Connect with us

Driver Reviews

Review: Cleveland 588 Custom Driver

Published

on

Pros: Two loft options (9 and 10.5), and each head has 12 settings to further tune loft, lie and face angle. A weight port in the back of the head accepts three variable screws to adjust swing weight.

Cons: Only one stock shaft option, a “made-for” Matrix Ozik 6Q3.

Bottom line: The 588 Custom targets golfers looking for a more penetrating flight than the company’s 588 Altitude. Its classy look, solid performance and adjustability could make it the best Cleveland driver to date.

Overview

In 2013, Cleveland marketed the Cleveland Classic XL Custom as its premium driving club. The Classic marked the advent of adjustable hosels for Cleveland drivers. The 2014 iteration of the premium driver, the Cleveland 588 Custom, added an adjustable swing weight screw in the back of the club head to the adjustable hosel feature. A 3-gram weight comes pre-installed, but 7- and 11-gram weights are also available for golfers who wish to increase head weight. The 588 Custom measures 460cc and is available in two lofts: 9 and 10.5 degrees for righties and lefties.

The club is outfitted with a standard Matrix Ozik 6Q3 shaft. The 6Q3 is a mid-launch shaft, a common installation allowing a company to satisfy a wide spectrum of customers. It has a stock length of 45.5 inches, published lie of 60 degree and a total weight of about 305 grams. Twenty-three other shafts are available through custom order.

97e3103b9afeae66eba4fef911edf92d

The fitting guide that accompanies the 588 Custom reveals the following ranges of adjustability: face angle may vary from 2.25 degrees closed to 2.25 open; loft may be adjusted from 1.5 degrees low to 1.5 degrees high; and lie angle may extend from 58.5 to 61.5 degrees.

The Cleveland 588 Custom driver sells for $349.99.

Performance

I tested both the Cleveland 588 Custom and 588 Altitude driver (which I reviewed earlier this year) on a Trackman launch monitor. The 588 Custom was set to 10.5 degrees to match the 10.5-degree loft of the 588 Altitude, which has a fixed hosel. I hit a dozen balls with each driver, and discounted the two outliers (one that I crushed deeper than the others and the one that would have been an automatic reload, a three-from-the-tee).

e54546de137570ee74679ded61c857d0

Here is how the numbers shook out for my 95-to-100 mph swing:

  • Average launch angle was 10.6 degrees.
  • Ball speed averaged 142.6 mph.
  • Smash factor was consistently at 1.49 (better than my 5 handicap predicts).
  • Spin rate averaged 2116.
  • Average length was 244 yards.

There were noticeable differences between the performance of the 588 Custom and the 588 Altitude driver. While the Altitude’s average ball speed and smash factor were slightly lower, 141.7 mph and 1.46, respectively, its average launch angle was a full 2 degrees higher! That big of a differential seems like a head scratcher, but it can be attributed to my tendency to contact the 588 Altitude driver higher on the face. The higher contact point also helps explain why the Altitude’s average spin rate was just 2300 rpm, only 200 rpm more than the Custom’s. The higher launch and and relatively lower spin gave me about 10 more yards with the 588 Altitude driver than the 588 Custom (253.6 yards on average compared to 244 yards).

8072c186f01f5c09e9fecaa48885edf6

My experience with the two drivers shows the importance of custom fitting, and the thoughtful manner in which Cleveland designed the two drivers. As expected, Cleveland Staff members have gravitated toward the 588 Custom driver because of its lower center of gravity that helps lower spin for maximum distance. But for average golfers the shallower-faced 588 Altitude driver might be the ticket, as it can produce a higher launch and is designed to be more forgiving.

Looks and Feel

I liked the sound of club-ball contact with the 588 Custom. Having grown up playing wooden drivers, I lean toward a quieter click and the Cleveland 588 Custom delivers that muffled sound on center and off-center hits.

2dd37ed3305fb75154850f76327b3578

As for aesthetics, the 588 Custom driver eliminated the shield and large number that was on the sole of the Classic XL Custom driver, which gives the club a more aerodynamic look. On the crown, the 588 Custom has a gold alignment aid on the back of the head perpendicular to the line of flight. A simple alignment aid on the front of the driver would have been more helpful to me, but the gold line around the perimeter is a nice way to keep the driver looking clean without totally abandoning an alignment aid.

203b677c8f561ed8d4258f6b8113cadc

The stock grip on the 588 Custom driver is a Golf Pride Tour 45. It has a softer, slightly-spongier feel than the Tour 25 that comes standard on the 588 Altitude driver. Cleveland also offers a nice headcover with the 588 Custom, which is leather with a tug belt that aids in its removal. The leather upper has thickness to it, offering reassurance that your expensive drive head is safe from nicks and dents when not in use. Any sky marks are your fault! There is nothing garish about the head cover’s coloring; it’s black with gold and white highlights that characterize the Cleveland look.

Bottom Line

My Trackman session with the Cleveland 588 Custom revealed that my results with driver were enviable: all balls within the in-bounds grid and 60 percent in my normal 240 yards-plus zone (reaching all the way to 270). But I’m a sucker for a club that compensates for my less-gifted swings, and that club is the Cleveland 588 Altitude. For early-season rounds, I’ll have it in my bag over the 588 Custom.

c8757e94f29201a9b44f41919a7651a9

Were I on a mission to purchase the 588 Custom, I would run through every available shaft option. Why? The positive, outlier drive that I discarded reached 280 yards with carry and roll, a full 15 yards longer than my other best drive. I’d  be foolish to think that I couldn’t reach that number with more consistency if the shaft were synchronized perfectly with my swing.

[wrx_buy_now oemlink=”http://www.clevelandgolf.com/US_588-custom-driver__588_custom_drv__viewProd_drivers.html” oemtext=”Learn more from Cleveland Golf” amazonlink=”http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00FNJG2D2/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B00FNJG2D2&linkCode=as2&tag=golfwrxcom-20&linkId=2CRUFU5UI7YCKRXV”]

Thanks to Kevin Hoffstetter and Donna Henrich of Woods To Wedges, Inc. (Williamsville, NY) for the use of their Trackman studio and their assistance in capturing and tabulating driver swing data.

Your Reaction?
  • 82
  • LEGIT9
  • WOW6
  • LOL7
  • IDHT6
  • FLOP1
  • OB1
  • SHANK45

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.

7 Comments

7 Comments

  1. Ronald Montesano

    Feb 16, 2014 at 2:57 pm

    I played nine holes at Cutter Creek (Snow Hill) on Saturday and eighteen at Pine Crest (Lumberton) on Sunday in North Carolina. Used the Altitude at Cutter and the Custom at Pine Crest. I hit the daylights out of both clubs and feel comfortable keeping both/either in the bag for the next rounds.

    • Ryan

      May 29, 2014 at 8:06 pm

      Have now played 2 rounds and 4 range buckets with this 588 custom and I must say it is significantly shorter than the 905r that it replaced, however I am in the short stuff far more often. Loss of 15-18 yards but 4 more fir’s a round so far. I am happy. 18 handicap

  2. tim

    Feb 15, 2014 at 11:08 pm

    I haven’t seen anyone at the course I play at game a Cleveland driver since the Hi-Bore.

    • MBA-J

      Feb 16, 2014 at 1:46 pm

      Honestly, I didn’t going to last season thinking about Cleveland drivers. However, when I’ was fit by independent golf fitter, the matrix ozik black tie was selected as the best shaft for my swing. Of retail drivers, the Callaway RAZR Xtreme and Cleveland XL Custom were the only retail drivers that had the shaft available off the rack. I didn’t get along with the Callaway, but the Cleveland fit me like a glove.

  3. MBA-J

    Feb 13, 2014 at 1:58 pm

    I am the proud owner of the 2013 Cleveland Classic XL Custom driver, and I believe that for retail consumers, the XL Custom is better than the 588 Custom:

    1. Spin Rate: Aside from the SLDR, the XL Custom was the lowest spinning driver head I hit last year. The newer iteration, the 588 Custom, spins more than my XL Custom with a Black Tie X flex shaft.

    2. Launch: The 588 Custom launches lower than the XL Custom per my golf swing. On the monitor, my XL Custom 9.0* launched 1.5* higher than the 588 Custom in the same loft and flex.

    3. Shaft Offerings: The XL Custom had 4 shafts available at retail: Fubuki, two Miyazakis, and my Black Tie. The 588 Custom only ships with a Matrix, thus eliminating a bit of the “custom” aspect.

    4. Length: My XL Custom was dead set off the rack at 45″ while the 588 Custom is 45.5″. While the length may lead to longer drives, there is a trade-off for a bit of control.

    Tour players exhibit low-spin characteristics in their golf swings; therefore, they do not need to play the lowest spinning driver possible. SLDR aside, many tour players play the higher spinning version of their sponsor’s offerings (913 D2, G25, Covert, etc.). As a result, I can argue (without evidence of fact) that Cleveland lowered the launch and increased the spin to make the driver more appealing to their Tour staff. However, for us amateurs, lower spin can contribute to adding both the distance we desire and the accuracy we need. Therefore, I argue that Cleveland Golf had an arguably better product for non-competitive amateurs last year, as golfers could be fit and find an immediate solution in stock (Titleist business model) at their local shop.

    Maybe I’m bitter that Cleveland abandoned the super deep face that allows me to tee it high and smack the crap out of it. Maybe I’m bitter that Cleveland abandoned the super cool old-school pleather barrel head cover. Maybe I’m bitter that Cleveland abandoned the clean black crown in place of an Overhaulin’-esque gold pinstripe. Maybe I’m bitter that Cleveland is marketing a removable weight in the back when the XL Custom in my office also has a removable weight in the back. Maybe I’m just bitter.

    Absence of sugar aside, the Cleveland Classic XL Custom is the best driver I’ve hit in my 14 years playing this great game. I had high hopes for its replacement, but I’m afraid this is akin to Caddyshack II. The sequel is inferior to the original.

    • Sean

      Feb 13, 2014 at 6:52 pm

      Yes, I think you are bitter.

    • raul

      Feb 14, 2014 at 7:55 pm

      tour players are always trying to lower spin. the AVERAGE high handicapper needs more spin

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Driver Reviews

GolfWRX Spotlight: Tour Edge Exotics C721 driver

Published

on

Tour Edge’s Exotics line of high-end golf clubs has been known for excellent fairway wood and hybrid performance over the years. The Chicago-based company has been consistently putting out high-quality products, and golfers are really taking notice. The new line of C721 drivers, fairway woods, and hybrids take yet another big leap forward from last year’s EXS line. 

The new C721 driver takes a lot of technology from the 2020 EXS line and further refines and expands on it. I know it is a little cliche when companies say every model is their best ever, but Tour Edge is 100 percent right this time.

When unboxing the C721 the first thing I noticed was the much-improved looks and shape over the previous Tour Edge drivers. The biggest change to my eye is the added bulge, giving a more rounded and softened topline.

The overall shape of the C721 is slightly stretched from front to back, giving it just a hint of a triangular look. The Ridgeback is a titanium spine flanked by two carbon fiber wings that add stability and forgiveness to the head, but they can also work together and an additional aiming device to ensure you are lined up down the center of the fairway. 

Getting the C721 out on the course is where you really start to appreciate all the technology that went into this driver. Well-struck shots are very long, very boring, and will hang with anything out on the market today. Center contact is rewarded with a long and very low spin shot that is just fun to hit.

The sound and feel are very solid, you can really feel the ball compress on the face as it leaves at high speed. The sound is more of a muted crack and much quieter than I anticipated. If you practice on an enclosed range your ears will thank you for your choice in drivers. Shots hit away from the center of the face retain a lot of ball speed and stay online really well.

My miss is low on the heel and those misses stayed in the air fairly well and went a good ways. Shots hit down on the heel or higher on the toe side still stay online really well due to the Ridgeback spine and rear weight. The C721 is just slightly higher than mid-launch for me, but the low spinning head never allowed my shots to balloon or rise even into the wind. I do wish the face was just a touch deeper as I had to play with my tee height in order to find the optimal setup. The better players will enjoy the neutral weighting and there seems to be very minimal draw built into the driver.

Overall, the Tour Edge Exotics C721 driver is a great club that will probably be overlooked by too many golfers. If you are looking for added distance, a lot of forgiveness and want to keep some money in your pocket, then you should seriously take a look at Tour Edge.

Your Reaction?
  • 94
  • LEGIT11
  • WOW5
  • LOL2
  • IDHT1
  • FLOP1
  • OB0
  • SHANK3

Continue Reading

Driver Reviews

Review: Ping’s G400 and G400 LST Drivers

Published

on

I still remember the first time I hit Ping’s G30 driver. It was July 2014, and I was at Ping’s HQ in Phoenix. Super low-spin drivers were all the rage at the time. With their forward center of gravity, they were helping golfers optimize their launch conditions beyond their wildest dreams: crazy high launch, ridiculously low spin. Many in the business, including myself, had one of these drivers and spent many launch monitor sessions trying to figure out how to get more distance from these high knuckleballs. The bad news was that forward-CG drivers, by nature, were really unforgiving. Bad shots were really short and crooked.

Before I knew the G30 was a big deal, Marty Jertson, Ping’s Director of Product Development, explained to me his vision for the perfect driver inside a conference room at Ping Headquarters. In his eyes, the perfect driver didn’t have the low, forward center of gravity (CG) that was being touted at the time. Its CG was located as low and as rearward in the driver head as possible, which he said would offer the best of both worlds: optimized launch conditions on good shots, as well as the best possible forgiveness on bad shots.

Building the perfect driver was a long way off (and still is), but Jertson was excited where Ping had landed with the G30. When it was released, the driver was a powerful testament to his vision. Its rear-CG design created great distance on good and bad shots, and it was also a very straight driver. The G30 sold incredibly well and, as a result, the industry mostly shifted away from forward-CG drivers.

It’s been nearly three years since the release of the G30, and Ping has just made another counterintuitive driver release. The company shrunk the size of its new G400 drivers in a climate where full-size drivers have become the norm. Granted, it’s only 15 cubic centimeters smaller, but it’s noticeable at address. Compared to the Ping G drivers they replace (which replaced the G30), the G400’s look like they cut carbs.

Despite their slimmer frames, however, the G400 drivers are actually more forgiving than the G drivers (which were even more forgiving than the G30). That’s why Ping representatives say smaller is actually better in the G400’s case. The drivers have the lowest, most rearward CG of any Ping drivers ever, and their smaller size is said to improve their aerodynamics so golfers can swing them fractionally faster. The other big change is a new face material made of T9S+ titanium, which is thinner and more flexible to help golfers generate more ball speed.

Ping_G400_LST_2

For this review, I wanted to put the G400 and G400 LST to the test against the G and the G LST drivers that they replace, so I took them to the Launch Pad at Carl’s Golfland in Bloomfield Hills, Mich. I hit five shots with each driver on Trackman IV, and to ensure as much of an apples-to-apples comparison as possible, I tested each driver head with the same shaft. Each driver head was adjusted to the same loft, or as close as possible.

Note: The G, G LST, and G400 drivers I tested were 10.5-degree heads adjusted to 9.5 degrees. The G400 LST had a loft of 10 degrees, and it was adjusted to 9.4 degrees.

The Test

PingG400_2017

In my personal driver tests, I don’t usually see a huge uptick in distance or accuracy when comparing the latest drivers to the most recent models from the same manufacturer. Improvements generally come in the form of improved head shaping, a better feel, or enhanced adjustability. That’s why I was surprised to see such a big change in my launch conditions and dispersion with the G400 drivers.

G400 Test Results: With the G400, I launched my drives an average of 1.6-degrees higher than I did with the G while dropping spin an average of 416 rpm. That led to a significant improvement in distance. With my swing speed and ball speed staying about the same, I added an average of 7.2 yards more carry distance and 8.7 yards more total distance.

G400 LST Test Results: First, a note about the G400 LST. It has a CG that’s slightly lower and more forward than the standard G400 driver to help golfers reduce spin. Like the G30 LST and G LST, it’s still very much a rear-CG driver, but its design helps high-speed golfers who can consistently find the center of the club face maximize distance without highjacking forgiveness. When I test Ping drivers, the LST is generally the model that creates the best performance, and the G400 LST was no exception. I saw an average of a 1.2-degree higher launch angle with all other things staying about the same when I compared it to the G LST. The result was an average of 6.6 yards more carry distance and 3.1 yards more total distance. It was the longest and straightest driver I hit in the test.

Note: Ping also sells a G400 SFT (Straight Flight Technology) driver, which has added draw bias. To learn more about it, click through to tech story on the G400, G400 LST and G400 SFT drivers. 

Dispersion

G400_Dispertion

One way to explain the improved launch conditions is that I hit the G400 drivers more consistently. As you can see in the Trackman dispersion chart, I hit the G400 and G400 LST drivers straighter on average than the G and G LST. Is that its slightly enhanced forgiveness shining through? Maybe, maybe not.

To me, the changes Ping made to the look and feel of the driver were just as important as the performance difference I saw on Trackman. I’ve always preferred smaller driver heads, or at least 460-cubic-centimeter drivers that appear smaller than their size. For that reason, I felt more confident with the G400 drivers in my hands. I didn’t mind that I didn’t see any added swing speed or ball speed from the smaller driver head. I was sold on the looks alone.

I also preferred the sound of the G400 drivers to the G drivers. There was definitely much more of a “thwack” than a “ping” at impact, which made the G400’s feel more powerful. Looks and feel are subjective, of course, but to me the improvement was night and day. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that my fondness for the looks and feel of the G400 was at least a contributing factor to my improved performance in the test, if not the most important factor. When I like the way a club look at address, I tend to hit it better, and I know I’m not alone.

I do want readers to keep in mind that this was a one-person test and I hit a limited amount of balls. Yes, it’s a great indication that the G400 driver can be measurably better than a G driver, but it’s not a guarantee.

I also want to address the weaknesses of the G400 drivers. While they’re few, they could push golfers into another driver model in a fitting. Unlike Callaway’s GBB EpicTaylorMade’s M1 or Titleist’s 917 drivers, the G400’s don’t have CG adjustability. That means there’s no way to fine tune ball flight outside of a shaft or loft adjustment. A bigger deal for some golfers might be the G400 crowns. Despite their smaller size, there’s still a lot to look at address, as was the case with the G drivers.

Ping_G400_LST_4

Aerodynamic features on the front of the crowns, “Turbulators,” have been thickened for the G400 release. There’s also Ping’s “DragonFly Technology,” a geometry on the back of the driver crowns that helps push CG lower and more rearward in the driver heads. I personally think the G400 crowns give the drivers an old-school, muscle car-like look, but there’s no question they won’t fly with all golfers.

Whatever your thoughts about what’s on top of the G400 drivers, there’s no question that what’s under the hood can offer something the G and G30 drivers did not. Maybe you’ll like the smaller head. Maybe you’ll prefer the quieter sound. Maybe the improved forgiveness will show up on a launch monitor or on the course. Or maybe you’ll just flat out rip a G400 farther and straighter down the middle like I did.

If that last bit happens, try not to second-guess it.

Your Reaction?
  • 668
  • LEGIT83
  • WOW47
  • LOL18
  • IDHT12
  • FLOP22
  • OB15
  • SHANK58

Continue Reading

Driver Reviews

Members Choice: The Best Driver of 2017

Published

on

What determines the best driver on the market; is it the opinion of professional club fitters, professional golfers or testing results from a group of amateurs?

At GolfWRX, we believe all three sources can lead golfers to an answer. Being a website founded by passionate golfers with a mission to serve passionate golfers, though, we place a special emphasis on the opinions of our GolfWRX Members — the most knowledgeable group of golfers on the planet. No other group of golfers in the world tests golf clubs as frequently or as extensively as GolfWRX Members. So who better to poll to get an initial indication of the best performing drivers so far in 2017?

So we asked them, “What’s the best driver of 2017?” They voted for the three drivers they felt most worthy of the title and provided feedback about their selections in our special forum thread. You can see the results below (as of the first three weeks of voting), as well as quotes we pulled from GolfWRX Members about the drivers from our forum.

Remember that our polls will remain open for voting throughout the year, and we’re going to keep an eye on the percentages as more and more golfers have an opportunity to test these drivers. We’re also working on another Best Driver list, which will evaluate clubs in another important way. Stay tuned!

Keep in mind that there’s no single driver on the market that is the absolute best option for every golfer: that’s why nearly every manufacturer makes at least two different models. As this list indicates, however, some drivers are working better than others this year. Happy Testing!

Note: Forum posts were minimally edited for grammar, style, spelling and clarity.

Cobra King LTD Black (3.00 percent of votes)

3f7f45629f386b15ed7bbbaa529e0826

  • The General: All-black LTD is really clean looking. I’m about to cover up the orange on my LTD with lead tape. Orange is played out
  • mh7vwLove my LTD, but wish the black finish (or even this gray) didn’t have that subtle checkering you see in some like. Prefer plain black.
  • dbleagI am a fan of the black/orange combo. The performance and sound of the LTD is very appealing to me. I also like that the standard length is 45 inches. For me, that helps it be super-accurate. With the low-spin design, I hit it longest of the current offerings and can’t remember the last time I missed a fairway. Straight, solid, low spin and nice.
Further Reading

Mizuno JPX-900 (3.20 percent)

Mizuno_JPX_900_Driver

  • johnnythundersJPX goes straight. Best real-deal shaft and is long and very adjustable.
  • KT35That blue head looks awesome sitting on the ground. I hit balls off the toe and heel and didn’t see the big drop off in distance like the previous models.
  • nmortonThe JPX-900 is definitely more forgiving compared to the JPX-850, and sounds much better. Though they did sacrifice a bit by going with a little larger profile, but it’s easy to get used to. The graphics are so so, but this driver performs. I’m really digging the Evo II (shaft).
  • jay65I can see that Mizuno is really making a decent effort with its drivers/fairways in terms of tech and aesthetics, and they compliment the new JPX-900 line of irons really well, but if they’re going to make any inroads they really have to address this issue of their custom shafts options. It’s rubbish.
  • bok006The JPX-900, after being properly adjusted by the fitter, gave me an extra 20 yards just like that. My swing speed suggested I was borderline S to X (flex), but the fitter said unless I was fighting a hook I should stick with the S.
  • bubbagump: …the JPX-900, when properly fit, is just as long on a consistent basis than all the new models I tried in real life situations. It looks great, sounds solid and just knows the way to keep the ball in play.  
  • ChazbI’m 69 years old, have a swing speed of 91 mph and played nine with the JPX-900 this morning. It was in the 40s with a brisk wind hit it around 220 to 230 yards. It was a fairway finder, has great feel and is one of the easiest to control drivers I have ever hit. I can’t wait ’til it is warmer and can dial it in more. So far I have the two weights all the way forward for a lower flight and the other set with a draw bias with 10.5 degrees of loft. This driver is the real deal; it may not be the longest or the shortest, but it is a fairway finder which IMO makes it a winner.
Further Reading

Ping G (3.80 percent)

7adaa1412b79ca8c7cc5a0b788f55058

  • Wesquire: Ping G is the most forgiving so it wins.
  • bopper53: Ping G hands down. Great distance and the most forgiving.
  • Dannydubbbs: The Ping G series is just too forgiving. The distance is comparable between most models, but Ping always seems to win out with forgiveness.
  • Bruin BearThe Ping G is going to be overlooked because it’s looked at as “game improvement,” but this driver is a beast. I liked the LS, but it requires a faster swing to get results and in the cold outdoors I just don’t have that all the time. I think the G is the perfect blend of performance and forgiveness.
  • cmrl1986Only reason I switched from the Ping G25 was that the G felt less harsh off the face. Same distance just about.
Further Reading

Cobra King F7+ (3.90 percent)

cec33621c8ab9450c778e79b3b280da1

  • EntourageLife: Ball really flies off face. Driver head controls spin well. Not one drive “ballooned” and trajectory was high and best of all… very easy to work ball right to left for a confident draw.
  • GollieThe F7+ is another great offering from Cobra… I didn’t get the “MAN, this is gonna take my LTD out of the bag” feeling, but it has very good sound, feel and performance.
  • J13F7+ is a great offering from Cobra and IMO is in the top-3 drivers this year. Epic is the standout for me numbers wise, then M series and F7+ are right behind it. Love the Agera (shaft) in there!!! Such a great shaft; I can’t seem to get mine out of the bag.
  • Golfer from MOHit both Cobras lefty and as a lefty the LTD is the shizzle. Last year it was the LTD and Big Bertha down to the absolute wire… the F7+ is more workable than the LTD, but not longer and a little worse on mishits.
  • BoognishI took a few swings with the F7+ at Golf Galaxy yesterday. 9.5 degrees with heaviest weight forward. The stock shaft is actually the same model I play in my GBB (albeit in smoked black instead of yellow). Ball flight and distance were similar to my GBB with good consistent sub-3000 backspin. Sound was OK, feel was harder than the GBB.
  • thechief16Just from the range (no LM), I didn’t see a noticeable performance improvement with the F7+ over the original King LTD. And I like the look and sound/feel of the LTD better.
Further Reading

Ping G LS Tec (4.90 percent)

463210496f8e1487a5ff2fdcf38109a1

  • drvrwdgeI played the G LS with the Ping Tour 65X (shaft) tipped an inch for about a year. Just put the HZRDUS Yellow 75 6.5 tipped an inch and never thought it was possible, but it’s longer and straighter. Best driver shaft combo I’ve ever hit. You can feel that HZRDUS throughout the entire swing. Really gives you a solid connected feel.
  • Mtngolfer1: I am not sure that I would consider this a 2017 Driver, but my vote went to the Ping G LS Tec. The fact that my G is still holding its own against the latest 2017 releases has me very excited to see what Ping will release later this year.
  • 3woodvt: Fairway finder and plenty long.
  • pitchinwedgeI’ve found the LS to be nearly as fade biased as the M family. I get pretty good results with the LS by making a conscious effort to make more of an in-to-out swing. Any lapse in concentration and everything goes right. The M’s require even more effort, which is the reason I stayed with the LS instead.
  • 3 Jack ParAfter an up and down year with the G LS, I’ve actually recently gone back to my G30 LS head. I only have a couple of rounds as a sample so far, so I can’t really draw a conclusion about whether one or the other is better, but with the same shaft it seems like my G30 head might be a little longer. Honestly, the performance differences are pretty minimal if you really compare the two generations.
Further Reading

Titleist 917D3 (5.30 percent)

f5830abf21efeb00cab7cbe4329a9972

  • GavaThe 917D3 is in my bag now, and I’ve found it incredibly long with a recently purchased Graphite Design Tour AD MJ 7TX shaft. Feel and accuracy has been a real improvement as well.
  • Togatown22I find my 917D3 to be just as forgiving as my 915D2 was, and man do I prefer looking down at the head shape and color versus the 915. Very confidence inspiring.
  • NIxhex524I would definitely give the D3 a whirl. I feel like Titleist has made great strides at making the smaller head way more hittable for us ams.
  • KPH808So in conclusion, I was hitting the ball about 9 yards further on average and 3-4 mph faster ball speeds with the 917D3 vs. the 915 D4. The biggest thing for me was the forgiveness between the two; the 917D3 was more forgiving on mishits.
  • brushieThe 917D3 head feels soft like the 910 and sounds great. I never had an issue with the 915 sound; it wasn’t great, but it didn’t bother me too much. This is much better, though. The 917D3 head shape is perfect to my eye as well. The area where the 917 shines is forgiveness. 

Further Reading

TaylorMade M1 440 (5.35 percent)

TaylorMade_M1_440_Feat

  • Tigermatt31: The M1 440 is best driver I’ve had ever.
  • TollBros: The M1 440 is definitely lower spin than the M1 460 or M2 from last year. Launch angle isn’t really any lower, but spin is lower for sure.
  • specimania: This year’s 440 is more forgiving.
  • MCozYes, this 440 is more forgiving, and yet it also appears to be more workable than both of the previous M1 and M2s.
  • nitramTo save you a bunch of reading and crunching numbers, I quickly concluded there was a little more forgiveness and exactly +0.4 mph ball speed with the 440. By forgiveness I simply mean this: A 1.48 smash 440 will give you the same ball speed and distance as a 1.49/1.50 430. But if you get a 1.50 from both there is no measurable gain. Side-to-side dispersion was better by 4.7 feet with the 440. Workability was a wash between them, although the 430 seems a bit more fade biased whereas I’ll describe the 440 as a scosche more neutral.
  • tj24: I hit the M1 440 with my Aldila RIP at an 80-gram X-flex. For me, the spin numbers were around 1700 rpm which is probably to low for my swing. I did, however, like the shape of the head and I felt like I could easily work the ball both ways.
  • halfsumoI really think they nailed it with the shape of this 440 head. Nice pear shape, no weird bulges or ridges that you have to get used to.
Further Reading

Titleist 917D2 (6.65 percent)

4edf1bce10b81caa57e8ccc4079bd3fd

  • tsletten: Love the sound of the 917D2.
  • bladehunter: No doubt the 917D2 is an accurate, forgiving driver that doesn’t look as big as it is and sounds fantastic.
  • JStangMaybe it’s just me, but I find the face to be more shallow (top to bottom) with the 917D2 than other drivers that I’ve tried lately.
  • LuckyLowbrowI was actually spinning it too low with the D4. Going up to the D2 normalized my spin rate, but led to such an improvement in consistency across the face.

Further Reading

TaylorMade M1 460 2017 (11.81 percent)

TaylorMade_M1_460-Feat

  • Ereim: I ended up going with the M1 460. It gave me a slightly tighter dispersion, and I liked looking down at it slightly more.
  • jdenham15: The 2017 TaylorMade M1 is a great driver, but I tend to miss wide right and struggled to turn it over.
  • ZBigStick: The M1 460 gave me the best results. Was able to increase launch without much added spin with the (T-Track) weight. Feel is good and felt forgiving; dispersion results backing that up.
  • BillMurrayGolfingThe face is hot, receptive, thin and makes a nice sound. I like that.
  • JStangSound and feel were both fantastic. I couldn’t ask for much more in the sound and feel department than what this club offers. Plenty of feedback was provided based on impact as I would expect. I could easily tell where I missed based on feel.
  • tnordJust as another tester found, moving the weight back and forward absolutely does impact how the club sounds. I’m much more a fan of the weight back.
  • chickenpotpieMoving the slider to the draw position made the feel of the driver a little harsher. Feel was much much smoother with that weight in the middle. I didn’t see any such changes with the front/rear slider.
Further Reading

TaylorMade M2 2017 (11.86 percent)

M2_Speed_Pocket

  • ZBigStickI liked the feel of the new M2 but seemed to get better results and numbers with the new M1. Could be the extra 5 grams of head weight?
    It was dynamite with the GD TP-6 (shaft)!
  • erock9174On Trackman it didn’t put up the most ball speed, but counting all shots the M2 had the longest average distance.
  • gripandripThe M2 seems to have a little bit of a fade bias for me. And the head is HUGE. Maybe it’s a mental thing to be able to turnover a head that large.
  • Bomber_11M2 has very big shoes to fill, as the 2016 M2 was arguably one of the best drivers of the last 3-4 years.
  • LONG&STR8It’s hard to ignore the sound of the new M2. That may be TaylorMade’s biggest fail with that driver, as the sound and feel was one of the best things about the first version that I’ll have in the bag until something better comes along.
  • Z1ggy16The new M2 was terrible for me, not sure why. Unsure if it was the shaft I used but it spun up like a monster and ball speeds weren’t any better than previous M2.
  • Peanut191I don’t really think that the new M2 was much of a step backward, probably more that it doesn’t seem like a big step forward compared to last year’s model. I was hitting my 2016 M2 against a 2017 M2 indoors (which usually amplifies the louder, more obnoxious sound) and I didn’t notice that much of a difference in sound. It could have been that I might have just happened to get a hold of a head that was more muted than normal with the new one, but I just didn’t notice much difference. Performance wise, I could tell that the 2017 was slightly more forgiving than the 2016 model, but I was basically getting the same ball speed and spin numbers, so I didn’t see the need to upgrade.
  • gioguy21: Played 54 holes this weekend. The M2 was as reliable as it could get. I hit 11/12 fairways Friday, 10/12 Saturday and 5/9 or so yesterday (windy). Controllable, just wants to go straight. The sound no longer bothers me. I think it’s when hitting indoors or in range bays that it gets unbearably loud. Makes a different sound when hit on the screws I’ve found, similar to last years M2/M1 with less high-pitched ring. The forgiveness is very obvious, as I hit a couple that were close to center of the face but either high or little out toward the toe that flew similar trajectory and distance to how a well struck shot would react. I think where this driver really shines is the ability to either tee it high and hit it with higher trajectory or the ability to hit it lower with a low tee (3/4 of the ball under the crown) and hit laser beams that don’t move left or right.
  • G-BoneFrom what I’ve seen on Trackman, 2017 M1 was a big jump from 2016; however, 2016 M2 was so good, 2017 is a minor jump.
Further Reading

Callaway GBB Epic (14.91 percent)

GBB_Epic_Hero

  • HDTVMAN: I hit both the Callaway Big Bertha Fusion and Epic with a 44.5-inch UST Recoil F3 shaft and the results were very close. From customer testing, it appears the Epic is longer for those with higher (95+) swing speeds. I have also seen that 44.25-44.5-inch lengths promote tighter dispersion with customers, no loss of distance and better over-all drives.
  • mbbrewer: Tried them all and for me Epic was the one. Fastest ball speed, lowest spin and tightest dispersion.
  • Ereim: Epic felt great, looked great and the numbers were basically 99.9 percent optimized for my swing.
  • johnnylongballz72There is Epic and there is the M series… then there is everyone else. The votes here show it, the PGA Tour use shows it and launch monitors everywhere show it.
  • misplacedtexan83: GBB Epic/Sub Zero pushed the envelop in design and materials to produce increased ball speed and gains. For once a driver did what a company said it would do.
Further Reading

Callaway GBB Epic Sub Zero (16.91 percent)

GBB_Epic_Sub_Zero_Hero

  • jdenham15: I tested the Epic Sub Zero and Epic against my 2016 TaylorMade M1 and the ball speed was 5 mph higher on average, which gave me about 10 yards more carry disstance. That was great, but the part that sold me was the forgiveness. I love my Epic Sub Zero. I feel like it’s easier to turn over and I can work it both ways.
  • Z1ggy16Sub Zero was hands down the best, including my gaming M1 (yeah, not even top-3) due to the combination of lower spin, good forgiveness and feel and looks.
  • jimhaire: I had a 2016 M2 and went with the Epic Sub Zero. The look at address suited my eye and the feel off the face was better for me. And the club went straight.
  • Sef: I have tested a lot of these drivers and for me the Epic Sub Zero was so much better than everything else. I wish I could just apply all three votes to it.
Further Reading

Members Choice 2017

Your Reaction?
  • 651
  • LEGIT92
  • WOW44
  • LOL39
  • IDHT16
  • FLOP39
  • OB34
  • SHANK255

Continue Reading

WITB

Facebook

Trending