Connect with us

Equipment

Titleist is releasing new “AVX” premium golf balls, made for more distance

Published

on

GolfWRX has learned that Titleist is testing new “AVX” golf balls — made with premium performance urethane covers and designed for more distance and a softer feel — in three different markets. The new three-piece golf balls will hit the shelves of golf shops and retail stores for the same price as Titleist’s Pro V1 and Pro V1x golf balls on October 6 in only Florida, California and Arizona to evaluate the demand for such a product.

Discussion: See what GolfWRX members are saying about Titleist’s AVX golf balls here

cfe771fa986761015447b2c436114d7c

The golf balls will be available in both white and high optic yellow based on the photos of the packaging and golf balls.

8118120b6c84536445bb29f50acf0963

According to language written on Titleist’s AVX packaging, the golf balls will have a new, “high speed,” low-compression core that’s designed for a softer feel and more distance. There is also a “high flex casing layer” to enhance speed and control spin. The “GRN41 urethane cover” is said to deliver scoring control, a soft feel and durability.

fd53c71427040fa575ff7411543316a6

It’s clear from the photos we’ve obtained that the AVX golf balls feature a new dimple pattern, at least compared to the Pro V1 and Pro V1x golf balls. According to the packaging, it’s a “352 tetrahedral catenary dimple design” to make it more aerodynamic for flight consistency.

Discussion: See what GolfWRX members are saying about Titleist’s AVX golf balls here

Your Reaction?
  • 325
  • LEGIT30
  • WOW22
  • LOL21
  • IDHT11
  • FLOP38
  • OB24
  • SHANK182

We share your golf passion. You can follow GolfWRX on Twitter @GolfWRX, Facebook and Instagram.

71 Comments

71 Comments

  1. Tyler Brooke

    Oct 23, 2017 at 12:00 pm

    For Dummies Version: A ball that will go father then their prov and prov1X but is supposed to perform better around the greens and on the green.

    They also flight iron shots lower and come hot off the face.

  2. Bert

    Oct 20, 2017 at 8:09 pm

    Played the ball today for the first time. Felt good off club face and checked well on full shots into the greens. Distance was OK, not sure I picked up any with my 85 MPH swing speed. What I didn’t like about the ball was how it played for short pitch shots. I usually play a gap wedge, if possible, within 60-30 yards and it will bounce once, twice and then bite hard. This ball felt good but would bounce once, twice and then let go and roll. It tried to get it to bite off tight lie, but usually let go and rolled out more than I like. I switched to the B-330 RXS and got the check I wanted. I hit a few side by side and noticed the difference in bite characteristics. I could get used to it, but not sure. I did like the reaction off my driver, like I mentioned, not sure it was any longer, but flight was good for me. I’ll play them for a few more rounds and get a better feel.

  3. Jerry

    Oct 19, 2017 at 6:01 pm

    What is GRN41 Urethane??

    Not as spinny as their Elastomer Urethane in the ProV1?

    AVX – Amateur VX (ProV1X)

  4. Mat

    Oct 13, 2017 at 11:22 pm

    NXT + Urethane…

  5. Mad-Mex

    Sep 24, 2017 at 4:06 am

    Heard next year they will have a rubber wound balata covered premium golf ball,,,,,,

  6. Bobo

    Sep 23, 2017 at 3:46 pm

    The upgrade to the AVX is now in the minds and mill of the folks at Titleist.
    AVX now….. BWY coming soon!!! (CXZ next year).

  7. Mike Tomasi

    Sep 23, 2017 at 2:15 pm

    They should have just come out with a 70 compression pro v1 and called it the pro v1s. Just my marketing idea.

    • SK

      Sep 23, 2017 at 6:02 pm

      AVX now…. BWY soon…. CXZ coming next year…. otherwise no change

  8. retired04

    Sep 23, 2017 at 6:28 am

    Slower swing speed? Try the Srixon Q Star Tour and do your own comparison. I’m 70. 75-77 swing speed-took the time to hit dozens of full and short game shots actually comparing the Pro Vs to the Srixon ball and the Srixon ball was as good or better at $30 or less per dz.. Had to convince myself and I did.

  9. BO

    Sep 22, 2017 at 9:24 pm

    urethane…. non-urethane…..uranusthane?

  10. 2putttom

    Sep 22, 2017 at 4:12 pm

    lol .. these comments and responses remind me of public comment time at a city council meeting

    • abxgolf

      Sep 22, 2017 at 4:58 pm

      golf clubs and balls are gearhead heaven and let no man put that asunder

  11. James Strachan

    Sep 22, 2017 at 3:57 pm

    VICE are made in yellow.

    • abxgolf

      Sep 22, 2017 at 4:59 pm

      try finding one of those in autumn leaves lol

  12. Jack Nash

    Sep 22, 2017 at 3:48 pm

    Re-Branding
    Re-Engineering
    Re-Thinking
    Re-Imagining (the latest BS acronym)
    Re-Jigging
    Re-Treading

    All great ideas run thru the Constant Mill of failed actual new ideas.

    3 piece balls go far Correct.
    3 piece balls can have a soft cover.
    3 piece balls will never have enuff spin greenside.

    • abxgolf

      Sep 22, 2017 at 4:57 pm

      rush down to yer nearest big box golf mecca store and buy a dozen or two is you loose lotsa balls.

  13. DrB

    Sep 22, 2017 at 1:33 pm

    It is their way of catching up to Bridgestone, Callaway, Wilson (!), and perhaps others without having to eat crow and change their narrative of the last few years. Titleist has always maintained that either ProV1 or ProV1x is the best ball for your game regardless of your swing speed. (Their other balls exist for those players for whom price is a consideration.) Other companies have brought out tour-quality balls optimized for sub-100mph swings and have found great success with customers. So, Titleist had a problem: they could ignore the success of the likes of the Chrome Soft, B330RX, et al, and continue to lose market share, or come up with a new ball optimized for the sub-100mph swing that has a urethane cover, great distance, tour-quality short game performance, but not contradicting their previous proclamations that ProV1(x) is still best for everyone. Enter the AVX

  14. asugrad1988

    Sep 22, 2017 at 12:36 pm

    It sounds like the Bridgestone E5 golf ball. 3 piece ball with a urethane cover. About $20 a dozen.

    • Jack Nash

      Sep 22, 2017 at 3:49 pm

      Add the name Titleist and double the cost. Re-Branding.

    • Mat

      Oct 13, 2017 at 11:20 pm

      And probably not as good as the e5.

  15. MamasBoy

    Sep 21, 2017 at 10:55 pm

    Mo’ distance….. Lo spin…… Hi shot….. Hit da pin

  16. Speedy

    Sep 21, 2017 at 8:51 pm

    No thanks, another of their overpriced balls.

  17. MamasBoy

    Sep 21, 2017 at 5:00 pm

    “made for more distance”??
    I need more distance so I’m gonna switch to AVX and they will match my PXG’s
    AVX + PXG = APXXVG ….. woooh

  18. Rich

    Sep 21, 2017 at 10:55 am

    Flat dimples , looks like the Wilson Staff C golf ball of a few years ago. It seems Wilson Duo had it right after all, Callaway has copied it in the soft, TaylorMade has tried to copy the idea of softer and now another attempt by Titleist to copy the DUO ball. Titleist has again put a ball out that is in the upper ranks in price thinking they will buy it just because of the name…. Titleist over priced and under delivered on most of their goods. They are like the car companies of the mid seventy era.

    • Brian

      Sep 22, 2017 at 7:43 pm

      Golf is a game of ‘status’ and the boys with the newest toys play together. You will never find a foursome of buddies with one playing 5 y.o. clubs. If you wanna play, you gotta pay.

  19. Acew7iron

    Sep 21, 2017 at 8:44 am

    Their answer to the Kirkland ball?

    • Brian

      Sep 21, 2017 at 4:28 pm

      Except it’s still over 3x the price of a Kirkland…

      • Bert

        Oct 4, 2017 at 5:30 pm

        Whatever happened to the Kirkland ball? Is it finally on the shelves again; and if yes, is it really the same specifications as the one that stirred everyone up?

  20. Tanner

    Sep 21, 2017 at 7:47 am

    Perhaps their answer for calls for a yellow pro v ?

    • carl spackler

      Sep 21, 2017 at 8:25 am

      but, but they said they couldn’t make a ball with a urethane cover yellow due to the nature of urethane

  21. stevemac

    Sep 20, 2017 at 10:09 pm

    Yeah we do play golf in Texas year round!!!!!!!! Sure hope I am going to get my test balls here. How do you leave out Texas?

  22. Rich Douglas

    Sep 20, 2017 at 9:32 pm

    Too little information. Are these some cool, new breakthrough? Or are they just re-packaged Titleist Velocity balls? Something in between? Something else?

  23. TigerArmy

    Sep 20, 2017 at 5:16 pm

    Where the hell do these fit in between the ProV1s and the NXTs???
    Looks a lot like the Bridgestone strategy where they try to sell sub par tour balls RX / RXS as premium balls to hackers.

  24. AllanA

    Sep 20, 2017 at 5:01 pm

    AVX … AVX … AVX??? ….. Oh, I get it ….. A (Pro)V(1)X …. LOLOL

  25. Guia

    Sep 20, 2017 at 4:30 pm

    I will give it a try. Personally though, I use any number of brand balls and have seen very little difference.

    • AllanA

      Sep 20, 2017 at 4:58 pm

      Oh, no… there must be a difference… look at all the claims and promises… it must be better because it’s the newest.

    • larrybud

      Sep 21, 2017 at 10:01 am

      There is certainly a difference between urethane and non-urethane balls as far as spin goes, especially on approach shots.

      Distance? Eh, all within your margin of error.

  26. Davey Dave

    Sep 20, 2017 at 4:17 pm

    Looks like a good target for an after-hours water hazard diving expedition. Seriously, I’d like to try them to see if they change my second shot.

  27. golfraven

    Sep 20, 2017 at 4:10 pm

    Looks loke a NXT to me. Same packaging but different name?

  28. Brian

    Sep 20, 2017 at 4:08 pm

    Until their balls are reasonably priced, the only Titleist’s I’ll play are those I find on the course.

  29. Judge Smeills

    Sep 20, 2017 at 3:52 pm

    Still waiting for the release of new DT Solo and the Tour Prestige

  30. Irma

    Sep 20, 2017 at 3:47 pm

    Titleist, starting to lose their ball market badly to Srixon, Bridgestone, TM, so they decide to copy and say why fight them, join them. Typical of a Korean-owned company looking to cash in, like always, with copies.

    • Thomas A

      Sep 20, 2017 at 4:24 pm

      Fila Korea sold Titleist. They are American, publicly owned now. If you read GolfWRX you’d know this.

      • CCGolfTx

        Sep 20, 2017 at 9:44 pm

        Acushnet owns Titleist but Fila Korea still owns Acushnet and owns the controlling percentage of the company.

      • Irma

        Sep 21, 2017 at 2:16 am

        No, it didn’t. You would know that if you lived in the outside world
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acushnet_Company

        • surewin73

          Sep 21, 2017 at 11:00 am

          From your Wikipedia page….

          The Acushnet Company is an American company and a subsidiary of Fila Korea, Ltd. that makes golf equipment and clothing.

          Acushnet is still owned by Fila Korea!

        • ibo

          Sep 22, 2017 at 10:43 am

          Irma it literally says The Acushnet Company is an American company and a subsidiary of Fila Korea, Ltd. that makes golf equipment and clothing. in the first line of the article. LOL

          • Irma

            Sep 23, 2017 at 6:35 pm

            Yeah. I was answering Thomas A’s retort that Fila Korea sold Titleist. It didn’t.
            You would know that if you understood how the reply listings worked here. Duh

  31. Double Mocha Man

    Sep 20, 2017 at 3:35 pm

    Did they stop making the “Velocity”… it was their long ball?

  32. Golf64

    Sep 20, 2017 at 3:13 pm

    So 4 balls in the same price category?! Only thing I like about this is it comes in yellow. No customer here at ProV1 prices!

  33. Scott

    Sep 20, 2017 at 3:12 pm

    Hey why not right? Give it the old Billy Baron!

  34. cgasucks

    Sep 20, 2017 at 3:12 pm

    A 3 piece Urethane covered ball at the same price as the Pro V1? There’s no incentive for the golfer to buy the AVX (maybe a dozen or two for curiosity’s sake) long term and might as well buy the tried and true Pro V1 for the same price.

  35. Teaj

    Sep 20, 2017 at 3:08 pm

    im confused, someone needs to do a review with these, PROV1 and PROV1X

  36. Golfinnut

    Sep 20, 2017 at 3:08 pm

    with their quarterly golf sales down the toilet … why come out with a premium distance ball priced just like the V1? No one buys the ProV1 for just that reason. It’s just too damn expensive. No wonder it’s only in 3 states.

    • Golfandpuff

      Sep 20, 2017 at 3:59 pm

      Stats? Proof sales are down? Why don’t you get me the mfg cost per ball while you are at it? Thanks!

      • Brian

        Sep 20, 2017 at 4:12 pm

        A simple google search will tell you what is common knowledge on Titleist’s recent sales decline.

        • AllanA

          Sep 20, 2017 at 4:55 pm

          Golf equipment sales to the recreational golf market is down because the average golfer is aging and giving up the game. The demographics backs this up.
          So the golf OEMs are shifting their sales to the upscale market because that’s where the money is. It’s happening to drivers, irons, wedges, balls, everything.
          Most on these forums are not so rich that they don’t have to ask for the price of the equipment; they are mostly gearhead wannabes who fall in love with the newest and fanciest toys.

      • Cdub

        Sep 20, 2017 at 6:51 pm

        They are a public company. Read their last Q earnings release.

  37. AllanA

    Sep 20, 2017 at 2:25 pm

    Titlesist Promises:
    – More distance
    – Softer feeel
    – Enhanced speed
    – Control spin
    – Scoring control
    – Durability
    – More aerodynamic
    – Flight consistency
    – Optic color
    – Fancy dimples
    Premium performance at a premium price on par with ProV1-x.
    Sooo, if you want to be a good golfer you must spend more $$$$ on your equipment, shoes, accessories and clothes too. It only makes sense.

  38. new stuff!!

    Sep 20, 2017 at 2:25 pm

    what I don’t understand is why they don’t make the v1 or v1x in yellow.
    waiting for tp5 to come in yellow as well.
    until then… chrome soft it is

    • AllanA

      Sep 20, 2017 at 5:05 pm

      No ‘yaller’ ball for me…. maybe a pink Volvic…. maybe not …..

Leave a Reply

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

pga tour

Ian Poulter WITB 2018

Published

on

Equipment is accurate as of the 2018 Honda Classic (2/20/2018).

Driver: Titleist 917D2 (9.5 degrees)
Shaft: Mitsubishi Tensei Orange CK 60TX

3 Wood: Titleist 917F2 (16.5 degrees)
Shaft: Matrix Ozik TP7HDe 7X

Hybrid: Titleist 816 H2 (21 degrees)
Shaft: Aldila Tour Green ATX85H TX

Irons: Titleist 716 T-MB (4), Titleist 718 AP2 (5-PW)
Shaft: Project X LZ 130 7.0

Wedges: Titleist Vokey SM7 (52-12F, 56-14F, 60-04L)
Shaft: Project X LZ 7.0 (52), True Temper Dynamic Gold Tour Issue S400 (56, 60)

Putter: EvnRoll Tour ER
Grip: Odyssey Pistol

Putter: Rife Antigua Island Series
Grip: Odyssey Pistol

Ball: Titleist Pro V1x

Related:

Discussion: See what GolfWRX members are saying about Poulter’s clubs. 

Your Reaction?
  • 4
  • LEGIT0
  • WOW0
  • LOL1
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK1

Continue Reading

Equipment

10 interesting photos from Wednesday at the Honda Classic

Published

on

From our featured image of Rory McIlroy putting in a different kind of work on the range in the pre-dawn hours of Wednesday morning, to shots of Tiger Woods’ similarly early pre-pro-am range work, to some intriguing shots Patrick Reed’s prototype Bettinardi putter, GolfWRX has plenty of fantastic photo content from PGA National.

Here are some of the best shots from Wednesday.

Tiger Woods at work prior to his crack-of-dawn pro-am tee time. Gentleman in the foreground: You do know that as the sun has not yet risen, you do not need a hat to aggressively combat its rays, right?

“My feet do not look like that at impact.”

All eyes on the Big Cat…except those focused on the live video on their cell phone screens…

Let’s take a closer look at Patrick Reed’s yardage book cover. Yep. As expected.

Do you think these two ever talk?

It looks like Captain Furyk already has some pre-Ryder Cup swag in the form of a putter cover.

If you’ve ever wondered why Rickie Fowler selected these interesting locations for his tattoos, this may be the answer: Visible when he holds his finish.

We’ve got a Pistol Pete sighting!

Patrick Reed’s droolworthy Bettinardi Dass prototype.

Fun fact: Wedges double as magnetic putter cover holders, as Jon Curran illustrates here. Healthy application of lead tape, as well, from the tour’s resident graffiti artist.

Wednesday’s Photos

Discussion: See what GolfWRX members are saying about the photos in our forums.

Your Reaction?
  • 12
  • LEGIT3
  • WOW1
  • LOL2
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK6

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?
  • 119
  • LEGIT10
  • WOW2
  • LOL6
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP7
  • OB3
  • SHANK25

Continue Reading

19th Hole

Facebook

Trending