Testing across categories for an entire year reveals patterns that are easy to miss when looking at individual rankings. These tips are not about winners or trends. They reflect what consistently impacted performance and what made us all smarter in 2025.
Balance was more important than specialization
Across all drivers, clubs, shoes and balls, products that avoided weak areas consistently outperformed those built around a specific feature. Strong results came from stability and consistency rather than dominance in a single metric. One underperforming area repeatedly wiped out some good ones.
Only the MIA did not explain the driver’s apology
The high MOI helped maintain ball speed on off-center hits, but didn’t guarantee a stronger spin. Forgiveness appeared to be a dynamic outcome influenced by head design, shaft pairing, and how players responded to visual cues at address. The MIA contributed to the results, but never explained them itself.
Mini drivers solved a stability problem
Mini drivers it didn’t beat full-size drivers for distance. Their value was shown in launch control and repeatability for players who struggled with standard driver lengths. Testing confirmed that reliability was more important than speed on many tee shots.
The fit of the golf ball was determined by the flight and spin windows
Compression turned out to be a poor starting point for ball selection. Launch, tip height, descent angle and spin speed explained how a ball performed along the bag. Balls that produced playable flight first produced better overall results.
Performance in relative distance mattered more than totals
Some golf balls are longer than others, but the gap is often less than players expect. Testing showed that while the absolute distances changed with the conditions, the way the balls compared to each other did not. This made relative performance a more useful way to estimate distance.
The unconventional tire design didn’t hurt performance
Zero torque insert looked unfamiliar, but their performance remained competitive in the test group. The spread from best to worst was narrower than both the blade and hammer categories.
Subjective appeal was a poor predictor of outcomes
Putters (and other equipment) that were highly rated for look and feel did not consistently perform better. Several models with lower subjective scores finished near the top of the performance rankings. Visual preference failed as a reliable way to predict test scores.
Lower-priced devices often excel in one area, not all
In many categories, the lower-priced products often delivered outstanding performance in a single metric such as distance or forgiveness. What they struggled to do was maintain that level in all areas measured. Testing showed that peak performance was easier to find than balanced performance.
The simpler design often gave better real-world performance
Across rangefinders, GPS devices, and golf bags, added features didn’t always improve usability or scores. Clean optics and fast target acquisition were more important than advanced modes on rangefinders, while reliable stance mechanisms proved more important than pocket structures and extra features on golf bags.
Post We tested a year’s worth of the device. That’s what mattered most appeared first on MyGolfSpy.
