Buyer's Guides

MGS Tested: 2016 MOST WANTED MALLET PUTTER

BY MyGolfSpy
Jul 11th 2016
Read all comments

Support our Mission. We independently test each product we recommend. When you buy through our links, we may earn a commission.

INDEPENDENT & UNBIASED

MyGolfSpy accepts $0 advertising dollars from any of the major golf manufacturers. We believe in always putting #ConsumerFirst.

120

Hours
Researched

16.2m

Readers

9,000

Putts
Hit

31

Products
Considered

Test Results You Can Trust

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

We have updated our scoring metrics to leverage Mark Broadie’s Strokes Gained Methodologies.

We opened a new test facility and doubled the number of putters testers to 20. We putt 25 mallets to the test. As was the case last year, testing took over 120 hours to complete. In total more than 9,000 putts were recorded.

All testers used Bridgestone B330-RX golf balls. The natural stroke type of each tester was identified using the iPing Putting App.

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

If you are in the market for a new putter, this guide is for you.

How We Test

Testers are asked to play a series of holes with each putter. 18 holes total are played from three distances; 5, 10, and 20 feet (each) by each tester with each mallet in the test. The total number of putts required to finish each hole is recorded.

We’ve simplified our initial results and will now show results using our SG18 methodology. The graphics still reflect the original Strokes Gained number, however; the SG18 values can be seen in the chart below.

The SG18 value reflects the number of strokes (plus or minus) a given putter would be expected to contribute to your score over an 18 hole span, relative to the average for the field. For example, a putter with a SG value of .50 would be expected to save you half a stroke per 18 holes (or one stroke over 2 rounds) relative to the average putter in this field.

Here are the complete parameters of this year’s test:

Number of Testers: 20
Handicap Range: +3-20
Test Location: MyGolfSpy Testing Facility
Balls Used: Bridgestone B330-RX
Distances Assessed: Five, Ten, and Twenty Feet
Holes Completed at Each Distance: 6 (per tester/per putter)
Total Putts in Test: 9000

The Top 5 Mallets of 2016

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.

Our overall rankings are based on the Strokes Gained value, which is found in the last column.

For 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.

Support Unbiased Testing.

DID YOU KNOW: If only 1% of MyGolfSpy readers donated $25, we would be able to become completely independent in 12-months. With every donation, you create change.

Would you be willing to help by giving a donation? Every dollar will help. Make a donation to support our independent and expert golf equipment research. A PayPal account is not required in order to donate.

comments

Join The Discussion

Ronzo

8 years ago

Great info. It would be nice to know up front the companies who invited to participate in the test but declined. Ordered a new mallet from Odyssey last week after putting with the demo for a successful round. It finished mid pack in your test but is a nice improvement of distance control over my previous blade.

Uhit

Thank you for adding the SG18 values for better comparison with the blade putters.

Now we can see, that in each case (blade and mallet design), 4 putters had a SG18 value above 0.5…

…and that the mallet putter design with the lower MOI has a higher SG18 value, than it’s sibling (Ketsch mid vs. Ketsch heavy).

According your tests, one can assume, that (a high MOI) mallet design, has no advantage over the blade design.

This pretty much reflects my experiences, and shows, that own testing is key!

Tony Covey

I’m not sure we can necessarily draw that conclusion. We hit blades/Anser styles exclusively alongside other blades. We hit mallets exclusively alongside other mallets. It was a conscious decision on our part not to mix and match. As I mentioned in another comment, we made an effort to pre-sort putters by stroke type (effectively toe hang), given that most mallets are face-balanced it’s difficult to level the groups and provide the degree of randomization necessary when mixing and matching mallets and blade. Toss in the fact that mallets labeled strong arc generally aren’t nearly as strong arc’d as blades described the same way and the waters get muddy.

I believe that if we intermingled everything, the averages would obviously move, and my guess would be that mallets would account for 3 or 4 of the top 5. Definitely a majority. That said, true strong arc golfers are likely to find more success with blades because of the broader availability within that spec. I’d also add that a well-designed blade is always going to outperform a poorly designed mallet.

Allowing for the fact that there are no absolutes when it comes to fitting, our results over the last several years suggest that the majority of golfers will see better results with a mallet. Proof that your actual mileage may vary…I was fit by PING just over a year ago. Turns out I’m a strong arc blade guy.

Well, maybe one should really intermingle everything, like it is within a store…

…however, that the Ketsch mid outperforms the Ketsch heavy in your test contradicts the MOI advantage theory (mallet vs. blade).

I could imagine, that simply the design of the alignment aid of the Ketsch, suits most golfers…
…and that neither it’s MOI design, nor it’s face design, or it’s weight, contribute, to it’s success in your tests.

The MLA success is hinting at the same direction…
…it simply fits pretty good to the average perception of a golfer (whilst aiming).

In my opinion, the grip of a putter is as important, as the rest of the design…
…if it is not convenient and confidence inspiring, the whole putter won’t deliver good results.

Maybe one should perform a test, where all putters are fitted with the same grip! ;-)

AJ Leffler

I’ve never been a terrible putter but it definitely wasn’t my strong point. First 2 rounds putting a 37″ counterbalanaced ping ketsch into my bag I shot 76,79 and I’ve never broke 80 before. I will also add that I never tried a counterbalanaced model of any kind before and my previous putter was a tfi smart square, don’t knock it until you tried it. It may just help.

Kevin Tripp

He mad he can’t hit Pings.

MyGolf Spy

Michael Stefano COPY AND PASTE:
Still $0 dollars accepted from PING and the other major manufacturers. And Golfsmith as well. So Justin, rather than make assumptions without evidence of even the slightest hint of fact why not ask a question rather than a statement that undermines all the hard work this team and staff dedicate to you the consumer.

Keith Parris

Look another clueless individual Josh Gold

Billy Gilliam

I will putt against anyone with my Ping Scottsdale TR putter. I thought the TR was hype but it is different and puts a good roll on the ball.

Josh Gold

Ping only pays Christians…

Michael Woods

I still don’t like ping putters.

His putter didn’t make the list ??

John Pelfrey

Ha ha get him GolfSpy

Ricky Tippett

If you haven’t rolled the Ping’s with the variable face depth True Roll faces you’re missing out. The Anser 2 Cadence Heavy changed my game and shaved 4-5 strokes per round off my score. Speed and distance control are incredible.

Chris C.

In January, MGS opined that the Ping Ketsch “might actually have some competition (EVNROLL) in this years 2016 Most Wanted Putter Test”. Pray tell, what happened to the suggested testing of the EVNROLL putters?

Martin Chuck

Evnroll IS a great putter. I’ve had one since last Fall and love it. It’s a brand new company. I say they make big waves in 2017.

MLA Golf

Thank you to this encouraging recognition!

We are pound to be recognized in the United States by golf professionals for the 2nd year in a row. Be sure we will continue to improve and build the most efficient and accurate putters. We would like to thank all those that have trusted us so far, followed and supported us through our product developments and our company growth. We will continue to work hard to provide the best tools to play always a better golf.

MLA Golf Team

Dear Tony: Do you have any thoughts regarding what appears to be a bizarre result involving performance from different length putts? Typically I notice that some putters perform better on short putts vs long putts or vice versa. Your test results appear to suggest that mid length putts are an entirely different creature. For example, the Ketsch Heavy ranked 8/1/8; the MLA Tour X dream ranked 5/11/1; the Odyssey Marksman ranked 1/17/6 and the Cleveland Smart Square proved itself as a true mid range putter ranking 18/4/18.

Kurren

Wish you guys would test the Directed Force putters! I’m really interested in them and the tech looks like what this site is all about!

Bill Presse IV

7 years ago

I’ll second that motion!

Zac A.

No TM OS Spider, or OS Spider CB? I’m slightly biased, but eager to see how they perform in your tests.

It would have been interesting for sure, but unfortunately TaylorMade declined our invitation to participate. Unlike the driver category where TaylorMade maintains a leadership position, its market share in the putter category is unimpressive, so we decided against purchasing those models.

That’s unfortunate, but thank you for your prompt response.

Michael Natalier

Hi guys,
I have a daddy long legs + putter and love it.
I wish Taylor Made was in this test. Would love to see how it performed.

Shaun

I recently won the Rife Switchback mallet and it’s easily the nicest putter I’ve ever played. Would love to see it added to your testing to see where it stands.

johnnythunders

Bought the 2015 Ketch mid based on your results and my own testing inside on synesthetic turf. Big mistake! Did not perform on real grass, reason was simple: No feel compared to my Scotty Newport. The putters were the same weight. length and lie. The face on Ping just feels strange. Made everything inside, took it out side and it was less than stellar. I should have known better as I never test clubs in door on simulators either. I tried to get the local fitter who has a real grass putting green to put his SAM Putt lab outside, no dice.

So, while I applaud your efforts, for real world results you need to move from simulators and fake grass to where we play golf.
A real golf course.

Thanks for your feedback JT.

Here are the facts:

1. This putter has been tested Indoors: Ranked #1
2. This putter has been tested outdoors: Ranked #1
3. Feel is subjective and looking at our data still has no correlation regarding how a product performs. That is just a myth spread by golfers and proven to be wrong every year we have collected subjective data vs performance.

Well guess you guys have all the facts and there is no point in arguing any of your myth busting advanced analytical conclusions based on your extensive testing criteria and absolute rock solid faith that mygolfspy is the “unbiased” non compensated truth. Guess if I just buy all of your numbers 1’s I’ll be all set.

You sound just like Taylor made marketing.

Thanks for setting me straight.

Exactly.

Exactly? What an arrogant remark and website. Goodbye Mygolfspy and keep up the groveling for money. How pathetic.

Warwick

Good bye johnny, we wan’t miss you

Karakoram

Strange that the heavy version of the Ketsch won last year beating the regular version and this year the regular version is suddenly now better? Statistical anomaly?

Yes this discrepancy is pretty impressive:

2015 SG for the heavy version: 1.8
2015 SG for the normal version: -0,48

That is more than a 2 stroke advantage for the heavy version in 2015!

Now, in the 2016 test, the normal version has a SG advantage over the heavy version of 0.34…
…this is in total a difference of 2.62 strokes advantage for the same putter…
…just one year later…

…pretty impressive.

–

I love my Ping Anser W heavy, since I put a new (for me) better suited grip on this little gem…

…maybe the 2016 version has just a different grip than the 2015 Ping Ketsch version?
…or they tested a different type of arc Ketsch in 2015?

Maybe a straight (arc) in 2015 and a slight arc version in 2016??? ;-)

Not sure what if any factors have changed between the test years but, as might be expected, the repeatability and reproducibility of these results between test years appears low. However, the one take away here is that there is a strong signal that Ping mallets appear to produce the best results for the groups of testers in both years under the conditions of the study.

Changes this year included more testers and more putts with each model. As far as the repeatability is concerned, there are a few factors to consider:

1. Models do change from year to year. There’s always some tweak…face technology, shaping, alignment, color scheme, etc., all of these things have the potential to influence performance. Sometimes things change for the better, sometimes for the worse. To PING’s credit, they’ve been successful in our tests largely by not screwing up a good thing.

2. Our pool of testers does change a bit from year to year, and that has an influence. By increasing the total number of testers as we have, we’ve reduced that influence. As mentioned, we increased our sample size as well. 9,000 holes were putted out to completion during this mallet test with a total of 13,797 putts recorded.

3. As you noted with the consistency of the Ketsch offerings, what we would generally expect – assuming reasonable consistency of design – is that the best performing models would continue to finish near the top year in and year out, the poorest performing models, without an impactful design change, will remain near the bottom, and most everything else will bounce around the statistical middle.

Internally we look at standard deviations across several metrics. We talk in terms of equivalency within deviations – and the overwhelming majority of what we test (as you would expect based on the bell curve) fits within the average range. While our expectation is that those putters would continue to be average on a year over year basis, we also expect that the absolute ranking is subject to movement within that average range). So yeah, we see no significant statistical difference, for example, between the Odyssey White RX #7 SuperStroke (Ranked #10) and the Seemore Si5 (Ranked 19).

Were we to repeat the test, the probabilities are that our top 3 putters would still be in the Top 3. Same for the bottom 3. The closer we get to dead center average, the more movement we would expect.

So with that said, our goal is to identify the best putters (and we do see significant differences at the poles), not the pinpoint with any degree of certainty the most average putter(s) tested.

No doubt, that Ping produces good putters.
But as long as some important details remain unknown
(the type of arc that the Ping Ketsch putters had, and whether the adjustability was used, with the putters that provide one),
the results of the study are mushy – even if one can assume, that some putters seem to be better suited for most.

When I tested the Ping Ketsch putter, the straight (arc) version felt strange to me, in comparison to slight arc versions from Ping.

Thus, I’m pretty sure that it is very important to know for the public, which type of arc version they tested,
and whether the testers could decide, which type of arc version they want to use…

…because if they used different type of arc versions within the different type of weight versions (of the Ketsch),
it could simply explain, why sometimes, the heavier version was preferred and vice versa…

…maybe because of the type of arc and NOT because of the different weight!

(or even because of a special combination of type of arc and weight)

However, not only I posed several times the question according the type of arc version of the tested Ping Ketsch (straight, slight arc and strong arc) and received no answer yet – very strange… ;-)

Just a couple of things to keep in mind.

1) The Ketsch design has changed on a year over year basis dating back to the original 3 years ago. Same name, slightly different design.

2) The scoring metric has actually changed so they’re not really comparable. Last year we did a Strokes Gained 18 (SG18), which represents the average number of strokes gained over 18 holes vs. the field. This year we pulled directly from Mark Broadie’s Strokes Gained tables, which may have over-complicated the interpretive piece for the reader. I published the actual SG18 numbers for top and bottom finishers in a previous comment. I’m also looking into getting them added to table. We’ll also likely revert back to that metric for the blade test results which we anticipate publishing next week.

Well,

this doesn’t explain, why in 2015 the lighter version of the Ketsch was considerably worse performing,
than the heavier version, and in 2016 it was vice versa…

…or do you think, that those versions not only differ in weight, during the same production year?

I am still interested in the answer to the multiple times posed question:

what type of arc version of the Ping Ketsch you have tested?

(in 2015 and in 2016)

LMB

I continue to have a bit of skepticism about this type of putter testing. For a flat putt on a synthetic surface basically the only thing that needs to be achieved is getting the putter square to target at impact – ie how exactly would Brand A’s Anser blade be any better than Brand B’s. I suppose for the mallets, the alignment aid/scheme comes into play also if you look at MLA’ success here.

For me, the undeniable takeway is the continued success of the Ketsch, and also the worst performers.

Let’s consider this differently. What changes if the putt is downhill, on grass, with a ton of break?

The same factors still apply:

1) Speed must be correct (this is true on grass, turf, or even concrete)
2) The initial line or the read must be correct (that has nothing to do with the putter – and straight eliminates the human element of trying to figure out the break. Consider that even on grass, the break is always the same, regardless of what putter you have in your hand)
3) The putter must be delivered in such away as to generate appropriate force (speed) and to start the ball on the identified line. (again, true on any surface).

To answer your Anser question. Within the Anser space there is a ton of variation. Weight, shaping (think about topline thickness, bumper shape (soft vs. strong lines) width, height, blade length, etc.), alignment aid/visuals, color, loft, lie angle, hosel design (toe hang), sole radius, face insert/milling…it’s a long list and everything on it ultimately influences performance.

Vin

I bought the now recalled Ping Ketsch on Golf Spy’s initial analyis. First however I downloaded the Ping App and bought the cradle. It confirmed my stroke path. I then spent quite some time on my lie angle. Purchased the Ketsch. All en all I went from a crap putter to average. I persevered and developed distance control. I went from average to a good putter. I then put on an oversize grip and am now a very good putter. Get fit. The Ping App is excellent. Find your stroke. I did it works.

Troy Vayanos

No surprise to see Ping putters at the top of the list. Although, I’m a little surprised to see Scotty Cameron so low on that table. I’ve had my Scotty Cameron for over 7 years now and love it and the new models out are even better.

Miles M

I have been using the recalled cadence Ketsch mid for the past 2 seasons and I can’t even recall what my previous putter was. Such great feel and easy alignment. Combined with better info about reading greens and distance, my putting is now in the putt for dough range.Such a nice putter. One note I live in a part of the country where custom fitting is 3 hours away and had to guesstimate my putter needs. The Ping made the process easy due to the club itself

Brian Butters

Really great test, again.
You guys are providing some really valuable information.
Nicely done.

Aussie

Would like more info. I have been testing 8 different putters on 4 different courses for more than 12 months.
Data collected was against the following, Swingweight,Deadweight,lie angle,loft, putter length and stimp readings on the greens.
speed is the most important factor so a putt 18 inches past the hole is a good leave. A putt that gets up out of the nap of the green and rolls out another 6 ft is a disaster or a putt that is 3 foot short is equally as bad.other factors considered was slope of greens uphill downhill and side hill lies.
Slopes varied 1deg 2 deg and 3 degrees. So strokes gained from all of these elements is what I would like to see.
Good news I now have a putter that works on nearly all of these elements.

TopPakRat

Why not more PING putters on tour? Its simple! 50% of national TV exposure is dedicated to green play ie putting. You see more close ups of the putter than any other club in the bag. The reason there are fewer Ping putters in the bag is “RESTRICTED SPONSORSHIP” by the manufactures. When many of the current tour players make more $ on manufacturers sponsorship than in actual tour winnings the answer is clear or should I say the PING ANSER is clear. It has to do with MONEY.

Tim Lee

The Pings are ugly ugly looking putters – :)

Johan Botha

Great stuff as always, any ETA on the list for irons?

Ted Diamond

I would really like to see Bobby Grace putters in here.

Bobby has repeatedly declined our invitations to participate.

Craig

Tony…

Have lost all touch and feel since they punched holes all the way to China at my course. Had been using a Ping Zing TR gold with the insert at 36.5. It is an adjustable putter.

If I were to order a ping ketch mid mallet and special order confirmed weight… Would it keep it’s original weight or be heavier… Have tried to talk to Ping Reps in 800 number… But those folks are the ruddest boring, non answering folks I have ever dealt with…

Thoughts on weight problems? And if ya ever get to Madison, MS… I have a great club Reunion… Would be glad to host ya..

Regards,

Scott

The last time the Ketsch won I asked the same question, as was asked up above. Unfortunately I did not receive an answer. Can you please tell us which model….straight, slight arc, or strong arc was used?

Mark

Wonder how the new Oslo will compare to the ketsch.

Tom54

That’s amazing, 3 companies had the top 12 putters in this test.

A few questions to the test:

1. which type of arc Ketsch putter was used (Ping offers: straight, slight arc, strong arc, for the Ketsch)

2. were there weight adjustments made, for the putters that support it?

3. could you please also publish the numbers of putts (for each of the three distances), like in your previous tests?

Thank you!

Pete S

I really need to look into that Ketsch Mid. Seems like it could be a good transition from the blade putter I use now.

Sharkhark

Shows though how you need to demo for yourself in real life. I tried the ketsch version you rated well a couple years ago & couldn’t line it up for the life of me yet I went with a odyssey works 2-ball fang that you only rank as decent & I started dropping them.

Chris G

Interesting that the Ketsch in all its forms is so dominant yet again but really doesn’t have much tour juice. Does that mean the tour pros are so good that it doesn’t really matter beyond personal preference what they putt with or is there another conclusion to draw? If the former, then we are all hurting ourselves by buying as seen on TV equipment all the way through the bag, and yet that is the industry’s primary advertising method

Justin

Most tour pros have a good stroke already and don’t need the help that the Ketsch would offer. Also, most of the Ping pros that play mallets play the vault series Oslo, which is not yet available to the public. Would be interesting to see where that putter fits in had it been available for testing

First you have to remember that testing like this really is being done for the first time in the indsutry. So, data like this was not available to the masses. And you might be shocked to hear this but most guys on tour still put with what “feels” good for them at the time. Or they are playing a putter based on a contract. Or what they played back in college, etc. etc.

What I am trying to say is that putters and most other clubs in the bag still are not put in play because they are the most efficient performers.

This is the purpose of MyGolfSpy…to put performance over marketing.

Performance is not hype.

We believe we are getting very close to a system that will eliminate this entirely and make the industry switch from a message based on words like “Ridonkulong” to phrases like “Proven to lower handicap by 1.67 strokes”.

Lou

Fantastic. You know, you guys have been doing this for a few years now and even when you find faults in your own tests you keep trying to get the best numbers to your readers. I just love this site.

One other thing, if we go through previous years testing, it looks as though Taylormade is a can’t miss for drivers, callaway for fairway woods and ping for putters.

Please, PLEASE do an iron, wedge and hybrid test soon.

Keep up the great work too?

peter collins

Put the T-Frame in the mix diff result imo

Bignose

Which strokes gained value is correct? The graphics say +1.62, the chart says +0.162. Very large potential difference in how much importance having the right putter means here.

Also, I assume that the strokes gained should be interpreted at per 18 holes, sine you simulated 6 holes of each 5 feet, 10 feet, 20 feet, right? If this is mistaken, I would appreciate clarifying in the article how best to interpret the strokes gained metric here.

Thanks

The SG value is effectively relative, so functionally it doesn’t matter where the decimal is. We want to use a consistent and accepted measurement (in this case Strokes Gained), but sometimes that doesn’t translate to something that’s easily understood. There might be something to be said for using a SG-based metric like the SG 18 we used last year. This time around we used the actual tables used on the PGA Tour. In hindsight, our zeal for showing that we are using an established and accepted metric on which to base our scoring, we may have complicated things a bit more than necessary.

Simplification was part of the reason why we moved to 6 putts per distance. That gives each putter 18 holes to complete with each putter, which obviously works a bit better when trying to relate it to an actual round of golf. So it’s easy enough to add some additional clarity.

To reconcile the SG value with something akin to an 18 hole average of sorts I did some quick math, which will hopefully put this into a more easily understandable framework.

Across the entire test, the putter field averaged 27.57 putts per scenario…or 27.57 putts per 18 holes played.

Within that context, the first place putter averaged .97 fewer strokes than the field. One possible interpretation would be that our first place putter can be expected to reduce your score by 1 stroke compared to the average putter in this test.

Conversely, our last place putter was 1.48 strokes worse than the average, which – along similar interpretive lines – can be expected to increase your score by 3 strokes over the course of 2 rounds (1.5 strokes per round).

Based on 18 holes averages the Top 5 breakout (vs. field average) like this:

#1 – +.97 (strokes per 18 holes putted)
#2 – +.87
#3 – +.82
#4 – +.67
#5 – +.47

For further comparative purposes, the bottom 5 shake out like this:
#25 – -1.48
#24 – -1.13
#23 – -.73
#22 – -.58
#21 – -.48

Hope that helps.

Thanks for the detailed reply, very helpful.

Bradley M. Smith

Thank you Tony. This is the type of real data that would have significantly improved your reporting of the test results. There is nothing wrong with trying to provide a simplified way of seeing the results, but ALSO, include the real data….perhaps in a “Data Addendum”
Brad

Brad – Looking into adding SG18 to the table, and using it exclusively for our blade results.

ChristopherKee

Sad Cure putters weren’t in the mix for testing.

Jeff Acebedo

You should give your own testing results. I think you meet the prerequisite of “120 hours of testing and 9000 putts recorded.”

Bryan Kavanaugh

I’m a few putters behind … Give me a month or two and I’ll catch up

Robert Malvaez

Thats a butt whopping by MLA and Ping!

McaseyM

Not shocking to see Ping up top, but way to go MLA!! the Ketsch is Killing it.

PS- Next year would love to see Ricky Johnson Wide Body, Bellum Winmore 787, and if they’y do it, Kayson Golf Bladelet.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Driver Ping G30	Hybrids PXG 0317
3/4 IRON PXG 0311XF	5-GW Srixon Z 565
SW PXG 0317	LW PXG 0311
Putter EVNROLL

Buyer's Guides

MGS Tested: 2016 MOST WANTED MALLET PUTTER

INDEPENDENT & UNBIASED

120

HoursResearched

16.2m

Readers

9,000

PuttsHit

31

ProductsConsidered

Test Results You Can Trust

How We Test

The Top 5 Mallets of 2016

The Data

Support Unbiased Testing.

Donate to MGS

For You

For You

Golf Shafts

Apr 14, 2024

Testers Wanted: Autoflex Dream 7 Driver Shaft

News

Apr 14, 2024

A Rare Masters ‘L’: Day Asked To Remove Sweater

Drivers

Apr 13, 2024

Testers Wanted: Callaway Ai Smoke Drivers

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

comments

Ronzo

Uhit

Uhit

AJ Leffler

Kevin Tripp

MyGolf Spy

Keith Parris

Billy Gilliam

Josh Gold

Michael Woods

Michael Woods

John Pelfrey

Ricky Tippett

Chris C.

Chris C.

Kurren

Bill Presse IV

Zac A.

Zac A.

Michael Natalier

Shaun

johnnythunders

MyGolfSpy

johnnythunders

MyGolfSpy

johnnythunders

Warwick

Karakoram

Uhit

Karakoram

Uhit

Uhit

LMB

Vin

Miles M

Brian Butters

Aussie

TopPakRat

Tim Lee

Johan Botha

Ted Diamond

Craig

Scott

Hours
Researched

Putts
Hit

Products
Considered