Having read the August edition of Golf World, and in the market for a new driver, I read that the Ignite driver was rated number one after testing by robot. What do you lot make of the Ignite driver. I'm also curious about robot testing, you'd think it would be more reliable than human testing, but then you lose the human factors, like aesthetics and feel. Today's Golfer, using human testers, found that the Ping G2 was the best driver in their opinion. I don't know which one to chose now. I know you should try them out and get them fitted, which I'll try to do, even though I live 30 miles from anywhere that does demo days, but should I splash the cash on Tiger's driver?

I wish I could swing like a robot.

If I could then I would probably buy the best as tested by robots, but for now I guess I'll just have to stick to what works for me.

Another thought, I guess robots are programmed to hit the ball straight, what if you want to fade or draw the ball?

Evan, I was in exactly the same situation as yourself, managed to find a range to try the G2, Ignite and MP001. The G2 was best for me by far (I too read the article about the ignite and it made me question which driver to choose). In the end the G2 was best for me. Most of the shops I spoke with had limited supplies so I couldn't try the loft/shaft combos, but found a Ping demo day nearby where I can try all the different permutations out. Going to find the right G2 combo and then wait 3 weeks and buy the newer G5 with similar specs.

Marcus, robot testing is more accurate than human testing, as there is no inconsistencies or imperfections in the swing, therefore you get more accurate and reliable results regarding the club.

I'm glad you're not in charge of any shuttle missions!

But can you trust the test results? How were the drivers set up? Same shafts? Same lofts? Same swingspeed on the robot? All balls teed up to the same height? Did Golf World instigate the test or was it sponsored/bought by Nike?

The North Western Pro Plus 10 on The Golf Channel quotes robot result testing. It took months and a threat from the Advertising Standards Authority, to get them to add the competition was the original Big Bertha and the Titleist 975D, both pre-titanium clubheads and both mahy years old.

Golf bhoy - I bought the issue of Golf World that had the test in and they did seem to carry it out in a very scientific and fair way. All the drivers were the same lofts and flex of shaft (11° reg I think) and so the results seemed to be legit.

The interesting point of the article was that although the Ignite was the clear winner in the robot tests, practically every one of the human testers picked the G2 as their favourite.

Thanks Stu, just curious. Lack of objectivity in testing is one of the reasons I stopped buying golf mags years ago. I haven't missed them ...

Following this thread I wondered if anyone would show any scepticism about test results from golf magazines.

I work for a manufacturer (not golfing products) and within our industry there are annual awards for the best products of the year, usually reviewed and undertaken by our industry's trade press. It's amazing how the amount of awards my company's products win each year is directly related to the amount of advertising space we buy in that magazine over the year promoting those very same products.

I'm not trying to suggest that the golf publications undertake anything other than unbiased reviews of products, have hidden agendas or relationships with certain manufacturers. But I would say having had first hand experience of how the press works in my industry not to use reviews as the sole basis for any purchase. These should be an influence, rather than the reason to buy.

Thats my point Evan, the robot swing is too perfect. We are all human and we all have inaccuracies. Like I said I wish I could have the 'Perfect' swing to take advantage of the BEST equipment.

You wouldn't volunteer to be the pilot if I was in charge then would you?

Spot on Mike P. In the last year or so independant tests by robots gave us a Srixon XX10, a Mizuno and a Nike Ignite all rated as the 'longest drivers'.

Others like Bang and SMT were never tested, despite being used in the Remax Long drive comps.

I think a shaft upgrade makes far more difference. I would also suspect some manufacturers get their sample driver shaft pured first to achieve such tight shot dispersions.

Some might say that the only fair test would be to keep the club identical except for the head of the club. Therefore you are only changing one unknown at a time. I cannot agree here though.

Yes the clubs should be kept to the same playing length, loft and maybe even swing weight. We know that the robot swings at 100mph every time, with the ball staying the same and the tee height the same. However I disagree that the shaft should be kept the same for every club. We all know that there is no industry standard for what a regular flex is however this doesn’t matter in this case, why not? It doesn’t matter because the robot is attempting to test the golf club as a “package” of which the shaft plays a fair bigger part than the head. Yes it could be argued that we should have another test for the same head with lots of different shafts. However that is another test all together. What the golf magazine is attempting to show is the best driver as a package.

You’re a fool to believe buying an Ignite will make you drive like Tiger. Since the clubs the professionals use on tour are “tour” versions. The difference being chalk and cheese to their poorer mass-produced retail brothers and sisters.

As ever the answer is personal taste more than what has actually been hit the longest by some robot, which coincidentally will hit a perfect shot every time, do you? If you are in the market for a new driver then pop along to your local AGD or other retail park golf shop and try out what would make your top 5 list. Today’s Golfer from what I can tell only vote the G2 better over the R7 on price.

Providing robot testing is done in a fair, consistent and precise way it is the best way of showing a clubs performance. You could argue human testing is more unreliable, as no two human swings are the same and our swings are prone to a million different potential variables. Human testing is better in the sense of feel, sound and aesthetics, but good robot testing will give you the truest performance of the club.

Another thought, and this will send everything into a tiz-woz. Who makes the robot? Nothing in life is perfect!

On the subject of the golfing press. There was a thread posted a while back regarding the top magazines not having any titleist clubs (except for wedges) in their top 10's.
I noticed that neither of the two new Titleist drivers were tested even though they seem to be very popular in the pro ranks. Also in the latest edition of TG there was a rescue club test, where all of the top manufacturers were represented except titleist.
Definitely something not right about this!

The robot knows best,it has tested the contender's (prob only for length from the tee).
If you had the swing of the robot that would be the club for you. Chances are you don't so you might be better of with something more forgiving. Did the robot test for unforgiveness?

P.s in my drunk state the word "unforgivness" does not seem right, is there such a word?

Yes but there is an e after the v.
P.S. drunk at half past six? you must have had a bad day at work :-)

Lol.

georgie, I also noticed they don't have many Cobra clubs in the Top 10's and they weren't included in the rescue test. I assume this is because Cobra and Titleist are owned by the same company (I think!).

Acushnet

Drunk at 6.30, sounds like a good (half) day at work to me

Unforgivability. With or without an 'e'. Without a drink (early tee time tomorrow ...)

I have the Ignite 410 with an aldila NV shaft and I think it is awsome. I have had it in my bag for a year now and can't imagin changing it.
I have tried just about every driver on the market and nothing compares.
Most people slag it of because it's made by Nike and Tiger uses it.