We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Drivers adding 5-10 yards and some claim more but....

SuperStroke
In my opinion the driver and club advancements can be attributed to the advancement and utilization of equipment used to design the equipment and monitor the results. With trackman/GC quad and such systems the R&D and engineering departments can optimize and monitor to get optimal spin/launch characteristics from the clubs/balls and shafts. Throw in the new computing abilities, CAD as well as CNC to make one off parts to test without having to do a full on build out process and it is easy to see why the newer clubs out perform the older generation. The trick is to do so while staying below the USGA thresholds.
 
OP here....
I read the posts and I agree with many and disagree with others.
That being said.
with the advancement of materials, the advancement of design, the new knowledge that has been learned through all the years, I would expect club design to make golf easier and therefore provide more fun. Don’t get me wrong, I didn’t say make golf EASY, because we all know what a few inches each way could do to a swing.
I am glad that drivers are now 460cc, shafts are lighter, shafts have less deflection, face is stronger and offers better distance.
Need all I can get! I have lost flexibility which we know turns into distance.
I will take what I can get!
 
I can buy the low spin argument. Especially when combined with launch monitor optimization. I've got two generations of the same set of irons and the second set does indeed claim more distance. Both sets same shaft but the newer set is 1 degree stronger.

Observation on the range and walking shots off in my back yard shows that on some shots the new iron is about 3 to 4 yards longer. It appears to launch a bit higher with less spin.
 
Acesteve said:
I can buy the low spin argument. Especially when combined with launch monitor optimization. I've got two generations of the same set of irons and the second set does indeed claim more distance. Both sets same shaft but the newer set is 1 degree stronger.

Observation on the range and walking shots off in my back yard shows that on some shots the new iron is about 3 to 4 yards longer. It appears to launch a bit higher with less spin.
Click to expand...
Careful. You’re blowing holes in the cries of the “loft jack army”.

Lower loft? More launch? Craziness!

(This is total sarcasm, the reality is you’re seeing first hand that design changesas well as material changes necessitate the alteration of lofts to maximize the performance and playability window)
 
some companies (even some companies many of us here love dearly) have been called to task for comparing apples to oranges in claims for distance gains made in official advertisement/marketing campaigns.

but these days, while I still think distance gains are possible, I don't think anyone who makes even a half-assed effort to inform themselves would come away with any conclusion or than distance gains are small and incremental year-over-year. but that the real story is ball speed retention on mishits, and more consistency of results on off-center or less than ideal strikes/swings.

take for example a recent youtube video. the golfer has a lot of speed, with drives generally averaging around 320. he chose the mavrik standard to be his gamer for 2020, and tested his gamer vs a big bertha alpha (i think) from several years ago. perfect strike to perfect strike, both drivers performed almost identically. but over the course of a series of shots that included mishits or less manageable face-to-path discrepancies, the mavrik way outshined the bba and the results showed more distance and tighter dispersion. so on perfect strikes, no, the new stuff isn't always substantially longer than the old stuff. but factoring in mishits, I firmly believe a properly fitted newer club will outperform an older club.
 
Last edited:
Until I lost my beloved PING V2 Rapture driver head, I hadn't looked for drivers. I would hit all my friends' shiny new toys on the range, but never found any to have any significant distance gains (I will give a nod to my brother's TaylorMade M2; I borrowed his for one shot and just pounded it).

When I started looking though, I found that the PING G drivers were definitely longer than my old V2. The face just seems to really pop.

Of course the V2 was older and I suspect that distance advantages in the newer drivers are definitely yielding diminishing returns as each new model comes out.
 
McLovin said:
some companies (even some companies many of us here love dearly) have been called to task for comparing apples to oranges in claims for distance gains made in official advertisement/marketing campaigns.

but these days, while I still think distance gains are possible, I don't think anyone who makes even a half-assed effort to inform themselves would come away with the conclusion that distance gains are small and incremental year-over-year. but that the real story is ball speed retention on mishits, and more consistency of results on off-center or less than ideal strikes/swings.

take for example a recent youtube video. the golfer has a lot of speed, with drives generally averaging around 320. he chose the mavrik standard to be his gamer for 2020, and tested his gamer vs a big bertha alpha (i think) from several years ago. perfect strike to perfect strike, both drivers performed almost identically. but over the course of a series of shots that included mishits or less manageable face-to-path discrepancies, the mavrik way outshined the bba and the results showed more distance and tighter dispersion. so on perfect strikes, no, the new stuff isn't always substantially longer than the old stuff. but factoring in mishits, I firmly believe a properly fitted newer club will outperform an older club.
Click to expand...
This jibes with what I'm seeing in my Garmin stats. My Ping G30 stats were average drive 207, max drive 286; with the Mav Max my average is 225 and longest is 293. So 7 yards difference in my longest (which is one particular shot from each club that was probably struck perfectly) vs. an 18 yard difference in my average (which takes into consideration the fact that I hit all over the face).
 
Snowman said:
This jibes with what I'm seeing in my Garmin stats. My Ping G30 stats were average drive 207, max drive 286; with the Mav Max my average is 225 and longest is 293. So 7 yards difference in my longest (which is one particular shot from each club that was probably struck perfectly) vs. an 18 yard difference in my average (which takes into consideration the fact that I hit all over the face).
Click to expand...

so a marketing campaign could say you gained 18 yards with your new driver. or it could say you gained 7 yards with your new driver. and both of those statements would be accurate. to me, the bigger story is the increase in your average distance. that is 1.5 to 2 clubs closer to the green. I don't know about you, but i'm more likely to hit a green with a pw than a 8i, and more greens means lower scores. congrats!
 
I think if someone is discounting modern technology being introduced into drivers, you are not seeing the whole picture. Materials, weight and MOI have evolved and amateur golfers have benefited. I think what is being overlooked is that golfers are not fixing swing flaws and expecting golf clubs to be the magic pill. I think it more golfers would fix some swing issues, they will see the distance gains OEM's are advertising. I know that was the only way i've seen distance gains over the last several years.

My swing speed hasn't changed, but I've fixed swing flaws to maximize and benefit from the modern driver designs.
 
McLovin said:
what does an individual testimonial from an amateur golfer have to do with a company's marketing campaign?
Click to expand...

Did you not see that Callaway retweeted that?
 
Not sure about golf clubs but in some product channels you cannot make claims in your advertising that can't be validated. I guess thats why there is fine print.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top