By: Matt Saternus

How many times have you let some preconceived idea or bias get in the way of playing the best equipment for your game?  I think for many of us club-crazy golfers, the answer is “more times than I’d like to admit.”

Personally, I will admit to a bit of a bias against Project X.  Despite being fit into them on a couple of occasions, I’ve never loved the feel of their iron shafts.  Because of this, I’ve never given too much thought to their graphite offerings.  As you’ll see in this review, that would have been a HUGE mistake: the Project X graphite shafts are some of the most accurate and consistent I’ve ever tested.

Notes, Feel, Price, and Miscellaneous

I came into this review with very low expectations for the feel of Project X graphite.  I will happily report that I was wrong to expect so little.  To me, the Project X feels most similar to the Nunchuk: a solid, “one-piece” feel with very little kick or torque.  While not as smooth as a Matrix or Diamana, there’s nothing harsh about the Project X whatsoever.  I found this feel was very similar from 6.0 to 7.0.  Players with more swing speed or more aggressive tempos may disagree and could find more difference from one flex to the next.

With regard to looks, the Project X plays it safe with a solid blue color and minimal graphics.

When considering the standard and tour issue lines, weights of the Project X graphite shafts range from 60 to over 100 grams.  Flex ranges from 5.0 to 7.0 on the Rifle scale

Project X graphite shafts carry an MSRP of $275 but can be found for around $150.  The Tour Issue profiles can be found through select fitters and club builders or through some OEM custom order programs.

Performance

For the Performance testing, I hit each of the shafts in a Callaway RAZR Fit 10.5 head on a FlightScope X2 launch monitor.  I hit 20 “good” shots with each shaft, changing frequently so that fatigue was not an issue, nor did I get grooved with one shaft to the detriment of fairness.

Testing was done at Golf Nation in Palatine, IL, one of the best indoor golf facilities in the country.

*NOTE: Testing was done inside. Uur FlightScope seems to be producing somewhat different numbers indoors compared to outdoors.  To greater or lesser extents, ball speed, and spin are all coming in lower than they did outdoors, hence the carry number is smaller.  That said, it’s still an apples-to-apples comparison, so no attempt has been made to “normalize” the numbers: we’re publishing the numbers straight off the FlightScope, as always.

DATA

ANALYSIS

The Project X shafts produced very consistent numbers for me across the board.  The launch was medium-high, and the spin was very manageable, especially when you consider I was hitting exclusively fades (with the exception of a couple pulls).

The big story to me is the accuracy.  In my opinion, the “Off Line” number doesn’t really do justice to the Project X in this case.  While the shots may have been consistently off of the center line, they were very tightly grouped.  The dispersion numbers in the FlightScope graphic are some of the smallest I’ve ever achieved.  In fact, were it not for two pulled shots, I think each shaft would have posted a dispersion number under 40, which is outstanding for me.

Conclusion

As I said in the intro, the Project X graphite shafts are some of the most consistent and accurate that I’ve ever tested.  While there are not a lot of different options in the standard line, the Tour Issue line offers enough different weights and profiles to suit a wide variety of different players.  Though there are newer, “hotter” models out, aggressive-swinging players who want to tighten up their dispersion would do well to consider putting a Project X graphite shaft in their driver.

VISIT WEBSITE: HERE

FOLLOW ON TWITTER: HERE

FOLLOW ON FACEBOOK: HERE

We obsess over our driver shafts. Which is the highest launching? Which is the lowest spinning?

We all have our favorites.

We all think we know what’s best.

We obsess over irons shafts too. What will give me tour trajectory? What’s going fly high and land soft?

Am I too much of a man for graphite in my irons?

(Yes).

These questions demand answers. We have to know. We have to get fit (or self fit). We need 10 more yards, or 5 yards better dispersion, or maybe just something with really cool graphics.

Some would say the shaft is EVERYTHING. No way you don’t put some serious thought into it.

Do you do the same with your hybrids?

I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that for most of you, a hybrid shaft is an afterthought, if it’s even a thought at all.

Full disclosure I’m actually playing the stock shaft in my hybrids right now, but that doesn’t mean I don’t often think about putting something else in there.

Matrix Makes it Easy

Fortunately, for those of you who are curious about the possibility of finding a better fitting hybrid shaft, or at least a shaft that delivers the performance you’re looking for, Matrix makes it easy.

By now most of you should be plenty familiar with the Matrix MFS (Matrix Flight System) series of shafts.

MFS originated with the m3. More commonly known as the Black Tie, the m3 was an immediate hit with aggressive swingers looking to take off some spin and lower their ball flight. Any rational discussion about the lowest spinning shaft on the market likely includes the black tie.

Next came the X3 (White Tie) which filled the high launch (and reportedly lowish spin) role within the expanding MFS lineup.

In early 2013 Matrix rounded out their MFS with the introduction of the Q3. Billed as mid-launch and mid-spin, the Red Tie, which Matrix says will fit the highest percentage of the bell curve, has become 2014’s Kuro Kage; an immensely popular shaft among OEMs as their stock offering (in both real and made for varieties).

According to Matrix, each MFS shaft is designed with a specific ball flight in mind (that low, mid, high thing we just talked about). With MFS it’s not necessarily about fitting a guy with a specific swing characteristic, instead MFS seeks to to modify the launch and spin characteristics of what the player already does in order to achieve the desired result.

The short of it…within MFS…low, middle, high, it’s all relative.

MFS for Hybrids

Last fall Matrix expanded their hybrid offerings, putting Q3 and X3 options alongside the existing M3 offerings. With the exception of the Black Tie, which is available in 85g, 95g, and 105g, Altus MFS Hybrid shafts are only available in 95 grams (a full selection of flexes is available in each).

Matrix already has a full compliment of hybrid shafts to choose from, so for now they feel like they’ve got the market well-covered. If, however, the demand arises, Matrix will consider adding additional weights for both the Q3 and X3.

As with the driver shafts, Matrix Flight System hybrid fitting is designed to be easy. While generally a guy who fits well into a particular MFS driver shaft will probably find similarly good results in the complementary hybrid model, it really boils down to your desired ball flight.

It’s entirely possible you might want to lower launch with your driver, but increase it with your hybrid. The MFS hybrid shaft that fits best depends on what flight characteristics you’re trying to achieve with a particular hybrid.

How We Tested

Apart from forming a general picture of how the Matrix MFS Hybrid shafts perform, we were most interested in finding out if our testers would get the launch conditions that Matrix suggests they we should.

To do that we rounded up a handful of testers who would generally fit well into stiff shafted clubs. We installed TaylorMade tips on each shaft, cut them to identical lengths, installed the same model grip on each shaft,  and popped them into a TaylorMade SLDR #3 hybrid for testing. During the testing itself we used the same protocols we use for our Most Wanted Testing.

To maintain consistency, we will use the same hybrid for any additional hybrid shaft tests.

Performance

As you can see from the above, carry distances were relatively consistent between all 3 models, with barely 4 yards separating the shafts. Differences in total yards can likely be attributed to two factors.

Firstly, our testers produced the most spin with the Red Tie (see below), and more spin often means less distance. Secondly, if the shots hit with the Red Tie had been on average closer to the center line, those differences in distances would presumably be narrower.

As you might expect given the distance numbers, ball speeds were very close across the 3 MFS shafts, and while the extra pop of the X3 is intriguing, we’re likely within the margin of error here.

For us this is really the most interesting (and important) part of this test. The beauty of MFS is that it’s supposed to greatly simplify shaft fitting. For that to actually work, the shafts need to basically perform as advertised. While each individual golfer is different, when it comes to the launch conditions, you really hope the shafts deliver what they’re supposed to.

As you can see from the chart above, the Matrix MFS Shafts did just that. As expected, the Black Tie produced the lowest launch angle. The White Tie launched highest, and just like it’s supposed to, the Red Tie produced the comparative mid launch condition.

As we usually do, we observed a correlation between launch angle and apex (height). The Black Tie produced the lowest ball flight, the X3 the highest, and as we’d expect, the Red Tie flew through a window between them.

Equally as reaffirming, the low spinning Black Tie did in fact produce the lowest spin rates for our testers. The high launch, low spin White Tie – while not as low spinning as the Black Tie, did spin less (421 RPM) than the mid-spin Red Tie.

Feel

My recommendation is that you take feel for what it is. Each of us is different, and consequently we each perceive feel differently. That said, the 3 shafts in the Matrix MFS gave our testers the full Goldilocks experience.

As you might expect given its performance characteristics, the Black Tie was rated as the firmest feeling of the bunch. Pick your adjective…stout, boardy; most of our testers told us that this shaft is too stiff.

While our testers generally liked the softer-tipped White Tie, it was described as “whippy, but in a good way”. I’m not sure what that really means (I like the boardy Black Tie), but for the sake of maintaining this Goldilocks analogy, let’s go with this shaft is too soft.

Overwhelmingly, on feel alone, the Red Tie was the favorite of our testers. Not too soft, not too hard…this shaft is just right.

Granted, that’s all pretty ambiguous stuff, but the takeaway is this: For most the black tie will feel the firmest (you’ll feel every bit of the flex), the white tie will feel the softest, and the red tie will occupy the smooth sweet spot right in the middle.

Final Thoughts

While we always recommend getting properly fit, we’re not delusional enough to think that most of you are going to do that…not with your hybrid shafts anyway. So with necessary deference to reality, we can appreciate the simplicity of the MFS Hybrid series.

Our test results suggest that if you know what it is you’re hoping to achieve from your hybrids, there’s very little guess work here. Relative launch characteristics are as advertised, which means between the Black, Red, and White Tie shafts, Matrix is going to be able to give you the ball flight you’re looking for from your hybrid.

Matrix MFS Hybrid Shafts retail for $150 each.

For more information visit the Matrix Shafts Website.

Written By: Tony Covey

Ride the Wave to Greater Distance

Shameful puns aside, let this serve as your introduction to one of the more interesting shaft products that has come our way in…well…maybe ever.

It’s called the Wave. It’s from Hiskei golf which, as you all are certainly aware, is a well-known Japanese component brand rapidly gaining popularity in the US.

What’s that? You’ve never heard of Hiskei?

Ok…all cards on the table, no BS, I had actually never heard of Hiskei either until John Muir of clubmaker-online.com reached out to see if we’d be interested in taking a look at a couple of Hiskei products.

The most compelling of those products is unquestionably the Hiskei Wave shaft. To call it unconventional would be a bit of an understatement.

The Wave actually gets its name from undulating rippled wave pattern that starts about 10” from the tip and roughly 7” back towards the tip. For lack of a better description, it looks almost as if the shaft was left too close to a fire, melted and became slightly deformed.

So what’s the deal with those waves?

Performance

We had a couple of our more consistent swingers put the Hiskei Wave to the test. The Wave (58g, stiff flex) was outfitted with a TaylorMade tip and tested side by side with our control shaft in a 9.5° TaylorMade SLDR head. Both loft and SLDR weight placement were set to the standard/neutral position.

Watching the numbers come up on the launch monitor swing after swing, we found ourselves slightly confused.

Compared to our reference shaft, the Hiskei Wave produced an average ball speed that was 4.79 MPH faster than our reference shaft, and an average distance increase of 6.31 yards.

Also noteworthy is that that the wave reduced the distance from the target line by 2.77 yards.

Given what we were told about the Hiskei Wave’s performance characteristics, we weren’t surprised to see it launch a bit higher and spin a bit more than our reference shaft.

Looking at the numbers;  if we added loft of the head with the reference shaft such that it produced roughly the same launch angle as the Wave, the spin numbers would likely level out as well.

The point is that the Hiskei Wave isn’t inherently a high spin shaft on a comparative basis, but rather a shaft that for which there is a likely a direct correlation between that higher spin and the higher launch angle.

Simply put, we were more than pleasantly surprised by the performance of this strange looking, $125 shaft from a company we had basically never heard of.

Fitting Limitations

The Wave is not currently available in an X-flex, and weight maxes out at 58 grams which obviously isn’t going to work for guys who generally fit better into heavier and stiffer shaft.

And while perhaps it shouldn’t, that talk about arthritis probably isn’t going to help sell the wave shaft to those of us who fancy ourselves too manly for anything that can potentially reduce fatigue.

Feel

While I wouldn’t classify the Hiskei Wave as whippy (based on stiff flex), it may play a bit too soft for those who prefer a stout shaft. It offers a relatively smooth kick, and you will definitely notice the added pop on a well-struck ball.

In general, there isn’t much to distinguish the feel of the Hiskei Wave from most other mid-mid offerings. Given the unique design that’s probably not a bad thing, as you can make use of whatever benefits the wave offers for your particular swing, without having to concern yourself with any wonky feedback.

Graphics

Initially I wasn’t a big fan of the visual presentation offered by the  Hiskei Wave, but it has grown on me just a bit.

The plain silver that runs from the tip to the mid-section is fine and actually transitions well to the polished graphite finish on the TaylorMade SLDR. I suspect it would blend well with other silver accented heads like the Wilson FG Tour M3, PING i25, TaylorMade SLDR S, Tour Edge XCG7, and even a Callaway X2 Hot.

The maroon with gold accents at the butt end of the shaft reminds me a bit of those silly tribal tattoos that were all the rage a few years ago. It’s not bad, although not as subtle as I like, but for those who concern themselves with matching shaft to driver the Hiskei wave might look out of place in something like a blue or orange Cobra BiO CELL.

While the graphical design isn’t dissimilar from the dragon design found on Mizuno’s Fujikura Orochi shafts (which I don’t love on the orange background either), it strikes me as overly-elaborate for elaborate’s sake, but given the Japanese market’s fondness for bling, I get it.

Given the performance, it’s not a deal-breaker, but I’d certainly prefer something a bit cleaner.

Final Thoughts

Making shaft recommendations is tricky business. With all that makes us different (swing speed, tempo, transition, angle of attack, etc., etc., etc.), what works for one generally isn’t going to work for all.

That said, for those looking for a solid mid-high launching shaft with what should prove to be mid spin, the Hiskei Wave is an interesting proposition.

At $125 it’s a relative bargain compared to a good bit of what’s available in the aftermarket, and the ball speed gains we saw are certainly compelling.

For more information, or to order the Hiskei Wave, contact John Muir at clubmaker-online.com.

Written By: Tony Covey

Oban is not your typical shaft company. Apart from eBay and forum sales, you can only purchase Oban shafts through an authorized Oban dealer, and if the dealer is following the rules, only with a tip and grip installed.

You will occasionally find Oban shafts featured in higher end OEM offerings upgrade offerings like TaylorMade's Super TP series, but you won't find Oban shafts offered as a stock shaft offerings in anyone's lineup, and you'll NEVER have to wonder if an Oban-labeled shaft is one of those lower-quality, watered-down, made for variants that habitually plagues certain OEM offerings.

The latest offering in Oban's Kiyoshi series is the Tour Limited. Released earlier this season, the Tour Limited is an ultra-premium offering (even by Oban standards), and as you'll discover in the review, it was designed in direct response to a popular industry trend.

Design

With stiff butt, mid, and tip sections, it's not a huge surprise that Oban would classify the Tour Limited shaft as a stiff bend profile offering alongside the Kiyoshi Black and Devotion.

What's interesting about the Kiyoshi Tour Limited is that while the bend profile suggests a low launch/ low spin shaft, in the 60 and 70 gram weight classes, the Tour Limited plays as a mid Launch and low-mid spin offering.

For reference purposes, Oban's own trajectory chart puts the Tour Limited between the Kiyoshi White and Kiyoshi Gold, though we suspect most will find it plays closer to the White than it does the spinnier Gold.

The curiosity here is that the torque rating (3.7 stiff, 3.2 X-Stiff) is actually closer to that of the Kiyoshi Purple.

What you should take from all of this is that while partial comparisons can be drawn to other shafts in the Oban line, the Kiyoshi Tour Limited is a distinct offering.

The Kiyoshi Tour Limited combines 46 ton pre-preg composite with 4-axis material, running the entire length of the shaft. In the majority of Kiyoshi designs, the 4-axis material is limited to the butt and tip sections of the shaft.

The graphic below illustrates exactly what 4-axis means. Oban claims that its design not only reduces ovalization, but can increase swing speed as well.

Adapting to the Trends

Tour Limited was created as a direct response to the emergence of forward, and I suppose low/forward CG heads. For all the ball speed advantages offered by forward CG designs, there are trade-offs.

With forward CG comes decreases in Dynamic Loft (why you need to "Loft Up") and Dynamic Closure Rates (why some golfers struggle to square the face), as well as a loss of feel...or at least a change in feel that many consider unpleasant.

The Kiyoshi Tour Limited is designed to help the golfer reclaim dynamic loft, square the face, and improve the feel of forward CG heads, without adding an overabundance of spin to the equation.

The Data

We put the Oban Kiyoshi Tour Limited in a TaylorMade SLDR head and hit it side by side with our Control shaft. Our control is a popular mid bend profile shaft...it's your basic middle of the bell curve offering.

With the Kiyoshi Tour Limited we saw:

• 2 MPH increase in ball speed
• 5 Yard increase in Carry Distance
• 4 yard improvement in accuracy
• Modest decrease in launch angle coupled with a 200RPM decrease in spin
• More consistent ball speed (based on STDEV)

All of this is typical of what we see when a premium shaft performs as advertised. While internet forums may say otherwise, we don't expect to see several hundred (or a thousand) RPM drop in spin from a shaft change. A couple hundred RPM decrease with only a modest decrease in launch angle is about as much as we ever see.

The ball speed improvement is significant, as is the less quantifiable notion of feel. The Tour Limited livens up the SLDR giving it less of a dull feel.

If you like the performance you get from heads like TaylorMade's SLDR, but don't love the feel, the Kiyoshi Tour Limited might be exactly what you're looking for.

The fitters I've spoken with, including Josh Chervokas of the New York Golf Center, have told me that accuracy is where they often see the most significant improvements as a result of a shaft change. That was certainly the case for me with the Tour Limited.

Oban Kiyoshi Tour Limited Considerations

As with any shaft, if the Kiyoshi Tour Limited works well for you in one head, that does not guarantee it will work as well in another. For example, SDLR and G30 are very different heads, and shaft performance will reflect that.

While overall trajectory should be closer to the Kiyoshi White, fans of the Kiyoshi Purple should appreciate the feel and kick of the Tour Limited.

For higher spin players, the Kiyoshi Tour Limited could be an option in a front CG head, but may create too much spin too much in rear CG heads such as the PING G30 and upcoming Cobra FLY-Z.

Like others in the Kiyoshi line, the Tour Limited tends to run heavy compared to other manufacturer's offerings. The 60g model is 69g in an X-Flex, while the 70g model is 79g in an X-Flex.

Oban Kiyoshi Tour Limited Specifications

The Kiyoshi Tour Limited (like all Oban shafts) is available exclusively through Oban's Dealer Network.

MSRP for the Oban Kiyoshi Tour Limited is $490. For more information visit Obanshafts.com.

As an unrepentant (golf) shaftphile, one of my favorite stops at the annual PGA Show is the UST Booth. You can't miss it, it's right under the giant UST sign suspended from the ceiling.

Except, this year it wasn't.

Like other notables including Nike, Mizuno, SKLZ, TRUE Linkswear, Matrix, and no doubt others I missed, or, I suppose didn't miss, UST chose to forgo a booth on this year's show floor.

Fortunately, I was tipped-off to where one might look if he wanted to find UST. That info was good enough that I was able to get a preview of a couple of exciting new releases.

Elements Prototype Platinum

Unquestionably the Platinum is, for me, anyway, the most exciting UST release in years. I love the feel of the Elements Chrome, and I'm habitually a fan of both the feel and the dispersion I've seen with a good bit of the ATTAS line, but it's also fair to say that none of the above has been ideal for higher spin guys...and I'm definitely one of those.

For those who like to dig into the material details, UST tells me it's using aerospace grade 90T carbon fiber /125 MSI throughout the length of the shaft. That alone should draw immediate comparisons to Aldila's 125 MSI Rogue Silver Limited Edition, which just happens to be my current go-to shaft.

Toray T1100G, which is both high-strength and highly-elastic is used to reinforce the tip. Strategically placed additional layers of carbon fiber provide more stability and help narrow dispersion.

The end result is a low torque, slightly counter-balanced shaft that should prove to be exceptionally low spinning. UST says that aggressive swingers could drop spin by upwards of 300 RPM. Needless to say I'll be giving this one a long look.

For those who focus on graphics, the Elements Prototype Platinum is ion-plated and while simple in presentation, is drop dead sexy.

Listed at $500, the Elements Prototype Platinum could be the premium low-spin UST shaft that many of have been waiting for.

Elements Prototype Helium

As the name probably suggests, the Helium will be a lighter-weight offering (40 and 50g models). In fact, many of the key design elements are focused on reducing weight without compromising performance.

For the Helium, UST is using a lower resin carbon fiber material. The lower resin content not only helps to reduce weight, but it also adds stability while retaining feel.

Further weight reduction comes from what UST calls QuickClr paint, which is 50% lighter than traditional paint.

As far as performance goes, the Helium is counterbalanced in order to make heavier heads and longer playing lengths more manageable. Despite being lightweight, UST says the Helium is extremely stable, which should help tighten dispersion.

Expect Helium to be a higher launching shaft, and that alone suggests it won't be low spin, but it should prove to be a compelling option for those looking for a lightweight and accurate shaft that doesn't feel whippy.

Retail Price is $350.

ATTAS G7

Also shown is the new ATTAS G7. Available from 55 to 85 grams, the G7 continues the ATTAS tradition of offering mid-launch and mid-spin along with exceptional feel.

I suspect several of you will lust after this shaft for the graphics alone.

Retail Price: $400

What’s the lowest spinning shaft in golf?

That’s the question we set out to answer when we asked 12 different shaft manufacturers to provide us with what each believes is the lowest spinning shaft in its lineup.

11 agreed to participate. Veylix was the only holdout.

Trust me when I tell you that trying to find the answer was one hell of an endeavor.

Here's what we tested:

• Accra TourZx
• Aldila NV 2KXV White
• Fujikura Pro TS
• Graphite Design Tour M9003 & Tour AD TP
• Matrix M4 Black Tie
• Mitsubishi Rayon Composites Tensei CK White
• Oban Kiyoshi Black
• Paderson KINETIXX
• Project X HZRDUS T1100
• UST-Mamiya Elements Platinum
• XPHLEXXX Agera

With the testing now complete, wouldn’t it be something if I could tell you that we were able to isolate the one shaft that can significantly reduce, we’re talking 1000 RPM, spin for every last one of you?

Sorry folks, it doesn’t work like that. While we’re never 100% positive what we’ll find, we had a hunch that in this case, we’d find something other than an absolute and incontrovertible truth.

The reality of the situation can be best summed in a Facebook comment from reader Rob Hampton in response to our test announcement:

Truer words not spoken… at least not today.

So if we weren’t expecting to find any concrete answers, why test at all?

We test because you never know, because every test is an opportunity to learn (and to an extent an opportunity to learn how to learn), and because it’s a test I’ve always wanted to do.

Bottom line, we’re curious, and we know some of you are curious to, so what the hell, we went for it.

How we tested

• Manufacturers provided MyGolfSpy with stiff flex shafts within the ±65g range.
• Club Conex UNI-FIT adapters were installed on all shafts.
• Shafts were cut to identical playing lengths and outfitted with Golf Pride MCC Plus 4 grips.
• Eight golfers with single digit handicaps who generally play stiff flex shafts hit 12 good shots with each shaft (frequently rotating between shafts).
• Gross mishits were eliminated and are not included in the shot counts.
• Remaining outliers (determined based on launch angle and spin rates) were identified using Media Absolute Deviation, and dropped before calculation of the final averages.
• All testers hit the same head in its neutral setting.
• All testers hit Bridgestone B300 RX Golf Balls.
• Ball Data and Club Data was recorded using a Foresight GC2 Launch Monitor with HMT.

The Data: Group Averages

What's the lowest spinning shaft? That was the original question, so let's take a peek.

When we look at the data across all of our testers, here's what we find:

 Observations:

• The Fujikura Pro Tour Spec produced the lowest average spin rate.
• The Pro Tour Spec’s average spin rate was marginally lower than several others including Aldila NV 2KXV White, Project X HZRDUS T1100, Graphite Design Tour AD TP, and Accra TourZx.
• The Paderson KINETIXX produced the highest spin (2970 RPM), and while 100 RPM doesn’t sound like much, the gap between it and the Graphite Design M9003 (2866 RPM) is the single largest spin gap in the test.

Looking beyond the Spin column, we find more similarities than differences.

• Average differences in most measurements including ball speed, carry, and total yards are marginal.
• The Matrix M4 Black Tie is noteworthy for producing the lowest launch (13.8°), which is nearly ½° lower than the next lowest launching shaft(s).
• The Oban Kiyoshi White and Paderson KINETTIXX produced the highest launch by a marginal amount.
• When looking at the average yards from the center line only 4 yards separate the most accurate (Aldila NV 2KXV White) from the least accurate (XPHLEXXX Agera).

Individual Differences

On the suggestion of one of our readers, we wanted to try something a little bit different and provide a better look into performance differences on a more individualized basis.

Please let us know if you find this information interesting and/or valuable. Your feedback will go a long way towards helping us decide if we’ll do it again.

The following series of charts looks at our performance data on an individual basis. Specifically, we look at the differences between the shafts that produced the results at the tails for each tester.

Since the original reason for this test was about spin, let’s again start there.

Individual Spin (Lowest vs. Highest)

Observations:

• The Fujikura Pro TS and the Graphite Design M9003 combined to produce the lowest spin for 4 (2 each) of the testers.
• The MRC Tensei CK White and Paderson KINETIXX produced the highest spin for 6 (3 each) of the testers.
• The average spin difference between the highest spinning and lowest spinning shaft on an individual basis was 687 RPM.
• The range across all testers was 333 RPM to 1076 RPM on an individual basis; the latter is what we’d expect from a loft increase of roughly 3°.
• While it doesn’t show up in the group averages, it’s clear that the shaft, even within the confines of a specific design category, can have a dramatic impact on spin rates.

Individual Ball Speed (Highest vs. Lowest)

Observations:

• The Graphite Design M9003 again ranks near the top. It’s joined by the Aldila NV 2KXV White, which, like the M9003, produced the highest average ball speeds for 2 of 8 testers.
• The XPHLEXXX Agera produced the lowest ball speeds for 2 of our testers.
• On average, testers saw an average ball speed difference of 4.35 MPH between their fastest and slowest, with a range of 1.4 MPH to 6.28 MPH on an individual basis.

Individual Carry Distance (Highest vs. Lowest)

Observations:

It shouldn’t come as any real surprise that significant differences in ball speed can translate to significant carry differences.

• The Graphite Design Tour AD TP and Accra TourZx each produced the greatest carry distance for 3 of our testers.
• The MRC Tensei CK White and Paderson KINETIXX produced the shortest carry distance for 4 (2 each) of the testers.
• On average, testers saw a difference of 13.51 yards in carry distance between their individual longest and shortest shafts.
• The shortest individual difference was 8.74 yards while the most significant difference was 18.33 yards.

Accuracy

More than once, fitters have told us that that accuracy differences between shafts can be much more significant than the other metrics we sometimes focus on. As illustrated by the charts below, that certainly was the case during our test.

Individual Average Dispersion (Most Left vs. Most Right)

Do shafts show any predisposition for one side of the course or the other? Looking through the numbers, we certainly can make a case that some shafts exhibit a left side bias, while others tend to favor the right. Note: in the chart below, negative numbers are used for averages left of center.

Observations:

• The Fujikura Pro TS (3) and Graphite Design’s M9003 (2) and AD TP (2) combined to account for the greatest left side bias for 7 of 8 testers. MRC’s Tensei accounted for the other.
• The Paderson KINETIXX and XPHLEXXX Agera showed the greatest right-side bias for 4 (2 each) of the testers.
• This is likely a contributing factor to comparatively higher spin and slightly reduced ball speeds for these two shafts.
• Testers saw, on average, 26.17 yards of left/right dispersion differences between their most left favoring and most right-favoring shafts.
• The individual spread ranged from 13.86 on the narrow end to a whopping 31.93 yards on the wide end.
• This suggests that the shaft can have a significant influence on accuracy.

Individual Shot Area (Smallest vs. Largest)

Shot area (meters squared) is the area of 90% confidence ellipse centered on the average point for total yards and yards offline. It’s a reasonable measurement of consistency, and again we see significant individual differences.

Observations:

• Suggesting plenty of it either works for you or it doesn’t, with not much in-between, the XPHLEXXX Agera provided the smallest shot area for two testers and the largest for three others.
• The UST-Mamiya Elements Platinum also accounted for the largest shot area for three testers.
• The Graphite Design AD TP produced the tightest dispersion for 2 of the testers.
• Testers saw significant differences between their most consistent and their least consistent shafts, an average of 3345 meters² difference.
• The individual differences ranged from 2038 (significant) to 5027 (massive).
• Once again, this suggests that individual consistency can vary significantly based on the shaft.

What to make of all of This

As we expected, our results don’t suggest any absolutes. Finding the right shaft is a highly individualized endeavor. A number of variables influence how a shaft will perform for a given individual, and some of those variables aren’t easily quantifiable. That task becomes even more difficult within a narrow category like low spin shafts.

We suspect that we’d see greater variation if we tested one of these shafts against a shaft regarded as higher launching and higher spinning.

More relevant perhaps, while I think we inherently know as much... it’s not as if there’s a secret knob or any other mechanism that allows shaft manufacturers to add or subtract spin. The magic of the shaft is how it influences the way each of us delivers the head to the ball.

If something in a shaft’s design causes you to deliver it with the face open then it’s going to start right, and if your path (also influenced by the shaft) is open relative to the face, then we know the ball is going to start right, fade, and the resulting spin numbers are going to be high.

If the shaft’s influence causes the opposite to be true, we’ve got a recipe for lower launch and lower spin.

The Shaft’s Influence on Starting Direction and Curvature

I wanted to come up with a simple and intuitive method to illustrate that the notion of low spin, or low launch, or any other way we classify the manifestation of shaft design ultimately boils down to how it influences the delivery of the clubhead, and by extension the resulting ball flight.

To that end, I bundled our data along with a downrange splatter chart and some simple filters to show how isolating shots by where they start, how they curve, and ultimately where they land, can dramatically shift the relative performance data.

To give you a sense of what I’m talking about and give you some ideas for how you can manipulate the data, consider these examples:

• The XPHLEXXX Agera was on average one of the highest spinning shafts, however, when we isolate shots with draw spin (technically, a left tilted axis), it presents as the lowest spinning shaft in the test. If you have no trouble turning the club over and are looking to take the left side out of play, the Agera looks really good.
• We barely discussed the Project X HZRDUS T1100, but the data suggests that if you’re looking to take a bit of spin out of an otherwise reliable fade it, along with the Matrix Black Tie, might work.
• You can isolate the results by individual testers as well, which in addition to providing all of their data, can give you a solid idea if the same shafts consistently rank near the top for a given metric.
• A quick note about Yards from Center vs. Yards Offline: Yards from Center is the average of the absolute value of Yards offline. Using a simple two shot scenario to explain; if you hit two shots, one 10 yards left of center (-10), the other 10 yards right of center (+10), our Average Yards from Center value would is 10, while our Average Offline Yards value is 0. Yards from center gives us some insight into accuracy, while Yards Offline gives us a better indication of distribution bias.

The Final Word… For now

The one thing that is abundantly clear is that between these low spin options there are vast differences, and those differences will almost certainly manifest in a big way on the golf course. While a few hundred RPMs isn’t massive, other factors contribute to nearly 20 yards of distance in individual cases, along with significant differences in accuracy.

As a gearhead myself, I’m wholly supportive of anyone who compulsively tries everything and anything with the hope of cutting a couple hundred RPMs and gaining a few extra yards. Our data, however, suggests that if you’re constantly hitting up eBay for the latest spin killer, the odds of finding a shaft that works well for you aren’t great.

In fact, the biggest takeaway from this test is that if you’re focusing most of your attention on spin numbers, you’re almost certainly missing the bigger picture.

If you’re serious about finding the best performing shaft for you, the answer, as it often does, almost certainly lies exclusively in a proper fitting.

Let’s Have a Discussion

There are probably a couple hundred other points I could make… additional data I could include, but I’m certain my boss doesn’t want me crawling any deeper in the weeds than we already are - unless the demand exists. So for those of you who found this interesting, and I suppose those of you who didn’t, please give us your feedback (please clap).

What did you like? What didn’t you like? Would you like to see more shaft testing in the future?

Those are my questions. We’d love to take a shot at answering some of yours. If you’ve got ‘em, fire away.

MyGolfSpy is the only major golf media outlet that declines advertising dollars from the biggest names in golf. You won't find their banners here. We truly believe it's the only way to remain above the influence, publish real results based on real data, and continue to provide honest opinion and commentary about what's happening inside the golf equipment industry.

If you found this shaft test useful, meaningful, or just interesting, please consider making a donation to help support MyGolfSpy's independence.

Choose Your Donation Amount

Single   Monthly

$25

$50

$100

$500

$1,000

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

Billing Information

State ••• AK AL AR AZ CA CO CT DC DE FL GA HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA MA MD ME MI MN MO MS MT NC ND NE NH NJ NM NV NY OH OK ON OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV WY — AA AE AP

Payment Information

Credit Card   PayPal

Donate

 

Project X’s HZRDUS shaft lineup is heading into its second year as the it shaft on Tour. 2017 promises to bring new challengers for that unofficial title, but for now, PX keeps rolling and likely reveling in the fact that the new World #1 (Dustin Johnson) has the new HZRDUS T1100 in his 3-wood.

For those unfamiliar with the lineup; the original HZRDUS shaft (Black) was followed up with Yellow, and then with Red, and again most recently with the exotic T1100. The individual breakdown HZRDUS lineup shakes out like this:

• HZRDUS Black – Low Spin, ultra-stable midsection, for aggressive players
• HZRDUS Yellow – Low Spin, backweighted, for smooth tempo players
• HZRDUS Red – Mid Spin, ultra-stable midsection with softer tip, for players looking for higher trajectory
• HZRDUS T1100 – Lowest spinning (Spin Killer), stiff profile, extra-stiff tip, counterbalanced, for aggressive players.

The Disclaimer

Before we get to the details and the results of our test results, it’s important that we again point out that golf shafts will perform differently for different golfers, and as such, data from our shaft tests seldom aligns perfectly with the manufacturer’s stated expectations. A variety of golfer-dependent variables including, but not limited to, speed, tempo, transition, and release point will impact how a shaft will perform for an individual golfer. So while we actively encourage experimentation with your equipment, we wouldn’t advise spending big money on any shaft without spending some quality time with a reputable fitter first.

How We Tested

• 5 Testers with handicaps between 0 and 12 participated in this test.
• The swing speeds of our testing pool ranged from just under 100 to upwards of 115.
• All testers hit stiff flex shafts within the 65g range.
• Shafts were outfitted with Club Conex UNI-FIT adapters, Golf Pride MCC Plus 4 Grips, and all shots were hit with the same 10.5° head.
• With our algorithms adjusted to be more aggressive in dropping shots to provide a more consistent data sample, outliers were removed using Median Absolute Deviation.
• To establish a reasonable baseline for our comparison, we used impact location data from the Foresight GC2 HMT to limit our averages to only those shots struck within the central region of the club face.
• Shots were recorded using a Foresight GC2 Launch Monitor with attached HMT.
• All testers hit Bridgestone B330-RX Golf Balls.

The Data

Observations:

• Ball Speed averages suggest a slight advantage for the T1100.
• The T1100 produced the lowest spin, followed by the Black, Red, and then Yellow.
• Surprisingly, the Black launched highest (marginally higher than the Red) for our testers, while the Yellow launched the lowest.
• The Red produced the highest apex, while the Yellow produced the flattest trajectory.
• The T1100 was longest (both carry and total distance) while the Yellow was the shortest.
• The HZRDUS Black was the only one of the four shafts for which the average shot finished right of the centerline (based on Avg. Yards Offline). This may be relevant for golfers looking to take the left side out of play.
• The Yellow finished closest to the centerline (straightest), followed closely by the Red, while T1100 and Black were both produced respectable averages.
• Our Shot Area metric (the area of a 90% confidence dispersion ellipse) shows that the T1100 produced a marginally (though not significantly) tighter grouping.

Individual Summary

While our results suggest a reasonably consistent launch and spin progression within the HZRDUS lineup that generally matches the stated expectations, the HZRDUS Yellow is perhaps an outlier in that, in a broader sense, our testing suggests a non-linear relationship with the rest of the lineup.

So with that in mind, here’s what we took away from the test on an individual model basis.

HZRDUS Yellow (MSRP: $350)

As noted in the introduction, the Yellow features a back-weighted design and is, according to Project X, perfect for smooth tempo players looking for lower launch. Our results suggest that while that’s true, from a performance perspective, the Yellow is also the most polarizing of the lineup. Our two smoothest swingers saw solid results, however, our more aggressive testers felt like they were fighting the shaft a bit (or a lot). That’s was certainly true in my case.

Painting with a broad brush, the Yellow is unique within the HZRDUS lineup, and that at least partially explains why the numbers aren’t exactly what we’d expect.

While I’m confident the HZRDUS Yellow will produce outstanding results when properly fitted, we can’t discount the fact that it produced the highest percentage of outliers in this test. 3 of our 5 testers clearly struggled with it (relative to the rest of the lineup). For the buy, sell, trade crowd; of the four HZRDUS Shafts, Yellow is the one we’d least recommend you roll the dice with.

HZRDUS Red (MSRP: $350)

High launch and high spin within the relative confines of the HZRDUS lineup, within the shaft market as a whole, the Red should likely be considered a mid-launch, low-mid spin offering.

Among those who noticed a difference, the HZRDUS Red rated highly for feel, which isn’t surprising given where it fits in the HZRDUS lineup. Somewhat surprisingly, even our more aggressive swingers found it stable and easy to control. It's not a shaft that the I think I need a super low spin shaft crowd should discount entirely. My hunch is that it will prove to have the broadest fitting application of the four HZRDUS shafts.

HZRDUS Black (MSRP: $350)

The original HZRDUS Shaft, the Black is billed as being for a more aggressive golfer, which makes it anything but surprising that PX’s online fitting tool suggested a PX Black for yours truly.

The Black has a has a noticeably firmer feel than the rest of the lineup. It's a reasonable assumption that some may not appreciate that aspect of the design, but we must also note that we found it to be the most consistent of the group (based on standard deviations) – especially among our quicker tempo and transition testers.

If nothing else, the HZRDUS Black has cemented its position as a moderately priced low spin option that’s readily available as an OEM upgrade.

HZRDUS T1100 (MSRP: $450)

While our testers questioned the T1100 name (why not HZRDUS Silver?), the results speak for themselves. The lowest spinning, the longest flying, and subjectively, the smoothest of the HZRDUS line, there appears to be just a little bit something extra in this shaft.

It reminds me a bit of the Aldila Rogue Silver 125 MSI in that it holds up to aggression well and never feels overly firm.

At $450, it is the most expensive of the HZRDUS line, but that’s the pretty much the going rate for shafts made from T1100 graphite. Toss in the fact that it takes four days to apply the various layers of reflective paint, and well, what can we say...sexy doesn’t come cheap.

Spin differences between shafts perhaps aren’t as great as golfers often believe, but if you’re trying to shave every last RPM and - and this is no small thing, people - the profile fits your swing, the HZRDUS T1100 appears to do just that. If you're that guy, it's absolutely a shaft you should demand to try on your next visit to your fitter.

The Final Word

As we always do, we recommend you visit a qualified fitter instead of blindly buying your next shaft. It’s far too easy to throw your money away. That said, we’re here to help, so if you have any specific questions about this test and how the data might relate to your game, we’re always happy to take a closer look.

For more information on the entire HZRDUS line, visit PXShafts.com.

For shaft obsessed golf gearheads like me, it seems almost impossible that its been 5-years since Aldila launched the original Rogue (the Rogue Silver 125) on tour. 31 wins including 3 Majors later, it’s being replaced, or more accurately, upgraded. It’s been a hell of a run.

Given how reticent tour players can be to change anything in their bag, it’s fair to describe Rogue’s rise as meteoric. As the popularity of the 125 increased on tour, the Rogue Silver 110 and Rogue Black 95 quickly became fixtures in several OEM stock lineups. At Rogue’s peak, between the silvers, blacks, blues, and greens, if you didn’t have a Rogue in your bag, you almost certainly played with someone who did. As with most any shaft that succeeds both on tour and in retail lineups, as the popularity grew, it became more difficult for consumers to differentiate between aftermarket and OEM models.

With Aldila now fully integrated under the Mitsubishi Chemical umbrella, and fully able to leverage the material capabilities of its parent company, the new Rogue offers Aldila the opportunity to relaunch one of the most popular shaft labels in recent memory while redrawing and clarifying the lines between its OEM and aftermarket businesses.

The New Rogue Siver

To that end, Rogue Silver 130 M.S.I. isn’t a middle of the bell curve offering. It’s designed for better, or at least stronger, perhaps aggressive swingers. The performance advancements begin with a new 130 M.S.I. (95-ton material) and NexGen Micro Laminate Technology, which Aldila says produces a shaft void of “dead zones.” To varying degrees, shaft companies want you to be drawn to the hot new material, but with most anything else in golf, it really boils down to improving the strength to weight ratio, with the ultimate goal of adding stability without making the shaft heavier.

As to how the new materials translate to improved performance; Aldila describes the Rogue 130 as a tighter Rogue 125, or a Rogue 125 on steroids. As a guy who, at one time, had some flavor of Rogue in every metalwood in his bag and a utility iron to boot, that’s plenty to pique my curiosity. In more concrete terms, the performance tweaks include a more stable handle section, lower balance point (though it’s still counterbalanced), and lower torque. All of that should translate as lower launch, lower spin, a flatter trajectory, and tighter dispersion.

Cosmetically, the white and silver paint of the original Rogue has been replaced by a silver ion-plated finish. I liked the white just fine, but the silver ion positively shines. It’s next level premium.

Aldila Rogue 130 M.S.I: Cool Clubs S3 Comparison

“S3 Technologies utilizes the most advanced shaft testing technology in the industry. The Shaft Simulation System (S3), which was developed in 2013, is a fully-automated, all-in-one shaft profiling machine. In a matter of minutes, the S3 determines the following shaft specs: (Straightness, Consistency Profile, EI Profile, CPM Analysis and Torque. While some of the aforementioned specs can be obtained from shaft manufacturers, a lack of industry standards prevents that data from being used for accurate apples-to-apples comparisons. S3 Technologies, solves this challenge by testing all of our production in-house using the S3. This gives S3 Technologies a unique and in-depth understanding of the quality and performance of the industry’s shafts.”

Not only does S3 give us standardized quantitative information about the shaft(s) being reviewed, the data we share will provide you with a much better sense of how the shaft being reviewed compares with similarly specced offerings on the market today.

For our CoolClubs S3-powered comparisons we pulled profile data from the Rogue 125 and new Rogue 130 M.S.I. models. We’ve also included comparisons to the S3 database average of shafts with similar frequency measurements. Please note that while our comparisons are usually based on stiff flex models in the 60-gram range, the charts reflect measurements of 60g X-Stiff versions of both Rogue 130 and Rogue 125.

Rogue 130 M.S.I Launch Characteristics

The chart below compares the S3 launch characteristics of the Rogue 130 M.S.I to the previous 125 M.S.I. version along with the database average launch characteristics for similar shafts and Neutral, which S3 uses to describe a true mid launch characteristic.

The updates to the Rogue 130 have primarily affected the butt section and balance point of the shaft, the launch characteristics of the shaft remain similar. Cool Clubs S3 classifies the 65g X-Stiff Rogue 130 as a mid-low launch shaft. As you can see, the new model is only ever-so-slightly lower launching.

Rogue 130 M.S.I. Zone EI

The following chart compares the stiffness of the Rogue 130 to the Rogue 125 in the butt, mid, and tip sections. Again, measurements are based on the x-stiff versions of the 60-gram model.

Here we can see that the butt section of the Rogue 130, as Aldila says, has been stiffened. While the Rogue 125 was a bit softer in the butt section than similar shafts in the S3 database, the Rogue 130 is slightly above average. The midsection is slightly firmer, while the tip region measures just a bit softer. Overall, the Rogue 130 M.S.I. can be considered slightly stiff relative to flex.

GIVEAWAY: Win a NEW Driver!

2019 Tommy Armour Atomic Driver

Enter MyGolfSpy’s Giveaway!

---

Enter Giveaway

Rogue 130 M.S.I. Balance Point

The S3 data confirms that the balance point of the Rogue 130 M.S.I. is lower than it was in the 125. While it can still be considered a counterbalanced shaft, it’s not as counterbalanced as its predecessor.

As you may recall from our Golf Geeks Story on Shaft Performance, a higher balance point allows for more head weight without drastically impacting the swingweight. For golfers seeking more distance (admittedly often at the expense of accuracy), this allows drivers to be built to longer playing lengths.

Rogue 130 M.S.I Swing Speed Recommendations

The chart below provides swing speed recommendations for the various weights and flexes within the Rogue 130 M.S.I. lineup.

From the Cool Clubs Fitting Team

Modeled after Aldila’s Rogue Silver 125 M.S.I.  the new Rogue Silver 130 M.S.I. is beefier and designed for the player who swings fast and hard and wants stability.  A lower launching and lower spinning shaft, it is available in three weight classes – 60, 70, and 80. Across all weights and flexes, it’s a shaft that requires commitment and speed to optimize its performance.

The 60 is available in a TR, TS, and TX option. The ‘T’ stands for Tour, which lets you know there’s nothing watered down about the Rogue 130’s profile. The TR is good for swing speeds up to 100 mph, the TS for 100 to 115 mph, and the TX  is designed for club speeds over 120 MPH. The Rogue Silver 130 M.S.I. 70 is available in the TS and TX where the TS is best in the 100 to 115 mph range, while the TX is suited to a swing speed of 125 MPH or more.  The biggest beast of all – the 80 – is only available in the TX flex. The club needs to be moving at 125+ to maximize its performance.

Comparing the two shafts the Rogue Silver 130 M.S.I. 60 has a lower balance point albeit slightly higher than other similar shafts in the S3 Database.  The butt section is stiffer, mid-section is slightly stiffer, and the tip is slightly softer than the Rogue Silver 125 M.S.I. 60.

Faster, quick tempos players looking for better clubhead control through impact should look to try the Aldila Rogue 130 M.S.I..

Similar Shafts

Similar shafts, based on EI profile, torque, and other Cool Clubs S3 data, include the Project X HZRDUS Smoke Black, and not surprisingly, the original Rogue 125. Golfers looking for a bit higher launch should consider the Mitsubishi Diamana D+ LE. Lower launch alternatives include the Fujikura ATMOS TS Black and Project X EvenFlow T11000 White.

MSRP for the Aldila Rogue 130 M.S.I. is $450. For more information or to find a fitter/dealer near you, visit the Aldila Golf website.

By its own admission, UST Mamiya has become more of a graphite iron shaft company in recent years. Its primary focus has been on the development of the Recoil, which has exploded to become the game’s most popular graphite iron shaft. With the recent success of its Helium driver shaft, however; it sees an opportunity to insert itself back into driver shaft discussion – and any discussion of UST Mamiya Driver shaft technology likely begins with the ATTAS line.

That’s because, as much as anything else, ATTAS serves as a development platform where the price point gives UST the freedom to work without limitations to materials and design. What UST Mamiya learns from ATTAS development almost invariably trickles down into its other offerings.

With a couple of early exceptions, ATTAS designs originate in Japan and don’t necessarily target UST’s typical US customer with the same intensity as some of its other offerings. ATTAS profiles tend to be a bit softer overall, and the weights generally sit at the lower end of the spec range (the 6S, for example, is closer to 60 than 70 grams).

‘THE’ ATTAS

Typically, UST Mamiya releases a new ATTAS every season, the latest version of which is known simply as The ATTAS. It’s the 10^th generation of the ATTAS family, which is the reason for the bold color scheme, which Billy Horshel (who put THE ATTAS in play at the Dell Match Play Championship) calls Skittles.

While the graphics have a particular paint splatter look to them, they’re not without purpose. Each color represents a previous ATTAS model. The orange near the butt section represents the original ATTAS, the red the ATTAS 2, and so on and so forth until you reach the white paint of the 9^th generation ATTAS Cool.

As you’d expect from any shaft at this price point, UST Mamiya is using high modulus carbon fiber with low resin content. Because the profile is designed to be softer overall, you won’t find any of the ultra-stiff materials like T1100, but UST does leverage 40-ton material in the bias layer along with a constant taper design for a smooth feel and better energy transfer respectively.

While very often we focus on shafts with a spin reduction story, The ATTAS is different in that the target demographic includes the guy looking to add a little bit more spin. As drivers have progressively become lower spinning, there’s an increasing need to leverage the shaft as a means to introduce a bit more spin back into the performance equation.

In Billy Horschel’s case, he wanted something that would allow him to turn the ball over, without the risk of a big hook. The bit of extra backspin from the ATTAS helps the ball hold a straighter line.

Using the requisite language of the shaft world, UST Mamiya describes The ATTAS as a mid launch/mid spin offering. To see how it compares to the previous ATTAS as well as other similar shafts on the market, we turn to Cool Clubs and the S3 shaft database.

GET FIT FOR YOUR GAME WITH TRUEGOLFFIT™

Unbiased. No Guesswork. All Major Brands. Matched To Your Swing. Advanced Golf Analytics matches the perfect clubs to your exact swing using connected data and machine learning.

SEE MY RESULTS

UST MAMIYA THE ATTAS Data Powered by Cool Clubs S3

We’ve partnered with Cool Clubs, the Golf Industry’s Leading Custom Fit Club Company, to bring you shaft reviews powered by its Shaft Simulation System (S3).

S3 TECHNOLOGIES UTILIZES THE MOST ADVANCED SHAFT TESTING TECHNOLOGY IN THE INDUSTRY. THE SHAFT SIMULATION SYSTEM (S3), WHICH WAS DEVELOPED IN 2013, IS A FULLY-AUTOMATED, ALL-IN-ONE SHAFT PROFILING MACHINE. IN A MATTER OF MINUTES, THE S3 DETERMINES THE FOLLOWING SHAFT SPECS: (STRAIGHTNESS, CONSISTENCY PROFILE, EI PROFILE, CPM ANALYSIS, AND TORQUE). WHILE SOME OF THE AFOREMENTIONED SPECS CAN BE OBTAINED FROM SHAFT MANUFACTURERS, A LACK OF INDUSTRY STANDARDS PREVENTS THAT DATA BEING USED FOR ACCURATE APPLES-TO-APPLES COMPARISONS. S3 TECHNOLOGIES SOLVES THIS CHALLENGE BY TESTING ALL OF OUR PRODUCTS IN-HOUSE USING THE S3. THIS GIVES S3 TECHNOLOGIES A UNIQUE AND IN-DEPTH UNDERSTANDING OF THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE INDUSTRY’S SHAFTS.

Not only does S3 give us standardized quantitative information about the shaft(s) being reviewed, the data we share will provide you with a much better sense of how those shafts compare with similarly specced offerings on the market.

Using S3 data, we’ll be providing a comparison of The ATTAS to similar shafts in the S3 database, as well as the previous generation of ATTAS – the ATTAS Coool. Comparisons are based on stiff flex shafts in the 60-gram range.

Launch Characteristics

The dark gray line represents the S3 database average for stiff flex shafts in the 60-70g weight range. The light gray line represents a neutral profile – effectively the baseline for what we would describe as a mid-launch profile.

Based on measurements from Cool Clubs S3, The ATTAS is classified as a MID-HIGH launch shaft, while similar, the previous ATTAS (ATTAS Coool) is classified as MID launch.

ZONE EI

The following chart compares the stiffness of THE ATTAS in the butt, mid, and tip sections to the S3 database average of stiff flex shafts in the 60-70g range.

As you can see, THE ATTAS is slightly stiffer than similar shafts in the butt section though slightly softer than the ATTAS COOOl. The midsection is a bit firmer, while the softer tip section contributes to higher launch.

GIVEAWAY: Win the ER5 Black with Sweet Face Technology

Evnroll Golf

Enter MyGolfSpy’s Giveaway!

---

Enter Giveaway

Balance Point

The following chart compares the balance point of THE ATTAS to the S3 database average of stiff flex shafts in the 60-70g range.

While the balance point is a bit higher than that of the ATTAS Coool, it’s a bit lower than the database average overall. We would not describe The ATTAS as counterbalanced.

SWING SPEED RECOMMENDATIONS

The chart below provides swing speed recommendations for the entire THE ATTAS lineup.

Note that these recommendations are based on the full range of Cool Clubs‘ building and fitting capabilities, including factors such as tipping and build length which can cause a shaft to play either softer or stiffer.

To simplify things a bit, you may wish to narrow these ranges. The sweet spot from a fitting perspective begins 25% from the slow end of the range. As a general rule, players with faster tempos, particularly in transition may fit into a stiffer flex, while smoother swingers often fit into a softer flex.

From the Cool Clubs Fitting Team

Ranging from flyweight to heavyweight, The ATTAS is available from a 51-grams in a regular flex to an 85-grams in X flex. The range of options covers swing speeds from 75 mph to 135 mph. Finding The ATTAS in a weight and flex combination that works for you won’t be an issue.

Using The ATTAS 6S for reference the balance point is slightly lower than the Cool Clubs S3 Shaft Database average while the launch parameters are marginally higher.  With a traditional taper design, this 10^th generation shaft is made with the latest high-quality materials available to the industry while maintaining the simple profile typical of most ATTAS designs.  This simplicity is what makes it so remarkable! If you liked (and benefited from) the performance and dependability of previous ATTAS versions, you expect to be satisfied with this latest version.

There are so many shafts on the market that are designed to decrease launch and spin, which is part of what makes The ATTAS a refreshing departure. It’s designed to increase launch and spin, and the platform has proven track record of serving golfers who need just that from their golf shaft.

The ATTAS 6S is a workhorse for the player who swings between 92 and 108 miles per hour with a quicker tempo and wants to launch the ball higher with a moderate amount of spin. The stiffer butt section helps the shaft keep up with a swing with a quicker transition while the softer tip assists in adding dynamic loft at impact for the player who needs to launch the ball higher for optimal trajectory.

The flash in The ATTAS 6S comes from the color scheme as UST Mamiya has shed their traditional look with refreshingly vibrant splashes of color – think golf shaft meets paintballs. Part of the fun comes from the graphics while lower scores can be traced to this dependable performer.

Information is based on test results of the S flex THE ATTAS shafts from Cool Club’s S3 Shaft Explorer with over 2500+ shaft profiles for comparison.

For more information on THE ATTAS, visit USTMamiya.com.

WHAT’S NEXT?

As we mentioned in a previous post, this is a relatively new way for us to review golf shafts. Let us know what you like, what you don’t like, and what suggestions you have for future Cool Clubs S3-Powered reviews.

Also, if there’s a specific shaft you’d like to see us review next, please let us know.

Shaft stories tend to be more alike than different. That’s certainly true when you reach the upper levels of the premium range where nearly everyone is using some flavor of exotic materials to create a low launch, low spin pole capable of holding up against the forces levied by the most aggressive of swingers.

Sound familiar? Throw in a sexy paint job and we’re rolling.

The paint stuff is inherently subjective, but otherwise, Fujikura’s Ventus checks most of the expected boxes. It’s a premium offering – arguably even more premium most of Fujikura’s aftermarket models. The mid-launch and low-mid spin characteristics, while not textbook, speak to the fact that not everyone needs an ATMOS TS Black. Fujikura’s launch and spin chart puts it in the general vicinity of the PRO 2.0 TS and the EVO IV. While there are a plethora of reasons why your actual mileage may vary, it should give you a reasonable idea of where Ventus fits with respect to the industry-standard launch and spin story.

Add the requisite reference to exotic materials (in this case, Pitch 70-ton carbon fiber), and we’re more or less where a good percentage of shaft stories end, but with Ventus, we’re only just getting started.

VeloCore Technology

At the heart of Ventus is what Fujikura calls VeloCore technology. The name comes from the idea that Ventus offers velocity at its core, and while I suppose we have to allow everyone a bit of marketing leeway, the larger point is that the magic of Ventus lies not in its launch and spin properties, but in its construction.

The summary version of which is that Ventus features full-length, pitch 70-ton fiber in the bias layer. While we’ll likely dive deeper into construction in upcoming Shaft University features, let’s see if we can’t make some quick sense out what that means.

Pitch 70 is the exotic/premium carbon composite material that helps create Ventus’ low-ish spin properties. While we don’t expect you to be experts on carbon fiber, what you should know is that Pitch 70 is 150% stiffer than the T1100g material featured in numerous low spin shaft designs.

Golf shafts are assembled by rolling layers of carbon fiber around a steel mandrel. The individual sheets of fiber – called flags – often include different types of carbon fiber, and those sheets are placed at different orientations over the length of the shaft. Flags in the bias layer are oriented at 45°, and it’s unusual for a premium (exotic/expensive) material to be used over the full-length of a shaft. More commonly, materials like T1100 are used to strategically stiffen specific areas of the shaft, with the tip being the most common placement.

Leveraging stiffer materials like Pitch 70 can result in a shaft that feels overly stiff or boardy, so to create a smoother, easier-loading shaft, Fujikura leverages an accelerated taper design along with less rigid 40-ton carbon fiber to enhance feel.

That’s a whole lot of words to hopefully explain why Fujikura says Ventus is more resistant to twisting over the length of the shaft than conventional designs. Less twisting (which also speaks to Ventus’ low torque properties) means the face is delivered closer to square with impact closer to the center of the face. That ultimately means more consistent ball speed, a better starting line, and tighter dispersion.

It’s why Ventus is billed as an MOI-booster of sorts. It’s a bit like the old BASF ads. Fujikura doesn’t make the clubhead you play, but with Ventus, Fujikura makes it better…or at least more consistent.

Ventus On Tour

It’s relatively early in Ventus’ lifecycle, and while it can take time for a shaft to catch on tours, the initial reception has been a warm one. Fujikura’s Fitting & Tour Rep, Marshall Thompson, says word of mouth has been excellent, and he’s been fielding more calls than usual about the shaft. Ventus is already getting its fair share of tour play. Recently there were 14 in play at the AT&T Byron Nelson (including the winner’s driver). Ventus  has also found its way into bags on the Web.com and LPGA tours as well. No shaft works for everyone, but when a shaft is working well for the ladies as well as the men, it speaks to the versatility of the design.

Now that we’ve covered what Ventus is, let’s take a closer look at some of its other performance characteristics.

GIVEAWAY: Win the ER5 Black with Sweet Face Technology

Evnroll Golf

Enter MyGolfSpy’s Giveaway!

---

Enter Giveaway

VENTUS Data and Comparisons

To make our shaft coverage more meaningful (and useful) to our readers, we’ve partnered with Cool Clubs, the Golf Industry’s Leading Custom Fit Club Company, to bring you shaft reviews powered by its Shaft Simulation System (S3). In case you missed it, check out our story detailing why we believe S3 provides the best insights into shaft performance.

“S3 Technologies utilizes the most advanced shaft testing technology in the industry. The Shaft Simulation System (S3), which was developed in 2013, is a fully-automated, all-in-one shaft profiling machine. In a matter of minutes, the S3 determines the following shaft specs: (Straightness, Consistency Profile, EI Profile, CPM Analysis, and Torque. While some of the aforementioned specs can be obtained from shaft manufacturers, a lack of industry standards prevents that data from being used for accurate apples-to-apples comparisons. S3 Technologies solves this challenge by testing all of our products in-house using the S3. This gives S3 Technologies a unique and in-depth understanding of the quality and performance of the industry’s shafts.”

Not only does S3 give us standardized quantitative information about the shaft(s) being reviewed, the data we share will provide you with a much better sense of how those shafts compare with similarly specced offerings on the market today.

Using S3 data, we’ll be providing a comparison of the Ventus to similar shafts in the S3 database, as well as other Fujikura shafts. Comparisons are based on stiff flex shafts in the 60-gram range.

GET FIT FOR YOUR GAME WITH TRUEGOLFFIT™

Unbiased. No Guesswork. All Major Brands. Matched To Your Swing. Advanced Golf Analytics matches the perfect clubs to your exact swing using connected data and machine learning.

SEE MY RESULTS

Launch Characteristics

The pink line represents the S3 database average for stiff flex shafts in the 60-70g weight range. The yellow line represents a neutral profile – effectively the baseline for what we would describe as a mid-launch profile.

Based on measurements from Cool Clubs S3, The Ventus is classified as a LOW/MID launch shaft. As a result of its stiffer tip section, it can be expected to launch lower than other Fujikura shafts with similar EI profiles.

Zone EI

The following chart compares the stiffness of the Fujikura Ventus in the butt, mid, and tip sections to the S3 database average of stiff flex shafts in the 60-70g range as well as two other Fujikura shafts.

The Ventus 6S has a stiffer butt section, slightly softer midsection, and slightly stiffer tip section than the average of the shafts in the Cool Clubs S3 Database. The stiffer tip section helps create a lower launch with less spin.

Balance Point

The following chart compares the balance point of the Ventus to the S3 database average of stiff flex shafts in the 60-70g range.

The balance point is slightly higher than that of the average shafts in the database but slightly lower than two other great shafts from Fujikura – the Speeder Evolution IV & V 661’s.

As you may recall from our Golf Geeks Story on Shaft Performance, a higher balance point allows for more head weight without drastically impacting the swingweight. For golfers seeking more distance (admittedly often at the expense of accuracy), this allows drivers to be built to longer playing lengths.

Swing Speed Recommendations

Note that these recommendations are based on the full range of Cool Clubs‘ building and fitting capabilities, including factors such as tipping and build length which can cause a shaft to play either softer or stiffer.

To simplify things a bit, you may wish to narrow these ranges. The sweet spot from a fitting perspective begins 25% from the slow end of the range. As a general rule, players with faster tempos, particularly in transition may fit into a stiff flex, while smoother swingers often fit into a softer flex.

Advice from the Cool Clubs Fitting Team

The Ventus shaft is offered in a variety of weights and flexes. There are ten options ranging from Ventus 5 (high 50-gram range) to the Ventus 8 (mid 80 grams). As with many aftermarket options, Ventus can work for elite players or players with high clubhead speed; however, the breadth of options allows for fitting across a wide range of speeds.

The name “Ventus” translates to wind, which is fitting given that Fujikura’s latest creation works to maximize the energy transfer through a golfer’s swing. The engineers at Fujikura use a non-conventional and accelerated taper rate (how quickly the shaft’s diameter transitions from wide (butt section) to narrow (tip section) to create more efficient loading. Combined with the type and variety of materials that are integrated into this shaft, the energy created during the swing is smoothly transferred from butt to tip. The materials are stronger without increasing weight.

The Ventus graphics offer a sleek dark blue paint scheme using Fujikura’s Phantium finish. Phantium is up to 70 percent lighter than typical graphics and other cosmetic details, but still maintains a premium look and feel.

What does this mean for the golfer? For those who swing in the 105 to 120 mph range, the Ventus 6S is a low spin, tight dispersion shaft — your shots will stay in the fairway. The stiffer tip section keeps the spin down but won’t negatively affect the launch angle. Whether you’re fast tempo or slow tempo, swinging an easy 80% or trying to swing out of your shoes, Ventus can keep up with you and keep your dispersion tight. Often, higher swing speed golfers fear amping up to the next gear because the result might be a ball headed off into the rough. That won’t happen – or at least it will happen less – with the Ventus. It is an exceptionally stable shaft that just does not twist through the swing, so there are fewer power leaks from off-center hits.

Remember the old finger traps that you played with as a kid? You put your two index fingers into either end of a woven bamboo cylinder and pulled in opposite directions. The harder you pulled, the tighter the cylinder became longitudinally until your fingers got stuck. This shaft works similarly. The more stress you put on it, the more efficiently it performs! If you don’t quite hit the sweet spot on the clubface, the result will not be overly penalizing. The Ventus helps limit twisting, which keeps the face more square through impact. Squarer impact means straighter ball flight, higher ball speed, longer distance, and great misses!

During our fittings players often have two comments about the Ventus. The first is about how great the shaft feels. The second is about how good the misses are. These are both rooted in how the Ventus transfers energy and how little it twists.

It’s worth a test to see how Ventus can impact your dispersion and distance out on the course.

For more information on the Ventus shaft, visit Fujikuragolf.com.

Call it a price adjustment or price drop. Either way, the argument boils down to semantics, but the reality is, whenever prices change – there’s always a reason.

Increases are generally a function of rising costs of production (raw materials, labor) or desire for more aggressive profit margins. On the other hand, decreases tend to signal the end of a product’s lifecycle or an OEM trying to boost per unit sales figures (It’s one of the reasons why the early season “buy 3 get 1 free” ball deals have become a spring staple).

GET FIT FOR YOUR GAME WITH TRUEGOLFFIT™

Unbiased. No Guesswork. All Major Brands. Matched To Your Swing. Advanced Golf Analytics matches the perfect clubs to your exact swing using connected data and machine learning.

SEE MY RESULTS

As a consumer, it’s also likely you might not care so much about the reasoning if it means a couple more bucks in the bank account.

Whatever your thoughts, the key point is that Tommy Armour is slashing prices on its entire Atomic line – and by a rather significant margin.

The Atomic driver (Best value for mid swing speed testers in 2019) is now $299, down from $399. This puts it at the same price point as the Tour Edge EXS ($299) giving consumers several options in this price range. Both the Atomic fairway and hybrid are $50 less ($199.99 and $179.99 respectively).

Likewise, the Atomic series of irons (Atomic and Atomic-MAX) shed $200 from the previous $799.99 price tag and now sit at $599.99. The Atomic-MAX (graphite shafts) are $100 more at $699.99.

Part of Dick’s strategy with the Tommy Armour brand is to push back on the trend toward $500+ drivers and $1200+ irons sets, offering golfers plenty of performance at prices which aren’t layered with hefty tour sponsorship and advertising costs.

That said, navigating the world of price-based perception can be a tricky one. The line between inexpensive and cheap can be thin, with the former still offering plenty of value and the later, not so much.

PXG chopped prices drastically on its GEN2 metalwoods with the understanding it would have to find a way to maintain an exclusive identity while sitting at price points just a step above the top of the retail market. Tommy Armour’s challenge is similar, though its strategic position is at the opposite end of the retail pricing spectrum.

Dick’s is aware by exposing a pricing gap, created in part by major OEMs chasing one another up the price ladder, its primary selling point is a lower cost – and all things being equal, consumers love the idea of paying less for any item, given similar quality and performance.

GIVEAWAY: Win a Shot Scope V2 prize package

Shot Scope Golf

Enter MyGolfSpy’s Giveaway!

---

Enter Giveaway

However, should prices dip below a certain point, buyers start to question whether the deal might be “too good to be true.” That said, there’s nothing to suggest this move is anything more than Tommy Armour working to find its pricing sweet spot and gauge consumer response in doing so.

But, as always, you tell us what you think. Good move or too aggressive too soon?

If you’re familiar with the PING G410 Plus and you know even just a little bit about the 2018 Most Wanted Winning PING G400 LST, you can probably piece together a good bit of this story on your own.

Finer points aside (and we’ll get to them), the G410 LST is like the G410 Plus, except it spins a little bit less.

Given the simplicity of the story, it’s fair to wonder what took PING so long to launch the new LST. Cynics will no doubt assume that the delay was about ensuring the company had something fresh to talk about in the spring. Plenty of those particular shenanigans go on in the golf equipment industry, but that’s not how PING operates.

The fact of the matter is that G400 LST was really good. It over-performed on the launch monitor and at retail, and so not surprisingly, it took a bit of extra time for PING to be sure that the G410 LST was more than the equal of the G400 LST; it had to be better.

“The challenge we had – and it’s the complete truth – we won’t launch something until we’ve absolutely definitely proven to both our CEO and our President, John A. and John K. Solheim, that we’re outperforming what we had last year,” says Dr. Paul Wood, PING’s VP of Engineering. “G400 LST gave us some major headaches because it did so well.”

GET FIT FOR YOUR GAME WITH TRUEGOLFFIT™

Unbiased. No Guesswork. All Major Brands. Matched To Your Swing. Advanced Golf Analytics matches the perfect clubs to your exact swing using connected data and machine learning.

SEE MY RESULTS

In a perfect world, new would be 20-yards longer than old, leaving little open for interpretation. It’s inarguably better, and so we’re done here. We all know it doesn’t work like that, and so for PING, proving it involves a significant amount of player testing, during which the R&D guys are looking for something that’s statistically better in a majority of the categories they consider. Is the ball speed faster? Is it longer? Is dispersion tighter? Are strokes gained values higher?

“There isn’t a single clearly defined if it passes this test, move forward,” says Wood. “We have to build a body of testing that is compelling. Part of that is robot testing, but ultimately, player testing is always our true benchmark because it’s real golfers hitting real shots.”

Not every new product checks every box 100% of the time, but it has to be better the majority of the time. With that comes a more systematic approach to improving performance. Seldom can you take one aspect of a club and improve it by 20%, so PING looks to make smaller improvements across several areas. “We find 20 things and make them 1 or 2 percent better. Every little detail counts. Everything in the manufacturing or the quality or the build…the assembly in the Phoenix. All those little things are what adds up,” says Paul Wood. “It’s not quite as easy to tell that story. It’s just what it is; the truth.”

The challenge in improving on something like the G400 LST comes in ensuring that what you have on paper – the design, the expected performance – carries through to the manufactured product that ultimately ends up in the hands of golfers.

“The hard yards are in making sure that what you deliver the customer is exactly what we imagine the driver to be,” says Wood. “That was the challenge we were overcoming…making sure we could get every aspect of the driver just right because everything has to be just right or it doesn’t beat G400 LST.”

In the pursuit of a better LST, PING didn’t deviate from its core design principles. Even with its lowest spinning model, PING is focused on locating the center of gravity as low and as far back as possible. For your reference, that means a CG location that’s a bit lower and a bit more forward than the G410 PLUS.

GIVEAWAY: Win a Shot Scope V2 prize package

Shot Scope Golf

Enter MyGolfSpy’s Giveaway!

---

Enter Giveaway

While the G410 LST offers 3% higher MOI than its predecessor, the lower spin costs you a bit of forgiveness relative to the G410 Plus. The silver lining is that, with a slightly smaller 450cc chassis, the LST model has a small aerodynamic advantage over the Plus.

It’s a textbook application of PING’s tradeoff curves.

While specific performance differences are almost always player dependent, all things equal, PING says the LST spins 200-400 RPM less than the G410 Plus and 100-200 less than the G400 LST.

For many golfers any amount of spin reduction is appealing, but the most significant benefit of the G410 LST is its improved versatility.

Like the G410 PLUS, the G410 LST offers 3-position adjustable perimeter weighting and an updated 8-position hosel that work together to expand the fitting capabilities of the 410. That gets you a wider range of loft options across two discrete heads and up to 20-yards of shot shape correction between the Draw and Fade positions. It also means that PING no longer has to sacrifice part of LST’s potential market to better fit an unnecessarily narrow segment of golfers.

“In the past we’ve had to make a choice as to how left/right biased to make the LST version. In general, it has been played by faster swing speed, lower handicap players, so we’ve had to hedge and make it a little more fade biased. Now with the adjustable left/right, you can get the LST in a draw-biased head, and there are quite a few customers that will be a really good option for. There are plenty of people out there who have too much spin, but a fade biased driver isn’t right for them.” – Paul Wood

While PING maintains the G410 LST is better, like for like gains over the G400 LST will be marginal. PING doesn’t promise 10 more yards. The guys who will see a more significant leap forward are golfers playing drivers that are a few years old (or older) and golfers who can fully take advantage of the enhanced adjustability to optimize performance.

Simply put, the biggest difference is in the fitting.

Specs, Pricing, and Availability

The G410 LST will be available in 9° and 10.5° models. As you may recall, the G400 LST was available in 8.5° and 10°. PING bumped the lofts up by ½° largely as a nod to consumer comfort. Actual trajectory differences between new and old should be minimal.

The stock shafts are the Alta CB Red 55 (Soft R, R, S, X) and the PING Tour 65 & 75 (R, S, X). The ALTA is a lightweight, high-trajectory, counterbalanced shaft. The Tour should prove to be lower launching and spinning. There is no upcharge for the Tour shaft.

Aftermarket options include the Tensei CK Orange 60/70 (R,S,X) and the EvenFlow Black 75 (5.5 ,6.0, 6.5). The Tensei Orange is a slightly counterbalanced, mid-trajectory offering, while the Evenflow Black is a low trajectory offering.

While neither option will be stocked, there is no upcharge for either one.

MSRP for the PING G410 LST is $540 (expect actual retail price to be $500). Availability begins later this month.

PING’s Blueprint iron, beginning with the name, was always destined to be something of a departure from convention. “[It’s] a bit of an extended R&D experiment,” says Paul Wood, VP of Engineering at PING. Historically, G-series irons assumed the role of game-enjoyment clubs with the I-series satisfying the needs of better players looking for more workability at the expense of some forgiveness.

Blueprint, which sounds like an internal code name, is in some ways entirely different, yet still, everything we’ve come to expect from a PING iron.

BEGINNING

The genesis of Blueprint isn’t unusual. Major OEMs routinely engage with tour staff to gain feedback and meaningful insights. Those bits of information become the foundation for new product ideas – some of which eventually make it to retail.

What PING staffers articulated was a desire for something more workable than the iBlade. They didn’t come right out and say that explicitly, it was more along the lines of “Hey, I don’t know exactly what I want the club to be, but here’s what I want it to be able to do.”

For PING the answer (or should I say anser?) was clear. To hit the types of shots players like Bubba Watson and Louis Oosthuizen sought, the clubhead had to be smaller and more workable.

With that, PING designed its first 100% forged muscle-back iron. PING fans will note both Anser iron models (2010 and 2012) were also forged but carried geometry and footprint more similar to the i15 cavity-back.

GET FIT FOR YOUR GAME WITH TRUEGOLFFIT™

Unbiased. No Guesswork. All Major Brands. Matched To Your Swing. Advanced Golf Analytics matches the perfect clubs to your exact swing using connected data and machine learning.

SEE MY RESULTS

IT IS

Blueprint is a niche product, best suited to accomplished ball-strikers. Its ideal place is in the bag of a serious golfer who is willing to invest a decent amount of time in figuring out if Blueprint offers performance benefits over the slightly more forgiving iBlade.

For some players, it will. In testing, PING found that better players (if you’ve won your state am, qualified for multiple majors, or a company pays you to have your name on its bag, you suffice) produced more consistent results (smaller misses) when asked to hit a variety of shots on command. Interestingly, PING started with three blade lengths, the shortest of which resulted in the best performance for the target player.

Just so we’re clear, this isn’t an invitation to the “I’ll become a better ball striker if I play a less forgiving club” crowd, though some vanity purchases are to be expected.

In the fall of 2018, there were only a handful of sets available to touring professionals. With a full retail release, it’s anyone’s best guess as to how the masses will receive Blueprint. PING expects the full range of results with some players committing to a complete set, while others will find Blueprint to be too demanding and return to something a bit more comfortable.

There’s also the option, which PING has already seen take hold on tour, of a combo set with Blueprint in the scoring irons and a constellation of iBlade, i210, and i500 in the rest of the set. That said, PING believes the only way to gather enough evidence to evaluate the Blueprint is to let the best players in world test it under the toughest conditions over the course of a competitive season and see where the cards fall. As such, PING will likely wait until later in 2019 to further assess next steps for Blueprint.

DETAILS

Blueprint is forged from a single piece of 8620 carbon steel. It’s not the soft 1025 or 1020 carbon steel you might be accustomed to hearing about, but PING has decades of experience casting clubs using 8620 and feels it provides the ideal blend of performance and feel. Harder metal tends to be more durable, which means the grooves last longer, and while the inherent metallurgical characteristics define the alloy as harder or softer, it’s the geometry of the design which is as, if not more, important in determining how soft a club feels.

To maintain precise weighting, without altering the CG location, PING utilizes both tip and toe weights to reach desired specifications. Initially, the machined tungsten toe weight led some to believe the body might be hollow, but its sole purpose is to provide a companion position to the tip where mass can be added for swing weighting purposes, without pulling the center of gravity closer to the heel.

As stated previously, Blueprint is more workable and less forgiving than iBlade. Perhaps it bears repeating, but workability is a function of the force required to manipulate the face of the club.  – or as our editor Tony Covey describes it, “it’s the difference between manipulating the clubface and manipulating it on purpose.”

Comparatively, Blueprint has less offset, a narrower sole, and shorter heel-toe length, though if scaled to size, Blueprint’s MOI would be similar to that of the iBlade.

Amateurs are often too enamored with distance, whereas serious players demand precision first in a set of irons. Blueprint is PING’s working answer to this dichotomy, and in general, PING isn’t an OEM which churns out release after release without being able to speak to quantifiable performance benefits. It’s fair to say PING shades toward giving golfers more of what they need (higher MOI drivers) as opposed to what consumers believe they might want (sexy looking limited-edition muscle backs).

That said, Blueprint isn’t an iron which is better for every player, but there’s enough evidence that it will, in some fashion, be better for a certain – and likely small – segment of golfers with a particular set of criteria.

GIVEAWAY: Win a Shot Scope V2 prize package

Shot Scope Golf

Enter MyGolfSpy’s Giveaway!

---

Enter Giveaway

Regardless of sales figures, Blueprint is likely to make some noise because it’s a noteworthy first for PING, and for a brand which tends to be more conservative with its releases, it’s the type of product which might signal that PING is willing to let its hair down a bit and be a little more aggressive.

So, is it a step in the right direction?

PRICING, SPECS, & AVAILABILITY

Blueprint is currently available at an MSRP of $230/club. The stock shaft is Dynamic Gold DG120 S300 with Golf Pride MCC Align grips.

The Arccos stat tracking and game management sensors are available ($10.50 upcharge) as well.

There are brands that you know and love and always seem to find their way into your bag. Then there are brands you know and don’t love. Those, well, don’t.

But sometimes there are brands you didn’t consciously buy because you didn’t know they existed, but there they are, sitting in your bag. And why is that brand in your bag? Because you love it.

So riddle me this, Batman: how can a brand you never knew existed – and you didn’t knowingly buy – be in your bag because you love it?

The answer is found in a mother’s inspiration and a son’s journey – one that started in Northern Ireland, went to South Africa, back to Ireland, on to Asia and the U.S. and more than 30 other countries. You’ll find the answer at Pebble Beach, St. Andrews, and Falcon’s Fire, as well as where it all started, in Newcastle. The answer is at all four Majors and the Ryder Cup, and it’s in your bag, on your bag, and in your pocket, or maybe even on your head, over your head, or in your trunk.

The answer, fellow travelers, is called PRG.

The Brand You Don’t Know

If you’ve ever done the Golf Trip thing and brought home a souvenir, there’s a good chance it’s a PRG product. If you’ve collected driver, fairway or putter head covers from any destination course you’ve played, go check them out right now and hunt for the label. I’ll bet my entire collection of autographed Jan Stephenson calendars it’s made by PRG.

“No matter where I go, like the golf club in Hong Kong, I look at all the bags,” says PRG Founder Stephen Riley. “I’ll walk through the bag room where all the clubs are just sitting there, and it’s amazing how many products are ours. I look and go ‘that, that, that, that, that, that….’”

Actually, it’s more accurate to call Riley the Co-Founder of PRG. The other co-founder was his Mom, Pauline.

“My Mum used to work for Titleist,” says Riley, in an Irish accent thicker than a pint of Guinness. “Titleist decided to start up their own offices, so she went to work in distribution with Champ and Golf Pride.”

Riley was – and technically still is – a golf pro and had been plying his trade in South Africa. When he came back to Ireland in 2006, Stephen saw his mom needed a hand, so the dutiful son jumped right in.

“We were doing accessories, your divot tools, your head covers and stuff like that, but we realized there was an opening for customization because at that stage nothing was branded.”

There was an opening, but there’s a big difference between seeing an opening and actually filling it.

“That first call was to Kevan Whitson at Royal County Down in Newcastle (Northern Ireland),” he says. “I remember leaving the shop with an order for like 18 customized head covers and felt ecstatic. In those days the production was actually in England, so it was a small local stitch shop done by one guy. That was literally how it started, and from there, it slowly expanded.”

That was 2006. Today, PRG has anywhere from three-and-a-half to four million products going out the door annually. And it’s a door – and factory – that’s PRG owned and operated.

Growing Pains

Company profiles are fun to write and – I hope for you – fun to read. It’s easy to forget that Callaway and TaylorMade weren’t always Callaway and TaylorMade– both companies started as a person’s idea to fill a void. What makes the journeys interesting are the highs, lows, and leaps of faith along the way that get you from hickory sticks or Pittsburgh Persimmons to a billion dollars in sales or, in PRG’s case, from 18 head covers to four million pieces a year.

“We weren’t the first company to customize, there are a lot of American companies that had been doing this for a long time,” says Riley. “I guess one of the quotes I keep in mind is, when I met Kevan Whitson, he said to me, ‘Don’t try to reinvent the wheel. Provide good quality, good product, good embroidery. People buy the logo.” And that was all they wanted.”

Those early days were a struggle. Along with golf accessories, Pauline and Stephen would create accessories for soccer (excuse me, football) teams such as Manchester United and Chelsea, but finding factories to create the quality the Riley’s wanted, but in the smaller volumes their customers preferred, was proving to be problematic.

The solution? Do it all – from material sourcing to production to sales – on your own.

“We do everything in house,” says Riley. “We source our own materials, but once that material hits our warehouse, from start to finish, everything is done under our roof. Cutting the material, the QC, the inspection, the internal systems, and the embroidery and then the packaging, it’s all done by us in one facility.”

2011 was a milestone year for PRG, as Riley consolidated his operations. The PRG facility is in Asia, and Riley spent much of that time learning how to navigate the often confusing and conflicting world of sourcing quality materials. It all may look the same, but it took a while to learn the good stuff from the not-so-good stuff.

2011 also saw PRG establish some clientele in the US. The future North American distributor for PRG was playing Royal County Down that year and fell in love several of Riley’s products, and faster than you can say Bing Crosby, Pebble Beach placed its first order.

The Full Monty

In addition to logoed headcovers, PRG makes a full line of accessories – pretty much anything metal, injected, stamped, polished or color-filled. Riley’s value proposition is three-fold: excellent quality, a surprisingly affordable price, and unique offerings that ship on time.

“I don’t know anyone else that owns their own factory,” says Riley. “There are a couple of U.S. companies, like Seamus Golf and companies like that, but if you look at the difference between them and us, they’re not a one-trick-pony, but they don’t have the same capabilities when it comes to the stitching processes or the different ways we’ll put a head cover together. They won’t have the same machinery because they’re not big enough.”

Much of PRG’s clientele is made up of destination or resort-type courses, where people come from all over to play and want to take home unique souvenirs. Seriously, how many hats or shirts can you really own?

“One of the things we’ve done well is we cover a very wide spectrum,” says Riley. “Whether it’s a bag tag, a divot tool, a ball marker, a golf towel, a pom-pom head cover, umbrella or even a cap, we’re covering it all. Our customers, they trust us to deliver year-on-year with good quality.”

A recent visit to Falcon’s Fire Golf Club in Kissimmee, Florida bears that out. While browsing in the Pro Shop, which was well stocked with PRG head covers in different styles and colors, the assistant pro told me they sold well for two simple reasons: excellent quality and a really sweet price.

“One thing I’ve seen consistently is we have phenomenal sell-through,” says Riley. “A lot of the customization companies bring in product and they sort of half-customize them in-house. It would look very cheap, and at the end of the year, golf clubs would have a lot of product left unsold. When I go back to my customers in September, they always sell through the product.”

“I guess that gives them the confidence to reorder.”

The Brand You Know?

Have you checked any of your souvenir head covers yet? How about any divot tools or different colored ball markers that you may have picked up in your travels? More than likely, they’re made by PRG.

That’s the core business, and it has been built up year-over-year until reaching a self-sustaining, near-annuity status. PRG also makes merchandise for golf’s biggest events, including this year’s Open Championship in Royal Portrush, right in PRG’s backyard in Northern Ireland. It’s the first time PRG has provided product for an Open, which gives the company the merchandising grand slam of all four majors.

And despite its European heritage, PRG supplied last year’s U.S. Ryder Cup team and will do so again next year. And in what is clearly a case of headcover envy, it looks as though the European Ryder Cup team will be jumping on board, as well.

Still, Riley wants The Brand You Use But Don’t Know to morph into The Brand You Use and Do Know.

“We’re starting up our own branding under the name Originals,” says Riley. “There’s been a good trend in the market, toward high street retailers like Worldwide Golf or Golf Galaxy. They’ll have a Titleist or a TaylorMade leather headcover for $90, or they’ll have something cheap for about $7. They don’t have anything of nice quality at an affordable price, like $25 or $29.”

Currently, the Originals line features putter and driver head covers as well as alignment stick covers, with themes ranging from Route 66 and Las Vegas to American flags, Lucky Charms, and various pop-art designs.

“They’re fun, collectible things,” says Riley. “Good quality with affordable pricing.”

GET FIT FOR YOUR GAME WITH TRUEGOLFFIT™

Unbiased. No Guesswork. All Major Brands. Matched To Your Swing. Advanced Golf Analytics matches the perfect clubs to your exact swing using connected data and machine learning.

SEE MY RESULTS

“Internally there are capabilities in terms of design and creativity,” says PRG’s PR man Darren Phillips. “Up until now, the business hadn’t had the credit it deserved because everything was done under somebody else’s name. PRG was the sub-brand.”

Riley says the long-term goal is to expand the product range and establish PRG as its own brand by pushing social media and working with Tour players.

“Tour players are a big presence where I want to spend more time,” he says. “Whether it’s with Graeme McDowell or Ian Poulter or whoever it is.”

And despite what you may think of social media marketing, Riley does admit it’s one way to build a brand.

“If you look at SWAG Golf, Tyson Lamb or some of those other guys, if social media didn’t exist, they wouldn’t even have a start,” he says. “Those guys are creative, but they’re $120 a head cover, not $30 a head cover. They spend their marketing budget going on social media influencers. One I saw recently was one of those pretty golfing girls – one of those golf babes –, and it was like welcome to the team and all this.”

“That’s how they’re building their market. We built our market honestly over the last 14 years or so, just on good, consistent delivery year over year.”

GIVEAWAY: Win a Shot Scope V2 prize package

Shot Scope Golf

Enter MyGolfSpy’s Giveaway!

---

Enter Giveaway

May The Road Rise Up To Meet You…

The reason we enjoy sharing stories like PRG’s is simple: there are a ton of them in golf – personal, fascinating and – sadly – untold. And if knowing the backstory on that headcover you bought at Pebble or the souvenir ball marker you picked up at the U.S. Open makes you enjoy either a little bit more, all the better.

There’s an old Irish proverb that says: You’ve got to do your own growing, no matter how tall your father was. We all know about the luck of the Irish, but PRG’s story is more about pluck than luck. Riley put in his 16- to 18-hour days, six days a week for several years to not only establish his business but to create an entire operation.

“My aspiration has been to get to the top of the river,” he says. “When you start at the start of the stream, no one can get in front of you. I knew if I could source material in bulk, I knew if I could make the product, and I knew if I could manage the factory correctly, no one could cut in front of me.”

“If you went back 20 or 30 years, you might have a company going to Taiwan, with a trading company in the middle and another trading company in America. There’d be a couple of layers in the product line. Now it’s just us. It’s us making it and it’s us distributing it. We cut out all those other layers, and that’s why we haven’t been greedy. We’ve kept the price down to be more affordable” – Stephen Riley, PRG

No matter where you look in golf, there are stories like this one, and there are people behind those stories. And while Riley doesn’t appear to be the type to dwell PRG’s journey too long, he does admit he didn’t envision the result.

“If you had asked me if I ever thought we’d get to three-and-a-half million or four million products going out the door every year, it wouldn’t have been something I’d have thought possible,” he says. “Not from starting with selling 18 head covers to one golf club.”

To quote another old Irish saying: May you have the hindsight to know where you’ve been, the foresight to know where you are going, and the insight to know when you have gone too far.

For more information, visit the PRG website.

This is one for those who like a bit of old-fashioned lore mixed in with an otherwise typical modern Japanese equipment story.

It’s a well-established practice that each JDM brand has selling points around attention to detail, crazy tight tolerances, and use of higher-quality materials; all of which serve to produce equipment which is, according to JDM loyalists, a step above what’s available from the major retail brands in North America.

With that, most Japanese brand stories include some historical underpinnings which connect the equipment to a cultural past (e.g., Samurai sword making) which may or may not have anything to do with how the equipment is produced today. A bit of mythology makes for a better story, but in the case of Fujimoto, there are more dots to rightfully connect and evidence which seems to suggest the small operation based in Ichikawa may be more authentically JDM than its better-known counterparts.

And so, the tale of the Fujimoto family and its homespun forged irons and wedges is engaging on multiple levels as there’s enough mystery to inspire intrigue, while not overshadowing the fact that it makes some wickedly good forged irons and wedges.

ONCE UPON A TIME

The history of Fujimoto Gikoh begins with a simple, yet apt analogy – a tree with three branches. The three boys who would eventually become the patriarchs of JDM equipment enterprises Kyoei, Miura, and Fujimoto not only grew up in the same small area of western Japan (Ichikawa) – they’re blood-related. The exact lineage isn’t entirely clear, but while they are at least a step removed from siblings, some level of close relation makes sense. Ichikawa is roughly 350 miles west of Tokyo and is typified by a small population with several generations continuing to occupy approximately the same geographic area as predecessors. The familial connection isn’t essential to establish credibility, but because there’s an element of truth it, it’s both novel and interesting for those who fancy themselves experts on all things JDM.

As a company, the history of Fujimoto Ginkoh dates to the early 1960s when Japan was working to recover from WWII. During the war period, gifted blacksmiths – technically swordsmiths – were directed by the government to focus their skills on making weapons for the war effort. Making anything else – namely forged golf equipment – was banned by the Japanese government. Katanas and other swords held value as sacred art treasures for the Japanese, and in the secondary collectible market, which still exists to some degree today, a sword’s value depended largely upon the artisan of record. Though rare, some blades reached into the mid-six figures at auction with entire collections selling for several million dollars.

GET FIT FOR YOUR GAME WITH TRUEGOLFFIT™

Unbiased. No Guesswork. All Major Brands. Matched To Your Swing. Advanced Golf Analytics matches the perfect clubs to your exact swing using connected data and machine learning.

SEE MY RESULTS

After the war ended, some elements of western influence remained and Monobu Fujimoto took note of other Ichikawa blacksmiths discussing making forged irons. Minobu knew a lot about metal, but not much about golf clubs. Confident all he needed was some tutelage, he approached Mr. Morita, who is considered a founding father of golf club manufacturing in Japan. Working under Morita San, Fujimoto learned the art of “Hizukuri” a traditional forging method derived from sword and knife making.

The method was sound, but Minobu quickly experienced the deficiencies of small hydraulic hammers as the small town of Ichikawa had little need for high-powered forging machines. The result was iron heads which took several days to shape by hand, and because the original iron billets didn’t have uniform characteristics, the feel of each iron could vary significantly from one iron to the next.

This problem inspired Minobu to explore different heating, folding, and forging methods. Over time, he’d assemble prototypes and then give them to trusted local golfers who would provide him feedback and thus started a cyclical process of refinement. Minobu and the player would go back and forth until the player was completely satisfied.

Eventually, word spread of Fujimoto’s forging prowess, and it wasn’t long before OEMs came calling to enlist his services. Long story short, Fujimoto would spend the next several decades as an unheralded figure forging irons and wedges for OEMs like PRGR and Piretti (as well as smaller, very niche brands such as Docus and Razzle Dazzle amongst others). Though the work provided consistent revenue, the thought of designing and coming to market with a private label line would allow Fujimoto to showcase his design, forging, and finishing capabilities.

In 2014, Fujimoto released the Believer and Adject forged irons which were typically ornate – as is often the calling card for bespoke, handcrafted Japanese irons. The aesthetics sit in contrast to what many North American buyers prefer. The irons and wedges in the new FT (Fujimoto Tour) line are much cleaner, with crisp lines, and minimal stampings.

STRAW ASH

Fujimoto believes it can perfect the modern forged iron by purposely avoiding mass production and going to lengths other OEMs would find cost aversive. It begins with an exclusive agreement (not altogether different from what Mizuno has in place with the Chuo forging house) with a steel supplier which provides only Fujimoto with various raw metals, including SS400 structured steel (the closest comparison would be 1020 or S20C carbon steel). The catch here is that to get the quality and consistency Fujimoto wants, it must purchase billets in 1-ton increments as it’s nearly impossible to source this quality of raw material in a 15-20 meter rods.

From there, each head is forged, and CNC milled to precise specifications, but it’s the construction and 72-hour annealing process which Fujimoto believes gives it a point of distinction amongst an already niche group of manufacturers. In general, forged irons are formed via a sequence of strikes starting with raw steel billet which is heated (1200 degrees Celsius) and struck by hydraulic forging hammers and then reheated and struck again. Across the industry, 3-5 strikes are typical depending on the design and what each company believes is best practice. There’s general agreement that the final strike should occur around 880° Celsius, where the carbon and iron atoms are most structurally balanced, but the head is still malleable. That’s typically where the forging portion of the story ends.

Very few companies talk about the rate at which the head cools but controlling this process (annealing) is where Fujimoto injects its secret sauce. Fujimoto anneals each raw head for 72 hours in buckets of straw ash to reduce metal hardness; giving each blank forging a unique metallurgical state which, according to Fujimoto, results in its signature feel.

LINEUP

Fujimoto’s lineup is simple: Muscleback – cavityback – wedge. Fujimoto isn’t trying to be all things to all golfers. It reminds me of a small restaurant near Sturgis, South Dakota, which has two menu items (Little Steak, Big Steak) and a line out the door every Friday and Saturday night. Two iron models (2 ½ actually) and one wedge isn’t the full buffet of options most buyers expect, however, there’s something to be said for sticking to what one does well.

The FT- 1 MB is a time-honored take on the classic muscle-back iron. That includes truly traditional lofts (47° PW). It has a compact footprint, but the sole is wider than what some might anticipate, and with that, more weight is positioned lower in the head as compared to MB irons from previous generations. This so-called neo-blade is marginally more forgiving (or at least easier to elevate) than an option like Miura’s Tournament Blade but still targets the tour-level ball striker. In addition to the 72-hour annealing process, Fujimoto adds a copper underlay beneath the satin chrome finish. It’s an unnecessary step in terms of performance but gives some indication as to what Fujimoto considers a comprehensive approach. Historically, OEMs would use a copper underlay to boost overall softness but went away from it due to the cost and environmental considerations.

Due out later this year, the MB-X is a one-piece, forged muscle-back iron with a twist. While most hollow-body irons are made in separate parts and welded together, the MB-X is made from of a single billet of JIS SS400 steel. A 9mm diameter opening on the toe removes 40-grams of head weight, which allows Fujimoto to create a lower/deeper CG in a classic muscle-back design. The opening is carefully sealed using a particular welding machine to conceal every indication of the process. According to Fujimoto, the most significant difference between the MB-X and a conventional multi-piece hollow head is the MB-X retains an authentic forged feel, whereas other designs might not feel harsh, but fail to feel the same as a true, one-piece forging.

The FT-1 CB is precisely what one would expect given the geometry of the FT-1 MB/MB-X. All things being equal, the FT-1 CB is slightly wider with more perimeter weighting and stronger lofts (45° PW). In place of copper underlay, Fujimoto used a nickel underlay on the FT-1 CB and maintained overall shaping to allow for various combo-set configurations.

Taking the feel conversation to an extreme, Fujimoto spent the last two years developing the QUAD NINE method (only used on the FT-1 TW wedges), which combines 99.99% pure iron steel with a 1020 soft carbon body into a one-piece, forged wedge.

Brief primer – Steel is iron with some amount of carbon. Carbon content and a soft feel are inversely related, though carbon is what makes steel strong. The point is that some amount of carbon is necessary in a forged head, otherwise, while the club might feel down-pillow soft, it wouldn’t retain loft and lie specs with any regular use. QUAD NINE is essentially a layer of pure iron on top of the 1020 body, which gives players the sensation of playing a club with metallurgical properties which aren’t actually viable for use in golf.

Finally, Japanese Kurozome (Tour Black Oxide) finish is applied, and because it’s not a plated-finish, Fujimoto believes the FT-1 TW (big year for those two letters) gives players an unparalleled combination of density and feel.

MOVING ON

Fujimoto is what it might look like to turn back the clock on some of the larger JDM brands and paired the old-school work ethic with an infusion of modern thinking. It’s a throwback family-run operation which may not become the next Epon, Miura, or Mizuno, but there are advantages to remaining small and nimble. Like craft brewers, mass distribution isn’t always appealing, and in fact, can become the antithesis of what makes a brand unique. With that, much of Fujimoto’s story is based on high cost, time-consuming, labor-intensive processes. Though Fujimoto isn’t built it scale up quickly, it does have distribution set up in Europe, Korea, and Singapore with plans to expand into North America in the near future.

GIVEAWAY: Win a Shot Scope V2 prize package

Shot Scope Golf

Enter MyGolfSpy’s Giveaway!

---

Enter Giveaway

At $250-$270/club, Fujimoto is priced quite competitively, particularly as prices for mainline North American brands creep up on $200/club for stock configurations. But dollar amounts aside, what distinguishes Fujimoto from other brands – even within the JDM space – is its balance. There’s a refreshing absence of over-the-top marketing hyperbole, but Fujimoto is still trying to tell a story. It has a long history of producing forged irons and wedges, but little experience doing so as a private label. It has a cultural background rooted in the geographical traditions of a small, blue-collar blacksmith town, but now hopes to expand into markets where larger brands dominate.

The essence of JDM equipment is small market, forged irons and wedges and what Fujimoto offers golfers is the chance to experience a bit of what it was like before mass production became the norm.

Would you give it a go?

The purpose of this study is not to promote a specific club or brand but to discuss and show the merits of custom fitting and how it can make a real performance difference. A Shot Scope user, like many golfers do every season, made the decision to invest in a new driver.

The question posed to Shot Scope: Was the $500 investment worth it?

Firstly, about the driver change. The original driver (Driver_Old) was from a well-known brand and was purchased new in 2009. It had an extra stiff shaft with 9 degrees loft. The new driver (Driver_New) is the latest release from the same brand and has an extra stiff shaft with 10.5 degrees loft.

During the fitting process, multiple drivers and shafts were tested. Driver_New was found to be, on average, 26 yards longer (using a Launch Monitor) than Driver_Old.

Discussing with the golfer, he said that he felt he was playing better with the new driver, and while he had lowered his handicap from 8.8 to 7.2 already this year, he attributed the improvement to other areas of his game.

Looking through his Shot Scope performance data, some things stood out:

It is obvious to see that Driver_New is longer than Driver_Old. Looking at Average Distance it is 17 yards longer. However, if we look at P-Avg (Performance Average), it is only 11 yards longer.

*Shot Scope recommend users typically refer to their P-Avg Distance (Performance Average) as it removes all outliers (good and bad), to give the user a true representation of how far they hit a good shot.

This isn’t the 26 yards he saw during his fitting, but some mitigating factors don’t come through in the performance data. In 2018 summer golf in the UK was played in unusually hard and fast conditions creating some uncharacteristically long drives, including his longest at 352 yards.

GET FIT FOR YOUR GAME WITH TRUEGOLFFIT™

Unbiased. No Guesswork. All Major Brands. Matched To Your Swing. Advanced Golf Analytics matches the perfect clubs to your exact swing using connected data and machine learning.

SEE MY RESULTS

The primary takeaway from the distance statistics is his consistency. Driver_Old had a 36-yard difference between the average and the performance average, whereas Driver_New has reduced that difference to 30 yards. Not only is Driver_New longer, but it also has better distance consistency as well.

This, unsurprisingly, has created increased confidence with Driver_New, resulting in a higher usage % – 27% compared to Driver_Old’s 22%.

Has this resulted in more fairways hit? Well yes!

We can see from his Shot Scope performance statistics that he has increased his fairways hit percentage to 45%, compared to 38% with his previous driver. As well as hitting more fairways, he has reduced his right miss by 14 percentage points, now down to 24% with Driver_New.

Looking into this further, we discover that his misses are, in fact, smaller misses with Driver_New.

His average miss with Driver_New is only 11.7 yards from the fairway whereas with Driver_Old it was 5 yards more off-line at 16.2 yards.

With a more in-depth understanding performance statistics from Shot Scope, we can conclude that Driver_New is longer, more consistent, and more accurate Driver_Old, but the most import question is, did the new driver lower his scoring?

The next area to look into is approach shots:

He has increased his Greens in Regulation by a massive 22% in 2019. Not only this, but he is hitting the ball considerably closer to the pin compared to last year – over 20ft closer! There is little doubt that this is the result of hitting more fairways and being more accurate off the tee with Driver_New. Because of improved driver performance, he’s leaving himself better approach shot positions, with more approaches from fairways and fewer from significantly offline.

As the golfer mentioned, he has lowered his handicap, and the scoring improvements are reflected in the Shot Scope performance data.

Total round scoring has improved by 3.71 shots, with Par 4 and Par 5 scoring both improving due to his better driving and subsequent approach performance.

A great way to show that the improvement can be attributed to Driver_New is through Par 3 scoring, where is performance has remained mostly static.

It is evident that custom fitting can improve scoring, though it should be noted that this case is particularly dramatic because of the 10-year gap in the technology of the drivers.

Most importantly, one Shot Scope user can sleep soundly knowing his $500 investment was worthwhile and can be even more confident in using his driver to find more fairways.

Understanding Shot Scope statistics can help golfers better identify how they can improve their performance while allowing visibility into year over year changes. Knowing how to analyze and leverage your Shot Scope statistics can be hugely beneficial to your game.

For more information on Shot Scope, visit shotscope.com.

GIVEAWAY: Win a Shot Scope V2 prize package

Shot Scope Golf

Enter MyGolfSpy’s Giveaway!

---

Enter Giveaway

Pop Quiz: What’s the hottest OEM on any tour, with its premier staffer winning twice in the past three weeks, plus another half dozen Top Fives this season?

Did you guess Tour Edge? Scott McCarron – this year’s leading money winner on the PGA Tour Champions –  has had the Tour Edge CBX 119 hybrid in the bag for his two recent wins, and Tour Edge is riding the McCarron wave.

Does this wave have room for us mere golfing mortals? We’d like your help to find out.

TESTERS WANTED

The Tour Edge Exotics CBX 119 hybrid features a compact head, and a tall Beta Titanium face, which Tour Edge says makes it a versatile, powerful spin killer. Sound like a hybrid you’d like to bag?

We’re looking for FOUR avid and detail-oriented golfers to test, review and keep a Tour Edge Exotics CBC 119 hybrid, and let our readers know if performance on the Champions Tour translates to performance for the regular Joe.

As per OEM guidelines, this review opportunity is open to any right-handed golfer who calls the U.S.A. home. 

HOW TO APPLY

All of MyGolfSpy’s Community Reviews require a serious commitment on the part of the reviewer. You’ll need to be motivated, detail-oriented, and savvy with online forums. Writing a thorough, detailed, and honest review is a full two-month commitment, so please make sure you read the following instructions carefully and apply in the proper place.

Please note this is not a giveaway or a contest. We’re looking for four golfers committed to making a full evaluation and writing a detailed review for our Community Forum. Testers will be selected based on how well they demonstrate that commitment in the official Forum Application Thread.

That means to be a potential reviewer, you must be a registered member of the MyGolfSpy Community Forum, where you’ll find thousands of like-minded golfers from all over the world anxious to talk about golf equipment.

To apply to test, review, and keep your CBX 119 hybrid, here’s what you have to do:

– First, if you haven’t already, please sign up for the MyGolfSpy Community Forum (click here to register).

– Second, apply ONLY in the Official Exotics CBX 119 Hybrid application thread in the Community Forum (click here to apply)

We’ll be selecting the testers sometime next week, so check back in the forum to see if you have been chosen.

GIVEAWAY: Win a Shot Scope V2 prize package

Shot Scope Golf

Enter MyGolfSpy’s Giveaway!

---

Enter Giveaway

You wouldn’t wear pants over pants to the office, would you? So why do it to play golf?

Wearing multiple layers of clothing on the golf course is a needless inconvenience, but when it comes to rain gear and prepping for inclement weather, better options are often few are far between.

Solving this conundrum is a big part of the reason Galway Bay walked off as MyGolfSpy’s Best Rain Gear of 2018.

It’s not your dad’s rain gear.

Save 10%

Every golf company has its own release strategy, and Titleist’s invariably begins with the tour seeding and validation process. True to form, Titleist is starting the long slow crawl towards the retail release of its TS Hybrids and U-Series utility irons at this week’s Memorial Tournament at Muirfield Village.

According to Titleist, Tour Reps and members of the R&D team will be on-site fitting players into the new clubs and gathering their feedback. Less officially, it’s reasonable to assume that a good bit of the tour staff has already spent some time with the clubs, and while there might be an opportunity for some small tweaks, if we assume a late summer retail date, we should also assume that what we’re looking at is pretty close to the final product.

As per usual, at this stage of the process, Titleist is tight-lipped about the features and advancements, but there’s a bit we can glean from the provided photos.

The TS hybrids will feature two models. The TS3 appears to offer Sure Fit CG adjustability (the same style weight tube provided in the TS drivers and fairways), while the TS2 will be fixed CG design. Presumably, the TS3 will be more compact and workable, while the TS2 will be larger and more forgiving. The provided photos strongly suggest that the PX HZRDUS Smoke will again be among the stock offerings.

The same photos suggest that the U-Series utility iron will also be available in two models (U-500 and U-510). At some point, Titleist will surely explain the nomenclature, but given the entire modern history of golf club design and marketing, I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that footprint, trajectory, and workability/forgiveness will play a leading role in the story.

For my money, over the last several iterations, nobody inside golf’s mainstream has made better hybrids than Titleist. As we’ve discussed previously, the company views them as scoring clubs (as opposed to distance clubs), and that’s reflected in the functionality of the design. While I expect the new models, and the TS2, in particular, will offer enough distance, the strength of Titleist’s hybrids is what the offer with respect to hitting controllable shots into greens.

The U-Series certainly will generate some curiosity, but for golfers who understand how valuable a good hybrid can be on the golf course, the new TS models should bring with them plenty of excitement.

GET FIT FOR YOUR GAME WITH TRUEGOLFFIT™

Unbiased. No Guesswork. All Major Brands. Matched To Your Swing. Advanced Golf Analytics matches the perfect clubs to your exact swing using connected data and machine learning.

SEE MY RESULTS

Stay Tuned

More details as they become available, a good bit of which will likely be leaked on Titleist.com as well as the company’s social media channels.

Dear Reader,

The reason I started MyGolfSpy is because golf magazines were always telling you and me the exact same story.

The story was…every new club that came out was better than the last. Those ads made me sick. They made me sick because they weren’t true. Unlike other industries there were no checks and balances in golf. They could and did say whatever they wanted and the consumer believed them.  NO fact checking, just the same claims. This infuriated me, as I watched you, the golfer, continuously get duped.

When I started the process of testing golf equipment, it proved lots of these claims were a bunch of BS. You can imagine, these big golf companies didn’t like your access to factual information. They continuously tried to take down MYGOLFSPY: legal letters, harassing phone calls, even some inside attacks on the site.

With your help, the industry is changing. Facts are finally becoming more important than advertisements. Testing reigns over claims.  Let’s keep it that way.  To make sure we do that, let’s keep pushing. You are what allows us to get where we can get. You are the reason we do what we do. It’s up to you.

Our mission isn’t over, let’s keep this information open for the foreseeable future and for all golfers.

By supporting our unbiased testing we can do just that.

Sincerely,
Adam Beach
Owner

The post Dear Reader, appeared first on MyGolfSpy.