Ruminations on driver forgiveness

[Hook DeLoft]

I waste a lot of time on the internet reading and watching golf club reviews.  My favorite reviews are the MGS best driver reviews comparing different models.  It seems that the more distance potential a diver has, the less forgiving it is.  Yes, yes, there are exceptions but I think that is true for most designs.  MGS posted a video recently arguing that you should swing as fast as possible because being longer and in the rough is better than being short and in the fairway.  My last 2 drivers have been very forgiving Ping models, but I am starting to think I should go for a less forgiving model that has higher ball speed when hit out of the sweet spot.  Let's say my best shot with my Ping G425 Max goes 220 yards (I'm old) and I lose 10 yards on a bad strike, leaving me with a 210 yard drive.  For the sake of argument, let's say there is a driver out there I could hit 230 yards with my best shot but loses 20 yards on a bad strike.  The less forgiving driver and the more forgiving driver end up giving me the same yardage on bad strikes, but the occasional good strike with the less forgiving driver gets me 10 yards closer to the green than the occasional good strike with the more forgiving driver.  Yes, all of this is speculation and dependent on having a driver that is well fit for me, but you get the idea.  So, when choosing a driver, do you, fellow Spy, choose length or forgiveness?

[heavygolffeels]

I agree that longer in the rough is better, but longer OB is not. I'm all about forgiveness. I game a G400 Max at 44.5 length. Average drive is 270-280. I'm not swinging for fairways, but swinging to keep the ball in play.

Its important to know you average distance as well. If 220 is a good strike and 210 is bad but you hit 7/10 good, your average is 217. If 230 is good and 210 is bad but you hit 3/10 good, your average is 216. In that case the forgiving driver is longer and is putting you in better spots more often. 

[cnosil]

58 minutes ago, Hook DeLoft said:

My last 2 drivers have been very forgiving Ping models, but I am starting to think I should go for a less forgiving model that has higher ball speed when hit out of the sweet spot.    
 

So, when choosing a driver, do you, fellow Spy, choose length or forgiveness?

forgiveness is about maintaining ball speed on off center hits   So I am confused about what you are asking.

I personably miss hit a lot of shots so I seek a bit more forgiveness with my drivers.  Also, I am typically a low spin player with drivers so the forward CG drivers; which have the higher ball speeds, tend not to work well for me.

 

19 minutes ago, scooterhd2 said:

I agree that longer in the rough is better, but longer OB is not. I'm all about forgiveness. I game a G400 Max at 44.5 length. Average drive is 270-280. I'm not swinging for fairways, but swinging to keep the ball in play.

When people talk longer and rough the statements about not wanting to be OB or in the woods always comes up.  IMO,  That really isn’t about more distance, that is more about strategy and understanding expectations and dispersion patterns.  Like you said, you want to keep the ball all in play so we aim for spots that keep out dispersion pattern in play.  

[DaveP043]

1 hour ago, Hook DeLoft said:

MGS posted a video recently arguing that you should swing as fast as possible because being longer and in the rough is better than being short and in the fairway.

If I remember right, the conclusion was that the players tested hit nearly as many fairways swinging fast as they did swinging easy, so go ahead and swing hard.  Longer in the rough is better than 30 yards shorter in the fairway.  Longer in the rough is NOT better than 10 yards shorter in the fairway.  But its not even that simple, its about percentages.  If I can maintain my "angular distribution" with the longer club, that's my choice, I'll hit nearly the same number of fairways with either one. But would a more forgiving club allow you to hit significantly more fairways on those (moderately frequent) mishits?  I don't know the calculation, but I think you'd need to compare average distances against percentage of fairways hit, and then decide whether an extra 5 yards is worth missing 3 more fairways in a round, or something like that.  If you're not hitting a  lot more fairways with the shorter club, its not worth it, go for the longer one.

[cnosil]

3 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

If I remember right, the conclusion was that the players tested hit nearly as many fairways swinging fast as they did swinging easy, so go ahead and swing hard.  Longer in the rough is better than 30 yards shorter in the fairway.  Longer in the rough is NOT better than 10 yards shorter in the fairway.  But its not even that simple, its about percentages.  If I can maintain my "angular distribution" with the longer club, that's my choice, I'll hit nearly the same number of fairways with either one. But would a more forgiving club allow you to hit significantly more fairways on those (moderately frequent) mishits?  I don't know the calculation, but I think you'd need to compare average distances against percentage of fairways hit, and then decide whether an extra 5 yards is worth missing 3 more fairways in a round, or something like that.  If you're not hitting a  lot more fairways with the shorter club, its not worth it, go for the longer one.

I add to you statement.   I was part of that test and my game day swing versus my all out swing were significantly different I was giving up a potential 25 yards.  I also see this during my iron testing, I am more consistent if I swing closer to 100% versus the don’t swing 100% swing 85% recommendation we often see.   But that is how I swing.     I also don’t really care about fairways, I am more concerned with having a second shot that doesn’t require some kind of positional shot to get out of trouble.   You also need to look at how good of a player are you out of the rough; if you struggle, you may want to target more fairways.  

[Hook DeLoft]

36 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

If I remember right, the conclusion was that the players tested hit nearly as many fairways swinging fast as they did swinging easy, so go ahead and swing hard.  Longer in the rough is better than 30 yards shorter in the fairway.  Longer in the rough is NOT better than 10 yards shorter in the fairway.  But its not even that simple, its about percentages.  If I can maintain my "angular distribution" with the longer club, that's my choice, I'll hit nearly the same number of fairways with either one. But would a more forgiving club allow you to hit significantly more fairways on those (moderately frequent) mishits?  I don't know the calculation, but I think you'd need to compare average distances against percentage of fairways hit, and then decide whether an extra 5 yards is worth missing 3 more fairways in a round, or something like that.  If you're not hitting a  lot more fairways with the shorter club, its not worth it, go for the longer one.

That's pretty much the essence of my thought.

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, Hook DeLoft said:

That's pretty much the essence of my thought.

With adjustable drivers one doesn’t havent to sacrifice one for the other. Getting fit into the right head with the right shaft for your swing will give you an optimal in that will reward your good strikes and reduce the effects of your bad one. 

The optimization if launch, spin, peak height and land angle will provide you with this setup. What you don’t want to do in a fitting is use a swing in the fitting that isn’t your on course swing. Some people go into a firing trying to swing out of their shoes in an effort to get the most distance, while their on course swing is much more controlled and then when they get the new driver on the course and it performs worse than in the fitting they blame the club and the fitter and not themselves.

Just as an example, there are a large number of pros who use a “more forgiving” driver and higher loft. Example DJ has payed the more forgiving TM driver in 10.5° several times. Or the multiple titleist pros who are in ts/tsi/tsr2, while we see members on this site do a fitting and end up in the less forgiving head and sometimes in lower loft. It’s what provides the optimal ball flight for them

[heavygolffeels]

3 hours ago, cnosil said:

When people talk longer and rough the statements about not wanting to be OB or in the woods always comes up.  IMO,  That really isn’t about more distance, that is more about strategy and understanding expectations and dispersion patterns.  Like you said, you want to keep the ball all in play so we aim for spots that keep out dispersion pattern in play.  

That's true when are talking about playing. I'm talking about fitting strategy. I could easily add 8-10 yards to my driver by lofting down and using a low spin head. At 2k spin I am hitting the longest shots of my live. I've done it on a sim. Done it on the course. The problem is it's too easy to mishit for me and get a sub 1.6k ball that drop outs of the air or dives down and left and runs out of play. Can't have that. So I will gladly trade a few yards for something that is in play. I won't trade even more yards for something that is marginally straighter. 

[Micah T]

8 hours ago, cnosil said:

forgiveness is about maintaining ball speed on off center hits  

Period, end of sentence. I can hit a “forgiving” driver off the planet. No club will “forgive” your bad delivery/strike.

Be honest with yourself: how often is your delivery/strike poor? Personally I want to be fit for my good swings and coached/practiced out of my bad ones. 

[cnosil]

8 minutes ago, Micah T said:

 No club will “forgive” your bad delivery/strike.

Be honest with yourself: how often is your delivery/strike poor? Personally I want to be fit for my good swings and coached/practiced out of my bad ones. 

Honestly I want to be fit for how I typically strike the ball and for my predominant misses.  Drivers are forgiving and the goal is to minimize ball speed loss on mishits.  No it won't be the same as an ideal strike, but it needs to be playable. 

[AntLockyer]

Every driver out the middle is so close on ball speed that it really isn't a question. Long misses seems to be what you are after. The issue I have with that is a 300 yard drive 20 degrees right is a long way gone. I'd rather it only go 260 and be able to find it.

[DaveP043]

5 hours ago, AntLockyer said:

Every driver out the middle is so close on ball speed that it really isn't a question. Long misses seems to be what you are after. The issue I have with that is a 300 yard drive 20 degrees right is a long way gone. I'd rather it only go 260 and be able to find it.

If a different driver greatly increases your dispersion, its probably the wrong choice.  But if you can gain a few yards and keep your angular variation the same, its a win.  

[RickyBobby_PR]

5 hours ago, AntLockyer said:

Every driver out the middle is so close on ball speed that it really isn't a question. Long misses seems to be what you are after. The issue I have with that is a 300 yard drive 20 degrees right is a long way gone. I'd rather it only go 260 and be able to find it.

Any speed at 20 degrees right is going to be gone. What people are looking for is when contact isn’t on the sweet spot the distance loss isn’t extremely penal. Most want to lose less than 10 yards for off center hit.

Things like where CG is placed on the driver will work for some people and that same driver won’t work for others.

This is what multiple brand fittings will hash out