Suggestion - My Golf Spy Best of the Best

[tman-81]

First let me start off by saying if this has been brought up in the past I am sorry for bringing up something old. If is hasn't maybe other see value in it as well.

 

I have been a member of my golf spy now for at least two years and I have learned to turn to my golf spy for unbiased reviews both from the MGS staff and members. I have found a tremendous amount of value in all the information you can find from all the posts and reviews on this site.

 

In this sport the vast amounts of money the top manufacturers pump into "creative marketing" it is impossible for a single consumer to cut through all the hype. Manufacturers are by nature profit driven which leads to products being produced and marketed to consumers even if it is not true improvement over the previous years model.

 

I have always wondered how much improvement is truely seen from year to year in all the "revolutionary engineering" the vendors claim. Is there anyway MGS staff could do multi year reviews on irons/drivers/putters to find the best of the best out of the best? Put them head to head and see how it all shakes out.

 

Baselining performance increase from year to year would prove valuable in knowing how often a change in equipment truely equates to a stroke or two improvement. I don't know what the rest of the MGS member think but investment of a couple thousand dollars to upgrade to all the latest equipment isn't in my budget year after year.

 

What is everyone else's opinion? Would this data be of value to anyone else?

[808nation]

No doubt that kind of information would be invaluable.  With new tech and advances in the golf industry it would save a lot of money for the consumers to see if upgrading would truly be beneficial.  But, that being said I believe there are people that don't care if new clubs give them an extra edge and just want the latest new toy. 

[newballcoach]

I think this is a great idea, in theory. In theory, testing the last 5 years most wanted clubs against each other is a great idea.

 

The issue you might find is that this doesn't empower the consumer any further, which is MGS' primary goal IMO. Comparing this years club to a club from 3 years ago doesn't often help my purchasing ability, because I can't buy that 3 year old club very easily (especially if I want to get it fitted properly). 

 

I get what you're saying, you want to know if it's worth it to replace your current stuff with new stuff, but I just don't know if the benefit of comparison across years is as valuable as it seems on first glance. 

[Pug]

So for comparison sale, consider this: I bought a TM M2 driver when they were introduced in 2017. I have replaced the shaft and adjusted the length to my swing speed and stature.  When tested by MGS in the Most Wanted Driver review it was not the number one club. I got it because I needed the forgiveness. The test reported  total distance as 249.6, ball speed as 140.9 and accuracy as 18.4 yards. This last metric is now given as square yards, so I cannot relate it specifically to a square yard dispersion area.

This year’s most wanted driver, Callaway’s Epic Flash had a total distance of only 240.6 yards and a ball speed of 135.92. That’s 9 yards less distance and 5 mph less ball speed 2 year’s later, and the comparison is not even the best in 2017 against what is the best in 2019. Sure the testers or their ability might have changed, but how are you going to know if buying the new club with poorer apparent metrics is superior if you don’t test head to head? 
 

This is the case for TMan-81’s suggestion.

[chisag]

...  I have always thought MGS testing provides a baseline. But golfers have so many variables that go into equipment choices. I thought the Fly Z was a revolutionary driver producing for all level of golfers from DI college players to high index players. I think that kind of performance is very unique and Cobra drivers released since have been very good, some arguably the best out there for a given player but nothing universal. And imo that is the problem. 

... How a club looks and sounds can be important and can change the way you swing or at least your mental approach to hitting it, yet for others, look and sound are irrelevant. How you swing can be very important. If you hit up, down or level with your driver, it can produce very different results even for players of similar skill and swing speed. Some need more spin and some less spin with their driver. Does MGS data provide spin numbers for each driver with up/down/level contact or a combination of all testers within a given swing speed range? 

... So again, finding several drivers that test well with a group of players is a really good start. But in the end you have to demo them yourself, and preferably on a golf course to see how it performs for your specific swing.  

[cnosil]

On 11/9/2019 at 6:04 PM, Pug said:

 Sure the testers or their ability might have changed, but how are you going to know if buying the new club with poorer apparent metrics is superior if you don’t test head to head? 

The tester community changes from year to year and they seem to get more senior players as testers so swing speeds may have dropped over the years.  I am pretty sure that MGS advocates testing the clubs as any club in the test may the best for any particular golfer.  The most wanted winner is the one that was statistically best for the largest number of testers.  In my case, the MGS winner isn't always one of my best fits. 

On 11/9/2019 at 6:52 PM, chisag said:

... How a club looks and sounds can be important and can change the way you swing or at least your mental approach to hitting it, yet for others, look and sound are irrelevant. How you swing can be very important. If you hit up, down or level with your driver, it can produce very different results even for players of similar skill and swing speed. Some need more spin and some less spin with their driver. Does MGS data provide spin numbers for each driver with up/down/level contact or a combination of all testers within a given swing speed range? 
 

Hence the reason for human testing.  The looks or sound can influence how you swing the club.   I am not sure that the data provides spin numbers but I do know they they don't publish AoA for the various golfers.  

[Wedgie]

I game the XXIO X driver which has finished close to last the last 2 years in most wanted testing but nothing else that finished at the top can come close to knocking it out of the bag and trust me I’ve tried.

The other thing is in 2018 the Srixon Z585 won most wanted GI iron testing and the Hot Metal irons finished 4th or something like that. In 2019 the Hot Metal irons were first and the Z585 were down towards the middle of the pack. Same clubs tested 2 years in a row with very different results.

So yeah, use the testing as a baseline as Chisag suggests.


Sent from my iPad using MyGolfSpy

[cnosil]

I game the XXIO X driver which has finished close to last the last 2 years in most wanted testing but nothing else that finished at the top can come close to knocking it out of the bag and trust me I’ve tried.

The other thing is in 2018 the Srixon Z585 won most wanted GI iron testing and the Hot Metal irons finished 4th or something like that. In 2019 the Hot Metal irons were first and the Z585 were down towards the middle of the pack. Same clubs tested 2 years in a row with very different results.

XXIO is a great driver, shaft is the key to that club since the. MGS test club is generally geared toward slower swing players.

I think the models of the clubs changed between 18 and 19. Srixon went from 565 to 585.

[Pug]

I appreciate all of the comments above stemming from my previous post. I would note two things that no one commented on. I also did not choose the Most Wanted Driver from 2017. I tested Ping, Cobra and Calloway as well as the M1. At the time I expected to get the best results from the Ping driver, but such was not the case. As I have commented elsewhere, MGS testing has informed every decision I have made about what is in the bag (including the bag itself), but I have not defaulted to blindly purchasing the Most Wanted anything. This means the bulk of the comments above conform with my own practice.

That said, I think the question remains valid. How much has actual performance changed year over year? Bearing in mind the changing dynamic of the test group, a head to head comparison with previous Most Wanted winners would still provide a valid club to club comparison in the current context of the test group. I think the results would make some very interesting reading for all of us Spies. This would also be of real value to the player wondering if there is genuine improvement worth investing in, and delivering value to the player is what MGS is all about.

To everybody who responded, my genuine thanks for the input. You have validated my own support for human testing, which MGS has done amply, as well as my approach when considering new equipment.

[THEZIPR23]

6 minutes ago, Pug said:

I appreciate all of the comments above stemming from my previous post. I would note two things that no one commented on. I also did not choose the Most Wanted Driver from 2017. I tested Ping, Cobra and Calloway as well as the M1. At the time I expected to get the best results from the Ping driver, but such was not the case. As I have commented elsewhere, MGS testing has informed every decision I have made about what is in the bag (including the bag itself), but I have not defaulted to blindly purchasing the Most Wanted anything. This means the bulk of the comments above conform with my own practice.

That said, I think the question remains valid. How much has actual performance changed year over year? Bearing in mind the changing dynamic of the test group, a head to head comparison with previous Most Wanted winners would still provide a valid club to club comparison in the current context of the test group. I think the results would make some very interesting reading for all of us Spies. This would also be of real value to the player wondering if there is genuine improvement worth investing in, and delivering value to the player is what MGS is all about.

To everybody who responded, my genuine thanks for the input. You have validated my own support for human testing, which MGS has done amply, as well as my approach when considering new equipment.

There will be incremental improvements year over year. But that will not apply to everyone. The only way to know for sure if there have been any improvements is to test yourself. Some people will see big improvements and others will not see any or even steps back. Unfortunately or fortunately we all deliver and swing the club differently.