2023 Most Wanted Driver! + Forum Member Only Zoom Call w/ HQ Staff!

[fixyurdivot]

I haven't looked at the most wanted driver scores over the years but it seems that PING most often finds itself in the jack of all trades position.  For a good many players, pro and amateur, day in and day out, this characteristic is a good option.  I plan to do some H2H driver testing this year and see if one stands out over my G410P.  

[GolfSpy AFG]

Damn it, hate missing these calls.  I'll be at Disney World.  I'll be on the lookout for the recording...

[KnoxvilleReb]

13 hours ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

There is a link at the bottom of the article with the data.

However to save you the trouble of reading the article and finding it here it is.

https://mygolfspy.com/best-golf-drivers-2023-data/

Looks like the dispersion column is just a copy of the backspin column? 

[Golfspy_CG2]

3 hours ago, Getoffmylawn said:

Damn it, hate missing these calls.  I'll be at Disney World.  I'll be on the lookout for the recording...

If you have to miss, there's not many better reasons to miss it than visiting Mickey and gang!   I know I've said it several times.  We don't ahve kids, and it's our favortite vacation spot. 

Enjoy! 

[cnosil]

4 hours ago, KnoxvilleReb said:

Looks like the dispersion column is just a copy of the backspin column? 

I sent them  a text to take a look.  

[Blueberry_Squishie]

On 2/14/2023 at 1:21 PM, cnosil said:

The 430 models were tested and are in the results.   Everyone asks for a comparison to the prior years clubs and the 425 Max was last years winner

Turns out I just skimmed the article too much.

[GolfSpy_APH]

Zoom link has been added to the top. Tomorrow afternoon we look forward to some lively discussion insights into the Most Wanted 2023 Driver and others!

[Emil Kork]

driver: PXG 0811 X 12

shaft: Accra TZ6 45

the best combination to keep distance and fairway hits (85 %) at the age 81

[PMookie]

Haven’t looked at the data, but from the article what was longest wasn’t very accurate, and what was accurate wasn’t very long, using the terminology in the “pros and cons”. So, for me, to see Stealth 2 as the winner, and then what finished 2nd place and 3rd have low scores for accuracy doesn’t sit well. Is this to say our very own MGS test proves “distance is king” above all else? 

[null]

We have to remember that this type of test is more relevant for people who are buying off the rack without a fitting.  Not people that are going to get fit, or those who have an understanding of their own swing dynamics.

The information gets a little more relevant for us "gear heads" once they post the data broken out by swing speeds, but even then there are other swing dynamics at play (dynamic loft, angle of attack, etc) that play a HUGE role in why the numbers are what they are.

[Siamese Moose]

16 hours ago, KnoxvilleReb said:

Looks like the dispersion column is just a copy of the backspin column? 

Nice catch! That would explain why the strokes gained doesn't make sense.

[cnosil]

1 hour ago, PMookie said:

. Is this to say our very own MGS test proves “distance is king” above all else? 

They seem to be ranked by strokes gained.   Strokes gained takes both distance and accuracy into consideration.   

23 minutes ago, Siamese Moose said:

Nice catch! That would explain why the strokes gained doesn't make sense.

Why don’t you think the strokes gained make sense?  You’d have to see the actual location of each ball to calculate strokes gained. 

[KnoxvilleReb]

1 minute ago, cnosil said:

Why don’t you think the strokes gained make sense?  

I believe he made an earlier post confused why a driver that was both longer and had better dispersion would have less strokes gained than another driver that was worse in both categories. But given the dispersion column is showing backspin and not dispersion, the strokes gained numbers not being aligned makes more sense now. I'm sure if you compared distance to strokes gained you'll be able to back your way into which drivers have the best dispersion. 

[null]

To be honest, there is nothing I hate more in marketing than graphs that make the gap between products/options look much larger than it actually is.

This the statistical version of clickbait

[null]

9 minutes ago, cnosil said:

They seem to be ranked by strokes gained.   Strokes gained takes both distance and accuracy into consideration.   

Why don’t you think the strokes gained make sense?  You’d have to see the actual location of each ball to calculate strokes gained. 

Strokes gained (correctly) weights distance over accuracy.  So @PMookie is correct: Distance matters more than accuracy.   

a 5% increase in distance will impact the SG number more than a 5% increase in accuracy.

[Nolan220]

11 minutes ago, Golfspy_Lukes said:

Strokes gained (correctly) weights distance over accuracy.  So @PMookie is correct: Distance matters more than accuracy.   

a 5% increase in distance will impact the SG number more than a 5% increase in accuracy.

you know what they say ...chicks dig the long ball man 

[TylorJudd]

I think its a shame Wilson and NexGen make the list but we can't get a Sub70 849, or a PXG in that list either. DTC has a place I feel

[cnosil]

12 minutes ago, Golfspy_Lukes said:

Strokes gained (correctly) weights distance over accuracy.  So @PMookie is correct: Distance matters more than accuracy.   

a 5% increase in distance will impact the SG number more than a 5% increase in accuracy.

But you have to take lie into account as well. With the marginal distance gains a 3 yards shorter in the the fairway will have a higher strokes gained than longer in the rough.  the shortest driver had an average carry of 231 and the longest 242 so there isn’t a lot of difference in SG.  Was the dispersion for those more in the fairway or more in the rough? 

[cnosil]

30 minutes ago, KnoxvilleReb said:

I believe he made an earlier post confused why a driver that was both longer and had better dispersion would have less strokes gained than another driver that was worse in both categories. But given the dispersion column is showing backspin and not dispersion, the strokes gained numbers not being aligned makes more sense now. I'm sure if you compared distance to strokes gained you'll be able to back your way into which drivers have the best dispersion. 

I also asked how he calculated strokes gained since he doesn’t know the final location of each shot.  If the tight dispersion was all in the rough stroke gained would be impacted differently versus a wider and all in the fairway. 

4 minutes ago, TylorJudd said:

I think it’s a shame Wilson and NexGen make the list but we can't get a Sub70 849, or a PXG in that list either. DTC has a place I feel

3 PXG drivers were in the test.   Maybe Sub 70 chose not to submit a driver.   

[GolfSpy_APH]

1 hour ago, Golfspy_Lukes said:

To be honest, there is nothing I hate more in marketing than graphs that make the gap between products/options look much larger than it actually is.

This the statistical version of clickbait

Considering the amount of emails we get with ppl asking why didn't this driver do X or Y and how most skim through the article super quick without much thought and look for graphs or photos/quick hits this is effective. It doesn't make it look outrageous or awful when comparing. 

It highlights which won, as it should and at least gives numbers right under each to highlight the numerical difference. If it had no numbers I'm with you, but also don't see another or better way of presenting it that gives as much information as possible in one small photo. 

[Siamese Moose]

1 hour ago, cnosil said:

Why don’t you think the strokes gained make sense?  You’d have to see the actual location of each ball to calculate strokes gained. 

The data table doesn't list any accuracy figures, only dispersion (and it listed a tighter dispersion for the Cobra). I'm very well aware that a tight dispersion that is offline is not as good as something straighter, but the table doesn't say anything about that. That's why I wanted more clarification about the strokes gained number. Now that I know that there is an error in the table, I'm witholding any further comment until I see the corrected data table.

[cnosil]

2 minutes ago, Siamese Moose said:

The data table doesn't list any accuracy figures, only dispersion (and it listed a tighter dispersion for the Cobra). I'm very well aware that a tight dispersion that is offline is not as good as something straighter, but the table doesn't say anything about that. That's why I wanted more clarification about the strokes gained number. Now that I know that there is an error in the table, I'm witholding any further comment until I see the corrected data table.

Looks like the data has been fixed.  Dispersion numbers updated.  

[null]

12 minutes ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

Considering the amount of emails we get with ppl asking why didn't this driver do X or Y and how most skim through the article super quick without much thought and look for graphs or photos/quick hits this is effective. It doesn't make it look outrageous or awful when comparing. 

It highlights which won, as it should and at least gives numbers right under each to highlight the numerical difference. If it had no numbers I'm with you, but also don't see another or better way of presenting it that gives as much information as possible in one small photo. 

But the numbers don't mean anything at the surface.

97.5 vs 95.4 

Two points of a proprietary scoring metric is hard to understand on its own, but its made more complicated when you look at the data and see the ballspeed, launch and spin all relatively even -- which also results in statistically insignificant differences in carry distance among the top drivers. 

And what's is the difference between forgiveness and accuracy in the scoring table?  TSR3 has better shot area than the Stealth 2 Plus, but TSR3 has a lower accuracy score yet a higher forgiveness score. 

It's just very hard to look at the numbers and make any sense of the final rankings; especially with most of the drivers just so close in ball speed and carry distances

 

 

 

[GolfSpy_APH]

2 minutes ago, Golfspy_Lukes said:

It's just very hard to look at the numbers and make any sense of the final rankings; especially with most of the drivers just so close in ball speed and carry distances

 

 

 

Agree with this and as I am writing this I am listening to the NPG podcast and Tony is going through a lot of that. 

I guess it is a balance between finding what a lot of us data nerds love to dive into and what the general consumer wants. 

I will admit in my preish forum days I could not wait to see the most wanted testing and it had a huge influence on what i would consider or go in to try and purchase. Even though i would still look for fittings, the Most Wanted Results held a lot of weight in swaying my decision. This I think is where a lot of this is directed and made for. Those consumers (as you already said) who want OTR and seeing any number even if it doesn't hold a ton of immediate value it can give them an idea of how much better or worse based on the various well everything. 

Again with the amount of emails and such we get and see most don't read the article. Most look for the pictures, graphs and key notes. That is all they will really look for and want to read (for better or worse). 

Finally it is interesting that Tony said in the podcast that drivers were typically more similar in accuracy or forgiveness vs a larger difference in distance. 

[cnosil]

23 minutes ago, Golfspy_Lukes said:

 

And what's is the difference between forgiveness and accuracy in the scoring table?  

 

From the article:

Q: How is the “Most Accurate Driver” determined?

A: The metrics that determine the Most Forgiving Driver are straight shot percentage, playable shot percentage and Strokes Gained (see Most Wanted Scoring section above for more detail).

Q: How is the “Most Forgiving Driver” determined?

A: The metrics that determine the Most Forgiving Driver are carry delta, ball speed delta and shot area (see Most Wanted Scoringsection above for more detail).

 

 

as mentioned in the articles FAQ there is more detail in the scoring section. 

[null]

13 minutes ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

Agree with this and as I am writing this I am listening to the NPG podcast and Tony is going through a lot of that. 

I guess it is a balance between finding what a lot of us data nerds love to dive into and what the general consumer wants. 

I will admit in my preish forum days I could not wait to see the most wanted testing and it had a huge influence on what i would consider or go in to try and purchase. Even though i would still look for fittings, the Most Wanted Results held a lot of weight in swaying my decision. This I think is where a lot of this is directed and made for. Those consumers (as you already said) who want OTR and seeing any number even if it doesn't hold a ton of immediate value it can give them an idea of how much better or worse based on the various well everything. 

Again with the amount of emails and such we get and see most don't read the article. Most look for the pictures, graphs and key notes. That is all they will really look for and want to read (for better or worse). 

Finally it is interesting that Tony said in the podcast that drivers were typically more similar in accuracy or forgiveness vs a larger difference in distance. 

Oh for sure - that is why in my first post I made sure I said that I understood that this testing wasn't for people that want to know more about the data.

There is a reason that the link to the actual data is a tiny link hidden at the bottom.

It's a great starting point , but it is also dangerous to people walking around with bits of information that they don't quite understand and proclaiming it as gospel.

But this goes beyond golf -- critical independent thinking and questioning the why is seemingly a dying art amongst society as a whole

[null]

2 minutes ago, cnosil said:

From the article:

Q: How is the “Most Accurate Driver” determined?

A: The metrics that determine the Most Forgiving Driver are straight shot percentage, playable shot percentage and Strokes Gained (see Most Wanted Scoring section above for more detail).

Q: How is the “Most Forgiving Driver” determined?

A: The metrics that determine the Most Forgiving Driver are carry delta, ball speed delta and shot area (see Most Wanted Scoringsection above for more detail).

 

 

as mentioned in the articles FAQ there is more detail in the scoring section. 

See - I read that and my immediate thought was that straight shots have little to do with club design.  So many "input" factors from all of the testers that makes it quite hard to corelate back to accuracy.

But I am going to bow out now as I don't want this get to into the weeds.

[cnosil]

Just now, Golfspy_Lukes said:

See - I read that and my immediate thought was that straight shots have little to do with club design.  So many "input" factors from all of the testers that makes it quite hard to corelate back to accuracy.

But I am going to bow out now as I don't want this get to into the weeds.

I agree.  You and I and many people on this forum want details and the most wanted testing results  aren’t designed to give those details.  There a so many nuances and the simple fact that people don’t rad the entire article to understand the basics make it confusing.   There’s a balancing point between too little and too much information and it is hard to find that balance.  I admit I am in a completely different position than everyone else on the forum.  I participate in this testing,  I see the protocols, and get to see a little deeper dive into my specific data so my exposure it different.  
 

I think if readers just took a simple view of the data and said I want to improve this area over my current driver, show me the top 5 that are most likely to work best and let’s go try them and see if t does help.   Waiting for speed breakdowns is also advantageous since that also influences the finishing order.  

[TylorJudd]

1 hour ago, cnosil said:

 

3 PXG drivers were in the test.   Maybe Sub 70 chose not to submit a driver.   

I didn't see them on the list above, my bad

[ClarkWGriswoldIII]

22 hours ago, TylorJudd said:

I didn't see them on the list above, my bad

They were disappointingly farther down the list, with the most inexpensive of the bunch, the 0211 the highest ranked!