Yeah I was going to say something about that too. It is just assuming a swing speed based upon ballspeed so in the earliest data it just appeared Johan was swinging M1 faster to significantly exceed the other two clubs when infact he probably wasn't. M1 just provided more ballspeed. When that was questioned it looks like he then tried to dig out three similar swing speeds to appease but that was inacurate as club speeds were simply a mathematical assumption, so M1 really performed even better in relation IMO. He also stated when he did this he just took the first 3 M1 results and cherry picked better results from the other heads ("throwing out every other one") to get similar ballspeeds to M1 ... ie more forgiving. If he had included those lesser results with the other heads, M1's relative gains should've looked even greater in his appeased data set.Out of curiosity, is there genuine value in getting numbers like this when smash factor is a static number?