Upcoming Most Wanted Driver Testing

[cnosil]

1 hour ago, Thin2win said:

Normally MGS will do follow up articles aimed at <90 MPH ss, 90-105, then >105 with the best driver for those windows broken down too. In those they do tailor the results to those subsets. As a whole group the Ping is a good choice in most fields so it was their winner. But it probably/might not win a single one of the specific categories. But if you were going to take a random person and get them a driver, the ping has the best chance of being a good choice for them out of the entire field. 

In the data page, they have most of that information broken down.  Multiple swing speeds, AoA, and handicap are filters you can use. 

[fixyurdivot]

7 hours ago, ChitownM2 said:

I get that most wanted is basically a buyers guide for people who won't or can't get fitted but that was kind of the point I was trying to make.  If the results are that razor thin that a club that was 2nd last year and obviously should work for a large percentage of golfers ends up finishing 11th now and was beat out by clubs that it finished well ahead of last year, how valuable is the recommendation?  Likewise, I don't believe the G425 was in the top 10 last year but now it's THE club that MGS is recommending to the masses?

My opinion would be that the process/presentation could be improved by either vastly increasing the tester pool size (which I'm 99.9% sure isn't realistic unless we want this list being published in August and don't want Most wanted for any other categories) or maybe they just shy away from providing numerical rankings for overall score.

Also, I think a section that provides a little background on the tester pool would be a big help for people who aren't diehard forum members and know how the process works. Giving us the group average for swing speed, handicap, strokes gained off tee, driving distance and offline would be very beneficial in helping people determine how relavant the overall score is to their particular game.  If you see that the average distance is 280 and a strokes gained of +0.25 then you know you have a group of testers that is well above average with a driver in their hand so then someone who doesn't hit the ball as well would know that they should probably disregard the overall winner and look more at the individual categories to determine which club would work better for th

I think this is a valid point and one that I've wondered about.  I mean if it were possible to have the MGS Hit Squad do a replicate of 3 test sessions, a couple weeks apart, I'll bet half of them don't hit the same driver as well.  That's the thing with fittings - what swing one brings on any given day may not provide the optimal results (club/shaft down-select) day in and day out.  

I also agree that I would love to see the MGS Hit Squad golf bio's so that I can align myself/game with the tester pool.  I thought I'd read that was going to happen?

[cnosil]

7 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

I also agree that I would love to see the MGS Hit Squad golf bio's so that I can align myself/game with the tester pool.  I thought I'd read that was going to happen?

There have been talks but nothing about level of detail.   The new data tableau does a pretty good job of breaking down the data a bit more.   While they don't identify the details like what is a low/mid/high handicap you can get some correlations than in the past.  

[dlow206]

2 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Ball flight characteristics are going to play a huge role in the those categories. People needing less spin could gain that from then design of the plus over the regular and vice versa for those who need help getting spin.

You have to dive into the numbers of all the shots and see what’s going on.

I also think forgiveness is to broad a category for most when the talk about it on forums. Many just consider it as the keeping the ball in play more or only losing X amount of yards on mishits and don’t consider the launch conditions that best suit their swing 

Understood. Not saying that the Stealth Plus is better for everyone, I am sure there are many people that the Stealth works better for. Just surprised at the aggregate results for forgiveness for Stealth vs. Stealth Plus based on the forgiveness definition in the article.  

[dlow206]

1 hour ago, cnosil said:

In the data page, they have most of that information broken down.  Multiple swing speeds, AoA, and handicap are filters you can use. 

Thanks for pointing out the data page, i didn't see it until you mentioned it.

For others to reference:

 

https://mygolfspy.com/most-wanted-driver-2022-data/

[RickyBobby_PR]

3 minutes ago, dlow206 said:

Understood. Not saying that the Stealth Plus is better for everyone, I am sure there are many people that the Stealth works better for. Just surprised at the aggregate results for forgiveness for Stealth vs. Stealth Plus based on the forgiveness definition in the article.  

Exactly. A lot of people assume that certain heads are going to be more forgiving than other based on an article, marketing material, some measurement given like moi. But that’s just generic info for the ones who buy off the rack and don’t hit/test. 
 

 

[driveandputtmachine]

22 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Exactly. A lot of people assume that certain heads are going to be more forgiving than other based on an article, marketing material, some measurement given like moi. But that’s just generic info for the ones who buy off the rack and don’t hit/test. 
 

 

Happens all the time, the only exception was the Ping G400 Max.  It was super forgiving for everyone.

I have a Stealth+ on loan from that U-Try system.  30 bucks and can give the Stealth plus a whirl for 2 weeks.  Considering I'd lose more the 30 in value buying and then reselling it's worth a shot.  I have All-fit adapters on almost every Driver shaft and most 3 wood shafts I own.  Yes I know go get fit, but the CC near me all have limited space and haven't been able to register Driver numbers for me with any regularity and the Trie Spec near me uses range balls, but are at least outside.

Initial results with the Kalil were horrible.  Hooking the absolute crap out of everything.  Had to make a weird funky swing to keep it on the planet.  That is 6 swings on the range and 5 on the course.  I have three shafts set to try this week if it ever stops raining.

I will say that I like the look of it so much better without the white coloring.  It did produce some stupid length drives, and some stupid depth into the woods on those 5 course swings.  I hit 2 out of 5 where they were playable towards the green, one was seriously long.  My problem is always having a lot of spin, which isn't horrible, but when I play a driver all the spin comes off the dispersion also goes way down.

I would be shocked if any of the shafts I am going to try rectify this for me, as I have not gotten along with TM drivers for the past 4 cycles.  My next choices to try will be the ST-Z 220, and the triple Diamond.  I did not like the Triple Diamond Epic Speed I tried from last years models.  I also want to try the Srixon, just because I have gotten along with everything else they made last year.

My Mizuno adapter and an extra TM and Callaway adapter(collar) should be here tomorrow so I can put the TM, Rogue, and hopefully soon up against my Gamer.

[Mick Close]

Got to say I was surprised to see the Ping G425 Max come out on top with all of the new releases. I know that it doesn't mean that it is best for everyone but I do think that it once again shows that Ping does not put out new products unless they think they have improved on the last one. In my opinion a 1 year cycle for new products is all well and good but if you are not putting out a better performing club it does not help your credibility.

[RickyBobby_PR]

10 hours ago, driveandputtmachine said:

Happens all the time, the only exception was the Ping G400 Max.  It was super forgiving for everyone.

Not really. I got better numbers from the regular g400. Also outside of golf forums of the handful of g400s I saw from random pairings were either lst or regular g400.

The g400 max is a good driver as is the whole line up. The g410 couldn’t beat it. Haven’t tried any of the g425 stuff because I went sim and then sim2 which I still have along with tsi2

Most would say the m6 is a more forgiving head than the m5, yet no matter what shaft I couldn’t keep the m6 in play. The m5 with same shafts was very consistent but at 1800-2100 spin it wasn’t one I would put in the bag because the on course performance wouldnt be good and I was getting better flight from 917 d3

[fixyurdivot]

13 hours ago, cnosil said:

There have been talks but nothing about level of detail.   The new data tableau does a pretty good job of breaking down the data a bit more.   While they don't identify the details like what is a low/mid/high handicap you can get some correlations than in the past.  

Any idea why they haven't done so already? It seems simple enough and we're not talking about personal identity information. Being able to match one's own game, swing style, and ball flight tendencies to a tester or three just adds more value IMO. It would be a feature that, near as I can say, not offered by any competing product test entities.

In an odd way, I'm glad PING took the top spot simply because they seem to have taken the worst of the pandemics collateral damage. 

[cnosil]

20 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

Any idea why they haven't done so already? It seems simple enough and we're not talking about personal identity information. Being able to match one's own game, swing style, and ball flight tendencies to a tester or three just adds more value IMO. It would be a feature that, near as I can say, not offered by any competing product test entities.

Time, priorities, fits in with other plans, don’t know.   The new data set that they released does a pretty good job of what you are looking for.   Not sure they will ever release data on a tester by tester basis.  

[RickyBobby_PR]

36 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

Being able to match one's own game, swing style, and ball flight tendencies to a tester or three just adds more value IMO.

You would need to know alot of things about the persons swing other than swing speed, ball speed and the launch characteristics.

You new to know are the smooth or aggressive in transition, do they release early or late and where each happens. Not mention their actual swing compensations that come from their swing flaws.

[cnosil]

6 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Not mention their actual swing compensations that come from their swing flaws.

I personally have lots of compensations and flaws so you probably wouldn’t want to use my data

[fixyurdivot]

6 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

You would need to know alot of things about the persons swing other than swing speed, ball speed and the launch characteristics.

You new to know are the smooth or aggressive in transition, do they release early or late and where each happens. Not mention their actual swing compensations that come from their swing flaws.

That could all be part of the player profile.

[cnosil]

2 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

That could all be part of the player profile.

What information do you want in a player profile?  

[ChitownM2]

I'm not sure that individual profiles for all of the testers is really necessary and I don't think they would be of much good unless they started providing the data broken out for each tester which I don't think is going to happen as that is a lot more work.  I was only suggesting that they provide the average for the group as a whole so we can use that to compare ourselves as individuals to the resulting overall scores that MGS assigns.  

I think it would also be interesting to track year to year and see how that affects the results.  It might provide some insight to explain how clubs change in rankings from year to year such as G425 moving from middle of the pack to #1 or TSi2 going from #2 down to #11 or TSi3 going from #9 to #4 this year.  The clubs didn't change but the results did, some of that I'm sure has to do with the new scoring system but a large part of it has to also be testers.

[RickyBobby_PR]

19 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

That could all be part of the player profile.

It’s meaningless. Unless you have the exact same swing as the person which is highly unlikely it’s just added data with no benefit. It would not only require each person to provide information about their swing that they may or may not know of but you would then need a lot of data points and for every shot. I haven’t looked at the data provided because of these reasons so not sure what’s on there, but face to path, path to target, contact point, along with all the typical information most of us ask for would need to be part of it. By time you dig thru all that one could have gone out and tested several drivers for themselves. Most could have done that before the report was even released 

 

[russtopherb]

I think in the end, no matter how much data MGS puts out on the Most Wanted testing, folks are always going to want more. In a way that's a good thing, because it shows golfers want to make informed decisions. However it's also possible to get bogged down in the minutiae, and miss the forest for the trees. 

Also the Launchpad pic is still up 

[jddaigneault]

I just saw a post online touting this test as having just shy of 20,000 shots. At first glance, that is a lot. However, if there are 35 testers for 38 drivers, that works out to roughly 15 shots per person per driver. I would hardly call that an extensive test. I found that very eye opening. I'd be interested to hear how many shots each person actually takes, because that math adds up to a very unreliable data set. 

[chisag]

6 minutes ago, jddaigneault said:

I just saw a post online touting this test as having just shy of 20,000 shots. At first glance, that is a lot. However, if there are 35 testers for 38 drivers, that works out to roughly 15 shots per person per driver. I would hardly call that an extensive test. I found that very eye opening. I'd be interested to hear how many shots each person actually takes, because that math adds up to a very unreliable data set. 

 

... Assuming your math accurately matches the testing, 15 shots per driver is waaaaaaay more than enough. I would make the argument that more than 10 shots might be detrimental as most golfers begin changing their swing to get the results they are used to after 3-5 swings. If you have a high draw and the driver you re testing produces a mid high straight ball, some will begin attempting to increase their AOA and dropping the club more inside to produce a high draw, which negates the attributes of that particular driver. 5-10 with each driver should be plenty. 

[cnosil]

1 hour ago, russtopherb said:

 

Also the Launchpad pic is still up 

Wilson said it was okay to leave the picture up.

 

28 minutes ago, jddaigneault said:

I just saw a post online touting this test as having just shy of 20,000 shots. At first glance, that is a lot. However, if there are 35 testers for 38 drivers, that works out to roughly 15 shots per person per driver. I would hardly call that an extensive test. I found that very eye opening. I'd be interested to hear how many shots each person actually takes, because that math adds up to a very unreliable data set. 

yep, 15ish kept shots per driver; this was confirmed during the donor raffle when someone asked the question there.  Also keep in mind the testing is less about one person and how the drivers work across the pool of testers. 

[ChitownM2]

I'd have to agree that 15 shots is probably enough.  When I've gone for a fitting it definitely didn't take 15 shots for the fitter to determine whether that club was going into the reject pile or keeper pile.

 

As far as an "extensive" test, that is obviously subjective, but this test probably has 37,500 more shots than anybody else with the data to go along with it so that seems pretty extensive to me.  

[bens197]

9 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

... Assuming your math accurately matches the testing, 15 shots per driver is waaaaaaay more than enough. I would make the argument that more than 10 shots might be detrimental as most golfers begin changing their swing to get the results they are used to after 3-5 swings. If you have a high draw and the driver you re testing produces a mid high straight ball, some will begin attempting to increase their AOA and dropping the club more inside to produce a high draw, which negates the attributes of that particular driver. 5-10 with each driver should be plenty. 

This +1

A lot of folks lose sight of what this is...it's a guide or a starting point.  A basic reference to steer people into a particular area when deciding what COULD possibly be best for their game.

10 balls or 100, it either works FOR you or it does not.  

When I read this and see that the Mizuno STZ220 is the most forgiving, my eyes perk because I associate forgiveness with confidence and distance.  If a club is forgiving, I am hitting it further and more accurate on my bad shots.  

So I would go try it and see for myself.

[RickyBobby_PR]

47 minutes ago, jddaigneault said:

I just saw a post online touting this test as having just shy of 20,000 shots. At first glance, that is a lot. However, if there are 35 testers for 38 drivers, that works out to roughly 15 shots per person per driver. I would hardly call that an extensive test. I found that very eye opening. I'd be interested to hear how many shots each person actually takes, because that math adds up to a very unreliable data set. 

In 15 shots one’s going to have a very good idea of what the driver or any club is doing. 10 shots is a good number to tell as well. Fitters rarely let a golfer take more than 5 swings with a setup because they have the tendency to change swing mechanics to achieve a result. In the case of the most wanted they have a club setup that’s as close to optimal for them so 10-15 swings is going to generate enough data.

[jddaigneault]

I know that 15 shots can be enough to tell us if a driver just isn't working for us, but statisticians typically put 100 as the minimum number in a sample size to effectively root out sources of error and normalize the data. If a test is based on compiling statistical data, it should include more hits per tester per driver. While someone might start changing their swing after 10-15, by 100 they have achieved a good groove and that would help balance the data. If you are claiming a test is statistically sound, it needs more data. If MGS wants to take the claim as the industry standard for testing, they need to meet minimum requirements for statistical analysis. 

[chisag]

11 minutes ago, jddaigneault said:

I know that 15 shots can be enough to tell us if a driver just isn't working for us, but statisticians typically put 100 as the minimum number in a sample size to effectively root out sources of error and normalize the data. If a test is based on compiling statistical data, it should include more hits per tester per driver. While someone might start changing their swing after 10-15, by 100 they have achieved a good groove and that would help balance the data. If you are claiming a test is statistically sound, it needs more data. If MGS wants to take the claim as the industry standard for testing, they need to meet minimum requirements for statistical analysis. 

 

... I am not looking to get in an argument and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But during a round we get to hit a driver ONCE and have to accept the results. 100 swings is complete overkill for me and I am guessing everyone else here that is not an actuary or accountant.   By 100 swings variables such as being tired to being bored to a myriad of other reasons a human swinging a driver 100 times would actually tell me much less about a particular club than 10 swings. Obviously ymmv ...


PS. In my Rogue ST fitting a few weeks ago 2 swings was all the fitter would let me hit a shaft, head or shaft/head combo if he didn't like the flight or the numbers. If he liked what he saw he let me swing 5-10 times and it didn't take long to find the best fit for me. Just sayin' ...

[Sluggo42]

Maybe 15 shots a day for a week. Only DeShambles takes that many hacks a day…

[Bucky CC]

10 minutes ago, jddaigneault said:

I know that 15 shots can be enough to tell us if a driver just isn't working for us, but statisticians typically put 100 as the minimum number in a sample size to effectively root out sources of error and normalize the data. If a test is based on compiling statistical data, it should include more hits per tester per driver. While someone might start changing their swing after 10-15, by 100 they have achieved a good groove and that would help balance the data. If you are claiming a test is statistically sound, it needs more data. If MGS wants to take the claim as the industry standard for testing, they need to meet minimum requirements for statistical analysis. 

In a perfect world the testing would also be double blind so there wouldn't be an pre-conceived notions about the driver the tester is being handed.  See a red face and know it's the new Stealth model?  I'm going to swing out of my shoes to see how fast these crazy ball speeds can really get.

While the MGS test is not perfect it is the best thing out there right now for the average consumer who won't take the time or money to get properly fit.

 

[Thin2win]

change of topic. Looking at the data page, and selecting the "accuracy & forgiveness" tab. I am looking at % straight and % playable.  both numbers are .xx

is our best guess that this is a formatting issue and they didn't move the decimal. I.E. if it says percent of straight shot is .72 % it really should just be read a 72%?

[driveandputtmachine]

16 minutes ago, jddaigneault said:

I know that 15 shots can be enough to tell us if a driver just isn't working for us, but statisticians typically put 100 as the minimum number in a sample size to effectively root out sources of error and normalize the data. If a test is based on compiling statistical data, it should include more hits per tester per driver. While someone might start changing their swing after 10-15, by 100 they have achieved a good groove and that would help balance the data. If you are claiming a test is statistically sound, it needs more data. If MGS wants to take the claim as the industry standard for testing, they need to meet minimum requirements for statistical analysis. 

I am not a statistician but saying each person needs to take a 100 swings with a club for it to be statistically relevant is just silly.  You are talking about taking the number of shots from 20,000 shots to 200,000 shots. 

They have 100 per driver.  35 testers hitting 10-15 shots with each meets a statistical relevance, because there are over 100 shots with an individual driver.  Technically at least 350 with each driver, so the requirement is met.  Just like when you look at a group of 100 tests and take a statistical analysis, should each student be required to take 100 tests?  Or is 100 tests valid?

Not 100% the same, but in no world is taking 100 swings with a driver more statistically relevant for me in a fitting than taking 5 or 6.  

In a year 100 drives vs 100 other drives in a comparison might be good analysis to see which you are better with in a strokes gained type of application, but I know whether I can hit good shots with a driver in two or three swings, this is what this tool can help with.  Knowing some basics to determine your starting point.

 

I have a Stealth that I cannot hit to save my life with any of the three shafts I have tried in it.  I also will be trying the Triple D Rogue and the Mizuno STZ-220.  Why?  This test gave me some results to look at those heads, the stealth I tried just because of hype and they happened to have one in U-Try in decently close specs for me.  I had tried all of last years releases already.