Pros: A more rearward center of gravity makes the M2 drivers more forgiving than previous TaylorMade drivers. They have the same head shape and Carbon Composite Crown as the M1, and cost $100 less. 

Cons: No CG adjustability. 

Who it’s for: The M2 can suit any golfer looking for maximum performance on off-center hits, as well as those who can benefit from a slightly higher overall trajectory or more draw bias than the M1 drivers can provide.

The Review 


  • Lofts: 9.5, 10.5, 12 degrees (all available in RH and LH)
  • Stock Shafts: M2 Reax 45 (L), Fujikura Pro 50 (M, R), Fujikura Pro 60 (S, X). More than 30 shafts available at no upcharge.

TaylorMade’s M2 drivers are meant to complement the company’s existing M1 drivers, and positioned to be the most forgiving M-Series driver. While the M1 and M2 are more alike than they are different, the release of the M2 driver marks an important shift in TaylorMade’s design philosophy.

Like the M1 driver, the M2 uses a multi-material construction.
Like the M1 driver, the M2 uses a multi-material construction.

In recent years, TaylorMade was bullish on improving driver distance through launch conditions. And by creating drivers with extremely forward center of gravity (CG) positions, the company’s products were successful in helping many golfers break new distance ground.

Take TaylorMade’s R15 driver, for example. With its forward CG placement, which saw as much as 75 percent of its head mass located in the front of the driver, it produced some of the most enviable peak launch conditions among 2015’s driver crop, according to our Gear Trials Panel, but weren’t as forgiving as other models.


When the company’s M1 drivers were launched in October, we praised them for their “new level of forgiveness that allows them to work for nearly any golfer.” The golfers the M1 models wouldn’t work for, we thought, would be those who needed even more forgiveness than the M1 offered.

It’s exactly those golfers TaylorMade is addressing with the M2 drivers.

To make the M2 drivers more forgiving, TaylorMade removed the “T-Track” sliding weight system it employed on its M1 drivers: a Front Track used to adjust the draw and fade bias of the driver, as well as a Back Track used to manipulate launch and spin conditions. The removal of the T-Track created 15 grams of discretionary weight, which was redistributed low and rearward in the driver heads, approximately where its gold sole weight is located.


The change improved the M2’s moment of inertia (MOI), a measure of ball speed retention by 17 percent, even when compared to the M1 460 with its highest-MOI setting.

While the M2’s lack of moveable weights removes a golfer’s ability to make adjustments to the CG of the driver head, launch conditions can be adjusted through the company’s Loft Sleeve, which provides +/- 2 degrees of adjustment from the available lofts of 9.5, 10.5 and 12 degrees.

The M2 has a slightly rougher face texture than the M1, which helps reduce spin.

According to TaylorMade, the M2 will launch roughly 0.5 degrees lower with 100 rpm more spin compared to the M1 460 when the M1’s Back Track weight in its most rearward position. In my testing of the M2 driver, however, I found that the M2 not only produced more consistent launch conditions than the M1 in its most rearward setting, but offered higher ball speeds on average. With the same shaft, I was able to maintain my launch conditions increasing ball speed about 2 mph. For that reason, I hit the M2 a few yards farther than the M1.

Because of its lack of moveable weights, the sole of the M2 driver is slightly more aerodynamic than the M1.
The M2 driver is more aerodynamic than the M1 due to the removal of its sole weights.

It should be noted that since I was already achieving favorable launch conditions with an M1 in its rearward-weight setting, I was a prime candidate for the M2 driver. Golfers who currently play the M1 460 or M1 430 and use a forward weight position will likely not be able to achieve the same launch conditions from an M2 on their best hits, nor will they be able to affect launch conditions and trajectory bias independently of loft, one of the M1’s biggest selling points.

The advantages of the M2 will be for golfers who struggled to create maximum ball speed with the M1, or are looking for more consistency. An M2 driver will also assist golfers who tend to fade their drives, as its more rearward weight position not only creates an overall higher ball flight, but more dynamic lofting at impact that generates increased face closure for added draw bias.


As for aesthetics, the M1 460 and M2 have the same head shape, but the drivers will sound and feel slightly different. The M2 makes a quieter sound at impact that most golfers will identify as “softer,” while the M1 makes a louder sound.

TaylorMade officials expect the M1 driver to continue to be its most-played driver on the PGA Tour, estimating that 80 percent of Tour players will prefer it to the M2. A much higher percentage of average golfers will benefit from the M2, however, due to its improved forgiveness and added draw bias.

The M2's Speed Pocket helps improve ball speed and reduce spin on shots contacted on the low portion of the clubface.
The M2’s Speed Pocket helps improve ball speed and reduce spin on shots contacted low on the clubface.

The M2’s $399 price point, $100 cheaper than the M1, will also be enticing for price-sensitive golfers, especially given the fact that the M2 will be available with the same array of no-upcharge, custom shaft options.


Your Reaction?
  • 450
  • LEGIT87
  • WOW49
  • LOL45
  • IDHT18
  • FLOP40
  • OB27
  • SHANK320

Previous articleTour Mash: Dufner, Fowler Return to winner's circle
Next articleTaylorMade M2 Fairway Woods and Hybrids
Zak is the Editor-in-Chief of He's been a part of the company since 2011, when he was hired to lead GolfWRX's Editorial Department. Zak developed GolfWRX's Featured Writer Program, which supports aspiring writers and golf industry professionals.

He played college golf at the University of Richmond (Go Spiders!) and still likes to compete in tournaments. You can follow Zak on Twitter @ZakKoz, where he's happy to discuss his game and all the cool stuff that's part of his job.


Not seeing your comment? Read our rules and regulations. Click "Report comment" to alert GolfWRX moderators to offensive or inappropriate comments.
    • Yeah, sure they’re junk. That’s why Titleist guys have a TM driver in their bag….because they’re junk. And that’s why the guys on the Champions Tour, who don’t have equipment deals….are using M driver….because they’re junk.
      You’re a golf moron. Somebody that rides the wave of the popular narrative. Try having an original opinion, it’ll be refreshing for you.
      TM is making the best drivers and woods in the golf business. And it’s not close. Titleist is creating JUNK. And their players know it.

  1. I finally had a chance to get out and see this M “family” of clubs and maybe it was just all of that sickly-green florescent lighting that one has to suffer in those expansive retail golf shops, but my first impression of them was that they sure do photograph much nicer than they appear in person.

    After hitting both the 1 and 2 versions of the clubs in the two different sizes into one of the tragically neglected simulators, I personally preferred the overall balance of the 2 version, but I have never felt comfortable swinging a club with such a big head – they always seem so clunky-awkward and out of balance to me during that critical mid-point transition period of the swing.

    The 1 version had the weights in the middle positions and the “fitters” hadn’t yet showed up to work with their magic wrenches – or maybe they all just take an early lunch at around 11:15 AM – who knows for sure? – but after a few swings and a simulator that kept insisting that my drive was only about 180 yards long, I just went and stood by the register until some guy with a cheerfully bad attitude showed up about 15 minutes later to take my money for a new club brush which was the only reason I went there to begin with.

    I have a funny feeling this behemoth of a golf retail store isn’t going to be there once their lease obligation runs out. . .

  2. Zak, when you compared M1 vs M2, did you notice that the same shaft played 0.25″ longer in the M2? Could that be the reason for the higher ball speed in the M2?

    • Antonio,

      You’re right, theoretically the longer shaft could have increased ball speed, but I’ve tested a lot of different lengths and I don’t think 0.25 inches played a role for me. The M2 is simply faster and more stable on off-center hits, however slght they may be.

  3. I personally love the fact that TM releases a new driver every 6 months. They make a great product, in my opinion. And, as soon as they flood the market with their “Latest and Greatest” my local shop can’t wait to get the “old” product off the shelf. Heck, I bought a brand new SLDR driver nearly 2 years ago (December 2013, IIRC) for $130. Go ahead and release a new one, guys. This way I can buy a new driver for less than it would cost to replace a shaft!

    • I love ignorance from people that continue to say TaylorMade releases drivers every 6 months. Bishop let me know the life cycle of the sldr driver before it was replaced by the R15. The R15 before it was replaced by M1. The Aeroburner before it was replaced by the M2. i have yet to see anyone comment on Callaway’s recent product life cycles. Before you open your mouth and comment Bishop get your facts straight. You and everyone else that think TaylorMade’s recent product life cycle is 6 months.

      • The release of the new clubs was inside of 12 months. Look it up or read below. While that might not be six months it is certainly very very short. Callaway is going to suffer the same problems that have plagued TM over the last 3-4 years and it has nothing to do with peoples opinions on here. It is a problem from a sales and business model perspective. When you release product that quickly in this industry you cannibalize your own products. You can see it relayed in the commentary here where people are saying that they love buying the SLDR or the R15 at substantially reduced prices. TM and their retail partners can’t move the product fast enough to combat the releases so mark downs and net downs occur at frequent and staggering levels. Ask any person in the retail golf business about it and they will tell you it’s an absolute nightmare and no one is making money on their products. People can shout loudly about the technology or lack thereof in the TM products or whatever perceived gripe they have but the real problem is from the business perspective. They are losing sales and market share at an incredible clip and anyone who thinks that is a sustainable business model is just plain dumb. This is why they are cutting employees, attempting to sell Ashworth, Adams, and even floating the idea of selling TM from Adidas. So for everyone out there that backs TM or hates them for whatever reason you need to think about this from the business model perspective alone. All other arguments are purely subjective.

  4. I applaud Taylormade for their rapid release product cycles. It allowed me to buy new drivers every 2 years for $75 to $100. My last purchase was a brand new Rocketbalz for $90 that (so far) I can’t take out of my bag. Tried bunches of drivers on a launch monitor and so far nothing has been better…equivalent but not better.

  5. Serious question for everyone complaining about TaylorMades product cycles. Do you also complain about product cycles with car manufacturers, cell phones, PC and Mac operating systems, televisions, or anything else technology related?? There is a new model of basically every reasonably priced car every year (all with very minor changes, with only a new body every few years). Samsung, LG, Apple all release new smart phones every year….hell, Apple doesn’t even bother to change the number every year, they just add an “S” and call it a day. TaylorMade isn’t the only company with short product life cycles. If TaylorMade is so fiscally irresponsible for doing this, wouldn’t it be an assumption that other technology companies that adopt the same strategy are also fiscally irresponsible? Last I heard, Apple isn’t hurting for money or short of turning a profit.

    • Car companies do a much better job managing inventory – If Ford was like TM I could head down to the lot and still find several brand new 2013 Mustangs for sale at 50% off

  6. Figured whiners would be out today. Cracks me up reading comments like, “My [insert brand model] is the best driver I ever hit”, or “I’m never buying a TM driver!” lol

    If they don’t like TM or their product lifecycle, they are free to start their own golf equipment company and run it as they see fit. Or buy another make and model.

    Or sit in front of a computer and complain.

  7. The hate is swelling in you now. Give in to your anger. With each passing moment you make yourself more my servant. It is unavoidable. It is your destiny.
    Good! Use your aggressive feelings, boy. Let the hate flow through you!

  8. I think these should be called overviews…a review implies you are going to actually assess the value and performance of the club. I am yet to see a club were the takeaway is ‘it’s pretty redundant to what is already in the marketplace from the brand, save your money’

    Not saying this club would deserve that review…it would just be a nice change of pace for clubs to actually be reviewed rather than whatever this is considered

  9. “but more dynamic lofting at impact that generates increased face closure for added draw bias.” a draw is hit with a face angle open to the target. how does increased face closure create draw bias?

    • it creates a pull-straight ball or pull-hook for the over-the-top slicer, since their path won’t have changed. Draw bias just sounds a tiny bit more appealing though lol

    • Still has to be closed to the path though. And open to the target is only necessary if you’re hitting a push draw. If I line up 10 yards right of my end-target, swing with a zero path and a slightly negative face to path, I’m still going to hit a right to left shot.

  10. Allright price of M1 drivers sure to drop. Can’t wait for my $100 M1 head. ;)
    TM makes great driver imo and the more frequent the release schedule the better for the used club guys.

    • Unfortunately for you their product life cycles have gotten longer recently. You want a company that’s releasing more drivers then TaylorMade you might want to look at Callaway.

  11. One of the conundrums for golf equipment manufacturers is that their pro’s play the most unforgiving clubs. They are the clubs that require the least amount of innovation and engineering, thus the least amount of R&D costs. These clubs should sell for the least amount of money, but how do you advertise having your pro’s hitting your cheapest clubs? So now some pro’s are hitting the middle tier clubs (and I think they should too since those have improved massively) they can now position those as the premier clubs. MBs and CBs are not the top tier clubs (they are in terms of skill level but not overall sales impact or unit price) so the middle tier are a boon for them. The real GI clubs I think are the ones where they used to spend the most R&D on, but really not many people want to carry around shovels even if they are better for their score. GI clubs really allow slower swing speed players to hit iron shots effectively, and are probably the most expensive to design and produce.

    Never fully dug into this, but maybe we can see an article written by someone who knows what they are talking about?

  12. Taylor Made has made great drivers. I still continue to use the RBZ Tour. I have hit all the drivers since that one and none compare. I really think that TM crowds the landscape with their too frequent offerings. Maybe, it will work for some and the others that like to spend on the newest every year but many of us can and will use something older just as well.

  13. Brothers of GolfWRX:

    I hereby vow to never purchase a single TaylorMade product for the rest of my life and I hope you will all join me in this pledge.

    There are so many other respectable brands like PING, Titleist, Mizuno, Bridgestone, Srixon/Cleveland and Nike that I’d rather give my money to.

    • I am going to buy whatever makes me happy. I’m not taking any pledge and I hope nobody else does either. And I don’t think too much about “giving” any of them my money. They are sellers. I might be a buyer. Again, if it makes me happy.

      This isn’t middle school. And there won’t be an petition, or a Facebook page, or a Kickstarter fund.

    • I play Taylormade driver, but that’s it. TM drivers, Mizuno irons, Cleveland wedges. The only one of those I’m married to are Mizuno irons. I’ll likely never play a different brand of iron.

      I just bought the M1 after a fitting, but It’s the first new driver I’ve purchased since the R11, and that’s only because the M1 spanked it’s bottom in the simulator.

      • Hey Brian,

        My current driver is an R11 and I have a tough time going in a different direction…how have you seen improvements with the M1? What were your numbers before with R11 compared to now? Sorry but I’m just curious and not srue where to start

  14. TM better speed up their product cycles. They need to release EVERYTHING before Dick’s Sporting Goods completes their purchase.

    M3 Box Sets available at Dick’s in 2017

  15. The constant “another TaylorMade driver??!!!” and “I bet there is an M3 coming out next month! hardy-har-har” comments are so overdone it’s ridiculous. Enough already. There must be 20,000 comments along those lines the last 3-4 years. We get it. Please stop. And no, I don’t play TM stuff either.

  16. I’ll pass, not even interested and have never liked white. So the crown isn’t really carbon composite but just a warp that looks like it’s carbon material, or is it carbon material? Oh well, doesn’t really matter, it’s overpriced and a “No Sale” for me.

    • Apparently you do since you spent the time to peruse the article and post a comment. Not only do you not like this driver nor pay for it, you don’t like white clubheads. Yet here you are talking about it.

      I know you are reading this and is antsy to respond, but think carefully if it’s worth the embarrassment showing your presence again.

  17. I’m still amazed at all of the people who don’t realize manufacturers are going with two release cycles a year: one for the tour level stuff in the fall when the new season starts and the snow birds can pick them up, and one in the spring for the non-tour level. But I guess it’s just more fun to make the same stupid joke about “Oh, I’ll wait til it is on sale in 3 months” or “TM releasing another driver 6 months after the last! Snicker, snicker!”

    As someone who has worked in the retail side of the business for the last few years, yes they come out with a lot of driver sku’s, and most have not been very good. The M1 is the first one in a long time that I can say should be right up towards the top of people’s lists as far as performance goes.

  18. One of the things not emphasized here is the number of shaft options made available (30 options at no upgrade). And keep in mind this is the M2. I bought the M1 about 4 months ago and the reason was that (although I had no intention of buying one) I was in a golf shop and although Id read about the M1 I’d never seen one. Went to pick it up and it had a Matrix white Tie?? That wasn’t a shaft option. So I contacted TMAG and they had just added it. I always favored Titleist because of their shaft options. Now TMAG is charging more but upgrading their standard shaft options. Call it junk all you want but to me this is where manufacturers should be moving.

  19. Big mistake naming the aeroburner replacement “M2″ now the average guy will think it’s an M1 replacement and be even more fed up with their “short release cycle” even though AB had been out for almost 18 months

    • Absolutely. Finally someone gets it. It’s by a replacement for the M1, it’s a replacement for AB. The M1 isn’t coming down in price because of this club. Man. The boo-hooing is nuts. Buy the club that fits your swing and stick with it until it breaks, your swing changes or the Powerball winners send you your $4.3M.

      • Wait…an intelligent post, and an intelligent reply in the same TM thread? This is my shocked face.

        I’m still trying to figure out why having a bunch of choices is a bad thing. If some of these idiots would realize you don’t actually have to buy every new driver that comes out, they’d be a lot happier.

        After a fitting last year, I ended up with an all TM bag, irons and woods. First time I’ve had TM stuff in my bag in years, and you know what? No where in the fitting did it say I had to buy every TM club that came out for the next 5 years. I can actually keep what I have, and play with it. Crazy, right?

  20. So a new product introduction is offensive… why, exactly? I like choices, myself. Of course I think that the unspoken undercurrent is that the introduction of new products and the marketing claims imply that the old products — owned by thousands and thousands of the brand’s loyal customers — are inadequate to the task. The other unspoken concern is that the driver you bought for $300 not so long ago is now worth $25. If you’ve got a good driver, keep it. Play it, and enjoy it. But for pay-for-play, I feel certain that more tour players would keep their gamers in play for much longer than what we see. But I don’t otherwise care about the TM product cycle. It might actually be because I am a hard sell, and not an easy one.

    A couple of things I like about the M2 in this review are as follows:
    ~Let’s all begin to acknowledge that with volume and CT limited, there are only so many ways to move weight around and improve performance. And we get quickly to the point of mere tradeoffs; low spin with a low/forward weight, or more forgiveness and higher MoI with a rearward weight.
    ~Improved sound. Good gracious, I wish that the manufacturers could do something about the horrendous sound of most retail (non-hotmelted) 460cc titanium alloy drivers. Good on TM if they’ve done something with the sound of the M2.
    ~A return to plain stainless faces. I never understood the fad of black anodized faces on drivers. It’s pure cosmetic salesmanship in golf stores. They hold up pretty well, I must say, but they all end up looking tired after a while. I just don’t “see” a black face as well as stainless. We saw the same on the new proto/tour Callaway XR16 Sub Zero in Jason Gore’s bag. It’s a good development/return.

    • Piss who off? That’s like saying the guy who bought a ZO6 Corvette is now going to be pissed that the new Malibu is cheaper. Your logic doesn’t make sense… they’re different clubs for different players. If your ego won’t let you buy the right club for your swing, then that’s your problem, not TM’s.

  21. Actually no, “you’re” and “your” are much more different than “potato” and “potatoe”. If he’s going to insult someone’s intelligence, he should at least use proper grammar. Now he just looks dumb.

  22. Reminds me of a certain Cobra driver….. Next year TM will let you flip the weight to the front of you want to. You wonder why Adidas is trying to sell TM because it’s “not profitable”.

  23. “The M2’s $399 price point, $100 cheap than the M1″

    Yep, cheap. Not cheaper. I’d say they got that statement correct. Looks like they forgot the weights and slapped a 2 on it. $499 is insane, $399 is far to much for a driver that is a “carbon” copy of their flagship missing a part or two. Who knew those weights and tracks were nearly $50 apiece!

    • Designing a driver isn’t a simple as adding weights and incurring a $100 cost. Adding those weights has to have a driver body structure that is different to support those weights, incurring more cost in R&D, but Taylormade believes it is a feature that makes their club easier to fit to golfers. Clearly, Taylormade is going out on a limb by offering a club at this price, but look at the benefits compared to other companies. PING offers advancements in head design, but give you a shaft that is worth $10 tops. Titleist gives shaft options, but hasn’t had a development in head design since they incorporated their modern hosel in the 910. Taylormade and Callaway do both, with the head design advancements and the shaft options.

      • What you are failing to take into consideration is the consumer’s perspective in looking at the options available to them. TaylorMade is producing the M2 to cater to what demographic that the M1 is not also catering to? On top of that the price tag at $500 for the M1 is the tops in the driver category, so the M2 is filling the price point gap? If that is the case you have companies like Ping and Titleist who offer you clearly defined differences within the same model they are releasing and their top price point is coming in at TM’s second tier price point. TaylorMade no longer owns a performance or quality advantage in this category and their quick release/product cycle confuses the customer base they are going after and subsequently cannibalizes their own products. Tell me how you would sell TaylorMade in a retail setting right now!? Think about having a conversation with a customer and having to walk through the release of the R15 and Aeroburner last year as well as the late season release of the M1 and now a few months later the M2… The second you mention that the M1 was the technological jump from SLDR, and R15 you have just shot down those “older” models. Then you have to explain the technology difference and reason for the Aeroburner and why the M2 is the “replacement” for that club but is more like the little brother to the M1 is most regards. Try and think all the way through this from that perspective when you are talking to someone who does not have an intimate knowledge of the golf industry and the major OEM’s within it. It is hands down the most asinine business/sales model and is the direct reason for the lack of sales for TaylorMade. I want to also add that this is not an anti TaylorMade rant but rather a rant on the idiocy of this business model that started roughly 4-5 years ago. Prior to that they were in a more stable release cycle with each evolution creating wild interest and easily discernible product differentiation. Now we sit here and shake our heads and won’t be one bit surprised if they release another new model this summer, meanwhile the numbers will come in at TM and they will be flabbergasted that they are not selling nearly the amount needed to justify their available products within “current” product cycles. This is just plain dumb.

        • THANK YOU. I wrote the top comment in regards to how the CONSUMER perceives this. It literally looks like they took out the weights and changed the name and charged less.

          I sold golf retail for two years up until recently and it was a mess trying to explain this baloney to the customers. Constant frustration and price haggling. I’d had enough of it selling, I can’t imaging how it would feel being sold to with all these releases. Very confusing.

        • All I would say Aaron is that if you look from SLDR to R15 to M1, there has been a clear difference in technology. So it is actually pretty easy to explain because you can see it. Sure R15 was a bit of a flunk, but I think that’s because it was off the back of a hugely successful driver in SLDR so most guys already in TM weren’t looking to switch. My point is why would you buy a Ping or Titleist when ping offer no shaft options and neither have a noticeable difference in technology in the past 5/6 years! I can’t see the difference so why would I pay premium price for something that looks the same as the model 5 years old. At least with TM they push boundaries and with the weights, carbon crown etc I can see why the driver is $500! And the ‘cheaper’ price point driver is probably justifiably equal price to a Titleist or Ping because that is the drivers it is competing against.

          • Mark I am a little confused as to what you were referring to in your comment above. The R15 was a white SLDR with the same technology and design, but all they did was add another sliding weight. That was hardly a revolutionary change. And as far as the SLDR being a successful model I am sorry but it was one of the worst selling drivers at the retail level. It was a terrible fit for anyone besides high swing speed players because of the low launch and spin combination. As far as pushing the boundaries with technology I challenge that as well because Mizuno, Callaway, Cleveland, and Ping all had carbon crowned drivers going back more than 10 years ago! Mizuno even had a sliding weight at roughly that time as well… Callaway has used carbon fiber for a long time with the C4, ERC, FT-3 etc… So I don’t think TM is leading anything in that area. They used to be special/innovative with the MWT on the R7 and the adjustable hosel beginning on the R9. I would not have a problem with any of it if their releases did not cannibalize their other products. My complaint is from a business perspective and anyone who wants to try and argue that their strategy is sound is just flat out wrong! Why are they selling off pieces of their company, cutting staff, and down almost 30% on sales!? If you like TM that’s fine but let’s at least agree on the facts.

            • Aaron TM has been testing carbon composites since the release of the R7 over 10 years ago. Thinning out titanium drivers have always performed just as good if not better than any of the composites that they built/tested. That’s why they have not brought a composite to market until now. As a former retailer back in the day of the Callaway ft3, ft5, Cleveland comp, ping rhapsody, cobra comp, mizunos comp etc. they all had one thing in common. God awful sound! This ‘M’ family of drivers is the best sounding, feeling composite driver I have ever hit. Period. Also the erc if I remember correctly was a non comforting golf club, I could be wrong on that though.

              • Adam – Sound and feel are not a technological advancement. It is a subjective element of the product that has no bearing on the performance. My point in this conversation is that TM is not leading anything from that aspect of advancement. Many companies have been there done that so they’re not doing anything revolutionary. I have been in the golf business for years and much of the tech is recycled and modified to create a sense of advancement in the mind of the uneducated consumer. The USGA has limited the ability to create any sort of performance leap with the restrictions on the coefficient of restitution on drivers so you literally will not see significant improvement over previous models since the implement of those regulations. It is why the average driving distance on tour has remained consistent over the last DECADE. The ERC model that you are thinking of was titanium. The ERC fusion was the model I was referring to which was Callaway’s first multi material release, just an fyi.

        • I see it differently. I’m not saying you did or did not, but Callaway has done the same thing with launching a fall line and nobody attacks them. That business of the fall and spring launch is the right move. You get a higher price point product in a much larger money market in the peak of their golf season, where you focus on the area where you make the most profit. Then you have a spring launch for the more price sensitive markets who start their season in the spring. Do not get me wrong, Taylormade has made a lot of mistakes, and is therefor going through the bumps in the road of rebranding. I agree with you this driver may struggle at this price, but Callaway did it with a lot of success with the return of the Big Bertha in 2014. Titleist has made no serious advancements in really any of their clubs since 910 and the original AP2 irons ( source being Dufner won this week with a 910 and an x2hot 3 wood because Titleist cannot produce a club that will spin lower without compromising the look and feel they want in a driver or fairway metal). They rely strictly on brand positioning. They offer 6 stock shafts, that honestly are not that impressive, and a driver that they have to make you pay extra just to get the spin down. That remarkable driver from Titleist, is $50 cheaper with no new advancement on material or design. PING has remarkable advancements in head design, but their major flaw is their unwillingness to compromise on price to put a decent shaft in their driver ( I think they are headed in this direction though with improvements to the no upcharge options in the iron custom lines). I’m not a Taylormade fanboy by any means (don’t have any of their clubs in play), but I have sold their products and I think people need to be open to this new marketplace that we have in golf. Callaway and Taylormade have both stated they expect to be on 1-2 year product life cycles. If they launch a driver this summer (I believe they will, which will be a driver positioned at a lower price than M2 if I’m correct) people should be calm and realize its not replacing your M1. I’m extremely excited about this driver, except for the price and the name because the name gives confusion. I think though they want to consolidate everything like the Titleist and PING have done with their wood series (i.e. variations of the G series). I value your opinion, and I think companies should take it in consideration, but I think people should realize they aren’t pumping out a driver replacement series every few months anymore. That business model works for companies like Titleist, because they aren’t Adidas and aren’t looking to broaden market share in the athletic industry, where golf is just a segment in. The reason M1 came out so quickly compared to R15 was purely for the fall release. Again I value your opinion, but do not agree.

        • While your long winded explanation took up an entire page, it is still a miserable fail. Blah, blah, blah, Taylor Made, blah, blah, blah. You can plug any club manufacturer in where it says Taylor as this is an industry standard, NOT a Taylor Made standard. If you don’t like them, just say it, nobody really cares. But don’t spit out useless information that clearly applies to EVERY major golf manufacturer in business, and say Taylor Made does this and I hate them for it. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

      • Yup ! I’ve been a TMAG fan for years but I always admired the Titleist for their shaft options. Got to the point that I would just buy the TMAG heads on E-bay because most of their shaft options weren’t close to my preferences.. Finally TMAG has given us the best of both worlds. Charge top price for your new entries Give a range of shaft options (they are talking 30 here?) . Yeah I know that in 12 months the price may drop but my shaft options may be limited.

    • The M2 is for a different segment of golfers – or don’t you understand an attempt to help the average golfers who wants a TM Driver? It is the same thing Callaway is doing. Not all golfers are created equal. The M2 is akin to the Callaway X16 – no weight adjustments, lighter, faster. I’m sure the M2 is a fine driver – those who love the TM Brand should go for it. The M1 look with more forgiveness.

      I am probably not an M2 type nor a X16 type. For me, the GBB is the ticket because the perimeter weighting provides more forgiveness – put the weight in the direction of your miss and voila – correction (it’s not only for fade or draw bias). We are all different, and our job is to find a driver that fits each of us.

    • It’s clearly not competing with M1 though is it!!?????????????? All manufacturers have different model options and the last few years TM have always brought there secondary product out a few months after the premium. This is replacing AeroBurner which has been out well over a year now

  24. “A more rearward center of gravity makes the M2 drivers more forgiving”

    This has been every tagline on the TM drivers since the Burner. I guess they only move the CG back a millimeter at a time.

  25. The price point as a “cheaper” driver is the only thing that scares me a little bit. Everything else is exactly what people wanted from a Taylormade driver, which is something more forgiving for the average player who doesn’t need the forward CG. Very excited to get my hands on one of these.