Connect with us

Accessory Reviews

FootJoy StaSof Glove Review

Published

on

Pros: Extremely soft, Cabretta leather. Well-placed seams. Exceptional durability.

Cons: Roughly $22 each. Available in just two colors, pearl and black.

Who they’re for: Better golfers are the ones who tend to buy premium golf gloves, but the durability and comfort of the StaSof means it’s not just a luxury item. There’s value here for all golfers.

Overview

The first thing I normally do after donning my usual “How cheap can I get them” golf gloves is to wiggle my thumb and fingers for a minute. Why? To adjust a seam (sometimes plural) that invariably isn’t where it’s supposed to be. No worries, since I probably paid about $7 per glove.

On a recent roadie, I played 20 courses across America with one glove: a 2015 FootJoy StaSof. I wear a Men’s Cadet Medium on my left hand. I chose the Pearl (white) color, but you can also opt for a black StaSof if you’re going for the J.B. Holmes look.

The glove was provided by FootJoy to GolfWRX for the purposes of this review, and it saw time in Texas, California, Oregon and Washington state.

Performance

StaSofGloveReview

 

I pulled on that StaSof and began to wiggle my fingers in that phantom way that your leg shakes when your cell phone isn’t in your pocket, but you think it is. Those wiggles are ingrained in me, but they weren’t necessary. The StaSof seams were precisely where needed. Incredulous, I pulled the glove off, spun around, did a jumping jack, and put it on again. Same result.

I emphasize this initial reaction because there’s not a lot to golf glove performance. Break it down like this: fit, comfort, grip, staying power. That’s it. Once you know your size, fit is all about the seams. The FootJoy StaSof scored A+ on the seam quiz.

Moving on to grip: If you drop the name “Pittards of England,” I go all gooey like the hyenas in Lion King, when the Whoopie Goldberg character says “Mufasa.” It’s Pittards! What it means is high-end leather, stitched together properly, ensuring a great grip in normal (and some abnormal) weather conditions. If it’s pouring, will the club slip? Yes, it will. FootJoy has other gloves to remedy that concern. But as long as the weather forecast is somewhat dry, you’re good to go with this glove.

Looks and Feel

FootJoyGlove

Unless you’re wearing psychedelic colors on your mitts, no one is going to comment on your glove. Or ask, “Dude, you stuck that approach so tight! Was it the glove?” You might be ready with the answer, “Yes, it was,” if the glove is awesome. And this one is. It feels luxurious.

It feels like the time I checked in to the Mandalay Bay, took a nap on my couch, and it was nicer than any mattress I’ve slept on. Never mind how nice the mattress was…that couch! That’s how this glove feels. It felt that way through all 20 rounds. I put it in the bag when I arrived back in Western New York (where the temps are mid-50s in December and we’re still playing golf) and pulled on the second glove they sent. Ooohh, Mufasa!

The Takeaway

A glance at the back of the glove package reveals these terms: Taction2 Advanced Performance Leather; Moisture-wicking Elastic Cuff; Finer Gauge Elastics; Angled ComforTab Velcro Closure; and PowerNet Mesh. Call them techie terms, or marketing mantras, whatever. I’ll address each one here and give you my final verdict.

  • Leather: Top notch. Softest thing I’ve felt on my skin since that couch at the Mandalay Bay.
  • Elastic Cuff: Part of the overall feel and nothing stood out as egregiously annoying or dysfunctional. The glove didn’t fit “too long or too short,” and even after all my rounds stretching was hardly noticeably in the cuff.
  • Elastics: These are the threads that secure the glove in the palm area. They did their job well.
  • Velcro Closure: It is angled and it does work properly. Is it better than a straight-across closure, the typical arrangement? I think so.
  • Mesh: Sewn into the knuckles with perforations for breathability. One issue I invariably have with my budget-rate gloves is a stiffening of the material after 5-10 rounds. Take a seat and listen up, son: this glove didn’t stiffen after 20 rounds. That’s saying something.

Final Verdict

Try on a FootJoy StaSof glove, and if you like the fit (you probably will) put it through the paces. If you’re paying $6 a glove like me and getting 7 rounds out of it, is it worth it to buy one premium glove instead of several cheaper ones? If you can get 25 rounds out of one glove like me, the answer is absolutely. Simple math that adds up!

[wrx_retail_links productid=”11″]

Your Reaction?
  • 62
  • LEGIT6
  • WOW5
  • LOL0
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK17

Ronald Montesano writes for GolfWRX.com from western New York. He dabbles in coaching golf and teaching Spanish, in addition to scribbling columns on all aspects of golf, from apparel to architecture, from equipment to travel. Follow Ronald on Twitter at @buffalogolfer.

21 Comments

21 Comments

  1. Huub

    Apr 22, 2016 at 11:39 am

    My only (big) problem with leather gloves which are made in Asia is, that they usually made ??from dogs and cats. A terrible cruel industry!

  2. Chuck Zirkle

    Jan 13, 2016 at 8:08 pm

    Great review on the FJ glove. You are absolutely correct about buying cheaper gloves. You get what you are willing to pay for. Most gloves wear out sooner, because they do not fit properly.

  3. Pablo

    Jan 5, 2016 at 7:52 pm

    Nice review… You get what you pay for. Great product and well worth the extra pennies. Would also like to see a players/ sta soft comparison as I wear players glove. Just love that thin leather feel. Peace

  4. Steve

    Jan 5, 2016 at 4:52 pm

    Great article. Started with the Player’s Glove, moved to Sci-Flex but found a keeper with Sta-Sof.

  5. BirdieBarage

    Jan 5, 2016 at 1:19 am

    For a glove that provides the same level of performance at 60% less, you need to try/buy the MG Golf DynaGrip Elite Premier Cabretta Leather golf glove. Soft, durable and fits like a second skin. I have also used Titleist Players, FootJoy StaSoft and Callaway Tour Premium.

  6. Mike

    Jan 3, 2016 at 12:53 pm

    I hit a ton of balls and if money were no problem, I’d use this glove exclusively. I want to find something like this that is say, 1/4 the price.

    • Ronald Montesano

      Jan 3, 2016 at 1:44 pm

      Any leads?

      Alternatively, you could use a cheaper model on the range and save your StaSofs for the course.

      • 2chi

        Jan 4, 2016 at 11:12 am

        I usually play the Footjoy WeatherSofs. I buy them in 2-packs for roughly $20. I played 22 rounds in 2015, plus a fair amount of range time and got through the entire season with one glove…which gives me one in the hopper for next year!

        • Ronald Montesano

          Jan 5, 2016 at 6:42 am

          These are the two gloves for the same hand, right? Have you ever played the wet/cold weather gloves, that come with one glove for each hand?

          That’s an impressive tally for 2015. You must not strangle the club! So much of glove wear is a too-tight grip on the club.

          • 2chi

            Jan 8, 2016 at 11:32 am

            Yes, two gloves for the same hand. And I actually took a lesson a couple years ago, and the first thing he “fixed” was that I was gripping the club way too tight. Took me a while to loosen it, but it paid dividends when I did.

            But I have played with the cold weather gloves, that come with one for each hand. I believe they were also the Footjoys. I don’t remember the actual name for the glove. They were bought in a pro-shop before a 36-hole outing in April. Cold front came in and temp dropped 15 degrees from expected, shame on me for not checking weather before I went. They paid for themselves though. I’ve used them probably 4-5 more times and am pleasantly surprised with them. Sometimes I will also where a standard left hand glove (I’m a righty), and then the warm weather right-hand glove. or swap between them on between shots.

    • rymail00

      Jan 5, 2016 at 12:31 am

      CAUTION-mini glove “rant”

      Like another member poster in this comment thread named “Mike” mentioned I’m fortunate to be able hit tons of balls so I always went the cheap route with the Footjoy (I believe) WeatherSof gloves that were buy one get one for like $20. I always preferred the leather gloves but hitting the range, plus short game area for 2-2.5 before each round, roughly 3-4x’s a week really kinda wore them faster than I liked so the cheaper version helped because I could also retire gloves early due to the how cheap the price was. I use a new glove and once it’s wore to where I wanted to switch it out (probably to early but the two for one deal made it easier to switch them out regularly), a that glove then became my warmup/practice glove. Only because it’d get kinda wet from sweat and then I’d have a dry and fresh “gamer” glove, that would get 2-3 weeks before becoming a range glove, again do the how cheap they were. So the nicer and more desirable leather gloves got passed up for a cheaper style glove.

      Although I did recently switch to the MG Golf Cabretta leather gloves for the last month of our season. They’re cheap, like I believe $11-12 for two of their leather grips. They are Cabretta leather feel like the Footjoy and Titleist leather thickness wise. Also I tried their tour or pro leather glove that’s much thinner for as they say “better feel” but seems to wear quicker (their a couple bucks more) and stretch a bit from the original size like the author mentioned that these Footjoys don’t seem to do. I did a review on here on them. But it seems a lot members had Velcro problems letting lose during their swing which is the worse thing a glove could do.

      I guess you really get what you pay for with gloves. If I had tons of disposable income I’d play these Footjoy or their new (limited edition glove with black emblem I believe). Or a Titleist leather glove.

      • Ronald Montesano

        Jan 8, 2016 at 12:39 pm

        Rymail00

        Thanks for that eloquent and expansive breakdown. I envy your opportunity to practice. Many people have the time, but not the desire. You seem to have both. Tour players, who don’t pay for gloves, can afford to wear a thinner glove for feel; not always so for the paying public.

  7. Scott

    Jan 3, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    You know what’s funny, I totally agree with this article. I used to use the Scieflex and when I switched to mutlicompound grips after a round or a hole would start in my palm. I started to think I was gripping too right. Anyways, the next time I went to buy a glove they only had StaSofs so I was like, “screw it, guess I’m paying more today.” I’m pretty sure I still have that glove and it’s in decent shape. Laugh all you want people, great article by Ronald.

    • Ronald Montesano

      Jan 3, 2016 at 11:10 pm

      Thanks, Scott. I understand the jovial reactions of guys who think a tried-and-true product need not be reviewed. If anyone rests on their laurels, though, we’re not doing our job. I ordered a pair of black StaSofs on the web, I was so taken by this product.

  8. Ronald Montesano

    Jan 3, 2016 at 1:14 am

    And for Tim and David on Facebook, thanks for the laughs. I can take what you dish out. For all the people that are new to golf (and there are new people to golf, friends!) we hope that this review will help them in their search for the perfect golf glove.

  9. Poppa

    Jan 3, 2016 at 12:18 am

    I want a review of the Titleist Player’s Glove next. Complete with comparisons and differences to this FJ product. Thanks!

  10. Dude

    Jan 2, 2016 at 5:27 pm

    Great glove but too long in the pinky finger.

  11. Square

    Jan 2, 2016 at 3:54 pm

    You know you’re in the silly season when there is a review of the best glove already on the market.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Accessory Reviews

I tried the great Golfboarding experiment… here’s how it went

Published

on

Corica Park Golf Course is not exactly the first place you’d expect to find one of the most experimental sports movements sweeping the nation. Sitting on a pristine swath of land along the southern rim of Alameda Island, deep in the heart of the San Francisco Bay, the course’s municipal roots and no-frills clubhouse give it an unpretentious air that seems to fit better with Sam Snead’s style of play than, say, Rickie Fowler’s.

Yet here I am, one perfectly sunny morning on a recent Saturday in December planning to try something that is about as unconventional as it gets for a 90-year-old golf course.

It’s called Golfboarding, and it’s pretty much exactly what it sounds like: an amalgam of golf and skateboarding, or maybe surfing. The brainchild of surfing legend Laird Hamilton — who can be assumed to have mastered, and has clearly grown bored of, all normal sports — Golfboarding is catching on at courses throughout the country, from local municipal courses like Corica Park to luxury country clubs like Cog Hill and TPC Las Colinas. Since winning Innovation Of the Year at the PGA Merchandising Show in 2014, Golfboards can now be found at 250 courses and have powered nearly a million rounds of golf already. Corica Park currently owns eight of them.

The man in pro shop gets a twinkle in his eyes when our foursome tells him we’d like to take them out. “Have you ridden them before?” he asks. When we admit that we are uninitiated, he grins and tells us we’re in for a treat.

But first, we need to sign a waiver and watch a seven-minute instructional video. A slow, lawyerly voice reads off pedantic warnings like “Stepping on the golfboard should be done slowly and carefully” and “Always hold onto the handlebars when the board is in motion.” When it cautions us to “operate the board a safe distance from all…other golfboarders,” we exchange glances, knowing that one of us will more than likely break this rule later on.

Then we venture outside, where one of the clubhouse attendants shows us the ropes. The controls are pretty simple. One switch sends it forward or in reverse, another toggles between low and high gear. To make it go, there’s a throttle on the thumb of the handle. The attendant explains that the only thing we have to worry about is our clubs banging against our knuckles.

“Don’t be afraid to really lean into the turns,” he offers. “You pretty much can’t roll it over.”

“That sounds like a challenge,” I joke. No one laughs.

On a test spin through the parking lot, the Golfboard feels strong and sturdy, even when I shift around on it. It starts and stops smoothly with only the slightest of jerks. In low gear its top speed is about 5 mph, so even at full throttle it never feels out of control.

The only challenge, as far as I can tell, is getting it to turn. For some reason, I’d expected the handlebar to offer at least some degree of steering, but it is purely for balance. The thing has the Ackerman angle of a Mack Truck, and you really do have to lean into the turns to get it to respond. For someone who is not particularly adept at either surfing or skateboarding, this comes a little unnaturally. I have to do a number of three-point turns in order to get back to where I started and make my way over to the first tee box.

We tee off and climb on. The fairway is flat and wide, and we shift into high gear as we speed off toward our balls. The engine had produced just the faintest of whirrs as it accelerated, but it is practically soundless as the board rolls along at full speed. The motor nevertheless feels surprisingly powerful under my feet (the drivetrain is literally located directly underneath the deck) as the board maintains a smooth, steady pace of 10 mph — about the same as a golf cart. I try making a couple of S curves like I’d seen in the video and realize that high-speed turning will take a little practice for me to get right, but that it doesn’t seem overly difficult.

Indeed, within a few holes I might as well be Laird himself, “surfing the earth” from shot to shot. I am able to hold the handlebar and lean way out, getting the board to turn, if not quite sharply, then at least closer to that of a large moving van than a full-sized semi. I take the hills aggressively (although the automatic speed control on the drivetrain enables it to keep a steady pace both up and down any hills, so this isn’t exactly dangerous), and I speed throughout the course like Mario Andretti on the freeway (the company claims increased pace-of-play as one of the Golfboard’s primary benefits, but on a Saturday in the Bay Area, it is impossible avoid a five-hour round anyway.)

Gliding along, my feet a few inches above the grass, the wind in my face as the fairways unfurl below my feet, it is easy to see Golfboards as the next evolution in mankind’s mastery of wheels; the same instincts to overcome inertia that brought us bicycles, rollerblades, scooters, skateboards, and more recent inventions such as Segways, Hoverboards and Onewheels are clearly manifest in Golfboards as well. They might not offer quite the same thrill as storming down a snowy mountainside or catching a giant wave, but they are definitely more fun than your standard golf cart.

Yet, there are obvious downsides as well. The attendant’s warning notwithstanding, my knuckles are in fact battered and sore by the time we make the turn, and even though I rearrange all my clubs into the front slots of my bag, they still rap my knuckles every time I hit a bump. Speaking of which, the board’s shock absorber system leaves something to be desired, as the ride is so bumpy that near the end I start to feel as if I’ve had my insides rattled. Then there is the unforgivable fact of its missing a cup holder for my beer.

But these are mere design flaws that might easily be fixed in the next generation of Golfboards. (A knuckle shield is a must!) My larger problem with Golfboards is what they do to the game itself. When walking or riding a traditional cart, the moments in between shots are a time to plan your next shot, or to chat about your last shot, or to simply find your zen out there among the trees and the birds and the spaciousness of the course. Instead, my focus is on staying upright.

Down the stretch, I start to fade. The muscles in my core have endured a pretty serious workout, and it’s becoming increasingly difficult to muster the strength for my golf swing. It is no coincidence that my game starts to unravel, and I am on the way to one of my worst rounds in recent memory.

Walking off the 18th green, our foursome agrees that the Golfboards were fun — definitely worth trying — but that we probably wouldn’t ride them again. Call me a purist, but as someone lacking Laird Hamilton’s physical gifts, I’m happy to stick to just one sport at a time.

Your Reaction?
  • 101
  • LEGIT18
  • WOW0
  • LOL9
  • IDHT2
  • FLOP5
  • OB3
  • SHANK22

Continue Reading

Accessory Reviews

Review: The QOD Electric Caddy

Published

on

If you want an electric golf caddy that doesn’t require that you wear a sensor or carry a remote — one that will be reliable and allow you to focus on your game, and not your cart — then the Australian-manufactured QOD is worth checking out.

The QOD (an acronym for Quality of Design and a nod to its four wheels) is powered by a 14.4-volt lithium battery, good for 36 holes or more on a single charge. It has nine different speeds (with the fastest settings moving closer to jogging velocity) so the QOD can handle your ideal pace, whether that be a casual stroll or a more rapid clip around the course.

The QOD is also built to last. Its injection-molded, aircraft-grade aluminum frame has no welded joints. Steel bolts and locking teeth take care of the hinging points. The battery and frame are both guaranteed for three full years. If you need a new battery after the three-year window, the folks at QOD will replace it at cost.

Its front-wheel suspension gives the QOD a smooth ride down the fairway, and the trolley is easy to navigate with a gentle nudge here and there. The QOD is always in free-wheel mode, so it is smooth and easy to maneuver manually in tight spaces and around the green.

The caddy also features three timed interval modes for situations where you might wish to send it up ahead on its own: when helping a friend find a lost ball or when you will be exiting on the far side of the green after putting, for example. The clip below includes a look at the caddy in timed mode.

When folded, the QOD measures a mere 17-inches wide, 15-inches deep and 12-inches tall.

Another area where the QOD excels is in its small size and portability. When folded, it measures a mere 17-inches wide, 15-inches deep and 12-inches tall, making it the smallest electric caddy on the market.

Folks Down Under have been enjoying the QOD for some time, but it wasn’t until a few years ago when Malachi McGlone was looking for a way to continue walking the course without putting undue strain on an injured wrist that the QOD found U.S. fairways. After first becoming a satisfied customer, McGlone convinced CEO Collin Hiss, who developed the product and oversees its production in Australia, to allow him to distribute and service the QOD here in the states.

The QOD has no self-balancing gyroscope, bluetooth sensor or remote control. Bells and whistles just aren’t its thing — though it does have a USB port for cell phone charging that can come in handy. However, if you are looking for a no-fuss workhorse to move your bag down the fairway, the QOD should be on your radar.

The 2018 model has begun shipping and will be on sale at $1,299 for a limited time. It normally retails at $1,499.

Your Reaction?
  • 90
  • LEGIT18
  • WOW8
  • LOL2
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP2
  • OB1
  • SHANK2

Continue Reading

Accessory Reviews

Review: FlightScope Mevo

Published

on

In 100 Words

The Mevo is a useful practice tool for amateur golfers and represents a step forward from previous offerings on the market. It allows golfers to practice indoors or outdoors and provides club speed, ball speed, smash factor, launch angle, spin rate, carry distance and flight time.

It also has a video capture mode that will overlay swing videos with the swing data of a specific swing. It is limited in its capabilities and its accuracy, though, which golfers should expect at this price point. All in all, it’s well worth the $499 price tag if you understand what you’re getting.

The Full Review

The FlightScope Mevo is a launch monitor powered by 3D Doppler radar. With a retail price of $499, it is obviously aimed to reach the end consumer as opposed to PGA professionals and club fitters.

The Mevo device itself is tiny. Like, really tiny. It measures 3.5-inches wide, 2.8-inches tall and 1.2-inches deep. In terms of everyday products, it’s roughly the size of an Altoids tin. It’s very easy to find room for it in your golf bag, and the vast majority of people at the range you may be practicing at won’t even notice it’s there. Apart from the Mevo itself, in the box you get a quick start guide, a charging cable, a carrying pouch, and some metallic stickers… more on those later. It has a rechargeable internal battery that reaches a full charge in about two hours and lasts for about four hours when fully charged.

As far as software goes, the Mevo pairs with the Mevo Golf app on your iOS or Android device. The app is free to download and does not require any subscription fees (unless you want to store and view videos of your swing online as opposed to using the memory on your device). The app is very easy to use even for those who aren’t tech savvy. Make sure you’re using the most current version of the firmware for the best results, though (I did experience some glitches at first until I did so). The settings menu does have an option to manually force firmware writing, but updates should happen automatically when you start using the device.

Moving through the menus, beginning sessions, editing shots (good for adding notes on things like strike location or wind) are all very easy. Video mode did give me fits the first time I used it, though, as it was impossible to maintain my connection between my phone and the Mevo while having the phone in the right location to capture video properly. The only way I could achieve this was by setting the Mevo as far back from strike location as the device would allow. Just something to keep in mind if you find you’re having troubles with video mode.

Screenshot of video capture mode with the FlightScope Mevo

Using the Mevo

When setting up the Mevo, it needs to be placed between 4-7 feet behind the golf ball, level with the playing surface and pointed down the target line. The distance you place the Mevo behind the ball does need to be entered into the settings menu before starting your session. While we’re on that subject, before hitting balls, you do need to select between indoor, outdoor, and pitching (ball flight less than 20 yards) modes, input your altitude and select video or data mode depending on if you want to pair your data with videos of each swing or just see the data by itself. You can also edit the available clubs to be monitored, as you will have to tell the Mevo which club you’re using at any point in time to get the best results. Once you get that far, you’re pretty much off to the races.

Testing the Mevo

I tested the FlightScope Mevo with Brad Bachand at Man O’ War Golf Center in Lexington, Kentucky. Brad is a member of the PGA and has received numerous awards for golf instruction and club fitting. I wanted to put the Mevo against the best device FlightScope has to offer and, luckily, Brad does use his $15,000 FlightScope X3 daily. We had both the FlightScope Mevo and Brad’s FlightScope X3 set up simultaneously, so the numbers gathered from the two devices were generated from the exact same strikes. Brad also set up the two devices and did all of the ball striking just to maximize our chances for success.

The day of our outdoor session was roughly 22 degrees Fahrenheit. There was some wind on that day (mostly right to left), but it wasn’t a major factor. Our setup is pictured below.

Outdoor testing setup with FlightScope X3 (foreground) and Mevo

The results of our outdoor testing are shown below. The testing was conducted with range balls, and we did use the metallic stickers. The range balls used across all the testing were all consistently the same brand. Man O’ War buys all new range balls once a year and these had been used all throughout 2017.  The 2018 batch had not yet been purchased at the time that testing was conducted.

Raw outdoor data captured with range balls including metallic stickers. Mevo data (blue) and X3 data (orange) were both generated from the same exact shots.

You’ll notice some peculiar data in the sand wedge spin category. To be honest, I don’t fully know what contributed to the X3 measuring such low values. While the Mevo’s sand wedge spin numbers seem more believable, you could visibly see that the X3 was much more accurate on carry distance. Below is a quick summary of the percent differences between each of the parameters as presented by the Mevo and the X3 in our outdoor session when separated out for each club. As previously mentioned, though, take sand wedge spin with a grain of salt.

Table showing the percent difference of each parameter between Mevo and X3 grouped by club (outdoor testing).

The first thing we noticed was that the Mevo displays its numbers while the golf ball is still in midair, so it was clear that it wasn’t watching the golf ball the entire time like the X3. According to the Mevo website, carry distance, height and flight time are all calculated while club speed, ball speed, launch angle and spin rate are measured. As for the accuracy of the measured parameters, the Mevo’s strength is ball speed. The accuracy of the other measured ball parameters (launch angle and spin rate) is questionable depending on certain factors (quality of strike, moisture on the clubface and ball, quality of ball, etc). I would say it ranges between “good” or “very good” and “disappointing” with most strikes being categorized as “just okay.”

As for the calculated parameters of carry distance, height and time, those vary a decent amount. Obviously, when the measurements of the three inputs become less accurate, the three outputs will become less accurate as a result. Furthermore, according to FlightScope, the Mevo’s calculations are not accounting for things like temperature, humidity, and wind. The company has also stated, though, that future updates will likely adjust for these parameters by using location services through the app.

Now, let’s talk about those metallic stickers. According to the quick start guide, the Mevo needs a sticker on every golf ball you hit, and before you hit each ball, the ball needs to be placed such that the sticker is facing the target. It goes without saying that it doesn’t sound like a whole lot of fun to spend time putting those stickers on every ball, let alone balls that will never come back to you if you’re at a public driving range. Obviously, people are going to want to avoid using the stickers if they can, so do they really matter? Below is a table of data showing the percent difference between the Mevo’s data and the X3’s data of what we collected outdoors with a driver and range balls with and without the use of the stickers.

Table showing how the percent difference of each parameter changes between Mevo and X3 when you use the metallic stickers and when you don’t

The FlightScope website says that the metallic stickers “are needed in order for the Mevo to accurately measure ball spin.” We observed pretty much the same as shown in the table above. The website also states they are working on alternative solutions to stickers (possibly a metallic sharpie), which I think is wise.

Another thing we thought would be worth testing is the impact of different golf balls. Below is a table of data showing the percent difference between the Mevo’s data and the X3’s data of what we collected outdoors with a driver and range balls as compared to Pro V1’s. All of this data was collected using the metallic stickers.

Table showing how the percent difference of each parameter changes between Mevo and X3 when you switch from range balls to Pro V1’s

As shown above, the data gets much closer virtually across the board when you use better quality golf balls. Just something else to keep in mind when using the Mevo.

Indoor testing requires 8 feet of ball flight (impact zone to hitting net), which was no problem for us. Our setup is pictured below. All of the indoor testing was conducted with Titleist Pro V1 golf balls using the metallic stickers.

Indoor testing setup with FlightScope X3 (foreground) and Mevo

The results of our indoor session are shown below.

Raw indoor data captured with Pro V1’s including metallic stickers. Mevo data (blue) and X3 data (orange) were both generated from the same exact shots.

Below is a quick summary of the percent differences between each of the parameters as presented by the Mevo and the X3 in our indoor session when separated out for each club.

Table showing the percent difference of each parameter between Mevo and X3 grouped by club (indoor testing)

On the whole, the data got much closer together between the two devices in our indoor session. I would think a lot of that can be attributed to the use of quality golf balls and to removing outdoor factors like wind and temperature (tying into my previous comment above).

As far as overall observations between all sessions, the most striking thing was that the Mevo consistently gets more accurate when you hit really good, straight shots. When you hit bad shots, or if you hit a fade or a draw, it gets less and less accurate.

The last parameter to address is club speed, which came in around 5 percent different on average between the Mevo and X3 based on all of the shots recorded. The Mevo was most accurate with the driver at 2.1 percent different from the X3 over all strikes and it was the least accurate with sand wedge by far. Obviously, smash factor accuracy will follow club speed for the most part since ball speed is quite accurate. Over every shot we observed, the percent difference on ball speed was 1.2 percent on average between the Mevo and the X3. Again, the Mevo was least accurate with sand wedges. If I remove all sand wedge shots from the data, the average percent difference changes from 1.2 percent to 0.7 percent, which is very, very respectable.

When it comes to the different clubs used, the Mevo was by far most accurate with mid irons. I confirmed this with on-course testing on a relatively flat 170-yard par-3 as well. Carry distances in that case were within 1-2 yards on most shots (mostly related to quality of strike). With the driver, the Mevo was reasonably close, but I would also describe it as generous. It almost always missed by telling me that launch angle was higher, spin rate was lower and carry distance was farther than the X3. Generally speaking, the Mevo overestimated our driver carries by about 5 percent. Lastly, the Mevo really did not like sand wedges at all. Especially considering those shots were short enough that you could visibly see how far off the Mevo was with its carry distance. Being 10 yards off on a 90 yard shot was disappointing.

Conclusion

The Mevo is a really good product if you understand what you’re getting when you buy it. Although the data isn’t good enough for a PGA professional, it’s still a useful tool that gives amateurs reasonable feedback while practicing. It’s also a fair amount more accurate than similar products in its price range, and I think it could become even better with firmware updates as Flightscope improves upon its product.

This is a much welcomed and very promising step forward in consumer launch monitors, and the Mevo is definitely worth a look if you’re in the market for one.

Your Reaction?
  • 194
  • LEGIT18
  • WOW6
  • LOL13
  • IDHT5
  • FLOP9
  • OB4
  • SHANK39

Continue Reading

19th Hole

Facebook

Trending