BEST FAIRWAY WOODS OF 2023

[All_in_4Golf]

I would like to know why the Callaway Paradym fairway woods were MyGolfSpy's 2023 Editors' Choice winners for fairway woods when neither the Paradym or Paradym X finished within the overall top six in their testing?  And neither club was a category winner for accuracy, distance or forgiveness.  It seems like the Editors' Choice for fairway woods should have gone to Wilson Dynapower and not Callaway Paradym or at least one of the other top 3 finishers in the testing.

[cnosil]

10 minutes ago, All_in_4Golf said:

I would like to know why the Callaway Paradym fairway woods were MyGolfSpy's 2023 Editors' Choice winners for fairway woods when neither the Paradym or Paradym X finished within the overall top six in their testing?  And neither club was a category winner for accuracy, distance or forgiveness.  It seems like the Editors' Choice for fairway woods should have gone to Wilson Dynapower and not Callaway Paradym or at least one of the other top 3 finishers in the testing.

Here is my thought: The editors choice was an opinion piece based on impressions and feedback not necessarily performance.   The most wanted testing is based on actual performance  and not opinions and was completed after the editors choice awards were done.   
 

as one of the most wanted testers. My opinion of the Paradym fairway woods was that they were good and something I would consider putting in my bag.  That purchase would be based on my personal performance and comparison for how I hit the club.   I personally wouldn’t just buy one off the rack without testing because it might not work well for me.  This approach is slightly different than the most wanted results which are to provide an idea on which clubs might work best if you were buying off the rack; which is what most golfers do. 

[All_in_4Golf]

I get that the Editors’ Choice Awards aren’t just a repackaging of the Winners from the testing and that the editors consider things like value, feel and sound, but I would think that most of the editors’ awards go to Top Five finishers in a category which Paradym and Paradym X were not in the fairway woods category.  I also realize that the Editors’ Choice article was published before the final results for the fairway woods testing was known.  I just wonder if the Editors’ Choice awards were done now with everything that is known, if the choice for fairway woods would be the same.

[Glennyboy]

4 hours ago, cnosil said:

as one of the most wanted testers

I should of asked here instead of the webpage as my questions never get posted on the board.

However do you have any more insight how the strokes gained is used to determine accuracy?
I know GCQuad is used but how exactly.

Do you guys play a certain hole everytime, a tee shot, a shot from the fairway?

Is a certain club used like 10 ten times and then move on or is it one shot then to the next club?

Strokes gain is a metric of how many strokes you gain or lose but in the stats of clubs the number looks like more of a percentage so how is that number calculated. Is the strokes gain compared to a tour pro or your relative handicaps?

Sorry for the question bomb. There is no link that i found that refers any of this and if there is my bad and can you refer that link over?

Thanks

[cnosil]

4 hours ago, Glennyboy said:

I should of asked here instead of the webpage as my questions never get posted on the board.

However do you have any more insight how the strokes gained is used to determine accuracy?
I know GCQuad is used but how exactly.

Do you guys play a certain hole everytime, a tee shot, a shot from the fairway?

Is a certain club used like 10 ten times and then move on or is it one shot then to the next club?

Strokes gain is a metric of how many strokes you gain or lose but in the stats of clubs the number looks like more of a percentage so how is that number calculated. Is the strokes gain compared to a tour pro or your relative handicaps?

Sorry for the question bomb. There is no link that i found that refers any of this and if there is my bad and can you refer that link over?

Thanks

I can answer some of your questions,  some of the information isn't provided to me. 

I don't know how they convert strokes gained into the percentage.  All the formulas are proprietary to MGS.  I believe the strokes gained is based on comparison to the other clubs.  I don't know what baseline they use for strokes gained, but it is probably Mark Brodie's and I doubt the adjust for the testers handicaps.

Each clubs is tested differently: Drivers, Fairway woods, and hybrids are tested on a simulated hole on the GC Quad so you have trees and rough.  The irons and wedges hit into a green.

We do the testing over multiple sessions and the protocol varies based on what clubs we are hitting.  For fairways I think it was 15 totals shots for each club hit in groups of 5; once you hit 5 shots you rotate to the next club.  There are typically 3-4 clubs per session.  

 

 

[Swood1994]

2 hours ago, cnosil said:

I can answer some of your questions,  some of the information isn't provided to me. 

I don't know how they convert strokes gained into the percentage.  All the formulas are proprietary to MGS.  I believe the strokes gained is based on comparison to the other clubs.  I don't know what baseline they use for strokes gained, but it is probably Mark Brodie's and I doubt the adjust for the testers handicaps.

Each clubs is tested differently: Drivers, Fairway woods, and hybrids are tested on a simulated hole on the GC Quad so you have trees and rough.  The irons and wedges hit into a green.

We do the testing over multiple sessions and the protocol varies based on what clubs we are hitting.  For fairways I think it was 15 totals shots for each club hit in groups of 5; once you hit 5 shots you rotate to the next club.  There are typically 3-4 clubs per session.  

 

 

This is really cool insight into the most wanted testing. I’ve been following those for a very long time and always pass them on to people for reference when they are looking for something new in the bag. 

I’ve learned a lot more about the process through the forum and it’s great to see how transparent the process can be (within reason) via the participants. I’m sure it’s a lot of work but it seems like it would be a really fun and eye-opening experience.

[GolfSpy_APH]

For all here be sure to check out tomorrows community call as we will have Phillip Bishop who leads MGS testing and @GolfSpy_Connor who does all the soft goods and shows on our call! They may also be able to provide further insights!

[cnosil]

9 hours ago, Swood1994 said:

This is really cool insight into the most wanted testing. I’ve been following those for a very long time and always pass them on to people for reference when they are looking for something new in the bag. 

I’ve learned a lot more about the process through the forum and it’s great to see how transparent the process can be (within reason) via the participants. I’m sure it’s a lot of work but it seems like it would be a really fun and eye-opening experience.

If you have question about how the testing is conducted, I’m happy to provide the testers perspective.   As I mentioned in my earlier reply I don’t know exactly how they massage the data into the results but do know how they capture the data.  
 

I am probably one of the more active testers and I volunteer to test anything the will let me. . The only test I don’t do is SGI irons.    Testing starts in December and I just wrapped up my last most wanted test yesterday.   If I were to guess i spend 2-3 hours a week doing the testing with some occasional gaps between tests.  Probably 60ish hours total.  They also through in a few “lab” type tests that  are typically one session where they experiment with things like tee height, tee type, swing speed, comparing irons types against each other, groove sharpeners, rust on wedges, etc.   I do the testing because I really enjoy it and it is a unique opportunity to hit clubs that typically aren’t available in stores and use a GC quad to see if you can improve on your own gamers.

[jmschaffel1]

Pretty simple really…it’s a marketing tactic to push sales. “Awarded” products sell better than those that are less heralded. This is why different sites offer differing “best of”. If they really used static, consistent, robot testing, they would all have the same results. This is why they use human testers instead of the aforementioned robots. Allows for differing results/opinions all in an effort to sell you something. Be smart. Go get fitted. Don’t buy based off someone else’s experience. 

[PJVicary]

Great insight here as always. Individual testing may differ from what you may read as each player has different nuances club head speeds etc. I have noticed, having pulled apart many new sets in the past that clubs off the rack are not put together properly. I try to get my players on to the range testing clubs without them knowing what brands/ shafts they are hitting. Looking for feel and repetitiveness. Then dialing in using devices to determine flight, club head speed etc. it’s a process many get tired of until 5hey have the finished product in their bags and a few rounds under their belt. 

[cnosil]

35 minutes ago, jmschaffel1 said:

Pretty simple really…it’s a marketing tactic to push sales. “Awarded” products sell better than those that are less heralded. This is why different sites offer differing “best of”. If they really used static, consistent, robot testing, they would all have the same results. This is why they use human testers instead of the aforementioned robots. Allows for differing results/opinions all in an effort to sell you something. Be smart. Go get fitted. Don’t buy based off someone else’s experience. 

Marketing tactic by whom?  MGS most wanted results are based on captured data and not opinions.   Yes, “awarded” products and products played by the PGA player that played last week are what people unfortunately go out and buy.   MGS even agrees and suggests; in every most wanted article, that you go get fit and not buy off the rack.   Human testers are used because people react differently to clubs and their components based on visual appearance and feel.which is something robots can’t do.   Put a senior flex and a tour extra stiff shaft on a robot and you will probably get the same results, give it to people and vastly different results     I’d suggest you look at the upcoming ball test that MGS will be releasing; which is done with robots, and you will see that everything doesn’t perform the same.   
 

 You are definitely correct with you go get fit statement; or at least go try the clubs and see how they perform.  Don’t just walk into a store and buy off the rack because the club won on the tour last week.   

[dinomack99]

@All_in_4Golf You are absolutely correct to call out MSG on this. I don't accept the answer, "Editor's Choice was named before any testing." Who does this? I am a consultant, and if the title of my report doesn't match the detailed findings, it's misleading/irresponsible. 

[RwsGolf1]

Fairway woods in my mind must be shallow faced and not a mini-driver.  I do carry an old 3 wood in my bag that I might use 1-2 times in 10 rounds to hit from the tee.  I use my 3 hybrid for everything (easier to hit, easier to hit with the needed curve and easier out of the rough). Back when I was playing competitively, I carried a 1 iron and a driver only.   When I replace my existing 3 wood, it will be with a 4 wood that is very shallow and stable.  Fairway woods as a rule, only take up space in my bag for the most part.  

As far as the testing, I will only buy a fairway wood after extensive testing, while comparing to all that is available in a fitting atmosphere.

Edited August 23, 2023 by RwsGolf1

[cnosil]

1 hour ago, dmacko99 said:

@All_in_4Golf You are absolutely correct to call out MSG on this. I don't accept the answer, "Editor's Choice was named before any testing." Who does this? I am a consultant, and if the title of my report doesn't match the detailed findings, it's misleading/irresponsible. 

The editors choice isn’t related to the testing; the article even states it is an opinion and not based on the test results: 

That said, data shouldn’t be the only thing you consider before your next purchase. Our annual Editor’s Choice Awards allows us to shine a spotlight on products, companies and brands that have left an impression on us – even if they didn’t place No. 1.

how does the title “Editors Choice for 2023” to match what was in the article?  I read the title as personal opinion not results of testing.   Do you consider the editorial section of the newspaper to be “news” and factual because news outlets are supposed to report facts without opinion?   MGS also posts “first look” articles that are opinion based initial looks at a product.  Not everything done by MGS is backed by test data.   

[Glennyboy]

2 hours ago, cnosil said:

If you have question about how the testing is conducted, I’m happy to provide the testers perspective.

Yeah thanks for the feedback this helps a lot. They usually have additional info on their testing but seem to missed on providing the back story on that.

You answered the majority of my curiousness. 

I do have another one regarding the strokes gained again. When you hit shots with a certain club do you get that strokes gained number for that given shot? I have used GCQuad sparingly at shops and didnt know if they provided that metric or is it something that is calculated later

 

I guess this would count for all three metric categories but how are outliers counted towards the data? You mentioned you did 10 balls at a time for each club. Do all the shots count or is there a buffer for a bad swing or two for the subsequent round?

 

Thanks for your feedback being a tester

[cnosil]

Just now, Glennyboy said:

 

I do have another one regarding the strokes gained again. When you hit shots with a certain club do you get that strokes gained number for that given shot? I have used GCQuad sparingly at shops and didnt know if they provided that metric or is it something that is calculated later

I guess this would count for all three metric categories but how are outliers counted towards the data? You mentioned you did 10 balls at a time for each club. Do all the shots count or is there a buffer for a bad swing or two for the subsequent round?

We do not see strokes gained numbers  as it isn’t provided by the GCQuad.  This is part of the number crunching that goes on after all the data is captured.   Strokes gained for a shot is easily calculated.   The “hole” is a certain distance so you know the expected number of strokes it should take.to hole out.    After you hit a shot you know the remaining distance and the lie which also has an expected stroke gained number.  Subtract the two and you get a stroke gained number for each shot.  
 

I mentioned that the protocols vary on the total number of shots and the number of shots taken prior to switching clubs.  Most protocols hav us hit 4-5 shots prior to switching clubs.  The longer the club, the more total shots we hit due to the larger number of potential outliers.   Easier to hit a  wedge without having bad shots than a driver.  After we have captured the set of data, The data is reviewed by an MGS staffer to eliminate obvious outliers and we will hit additional shots to get us to a minimum number of captured shots.   The backend processing may identify additional outliers.   
 

Hope that helps. 

[sotall]

I did a fairway wood fitting a couple of months back.  I am 76 y.o. with a slow swing speed.  My original fairways were 3 and 5 Titleist TS2 and my distance had dropped over the 4 years I played them plus the 3 wood was getting harder to get in the air.  I tried most of the popular brands and multiple shafts.  I ended up with the Callaway Paradym X 5 and 7 which for me were the longest and most consistent and were 10-15 yards longer than the Titleists.  So I can understand how the Callaway’s ended up being picked by MGS.

[Glennyboy]

22 minutes ago, cnosil said:

The “hole” is a certain distance

Is it the same hole every time within the category? Whats the features of the hole? it is plain jane and wide open or tight with hazards?

 

After knowing the basis of how this is determined, my two cents is that this metric could almost be mashed up with forgiveness. Cause in strokes gained term I can be totally inaccurate of my target as long as I hit it good and did not end up in a bad situation my strokes gained will be higher than an accurate shot into like a bunker. The forgiveness of a club helped me more hitting it further and avoid trouble more than so the accuracy. 

Just my general take of it. Thanks again it just clears the clout of just spitting numbers at us and just say ok to a number of 95.8, you know.

[cnosil]

4 minutes ago, Glennyboy said:

Is it the same hole every time within the category? Whats the features of the hole? it is plain jane and wide open or tight with hazards?

 

After knowing the basis of how this is determined, my two cents is that this metric could almost be mashed up with forgiveness. Cause in strokes gained term I can be totally inaccurate of my target as long as I hit it good and did not end up in a bad situation my strokes gained will be higher than an accurate shot into like a bunker. The forgiveness of a club helped me more hitting it further and avoid trouble more than so the accuracy. 

Just my general take of it. Thanks again it just clears the clout of just spitting numbers at us and just say ok to a number of 95.8, you know.

Same hole across all categories that uses a hole for the testing.  Fairway is about 35 yards wide, tree lined,  no bunkers.  It is Teton Pines hole number 2. 

 

forgiveness and accuracy are significantly difference from their view.  Per the article, accuracy is really more about how straight and playable the shot is.   Forgiveness gets into the deltas values of spin, ball speed,  carry and hat is the total shot area.   Basically, how consistent is the club.  

[jmschaffel1]

3 hours ago, cnosil said:

Marketing tactic by whom?  MGS most wanted results are based on captured data and not opinions.   Yes, “awarded” products and products played by the PGA player that played last week are what people unfortunately go out and buy.   MGS even agrees and suggests; in every most wanted article, that you go get fit and not buy off the rack.   Human testers are used because people react differently to clubs and their components based on visual appearance and feel.which is something robots can’t do.   Put a senior flex and a tour extra stiff shaft on a robot and you will probably get the same results, give it to people and vastly different results     I’d suggest you look at the upcoming ball test that MGS will be releasing; which is done with robots, and you will see that everything doesn’t perform the same.   
 

 You are definitely correct with you go get fit statement; or at least go try the clubs and see how they perform.  Don’t just walk into a store and buy off the rack because the club won on the tour last week.   

Sorry...I meant a marketing tactic by the golf industry as a whole or by anyone that "may collect a commission" if you buy via their articles or by anyone that just wants you to read their reviews and articles instead of others (think advertising dollars).  There is always an angle unless, of course, MSG has gone the way of a non-profit.  And how else would you explain captured data not being consistent from publication to publication despite the notion they all claim to be unbiased and properly tested?? These reviews/articles should only serve as a brand/product awareness piece.  As you were kind enough to point out, as every human tester's opinion is different, they are equally irrelevant.  Therefore, opinion pieces are completely unnecassary and only serve to push the writer's preferred choice.  Raw data with consistent, repetitive (robotic) swings are the only metrics worth sharing.  With raw/robotic data, you will find out what the club alone is capable of when striking the ball properly and consistently.  That's apples to apples.  Once you give them to a person to swing, you're no longer comparing apples to apples.  More like apples to applesauce to apple pie, etc.  And, again, raw data should only be used as a tool to guide your testing and purchasing.  You need to get your own hands on and swing away.  I agree that the look, feel, and sound of a club are important to the purchase, but you're not going to learn about that from anyone's review.  

[GolfSpy_APH]

35 minutes ago, jmschaffel1 said:

Sorry...I meant a marketing tactic by the golf industry as a whole or by anyone that "may collect a commission" if you buy via their articles or by anyone that just wants you to read their reviews and articles instead of others (think advertising dollars).  There is always an angle unless, of course, MSG has gone the way of a non-profit.  And how else would you explain captured data not being consistent from publication to publication despite the notion they all claim to be unbiased and properly tested?? These reviews/articles should only serve as a brand/product awareness piece.  As you were kind enough to point out, as every human tester's opinion is different, they are equally irrelevant.  Therefore, opinion pieces are completely unnecassary and only serve to push the writer's preferred choice.  Raw data with consistent, repetitive (robotic) swings are the only metrics worth sharing.  With raw/robotic data, you will find out what the club alone is capable of when striking the ball properly and consistently.  That's apples to apples.  Once you give them to a person to swing, you're no longer comparing apples to apples.  More like apples to applesauce to apple pie, etc.  And, again, raw data should only be used as a tool to guide your testing and purchasing.  You need to get your own hands on and swing away.  I agree that the look, feel, and sound of a club are important to the purchase, but you're not going to learn about that from anyone's review.  

Before I dive in and respond in full, just wanted to ask if you are suggesting that opinion pieces shouldnt be written by MGS?

[GolfSpy TCB]

43 minutes ago, jmschaffel1 said:

Sorry...I meant a marketing tactic by the golf industry as a whole or by anyone that "may collect a commission" if you buy via their articles or by anyone that just wants you to read their reviews and articles instead of others (think advertising dollars).  There is always an angle unless, of course, MSG has gone the way of a non-profit.  And how else would you explain captured data not being consistent from publication to publication despite the notion they all claim to be unbiased and properly tested?? These reviews/articles should only serve as a brand/product awareness piece.  As you were kind enough to point out, as every human tester's opinion is different, they are equally irrelevant.  Therefore, opinion pieces are completely unnecassary and only serve to push the writer's preferred choice.  Raw data with consistent, repetitive (robotic) swings are the only metrics worth sharing.  With raw/robotic data, you will find out what the club alone is capable of when striking the ball properly and consistently.  That's apples to apples.  Once you give them to a person to swing, you're no longer comparing apples to apples.  More like apples to applesauce to apple pie, etc.  And, again, raw data should only be used as a tool to guide your testing and purchasing.  You need to get your own hands on and swing away.  I agree that the look, feel, and sound of a club are important to the purchase, but you're not going to learn about that from anyone's review.  

Understand and appreciate your position.

From my view... I don't swing like a robot.  I swing like a human.  So therefore, I find the comments and reviews from human testers relevant.  I can myself filter what is important to me, or what is noise in my decision making process based on those comments.  Again, just my personal preference.  That said, I LOVE data too.  But I'm not going out to buy a club based on robotic data OR a reviewer recommendation.  I will however use a blend of those two to determine which products I would like to test.  Then I test myself.  When I find one that meshes with my swing.... my bag gets a little heavier.  .  Throwing out a human review as part of the decision making process is missing out on an important portion of data in my opinion.  And also in my opinion... My swing's results will most always closer resemble a non-robotic swing (and all their imperfections that I have too) rather than a perfectly dialed in swing robot designed to maximize the optimal launch conditions.  

 

 

 

[jmschaffel1]

4 minutes ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

Before I dive in and respond in full, just wanted to ask if you are suggesting that opinion pieces shouldnt be written by MGS?

Not at all.  Only that anyone's opinion on what is "the best" is quite subjective and should be taken with a grain of salt and should, ultimately, not be considered or portrayed as a universal truth or fact.  But the source, and their motivations, should always be considered. 

And it was really the only logical response I could offer to the poster's original question...something along the lines of "why does MGS recommend a club that didn't score particularly well in any tested metrics?"  I was attempting to answer the "Why would a business do that?" question.  The answer is usually financially motivated.  In this case, how can we boost sales of a product that does not score particularly well?  Let's call it a "staff pick".  That's just capitalism, not a personal attack on how MGS conducts their business.  Nor am I implying that MGS is deceptive in their marketing as they are certainly not unique in this approach.  

[Glennyboy]

14 minutes ago, cnosil said:

forgiveness and accuracy are significantly difference from their view

I would hope they do haha.

But you could see why I would say that though right

Scenario:

FW #1 shot hit slight low heel but its still on target 2 yards offline for total of 250y

FW #2 shot hit slight low toe and its 16 off target still in fairway for total of 270y

 

FW #2 will have a higher SG than FW #2 even tho it is more offline than FW #1 and deemed being more "accurate" even though we know it was not.

I know that is one scenario but there are others that can support it as well.

That is why I thought using only SG purely for determining accuracy was a bit perplexing.

[GolfSpy_APH]

1 minute ago, jmschaffel1 said:

Not at all.  Only that anyone's opinion on what is "the best" is quite subjective and should be taken with a grain of salt and should, ultimately, not be considered or portrayed as a universal truth or fact.  But the source, and their motivations, should always be considered. 

And it was really the only logical response I could offer to the poster's original question...something along the lines of "why does MGS recommend a club that didn't score particularly well in any tested metrics?"  I was attempting to answer the "Why would a business do that?" question.  The answer is usually financially motivated.  In this case, how can we boost sales of a product that does not score particularly well?  Let's call it a "staff pick".  That's just capitalism, not a personal attack on how MGS conducts their business.  Nor am I implying that MGS is deceptive in their marketing as they are certainly not unique in this approach.  

Fair point. 

The only thing I will add are there are several writers who I relate more to than others and value their opinions as they have been in the industry for so long. It's that wealth of experience they draw from and can bring forward to current gear which may show they see something that might not always show up in the numbers, but could still be of benefit to the golfers reading the articles.

[cnosil]

3 minutes ago, Glennyboy said:

I would hope they do haha.

But you could see why I would say that though right

Scenario:

FW #1 shot hit slight low heel but its still on target 2 yards offline for total of 250y

FW #2 shot hit slight low toe and its 16 off target still in fairway for total of 270y

 

FW #2 will have a higher SG than FW #2 even tho it is more offline than FW #1 and deemed being more "accurate" even though we know it was not.

I know that is one scenario but there are others that can support it as well.

That is why I thought using only SG purely for determining accuracy was a bit perplexing.

It understand what you are saying,  but that is why I want to see accuracy and forgiveness separately.  

[jmschaffel1]

4 minutes ago, GolfSpy TCB said:

Understand and appreciate your position.

From my view... I don't swing like a robot.  I swing like a human.  So therefore, I find the comments and reviews from human testers relevant.  I can myself filter what is important to me, or what is noise in my decision making process based on those comments.  Again, just my personal preference.  That said, I LOVE data too.  But I'm not going out to buy a club based on robotic data OR a reviewer recommendation.  I will however use a blend of those two to determine which products I would like to test.  Then I test myself.  When I find one that meshes with my swing.... my bag gets a little heavier.  .  Throwing out a human review as part of the decision making process is missing out on an important portion of data in my opinion.  And also in my opinion... My swing's results will most always closer resemble a non-robotic swing (and all their imperfections that I have too) rather than a perfectly dialed in swing robot designed to maximize the optimal launch conditions.  

 

 

 

Likewise.  I appreciate your thoughts here too and cannot disagree.  But if you are ultimately going to go and test yourself, and buy based on your personal results with the club, wouldn't that relegate everyone else's prior opinions irrelevant?  I mean your not going to buy a club you cannot hit straight because someone says it looks cool.  Or sounds good.  How could a reviewer really recommend anything without knowing anything about you or your swing?  Or vice versa.  All they can really offer is their opinion based on their experience.  I would say that brand/product awareness and personal use/testing are the only things that matter, IMO.  But to each their own.  

[NubianRugby]

5 hours ago, jmschaffel1 said:

Be smart. Go get fitted. 

That's what it boils down to IMHO. A good fitting will help you find out what works for YOU.

I got fitted this Spring and ended up with a Paradym Fairway wood and Ping hybrid because that's what worked for me, but outside of getting fit for clubs I almost certainly wouldn't have figured that out as quickly or cheaply as I did.

[GolfSpy TCB]

Just now, jmschaffel1 said:

Likewise.  I appreciate your thoughts here too and cannot disagree.  But if you are ultimately going to go and test yourself, and buy based on your personal results with the club, wouldn't that relegate everyone else's prior opinions irrelevant?  I mean your not going to buy a club you cannot hit straight because someone says it looks cool.  Or sounds good.  How could a reviewer really recommend anything without knowing anything about you or your swing?  Or vice versa.  All they can really offer is their opinion based on their experience.  I would say that brand/product awareness and personal use/testing are the only things that matter, IMO.  But to each their own.  

I wouldn't buy a club I can't hit based on someone else's info, that is correct.  I also would buy a club specifically based on robotic testing for the same possible outcome... I may hate it.  I guess I overlook the recommendation aspect, and consider the comments or findings... Someone that plays a lot of golf, and hits a large variety of clubs will have great comments about looks, feel, sound, shot shape, distance, etc... comparing to a variety of options.  

And I would like to add.  Everybody's Opinion is Relevant.  Maybe not to you, or me, or 100% of the people... but relevant none-the-less.

Your point is a reviewer saying "buy this club for your swing" may be a stretch... no argument to that.  But inside that ultimate recommendation are a host of comments and findings that I absolutely study, and that may drive me toward a club. 

I wish I was a professional tester, and could go swing every club on the market to pick and choose from a sample size of 100%.  Unfortunately, my work here on the forum keeps me too busy for that ;).  

[Donn lost in San Diego]

3 hours ago, RwsGolf1 said:

Fairway woods in my mind must be shallow faced and not a mini-driver.  I do carry an old 3 wood in my bag that I might use 1-2 times in 10 rounds to hit from the tee.  I use my 3 hybrid for everything (easier to hit, easier to hit with the needed curve and easier out of the rough). Back when I was playing competitively, I carried a 1 iron and a driver only.   When I replace my existing 3 wood, it will be with a 4 wood that is very shallow and stable.  Fairway woods as a rule, only take up space in my bag for the most part.  

As far as the testing, I will only buy a fairway wood after extensive testing, while comparing to all that is available in a fitting atmosphere.

In between injuries, I carry to two 3 woods.  One is shallow as you say, one for tee box.  A 10 yr old Adams Speedline LP (low profile) for hitting off the grass, and a newer Callaway Steelhead Xr as a small driver.  The bright blue Matrix Radix 16 sided internal structure shaft on the Adams fits me perfectly and like you, not long off the tee, so it gets used 5 - 10 times a round.  I might hit the Callaway in the grass if there is enough grass under the ball but mostly a tee box club.