believe you can do a better job, I say go for it. Anything that helps the consumer is good by us.


John Pelfrey June 15, 2016 at 3:32 pm

Michael, check out all the theoretical physicists complaining about an insane amount of free testing data provided to them?


Michael Woods June 15, 2016 at 3:33 pm

Bro they know more than anyone else.


Leon June 15, 2016 at 9:32 am

Great work! Really awesome test to provide some insights of how the drivers with off the rack shafts perform. I saw some comments arguing, debating, or even fighting to approve that certain brand is better than other brands, and trying to prove that his favorite brand has a holy grail driver which hits the most fairways with the long drive player’s distance. Wake up, pals.

All the driver heads have been reached the USGA limits. So basically, there is no room for more distance and forgiveness. It is more like which side you would like to emphasis. The longer distance, the less spin, the more forward CG, and then the less forgiveness. On the other hand, you ask for more forgiveness, then you have to sacrifice the distance a bit with more spin and rear CG. Whether you like it or not, that’s the physics.

So the best performing driver is the driver that fits your game with a proper fitted shaft. I bet 90% of the people who posted his comment never had a professional fitting (don’t call the trip to golf smith or other retail store a fitting, the stock shafts of a certain brand are just too limited to be called as options). And if you keep educating yourself of all the club design facets, you won’t be fooled by all the marketing BS to tell you that the new is better. All the drivers are solid gamer, it really just comes down where you want to put the balance point of distance and forgiveness, your personal preference of the look, sound and feel, and subconscious loyalty to a certain brand.


Bill June 15, 2016 at 1:55 am

I see lots of negative comments focusing on lack of proper fitting for each user. To these folks, the testing is tainted, which is understandable but misses the point. These tests compare off the rack drivers and tells us quite a bit about each club. Truly, all the clubs here are within a few yards of each other in most indicies. Shaft makes a huge difference and the movement to let people choose their shaft with no upcharge is a step in the right direction. With 20 golfers, you can get good general information about different types of golfers and see trends towards the better performers.
At the end of the day, getting fitted IS the best way to go with a driver. MOST stock shafts are too long for most people. Personally, I play a shorter, but heavier shaft so I can feel the clubhead which helps me with proper tempo and hense, more fairways. Others like raw distance and have more repeatable swings so their needs are going to be different. I really enjoy the testing here. It’s not meant to be the final word but it’s a great, standardized system that can help your purchase.


KC June 15, 2016 at 1:46 am

It would be useful if the analysis for the best driver for swing speed is divided in a smaller range.

For example:

Best driver for 85-90mph, 90-95mph, 95-100mph, etc.


gphin305 June 16, 2016 at 10:21 am

I’m not sure club head has anything to do with swing speed. I’ve always been under the impression it’s more about correct shaft flex relating to swing speed.


Cathy Allys October 3, 2016 at 3:21 am

club head will do anything to improve swing speed of the golf especially if your a beginner he will help you on how the proper body position of playing golf and how will you hit the ball easily


Troy Vayanos June 14, 2016 at 5:35 pm

Thanks for the test, awesome work.

My problem with the TaylorMade and Callaway is even though they are great clubs they are still priced out of the average person’s wage. I recently bought a Cobra which is a great club in itself with performance but it more reasonable priced.



gphin305 June 16, 2016 at 10:24 am

Ditto. Even though I’ve played Callaway and TM in the past……just bought a new Cobra FlyZ + driver (last years MGS most wanted) for far less than a comparable TM or Callaway model….great driver.


Jamie June 14, 2016 at 4:49 pm

Can anyone from MGS staff explain again what is meant by shot area (meters squared)?


Ken June 14, 2016 at 4:16 pm

Please show results for the 80-90 swing speed as a group as you did in previous reports.


Sschaffer24 June 14, 2016 at 4:15 pm

So, I’m loving the results and the #datacritic attitude like always, but I’m curious where the PXG 0811 is on the data? It’s not showing in the table.


James June 15, 2016 at 2:48 am

That’s because it wasn’t tested.


KC June 14, 2016 at 3:53 pm

Thanks for the fantastic review.

Looking forward to doing deeper dive once the complete raw data is released.

You have really convinced me the “unbiased” part of your reviews.

TM has declined to participate this year, and you guys bought TM drivers out of your own pocket and awarded 2 of the Top 5 drivers to TM. I remember Cally declined to participate in previous years and Cally was also awarded.


James T. June 14, 2016 at 4:18 pm

TM only declined because they’re cheap. They knew that eventually MGS would “buy” a couple of their drivers. Why give something away when you can sell it? :)


stevie c June 14, 2016 at 3:33 pm

These ‘most wanted’ tests are fun…and a fantastic promotional idea. The big bonus is you get some data to boot.

Aside from that, getting the right driver in your hand is part science, psychology and trial and error. Even fittings by experienced ‘fitters’ with the latest technology is flawed, and at best a snapshot in time for the ‘fit-ee’.

It’s not surprising to see so many clubs within a few yards of each other–honestly, you can’t go wrong with most of these clubs and if you can afford to try different shafts with these clubs…well, you’re way ahead of the game.

Oddly enough, if we redirected all the time & energy spent reading research, articles, how-to’s, videos, reviews, watching golf and prepping for golf and did 15-20 minutes a day doing yoga (yes yoga) you would gain club head speed, flexibility, balance and improved athleticism.

Just saying, the most wanted ‘thing’ to improve your game might be something much older than the latest CG advancement in a new state-of-the-art compound driver head. oommmm.


Brad Kindred June 14, 2016 at 6:59 pm

See the problem is you’re saying that drivers are made specifically for low or high handicappers in the same way the irons are, and they’re not. Everyone knows the bladed irons are for lower handicappers and game improvement for the higher handicappers. But drivers aren’t made the same way. And the fact that you used an irons argument when talking about drivers confirms you have absolutely no clue of what you’re talking about.


Steven C June 14, 2016 at 2:26 pm

Thanks for another great test. I am glad that you went with the strokes gained.


Brad Smith June 14, 2016 at 1:47 pm

I think the most valuable data for individual readers will be the test results for those with their approx swing speed. Looking forward to that. It could happen, but I’d be surprised if the best for 110 – 120 is the same as for 80 – 90.


Sasa Nemanic Sedmi Profil June 14, 2016 at 5:44 pm

MyGolf Spy Seriously!?!?!?
And who mentioned exclusivity??
Why don’t we all play blades than… oh right, irons ARE different category and there are clubs for “low” and “high” hcp golfers… Clubs are made differently for a reason which is why some of them fit “low hcp golfers” better and some fit “high hcp golfers” better and if you are denying this than I am sure people will start to believe that everything on your site is a lie!
You said it yourself that people do not hit the club the same way that is why clubs (YES, DRIVERS TOO) are made differently! If Spieth would hit lets say G30 Max 6 iron the way he does hit his own clubs than he would hook it of the golf course to a different State the same way some 30-hcp golfer would slice Spieth’s 6 iron to the moon.


Don June 15, 2016 at 1:00 am

Your arguments sound nonsensical and you come across as someone just trolling this site.


James June 15, 2016 at 3:21 am

I actually think a 30-hdcp player would slice even a ping g30 max iron.

And I’m pretty certain spieth can hit any irons well. He’s a major winning pro after

Annnd, serious question. What constitutes a driver to be a high handicapper’s driver? Does it make balls go higher and straighter? Name some examples please.



Andrew June 15, 2016 at 5:50 pm

It wasn’t in this test, but I can tell you that the Adams Blue driver is a fantastic option for a high handicapper. Goes high, straight, and long… Not a good fit for me, though.


Brad Smith June 14, 2016 at 1:43 pm

I believe you said yesterday that you had R and S shafts in all the clubs. How did you decide which shaft’s data to use for each tester? Their stated preference without hitting them? After hitting a few and then they chose? Based on their swing speed? After hitting both, looking at data and then using the “best”?


Andrew Purvis June 14, 2016 at 5:39 pm

The cobra offers better value for money


Matt Heister June 15, 2016 at 5:50 pm

Which one of the 4?


Andrew Purvis June 15, 2016 at 5:55 pm

I got the f6+ and it was over £100 cheaper than Taylor made and I love Taylor made had them for years the f6 performed better and the bonus of being cheaper


Reynold Brown June 17, 2016 at 8:23 am

I have the LTD pro and it’s got crazy low spin. Lower than the f6 so idk why this test has the f6 about 100 rpm lower. I play a Fubuki k 60 x flex and it’s a bomber. Like a knuckle ball that just stays in the air for days. My spin rates with it have been 1900-2300 rpm


Andy G June 14, 2016 at 1:22 pm

I love the testing and the approach. I personally focus more on ball speed than some other numbers. I can figure out the right loft and shaft to then get the most of this indication for me as compared to an average player. I will definitely read the posts over the next few days. Keep up the tremendous work.


MyGolf Spy June 14, 2016 at 5:18 pm

Sasa Nemanic Sedmi Profil As a fitter I would think you would know that there’s no such thing as a low handicap driver vs. a high handicap driver. Sure, we can talk about MOI and offset on the dwindling few drivers that have it, but ultimately it comes down to impact – and while better players may be more consistent in how they regularly deliver the club, there’s not a whole lot of correlation between handicap and how the club is delivered. Some guys swing up, some swing down. Some high handicap golfers swing 120 MPH, some low handicap golfers only swing 80. Some guys hit the ball low on the face, some hit it high on the face. To say a driver is exclusively for low handicap golfers, is respectfully, nonsense. There are several variables that play a much more significant role in fitting than handicap.


James June 14, 2016 at 1:18 pm

Very surprised at how poorly the cobra king ltd performed.

For clarification, the pro model was not used correct? If so, what were the reasons? I know the heads are pretty much the same (current owner of the Ltd pro), but I do know the loft and lie angles are different. So I’m curious to know your reasoning.


Uhit June 14, 2016 at 4:09 pm

You can check the side by side test between the M1 vs LTD on mygolfspy,
they performed almost identical.

You can also read, what GolfWRX wrote…
…where both the LTD and LTD Pro were tested and the LTD Pro was rated considerably higher than the LTD, and spun the least of all tested driver.

I have a M1 430 and a LTD Pro, because both have unique features, which I like.

The final performance is depending on the fitting…
…and in those general tests, the driver were not fitted to each and every tester.

According to my experience, the M1 is the driver which should suit the most,
because of the adjustability…
…which works great, if your wrists are loose enough… 😉


James June 15, 2016 at 2:45 am

Thanks for the response. I tested out the m1 and the Ltd pro a lot during fitting and found the results to be exactly what you stated. In the end the feel of the Ltd pro won be over, and the lower loft options.

MW tests are fun. Cheers to all who worked hard on this.


Uhit June 15, 2016 at 3:31 am

The feel helps a lot to find a good golf swing…
…that is why I love my Mizuno long irons and my Cobra drivers.

However, the M1 8.5 can be adjusted to 6.5 degree and the LTD Pro to 7.0 degree Loft…
…so, no lower loft options with the Cobra than with the M1…

If you measure the actual loft, you get almost the same loft with those driver in the lowest setting (~6.5 deg).


Regis June 14, 2016 at 1:17 pm

I believe that the M1 is the best driver I’ve ever played and I’ve played most of them. But most of my gamers were almost immediately re-shafted shortly after purchase. The thing that these tests seldom emphasize (and it should) are the standard stock shaft options available. For years Titleist always distinguished itself in this regard and it still does. But now TMAG is following suit. Go to the various manufacturers websites (Ping, Cobra etc.) and check out their no upcharge shaft options. Now go to TMAG. The shaft options they have for the M1 and M2 without an upcharge are extraordinary and this is what I feel justifies the premium price tag (This is also where Titleist distinguished themselves for years) Certain manufacturers have a head that I’m interested in but I know their stock shaft is not going to fit my game. When I ordered my M1 I went with a Matrix White Tie in a weight and flex that I knew fit my game because I’ve gamed it before. With Cobra that would have been $180 upcharge.


MyGolf Spy June 14, 2016 at 5:15 pm

Donovan Childers We’re just getting started. There’s more data to come. We absolutely agree, there isn’t one best driver for everyone, so we’re working on tools that will help individuals find the best driver from them.

I’m going to leave you with what may sound like a radical statement. I’ll provide clarity when we publish the full package, but here goes… The individual tester is inconsequential.


Sasa Nemanic Sedmi Profil June 14, 2016 at 5:11 pm

The average male golfer has a handicap of 16.1, while the average female has a handicap of 28.9, which makes your (and probably most other tests) irrelevant for vast majority of players… And if all bogey players would play either M1, F6+ or Alpha 816DBD stock drivers I am sure they would never brake 90…


Uhit June 14, 2016 at 5:29 pm

To brake 90 you don’t need a driver, if your irons are long enough…
…if one can not hit a driver in the right direction to avoid penalties, one can substitute the driver with a 3 wood, or 5 wood…
…or adjust the driver loft in a way that it offers enough forgiveness for your game.

However, if I use more than 10 degree of loft, it gets boring…

The average male golfer with a considerably lower handicap than the average female golfer, is probably using driver with a lower loft than the average female player…

…should the average female player player use a loft like LPGA Pros, or average male player, to lower their score? 😉

Sorry, but I see no correlation in the things you mentioned.


Uhit June 14, 2016 at 5:33 pm

@ Sasa Nemanic Sedmi Profil

To brake 90 you don’t need a driver, if your irons are long enough…
…if one can not hit a driver in the right direction to avoid penalties, one can substitute the driver with a 3 wood, or 5 wood…
…or adjust the driver loft in a way that it offers enough forgiveness for your game.

However, if I use more than 10 degree of loft, it gets boring…

The average male golfer with a considerably lower handicap than the average female golfer, is probably using driver with a lower loft than the average female player…

…should the average female player use a loft like LPGA Pros, or average male player, to lower their score? 😉

Sorry, but I see no correlation in the things you mentioned.


Brian Jay Murra June 14, 2016 at 5:09 pm

Much rather prefer 20 scratch golfers with high swing speeds give each driver a rip with “upgraded” stock shafts (if available) like Nike’s Blue Board over the Tensi or Ping’s Tour shaft over the stock. Then see how the top 5 shuffles and plays out.


Kenny B June 14, 2016 at 5:49 pm

I wouldn’t, and neither would the other 99% of the golfers


Eron June 14, 2016 at 1:08 pm

I can attest to the Taylormade M1 and M2 being absolute beasts. Though the cobra f6+ has given me a selection headache vs the Taylormade M2. Great make over of the test protocol and graphics!


Donovan Childers June 14, 2016 at 4:56 pm

The point is you need to give more individual info on each tester, and let each reader draw their own conclusion. Maybe you will later on. There just isn’t one best driver for everybody, you still need to be fitted. Overall the numbers are just about the same for both sites test.


Kenny B June 14, 2016 at 12:47 pm

Will this mean that TaylorMade will be returning calls, emails, etc. now?


Dan June 14, 2016 at 12:20 pm

As much as these tests are unbiased to me they are flawed. They don’t take into account the drive head /loft/shaft combination for each individual.
.I had a fitting done at MG and went through about 20 different combos. Before I started the fitting I had a bias towards Taylormade and a bias against Callaway The last combo stood out from the rest. The big Bertha 9. 5 loft with Rogue shaft. The worst of the bunch was the Ping G . Don’t just take these results as gospel you maybe disappointed go get fitted that is the number one drive for you.


Roberta Jane Upton June 14, 2016 at 4:14 pm

Thats rubbish scoring? The M1 isnt as accurate as the Ping but hits it further? So not as good then surely?


Andrew Purvis June 14, 2016 at 5:43 pm

Distance is much more important than accuracy


Thomas Watters June 15, 2016 at 10:27 am

Distance is more important than accuracy??? I’d rather hit the ball 275 to 280 off the tee and either be in the fairway or first cut than hit the ball 310 and be 30 yards off line and in the woods. It’s hard to make birdies and pars when you’re OB, taking an unplayable, or trying to hit through or around trees. You typically gain more strokes by being more accurate. Great job by the MyGolfSpy staff on giving unbiased information through extensive testing. #thestraightskinny


Cathy Allys October 3, 2016 at 3:17 am

golf club is most considered in playing golf rather than anything especially if golf is not really your profession it is important for the beginners to know the playing field. If your not a professional player you cannot estimate were the ball will hit so its important to consider the playing field.


Uhit June 14, 2016 at 4:28 pm

The M1 460 (truAccuracy 92,8) is more accurate than the Ping G (truAccuracy 92,4) and hits further…

…according to the weighting they used in this test (which is comparatively well thought).

If you also consider, that the additional adjustability of the M1 wasn’t used, one can assume, that the M1 is even better, than it seems within this test.


Roberta Jane Upton June 15, 2016 at 5:45 pm

Of course, 15 yards further into the rough is way better!


Matt Heister June 15, 2016 at 5:53 pm

Roberta Jane Upton all depends on what the player is looking for. The G is very good. It’s a fairway finder, it’s forgiving…

The M1 is long.
M2 is long and more accurate like the G. Rear CG. Easier up. Etc. less club face turning on off center hits..

So …this shows you should hit a few drivers and see what you like best. Every OEM is making a solid product. It seems in most tests the m1 is performing best.


Matty June 14, 2016 at 12:13 pm

It seems that this year’s Taylormade drivers are the real deal considering the marketing that goes into them.The fact that they are one of the most accurate drivers in this test is incredible considering that their predecessors (SLDR, R15, etc.) were not as accurate of the tee. Taylormade should just follow a 1 1/2 year cycle like Ping.


Kerry Cole June 14, 2016 at 12:07 pm

Great work as usual


Double Mocha Man June 14, 2016 at 11:45 am

Tony… try as I might, reading every page and every link, I cannot find the definition of Shot Area (meters sq.). Can you illuminate me?


Tony Covey June 14, 2016 at 12:34 pm

Shot area is the area of 90% confidence ellipse with the center point being the average distance and yards offline. We calculate the shot area for each driver for each tester and then take the average.


TwoSolitudes June 14, 2016 at 11:38 am

Great work! Will you have the over/under 100mph ss break down? I always found that very valuable.


Al D. June 14, 2016 at 11:34 am

I would like to see your data broken down by swing speed groups (10 mph groups) of your testers.


Paul June 14, 2016 at 11:20 am

Must be very outdated testing data to not have results on the Nike Vapor Fly. Or it’s results were so far above others it would have displeased advertising partners of mygolfspy so much to see Nike at the top it has to wait till next year to be included with the other updated competitors models. Was the same shaft used for all the testing too, if it wasn’t this data is irrelevant.


Tony Covey June 14, 2016 at 12:40 pm

The Vapor Fly was part of the test. The reality is that given Nike’s current CG locations its highly unlikely their drivers will be top performers for the majority of golfers. Also, given that we don’t accept advertising dollars from any manufacturer in this test, I’m not exactly sure who you think we would have displeased.


David Ciccoritti June 14, 2016 at 4:20 pm

I don’t understand. If the Nike Vapor Fly was part of the test, where are the results? And why is the Nike Vapor Speed part of 2016 when it was in the 2015 test?


Tony Covey June 15, 2016 at 7:45 am

We had the Vapor mislabeled on the chart with last year’s name. We’ve updated the name…data, of course, unchanged.


Ryan C June 14, 2016 at 11:17 am

First off, thanks for all the hard work. Looking forward to what comes out of your new Lab.

I see from the comments in the article yesterday you used off-the-track shafts. What about lofts? It would be interesting to see which was used for each particular driver.

Thank you again.


ryebread June 14, 2016 at 11:16 am

Agreed with golfercraig! Thanks for the work to deliver this to us. I think this is the best analysis out there right now.

Will you be doing FWs this year? It seems like that’s an every other year thing…..


Ben Kruizenga June 14, 2016 at 3:15 pm

Only thing I’d like to see is what shafts were in each club because that can make a huge impact on ball flight but
This test was great thank you for your time and efforts in putting this test together


Sasa Nemanic Sedmi Profil June 14, 2016 at 3:14 pm

I own a golf business and I sell all six best rated drivers from 4 different brands and I do know something about golf equipment… Unless this test was preformed by scratch players for scratch players, please kindly explain how the f-word can the top 3 drivers be the best drivers for an amateur golfer as they were clearly made for single handicap players!?


Sasa Nemanic Sedmi Profil June 14, 2016 at 5:11 pm

The average male golfer has a handicap of 16.1, while the average female has a handicap of 28.9, which makes your (and most other tests) irrelevant for vast majority of players… And if all bogey players would play either M1, F6+ or Alpha 816DBD stock drivers I am sure they would never brake 90…


Brad Kindred June 14, 2016 at 5:31 pm

I understand how irons can be specialized for people with certain handicaps, but I’ve never heard that with drivers. How can drivers be more suited for low handicappers and hinder high handicappers? Not arguing, I really don’t know lol


Sasa Nemanic Sedmi Profil June 14, 2016 at 5:36 pm

Lets start with the shafts first, than lets say draw or fade bias, shall I continue…!?


Andrew Purvis June 14, 2016 at 5:42 pm

A high handicap could adjust it to fit them more loft etc


Ethienne Bohdoin June 14, 2016 at 6:00 pm

Well i wouldn’t go to your store for advice… lol


Brad Kindred June 14, 2016 at 6:05 pm

yes continue. But focus on what you stated before. Why would these drivers make a bogey golfer play worse?


Jak Lee June 14, 2016 at 11:45 pm

Clubs aren’t designed for specified designated handicap groups…


NobleStone June 14, 2016 at 11:13 am

Amazed the Titliest 915 d2 was the shortest club on test.

Possibly the shorter stock shaft is partially responsible for this but it seems to be spinning up a bit.

Very interested to see the results for slower swing speeds, we are told we need more spin, interested to see if that is actually the case.


mcavoy June 14, 2016 at 3:01 pm

I think you need to look at the data holistically. Yes the D2 may have shown to be the shortest, but it didn’t get killed IMO. But both Titleist drivers scored very well in the accuracy measurements: yds from center, tru accuracy and shot area. Generally I’m seeing a definite correlation between spin numbers and the scoring in the accuracy measurements. And for my game I’ll take accuracy over distance. I’m biased since I own the D2 but can attest to its accuracy and reliability. This is excellent data IMO and if you take the time to scrub it it can provide a lot of valuable information for someone considering a new driver.


Uhit June 14, 2016 at 4:58 pm

Less distance results automatically in higher accuracy (if the other parameters are the same).
Higher spin stabilizes the ball more, resulting also in higher accuracy (if there is no wind).

The D2 is loosing distance due to too high spin…
…low spin driver like the M1 430, or the King LTD Pro, may loose distance if the loft isn’t high enough to compensate the lower spin tendency for slow swing speed player…

…thus, a good golf clubfitter can give a low spin driver enough spin for a slow swing speed player…
…but not necessarily low enough spin, with a high spin driver, for a high swing speed player.

If all is said and done, you can fit a low spin driver to more people, than a high spin driver…

…both Titleist driver would probably spin too much for me, even with a low spin shaft…
…and if I would crank the loft down, to further reduce the spin, I would considerably lose forgiveness and accuracy.

With the low spin Cobra and TM offerings, I can add as much spin as I need and use different shafts with different spin characteristics without problems.


damianwa June 14, 2016 at 6:06 pm

Agree with mcavoy, I was initially surprised and disappointed to see that the 915D2 was the shortest in the group since it’s currently what I use. However, when looking at the data set as a whole, the 915D2 ranks just outside the top 5, at position 6, for Strokes Gained and has the best accuracy (Yards from Center, TruAccuracy, and Shot Area) out of all 28 drivers. If you get fit professionally, you can definitely drop that spin down and gain yards. I am also biased since I got fit at the Titleist Performance Center in Carlsbad, but don’t overlook the 915D2! I’ve had my longest and straightest drives come out of the 915D2. Great analysis though, improvement every year.


David J Rose June 14, 2016 at 11:08 am

I assume that these tests are valid for low handicap excellent golfers. I do not believe these results are useful for higher handicap golfers.
I would hope that tests like these could be applied to 80 mph head speed golfers.


MyGolfSpy June 14, 2016 at 11:11 am

We had an equal amount of testers for the following swing speeds:



iMike74 June 15, 2016 at 11:23 am

Would it be possible to get the rankings (including shots gained) for each specific swing speed group? I would expect that the strokes gained for lower swing speeds might be different from higher?


Kenny B June 14, 2016 at 11:04 am

A few yards difference in carry, total, and accuracy between all of them, as to be expected. For off the rack clubs it seems like it all comes down to what feels the best and looks the best, then maybe tweak the shaft for the best fit. That is an individual thing, and everyone is different. I tried the M1/M2 and didn’t much care for the looks and it was not a good fit for my swing. Still loving my Bridgestone JGR.


MyGolfSpy June 14, 2016 at 11:09 am

Over 7,500 swings this is true but what is most interesting is what you see for the individual testers. This is where you see the real value for consumers. Many times you will see the #21st ranked driver being ranked #1 for a specific golfer.

Also more often than not you see over 25 yards difference between the best and worst driver for the individual tester. That is significant.


Kenny B June 14, 2016 at 12:00 pm

That is why this test is a good starting point for consumers and why this unbiased testing is so valuable to us. As a relatively low swing speed player, I have found that certain drivers/shaft combos perform OK, while others feel bad. It only takes a few hits for me to tell if a driver is worth a few more hits. Many thanks for your hard work!


gunmetal June 14, 2016 at 12:01 pm

In other words…Fit AND strike determine everything here. Kudos to TM. They made a driver that for this test more people had success with off the rack. It certainly doesn’t mean that Adam Scott, Patrick Reed, Bubba Watson or the average joe is losing anything by not playing the M1 460. As long as you are properly fitted (a very loosely used term these days), most if not all of the drivers on that list will be absolutely fine provided you get on with look, sound, and feel.


Stephen Zinger June 14, 2016 at 3:00 pm

Nice work, guys


Uhit June 14, 2016 at 10:57 am

Thank you very much for the great work!

Curious as I am I want to ask, whether the Cobra F6+ and the Taylormade M1 430 / 460 driver were tested with the standard setting,
or whether testers personalized the settings prior to testing?

I found that especially the M1 430 is giving marvellous results with personalized settings…
…thus, if it was only tested within standard settings, it would probably give even better results with personalized settings.

Thank you again, and keep your standards high!


Justin June 14, 2016 at 10:56 am

I would have been genuinely surprised if anything had beaten the M1. Every time I hit it on a launch monitor I have to check to make sure the monitor is on all standard settings because I can’t believe how far it goes. It’s easily 20 yards longer than the next closest club for me… And that’s a huuuuuuge difference


Sen Lin June 14, 2016 at 2:55 pm

I would like thank #Mygolfspy and #rockbottomgolf for the sweepstakes win a while back. The winning club is the best driver I’ve ever had, this stat further solidifies my personal experience.


Alex June 14, 2016 at 10:36 am

Boom, like I said, I doubt any club can replace my M1’s starting position this year. Nice review!
Can’t wait for the deeper swingspeed analysis.


golfercraig June 14, 2016 at 9:51 am

Before the usual trolls hit the comments and ruin this, I just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to gather the info. Looking forward to taking a deeper dive.


Pete S June 14, 2016 at 11:11 am

Totally agree with this. Love that this site does this unbiased testing. Great job!


Leave a Comment