BEST FAIRWAY WOODS OF 2023

[jmschaffel1]

15 minutes ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

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.

Fair enough.  Lol...I still read MGS, don't I?  

[cnosil]

10 minutes ago, 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.  

most people on here agree 100% with what you said here.   I am one of the testers and the top clubs aren’t necessarily the best for me.   This is why MGS states in every article to test the clubs and get fit.   That said to understand most wanted results and it’s purpose you need to look at the majority of people that purchase golf equipment.  They walk into the store and buy whatever won last week on the PGA tour; refer to jailbird putters, putting mirrors after Brian harmans win, and now lab putters after glovers win.   The most wanted testing is setup to help this person to find/target clubs that should work best for the largest percentage of golfers.  If you get fit or try them yourself you may have completely different results.  

21 minutes ago, GolfSpy TCB said:

. I don't swing like a robot.  I swing like a human. 

Yep, and I can setup a robot to with different parameters to favor one thing over another.  I think we will see that when the ball test comes out.  LA golf has robot data that shows their ball is longer than a prov1; I think MGS data will differ.   

[cnosil]

8 minutes ago, GolfSpy TCB said:

 

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 ;).  

I’d like to be a professional tester too. Being a most wanted tester doesn’t put money in the bank account;   I still have to keep my day job but won’t stop testing

[Markelly82]

I have the G410 3 wood and I would love to upgrade with a stealth or a 430. 

[GolfSpy TCB]

15 minutes ago, cnosil said:

most people on here agree 100% with what you said here.   I am one of the testers and the top clubs aren’t necessarily the best for me.   This is why MGS states in every article to test the clubs and get fit.   That said to understand most wanted results and it’s purpose you need to look at the majority of people that purchase golf equipment.  They walk into the store and buy whatever won last week on the PGA tour; refer to jailbird putters, putting mirrors after Brian harmans win, and now lab putters after glovers win.   The most wanted testing is setup to help this person to find/target clubs that should work best for the largest percentage of golfers.  If you get fit or try them yourself you may have completely different results.  

Yep, and I can setup a robot to with different parameters to favor one thing over another.  I think we will see that when the ball test comes out.  LA golf has robot data that shows their ball is longer than a prov1; I think MGS data will differ.   

I wonder if the glove sales took a hit over the last month after the "gloveless" Glover won two weeks in a row.  haha.

[jmschaffel1]

45 minutes ago, GolfSpy TCB said:

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 ;).  

To each their own.  I just like to make sure my fellow consumers are aware that they may be being "driven towards a club", as you put it.  Isn't that what "influencers" do?  The game has changed.  The tactics have not.  

[jmschaffel1]

45 minutes ago, cnosil said:

most people on here agree 100% with what you said here.   I am one of the testers and the top clubs aren’t necessarily the best for me.   This is why MGS states in every article to test the clubs and get fit.   That said to understand most wanted results and it’s purpose you need to look at the majority of people that purchase golf equipment.  They walk into the store and buy whatever won last week on the PGA tour; refer to jailbird putters, putting mirrors after Brian harmans win, and now lab putters after glovers win.   The most wanted testing is setup to help this person to find/target clubs that should work best for the largest percentage of golfers.  If you get fit or try them yourself you may have completely different results.  

Yep, and I can setup a robot to with different parameters to favor one thing over another.  I think we will see that when the ball test comes out.  LA golf has robot data that shows their ball is longer than a prov1; I think MGS data will differ.   

I think it will too.  Makes you wonder about the validity of the data?  Who's data is correct?  And if there is a difference, how can you trust either?  Which has, sort of, been my point today.

[dinomack99]

I would say as a reader, opinion pieces are great. Put them as little sidebar commentaries like they do in GOLF magazine. But to have an Editor's Choice basically conveys that you have a winner. It wins across most every category. A show-stopper. And that's hardly the case here. I do disagree entirely with the notion that the Paradym was chosen to drive sales. I hold MGS in higher regard than to think that. I don't think there's anything malicious going on here. Just a communication problem.

[jmschaffel1]

50 minutes ago, cnosil said:

most people on here agree 100% with what you said here.   I am one of the testers and the top clubs aren’t necessarily the best for me.   This is why MGS states in every article to test the clubs and get fit.   That said to understand most wanted results and it’s purpose you need to look at the majority of people that purchase golf equipment.  They walk into the store and buy whatever won last week on the PGA tour; refer to jailbird putters, putting mirrors after Brian harmans win, and now lab putters after glovers win.   The most wanted testing is setup to help this person to find/target clubs that should work best for the largest percentage of golfers.  If you get fit or try them yourself you may have completely different results.  

Yep, and I can setup a robot to with different parameters to favor one thing over another.  I think we will see that when the ball test comes out.  LA golf has robot data that shows their ball is longer than a prov1; I think MGS data will differ.   

What are the parameters for "most wanted"?  Purchasing trends over the last three weeks?  Internet chatter in the last 24 hours?  To me, it implies the best club because who doesn't want the best club.  What do you mean "work for best for the largest percentage of golfers"?  Based on what metrics?

[KOG]

1 hour ago, Markelly82 said:

I have the G410 3 wood and I would love to upgrade with a stealth or a 430. 

Youre not going to get much improvement for the cost. Stealth will be longer by a few yards but less forgiving. the 430 is far too expensive for a few yards. G410 is almost the same club

[cnosil]

1 hour ago, jmschaffel1 said:

I think it will too.  Makes you wonder about the validity of the data?  Who's data is correct?  And if there is a difference, how can you trust either?  Which has, sort of, been my point today.

Both can be correct.  I would trust the one that has isn't done by the OEM.  Ultimately it is the consumers responsibility to evaluate. 

58 minutes ago, jmschaffel1 said:

What are the parameters for "most wanted"?  Purchasing trends over the last three weeks?  Internet chatter in the last 24 hours?  To me, it implies the best club because who doesn't want the best club.  What do you mean "work for best for the largest percentage of golfers"?  Based on what metrics?

MGS has a pool of testers that follow defined protocols that industry experts helped establish and are refined each year.   Upon collection of the data from the GC Quad metrics like accuracy, forgiveness, and distance are calculated, weighted, and compared to determine the most wanted winner.  Those metrics represent the averages of the tester pool so if you looked at some of the individual golfers, the most wanted winner may not be the best club for them.    At the end of the day you have a choice on whether to believe the results or not.   I personally see what they do and have had discussions with them about their testing and believe it is some of the best.  They have an open door policy so feel free to go there and see for yourself.    Everyday they hear from people that tell them what they are doing wrong.  If you think you can do a better job start a company yourself and publish your own data using your own protocols.   

[Javs]

3 hours 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.  

 

 

 

Well stated! None of us are robots. The feedback from actual testers is a very important part of the research in getting new equipment. I value the feedback provided by the testers on the site. I think it is one of the highlights! 

[TylorJudd]

Completely agree with @Javs and @cnosil. I personally use the Stealth 2+ and I feel as though it should be rated higher than they have it it terms of distance and accuracy for sure. It's forgiveness is quite high, and this club specifically is subjective because of so many different settings and variables it can adjust. You certainly need to take MGS, GolfWRX, PluvgedInGolf, Golf Digest, Golf.com all of them together and see some averages just for the sake of having a starting point to reference. 

I would be lying if I was less then stunned to see Wilson too the driver chart this year 

[GolfSpy_KFT]

This has been an entertaining thread to this point lol

[TylorJudd]

4 hours ago, Javs said:

Well stated! None of us are robots. The feedback from actual testers is a very important part of the research in getting new equipment. I value the feedback provided by the testers on the site. I think it is one of the highlights! 

To add to this also, once you're fit into something and know it's characteristics, reviews like these become easier to narrow down what you're looking for. At the end of the day, it's better than on staff testers from OEM's as marketing would find it's dirty little fingers in there

[Javs]

7 hours ago, cnosil said:

Both can be correct.  I would trust the one that has isn't done by the OEM.  Ultimately it is the consumers responsibility to evaluate. 

MGS has a pool of testers that follow defined protocols that industry experts helped establish and are refined each year.   Upon collection of the data from the GC Quad metrics like accuracy, forgiveness, and distance are calculated, weighted, and compared to determine the most wanted winner.  Those metrics represent the averages of the tester pool so if you looked at some of the individual golfers, the most wanted winner may not be the best club for them.    At the end of the day you have a choice on whether to believe the results or not.   I personally see what they do and have had discussions with them about their testing and believe it is some of the best.  They have an open door policy so feel free to go there and see for yourself.    Everyday they hear from people that tell them what they are doing wrong.  If you think you can do a better job start a company yourself and publish your own data using your own protocols.   

Very well stated!

[skraeling]

At least its not like the GPU space with manufacturers cherry picking the best silicone to send to reviewers.  They had to start buying their own at one point to avoid getting sent a golden child for benchmarking.