For most of the history of golf, driver faces have been made from just two categories of material: wood and metal. On the metal side of the equation, steel was the standard (it still is for fairway woods) but largely gave way to titanium decades ago. TaylorMade’s Japanese-market Gloire was arguably the first departure, a carbon fiber face that, years later, would evolve into the global Stealth line. In those applications, carbon is the structural face material.

It replaces the titanium.

What Mizuno has done with Nanoalloy is something different entirely: a polymer layer bonded to the front of a titanium face, augmenting it rather than replacing it. It’s a distinction that matters more than you might think and it also helps explain why titanium is the material around which the governing bodies’ equipment rules were built.

And those rules—misunderstood though they may be—are the reason so many golfers believe it’s impossible for any new driver to be faster than what existed on the day the rules were written.

Read the comment section on any new driver post and you’ll find that many still cite the COR limit of .830, which—and some of you will be shocked to learn this—hasn’t been the testing standard since 2003.

What follows is a deeper look at how the USGA actually tests driver faces and why those tests may not fully capture what alternative face materials can do. If you’d rather skip the regulatory deep dive and get straight to the material science, jump ahead to “So what is Nanoalloy, exactly?” I won’t be offended. But if you enjoy the nerd shit—pendulums, correction factors, and other aspects of how the USGA and R&A decide what’s conforming—we’ve got you covered.

What the rules actually say (and why they might not say enough)

In 2003, the USGA swapped the cannon-based COR test for a pendulum-driven Characteristic Time (CT) test. The current limit sets CT at 239 microseconds with an 18-microsecond tolerance which means 257 technically is still conforming.

Here’s the key: that CT limit was extrapolated based on the relationship between COR and CT as it was understood at the time. Oh, and it was based on titanium faces. Again … at the time. Functionally, it’s a best guess and, by all accounts, a good one but at any given CT value, actual COR can vary by roughly .010. In real-world terms, that’s roughly four yards of carry distance hiding inside the tolerance of the test itself.

The CT test measures face behavior using a small pendulum swinging at roughly one meter per second. Your driver hits the ball at 30 to 54 meters per second. For titanium, the low-speed proxy works because titanium behaves more or less the same way at any speed. But materials with different viscoelastic properties (materials whose stiffness changes based on how fast you load them) interact with a pendulum differently than they interact with a golf ball at 160 mph of ball speed.

To attempt to close the loophole, the USGA has a correction factor for coatings. It’s impressive math built by very smart people but it doesn’t self-correct for every new thing.

The pertinent detail here is that Mizuno’s Nanoalloy sheet gets treated as a coating under the USGA’s protocol but the behavior is arguably closer to that of an insert.

By the numbers, the JPX ONE is comfortably conforming under CT. That’s not the issue. The issue is that what the CT test measures and what Nanoalloy actually does at impact may not be the same conversation. To understand why, you have to understand the material itself.

(Was that a lot? It felt like a lot. But stay with me because this is where it starts to matter.)

So what is Nanoalloy, exactly?

Ok, nerds:

Nanoalloy is a polymer technology developed by Toray Industries, a Japanese materials science company with more than 100 patents in the space. At its core, it’s a nylon-family alloy: Toray’s proprietary microstructure control technology combines two polymers at a nanometric scale, creating a material with properties neither has on its own.

The mechanism: one of those polymers, polyrotaxane (its molecular bonds slide in response to external force), is dispersed among 10-nanometer crystals of the other, PA6 (that’s Nylon 6 for the non-materials-scientists among us, which is to say nearly all of us). The structure was validated at SPring-8, one of the world’s largest synchrotron radiation facilities, which confirmed the material suppresses changes in PA6’s crystal structure under load.

Oof. Let’s try and simplify that more than a little bit.

All you really need to understand is that Nanoalloy is firm when it’s sitting still. At impact, it softens. Mizuno’s Director of Golf Chris Voshall offered what might be the most relatable analogy: “Remember the goop you used to play with in science class, made from cornstarch and water? It was a liquid until you’d smack it and then it would firm up. This is the exact opposite.”

The technical term is “non-linear material response.” Unlike titanium, the stiffness of the Nanoalloy material isn’t a fixed value. It changes based on how fast you load it. At rest, it behaves like a firm engineering plastic. Under the extreme force of a driver impact, it becomes highly elastic and flexible. And, critically, Mizuno says this behavior is consistent regardless of swing speed. Whether you’re a 75 mile-per-hour swinger or a 100 mile-per-hour swinger, the material responds the same way.

If this concept sounds at least a little familiar, that might be because it’s the same foundational physics behind Bridgestone’s REACTIV IQ urethane cover which uses impact modifiers (originally developed in Bridgestone’s tire division) to make the ball cover respond differently at different impact speeds: softer at wedge speeds for greenside spin, firmer at driver speeds for reduced spin and more ball speed. Same rate-dependent viscoelastic principle, opposite application. Bridgestone is tuning the ball. Mizuno is tuning the face.

From Japanese baseball to the JPX ONE

The concept didn’t start on a golf course. It started with a baseball bat.

Mizuno’s Japanese engineers drew inspiration from a bat called the Beyond Max, a Japanese-market product with a thick, soft coating on the barrel. The baseball itself isn’t particularly energy efficient (it deforms a lot at impact and doesn’t return that energy well) so the coating on the bat was engineered to absorb the deformation instead and return it far more efficiently than the ball could on its own. Mizuno has sold, by Voshall’s estimate, roughly a billion of those bats in Japan. They’re also, for what it’s worth, banned by pretty much every sanctioning body in the United States.

The leap to golf required some recalibration. A golf ball is more energy efficient than a baseball so the gains are more incremental but the principle is identical. If the face can absorb some of the deformation that would otherwise compress the ball, you reduce the energy lost in that compression.

Compression versus propulsion

This is the core of the Nanoalloy story.

Every driver impact is a collision governed by compression. The ball compresses against the face, the face flexes, and both return energy as the ball launches. But compression isn’t free. Not all of the energy that goes into deforming the ball comes back out. Some of it converts to heat, some to sound, some to internal friction within the ball’s layers. That’s why a lower-compression ball is slower: more deformation, more energy lost in directions that aren’t forward.

Mizuno says Nanoalloy reduces how much the ball deforms in the first place. Because the polymer layer softens under impact, it absorbs deformation that would otherwise go into compressing the ball. The ball, in effect, behaves as if it were higher-compression, maintaining more of its spherical shape through impact and losing less energy to deformation.

Voshall frames it as a shift from compression to propulsion. “Compression is built-in energy loss. If you can stop the compression and put all that energy straight to propulsion, you gain the energy that would’ve gone toward compression which ultimately leads to ball speed loss.”

The theoretical pinnacle? “Your ball plays like an infinite compression ball. Your ball compresses none. That’s the pie in the sky. Physics won’t let you get there. But that would be the ultimate execution. Energy goes straight from the driver to a fully spherical ball that stays in that state the entire way.”

You’re never going to eliminate ball compression entirely. But if you can reduce it, even by a few percent, you’re recapturing energy that other drivers in the market are losing. And you’re doing it without touching the face itself, without changing the ball, and without running afoul of any rule on the books. You’re just changing what happens in the fraction of a millisecond between the two.

What Nanoalloy does on a driver face

On the JPX ONE, Nanoalloy is applied as a roughly 0.4-millimeter polymer sheet bonded on top of a forged titanium face. That’s where the engineering gets interesting.

The Nanoalloy layer allows Mizuno to make the underlying titanium face roughly 10 percent thinner than the previous ST-MAX generation. The JPX ONE face ranges from 3.4mm at the center to 1.8mm at its thinnest points. That thinner titanium, combined with the Nanoalloy’s energy-return properties, expands what Mizuno calls the CORAREA (the high-speed rebound zone) by more than 15 percent compared to the ST-MAX.

Here’s a nuance that gets overlooked: titanium is plenty strong. A thin face isn’t going to fail on a single swing. Strength was never the question. Two other things are.

The first is the rulebook. Push a face thin enough to chase speed and it tends to come in over the COR limit. “The first sample of almost every driver we get always comes in at like 0.84 COR,” says Voshall. “It’s always too high. And then you’re like, where do I thicken this up to get it within the rules?”

The second is fatigue which is a different animal than strength. Strength is how a face survives one impact. Durability is how it survives 100,000 of them. A face can ace every speed test on day one and still develop micro-cracks months down the road. That’s the constraint that usually dictates how thin a manufacturer is willing to go.

The Nanoalloy layer acts as a stress shield, absorbing impact forces that would otherwise go directly into the titanium. That means the titanium flexes less, fewer micro-fractures over time, and less CT creep. That’s the gradual loosening of the face that all titanium drivers experience with use. Competitors have to start further from the CT ceiling to account for that creep. Mizuno says it can start tighter to the limit because the face isn’t degrading the same way.

And then there’s the weight. The thinner titanium plus the lightweight Nanoalloy sheet frees up discretionary mass which is what allows the JPX ONE and its lower-spinning sibling, the JPX ONE SELECT, to play genuinely different from one another rather than being subtle variations of the same theme.

Designing from the face forward

For decades, driver design has been a face-back exercise. You have a titanium face, constrained by the USGA’s CT limit, and all of your design work happens behind it. Internal weighting, sole geometry, carbon crown panels, adjustable hosels. Everything is about what’s behind the face because the face itself was effectively a fixed variable. You could vary thickness profiles and tweak the alloy but the fundamental material was always titanium and it was always bumping up against the same regulatory ceiling.

Nanoalloy changes that equation. For the first time, Mizuno can design from the face forward.

Voshall drove the point home: “When ball hits titanium, there’s so much that’s locked. By working on the opposite side of the titanium, by working in between, you’re changing more than you are if you’re working behind [the face].”

As is often the case with golf equipment, we’re talking sub-millimeters of opportunity here but in a category where manufacturers fight over fractions of a mile per hour, that’s enough to matter. The ability to manipulate what happens at the point of impact, before the energy even reaches the titanium, is a design frontier that simply didn’t exist before. Multi-thickness Nanoalloy layers, different material blends, additional coatings on top of the Nanoalloy. Mizuno is already exploring all of it.

And because the JPX ONE is conforming with room to spare, the runway for iteration exists within the rules. Mizuno doesn’t have to squeeze out marginal gains within a nearly tapped-out regulatory window. In theory, there’s space to push.

The current constraint isn’t speed or CT; it’s actually the USGA’s hardness rule. There has to be a firm, hard face at rest, and the USGA has a hardness measurement to enforce it. Mizuno tried going thicker with the Nanoalloy but it didn’t pass. So the next evolution isn’t just about making the Nanoalloy thicker. It’s about finding ways to maintain static hardness while increasing the dynamic elasticity. And it’s only possible because Mizuno put something in front of the face.

What we found in the data

In our 2026 Most Wanted driver test, the JPX ONE ranked third out of 42 drivers for how much additional ball speed it generates per additional mph of swing speed. And the consistency of that conversion ranked fifth. In plain terms: the JPX ONE squeezes more ball speed out of your swing than almost anything else in the field and it does it consistently.

That shows up in how the club scales with speed. At 110 mph of club speed, the JPX ONE climbs to 10th in predicted ball speed. The faster you swing it, the more it separates from the field. Every extra mile per hour of swing speed pays off more with this club than with 39 others.

The combination of a strong energy transfer rate, consistent conversion and a head that helps you find the center paints a picture that’s consistent with what a face designed to reduce energy loss should do. The speed you give it goes further and the more you give, the more you get back.

Off the panel and into a fitting

A standardized panel test is one kind of truth. A fitting is another. So Mizuno fit two of us, Chris Nickel and me, for the JPX ONE and turned us loose against our gamers.

My fitting started where a lot of golfers wouldn’t expect: the Shaft Optimizer. Most people think of it as an iron-fitting tool but the same technology drives Mizuno’s metalwood fittings, too. Feed it your swing and it returns a recommended head, a recommended shaft and, if you let it, a recommended Mizuno golf ball.

I did what I always do and second-guessed the machine. I talked my fitter into going off the list, worked through a handful of alternatives and then, much to my own annoyance, landed right back on the Optimizer’s No. 1 pick: the Tensei Blue. I won’t pretend the top recommendation is the right answer for every golfer. But with so many heads and shafts in play, a tool that reliably cuts through the sea of options and gets you to a good answer faster is worth more than people give it credit for. Mine just took the scenic route to the same destination.

As for the head-to-head, the speed is real. Against my gamer, ball speed was a dead heat. Chris saw the same thing against his. Both of us were playing Titleist GT3 at the time. There was enough overlap in our two sets of numbers that if you mixed them together, you’d never sort out whose was whose by speed alone. Whatever else you want to say about Nanoalloy, the speed showed up in the bay.

For me, the bigger surprise was the flight. The JPX ONE took the right side of the golf course out of play. The tee shots that normally flirt with trouble simply didn’t. And when you’ve got speed and a ball that reliably finds fairways, you’re able to start pulling additional levers.

There’s one number I’d still like to see come down. The JPX ONE spins a touch more than I’d ultimately want. That’s the opportunity, not the problem. When speed and dispersion are already on your side, the levers are everywhere: loft, shaft length, head weight, even the SELECT if your miss runs opposite mine. (The standard ONE erased my right side so its fade-biased sibling isn’t my answer but for a player who fights the left it might be the whole thing.) None of that is a knock. It’s a roadmap and for a brand that’s spent years as an afterthought in the driver category, it’s a genuinely compelling place to start.

And it’s worth remembering this is the first driver built around an entirely new face material or, I suppose, face coating. Rev 1 of something that works is never the final version. What I saw in my fitting, and subsequently on the course, wasn’t the ceiling. It was likely much closer to the floor.

It’s the reason why the JPX ONE is one of my favorite new drivers of 2026. I’ll concede I did not expect that.

What this could mean going forward

Mizuno isn’t claiming the JPX ONE dusts TaylorMade and Callaway for raw ball speed in Year One. Voshall is refreshingly candid about that. What Mizuno has done is introduce a fundamentally different approach to driver face design. One that changes the physics of the collision itself, opens up new design space in front of the face, reduces CT creep, frees up discretionary mass, and gives them a technological runway that working behind a titanium face alone can’t offer.

“Everything is not as optimized or as maximized as we’re led to believe in the golf industry,” Voshall said. “Everyone said 0.83 COR has been there forever. You can’t go beyond that. But 0.83 was driven by all of these known collision aspects. If you can change that collision, maybe you can change what 0.83 means and what you can get out of it.”

In a category where the gaps between the best drivers are measured in fractions of a mile per hour, the more interesting question isn’t who’s a hair faster this season. It’s who’s found a genuinely new way to get there. A company that’s figured out how to reduce what every other driver in the field is losing at impact is onto exactly that, and it’s the kind of thing a single test was never going to capture in full.

Golfers invariably latch onto speed. But behind almost every real leap forward is a material story. Wood gave way to steel. Steel gave way to titanium. Every time, the distance everyone was chasing moved because someone changed what the club was made of. Nanoalloy could be the next frontier. Whether it proves to be the answer or just the start of one, it’s the rarest thing in this category: a driver story that’s actually about something new.

The post The Science Of Speed: How Mizuno’s Nanoalloy Face Changes What’s Possible In Driver Design appeared first on MyGolfSpy.

Golf is exercise, connection to family and friends, an escape from reality and much more. Here at MGS, we’re obsessed with it. For the most part, we love how the game has evolved over time from the technological advances to the relaxed dress codes to the inclusivity.

But there is no doubt that not every trend in golf is favorable. Some of them are downright frustrating.

As the official staff curmudgeon/traditionalist, I have plenty of opinions about trends that I think are annoying.

These are the seven that tick me off the most.

7. Tee times too close together

While you could argue this problem has always existed on some level, the pandemic boom has emboldened more courses to jam tee times into a tighter time frame.

We’re talking about tee times every seven to nine minutes rather than every 10-12 minutes (and, yes, it does make a difference).

When you start shrinking the gap in tee times, you are creating a logjam that lasts the entire day. It makes the round longer and the experience is considerably worse.

This is just greedy. Courses could spread out the tee times appropriately rather than sacrificing the golfer experience just to stretch their profit margins.

Unfortunately, many courses don’t see it that way.

6. Ball marks not fixed

I wrote about this last year if you want a deeper dive on my rant.

The short summary is that ball marks are not being fixed at a much higher rate than we’ve seen in previous generations. There has been a general decline in etiquette (a theme on this list) and many new golfers aren’t even aware that you are supposed to fix ball marks (or how to do it properly).

This issue is tough because it affects everyone. When less golfers fix their ball marks, course health declines. Balls don’t roll as smoothly and more putts are missed.

My general rule is that I always try to fix one more ball mark than I left. Miss the green, fix one ball mark. Hit the green, fix two ball marks. Leave the course better than you found it.

5. Obnoxious hats with big-letter acronyms

To be clear, I don’t really care what you wear. Do whatever you want.

However, that doesn’t mean I can’t make fun of apparel trends. These big-letter acronym hats—and their cousins, the upside-down lettering hats—have reached a boiling point for me.

Look, apparel trends change. I understand. I like a lot of modern golf apparel trends.

The hats are not one of them. They just don’t look good. Everyone and their mom is trying to copy the same version. Maybe clubs should be working on something original instead of copying a trend.

You know it’s bad when the Masters is coming out with “EGG SALAD” hats (thankfully they didn’t shorten it to “EGGSLD”).

On the flip side, I do love how the 90s’-style hats are coming back into fashion. Let’s get that trend cooking even more.

4. Blasting music too loud on the course

Let me preface this by saying that I don’t mind music on the course.

It’s not my personal preference—I golf for some peace and quiet—but people wanting to play golf with some music isn’t a trend that bothers me.

What does bother me is when the music volume reaches asinine levels.

If you can hear the music from two fairways over, it’s too loud.

Your music should be able to be heard by your group and your group only. Don’t subject everyone else on the property to your personal choice of wanting to listen to music during the round.

3. Crowds becoming more belligerent at tour events

We just saw this during the U.S. Open as the gallery was openly rooting against Wyndham Clark.

I got some pushback for the opinion that hate for him crossed the line as the crowd was shouting for his ball to get in a bunker or roll off the green. I still stand by that: golf should have decorum above other sports where that kind of behavior is tolerated.

This isn’t just about the U.S. Open. Last year’s Ryder Cup was abysmal. The crowd got personal and someone even threw a beer at Rory McIlroy’s wife.

The Players Championship and RBC Heritage crowds this year openly rooted against Matthew Fitzpatrick just because he’s not American. I don’t understand that.

I have enjoyed the Phoenix Open in past years and think that kind of environment is fun to have once per year, but even Phoenix has jumped the shark with how wild the event has become.

Pro golf is just in a weird place with its crowds. Drinking is encouraged and there are side effects from that.

2. Practice ranges raising prices for mediocre range balls

Obviously, everything is more expensive now. Green fees are up, equipment prices are up, golf resort prices are insane, etc.

So you could argue that the annoying trend is inflation or golf just becoming so ridiculously expensive. That’s fair, although the issue extends to a lot of products and services outside of golf as well.

For this one, I am going to pick on driving range prices.

My local range just raised the price of a large bucket from $15 to $20. These are mediocre range balls that haven’t been replaced in years. Half of them are scuffed. Even the best range ball in the bucket is a below-average ball. And we’re either hitting off of mats or poorly maintained grass.

There weren’t any improvements at the range. They are the same balls. But the range can change the price because demand isn’t going to fall over a few bucks.

With other parts of golf, you can kind of justify the purchase. A driver costs $600 but you are getting a great driver. A round of golf costs $140 but you are getting a nice round of golf. Maybe you are overpaying but you are receiving something worthy.

It’s just insulting to be paying 20 percent more for a product that has only deteriorated.

1. Everyone trying to become a YouTube golf influencer

I want to clarify this one because I don’t want this to be misconstrued.

I really enjoy YouTube golf. It’s beneficial for the game. The top channels are highly entertaining. At this point, there is something for everyone. If you prefer comedy, it’s there. If you want to watch outstanding golf, it’s there. If you like a niche such as architecture or travel, it’s there.

The trend I find annoying is the depth of content creators, the influencer culture and the idea that anyone who can break 100 should get out their camera to try to make their own YouTube channel.

There are just so many channels at this point. If you don’t stand out in a meaningful way, it’s a lot of shouting into the void.

I get that some people genuinely enjoy recording themselves and like the process of editing a video together. It’s more of a side hobby to keep busy. Views aren’t that important. It’s like a digital journal of your golf journey. That makes sense.

But there are a lot of people out there who are just doing it to make money. They will bend over backwards to try to make viral clips. They will collaborate with anyone to gain exposure. It becomes more and more artificial.

There is a fine line to straddle with all of this, but I think the influencer chase has gone off the deep end.

What do you think is the most annoying trend in golf?

Let me know below in the comments.

Top Photo Caption: Golfers wait for the green to clear before playing their shot. (GETTY IMAGES/Pete Kiehart)

The post The 7 Most Annoying Trends In Golf appeared first on MyGolfSpy.

I’m a professional shoe tester. I’ve worn and tested well over 120 pairs of golf shoes in the past four years. This year alone, I tested more than 45 pairs.

There are a lot of good ones and a few bad ones. And, of course, a few hidden gems that no one is talking about (but should be).

If you’re in the market for a new pair of golf shoes, don’t be afraid to give these three pairs a try.

1. Skechers Blade Tour SI

I know, I know. I talk about Skechers a lot. But you would, too, if you had worn something so darn comfortable. The Skechers Blade Tour SI is hands-down the best spiked golf shoe of the year, yet you barely see anyone wearing it.

Give this on a go; you won’t be disappointed.

2. TravisMathew NuAge Mega

I’ll be you didn’t even know TravisMathew makes a golf shoe. But they do and it’s glorious. It’s probably the most cushioned golf shoe I’ve ever worn so if you want something with Hoka-like comfort, this is the one to get.

3. Under Armour Drive Pro Clone

Yet another big name that no one is talking about. Under Armour has quietly revived its golf line over the last few years and the culmination of its work has led to a pretty incredible product in the Drive Pro Clone.

It’s got some of the best material/fabric tech on the market (just Google what Clone is) and they fit so darn good.

The post I Tested 45 Golf Shoes This Year. These 3 Aren’t Getting Nearly Enough Love appeared first on MyGolfSpy.

So we tested all four in our 2026 Most Wanted driver test alongside 38 other drivers. What came back was clearer than expected. The GT lineup actually sorts itself out pretty neatly by swing speed.

If you swing under 90 mph

GT1 ranked ninth overall out of 42 drivers in our slow-speed testing, the best result of any GT model in this bucket. The reason is forgiveness. GT1 posted a strong forgiveness score and a 95.2 percent playable shot rate. Nearly every shot our testers hit ended up somewhere manageable.

GT2 led the GT lineup in total distance at slow speeds with 200.8 yards. However, the forgiveness score was much lower. That’s what pushed it to 18th in the full field. If you’re a slower swinger who makes consistent contact, GT2 is worth considering. If you miss the center of the face more than you’d like, GT1 is the smarter call.

If you swing 90 to 105 mph

GT2 ranked 10th in the full 42-driver field at mid speeds. The numbers tell you why: 253.6 total yards, a forgiveness score of 92.5, and 83.8 percent playable shots. It’s the only GT model at mid speeds that scores well for distance and forgiveness.

GT3 edged GT2 on raw distance by a few yards but its straight-shot rate dropped to 45.0 percent. For a mid-speed player who hits it consistently, GT3 is a legitimate option. For everyone else, the forgiveness gap is likely too much.

The GT1 ranked closer to the bottom of the list. It had the highest spin rate of any GT model at mid swing speeds. If you swing 90 to 105 mph and you’ve been playing a GT1 because it seems like the safe choice, the data says it’s the wrong one.

If you swing over 105 mph

The GT3 ranked third overall out of 42 drivers, the best result of any GT model across any speed bucket in the entire test. It led on distance at 293.2 yards, posted a 77.0 percent playable shot rate and a high forgiveness score. At fast speeds, GT3 isn’t just a good driver. It’s one of the best options in the market.

GT4 ranked sixth and had a 52.4 percent straight shot rate. If shot-shaping performance is your priority, GT4 is the pick. For most fast swingers who want the full package, GT3 is the better call.

GT2 at fast speeds is worth a specific mention. It ranked 37th in the field with a playability rate of 61.9 percent. The spin characteristics become a liability when club speed increases. It’s the clearest example in this test of how much swing speed changes what a driver does.

The bottom line

For a full look at how each of these Titleist drivers did in their test, here are the complete results:

• Best Drivers Slow Swing Speeds 2026
• Best Drivers Mid Swing Speeds 2026
• Best Drivers Fast Swing Speeds 2026

The post Which Titleist GT Driver Is for You? We Tested All Four. appeared first on MyGolfSpy.

Not only did I wear the soles out quicker than Usain Bolt on a random Tuesday but this process repeated several times per year. The activity level was obviously different back then but there were plenty of tell-tale signs that led to purchasing new shoes.

Golf footwear is similar. You’ll reach a point that clearly signals that you need new golf shoes. As a kid, you can manage with a little hole in the toe or a slight reduction in traction. As a golfer, that slight reduction in traction might be the difference between driving the green on your favorite par-4 or slipping and hitting it O.B.

There are plenty of signs but today I’m going to give you two obvious reasons to buy new golf shoes ASAP.

Traction is worn down/gone completely

If the traction is worn down, torn or gone altogether, you need new golf shoes. Pay special attention to the toes and the heels as they are the main areas that need top-tier traction.

If you wear spiked shoes, examine the spikes. If they’re ripped, asymmetrical or missing, you’re losing traction which hurts your golf swing.

A simple trick to extend the life of spikes is avoiding concrete as much as possible and bringing a pair of shoes to slip into when walking through the parking lot.

Your removable insoles are fried

The best golf shoes feature premium removable insoles to increase comfort.

While the removable insoles are a major bonus in terms of comfort, they can be more prone to deterioration. So it’s important to examine them regularly for wear and tear.

Typical wear and tear might look like thinning of the removable insole, tearing at the sides or a lingering stench.

Golf shoes that are built to last

I know you’re probably wondering: “What golf shoes hold up the longest?”

I’ve got a few durable recommendations for you, fresh off our testers’ feet.

NIKE Free Golf NN

The NIKE Free Golf NN may not be the best golf shoe but it’s built to last.

One of our testers said he “rotates shoes, but I’m still playing in two pairs that I broke in during 2024, so a single pair will last more than a full season of 60+ rounds. Probably 90% are walking rounds.”

More than a full season with ~90% walking is solid. If you play a similar amount of golf, you should buy 2 pairs and let both propel you through 2-3 seasons. If you play less than 60 rounds of golf per year, the NIKE Free Golf NN should last you longer than the aforementioned golfer.

If you’re looking for dependability mixed with slightly above-average performance, the NIKE Free Golf NN is a great fit.

Under Armour Drive Pro Clone

The Under Armour Drive Pro Clone is another great contender in terms of durability.

The Under Armour team added special emphasis on the upper and the traction, two things that directly correlate with how long you will game the Drive Pro Clone.

Assuming you treat them right, the spikes should last you long enough to play more than enough golf to justify purchasing the Drive Pro Clone.

PAYNTR Reserve Classic SL

The PAYNTR Reserve Classic SL is built to last with a solid and comfortable fit and a spikeless traction pattern that outperforms most other spikeless golf shoes. The Reserve Classic SL performed well in this year’s testing pool, notching the “Editor’s Pick” badge.

Our testers noted that “there are few traction patterns out there that hold up to PAYNTR’s spikeless outsole.” PAYNTR is also offering MyGolfSpy readers 10% off with code MYGOLFSPY.

Parting thoughts

Do your research and add durability to your list of importance when it comes to selecting new golf shoes.

Aside from sneaker-heads, no one wants to go through the process of buying new golf shoes every year. And with proper selection and care, you shouldn’t have to. We research more than 50 different golf shoes every year to make sure you are properly equipped when making your decision.

If these options don’t appeal, here are the best spiked and spikeless golf shoes of 2026.

The post 2 Red Flags You Need New Golf Shoes appeared first on MyGolfSpy.

You’ll see TaylorMade’s influence in the new TAG Heuer smart watch and TAG Heuer’s influence in TaylorMade’s Spider ZT.

The chocolate is in the peanut butter and the peanut butter is in the chocolate.

If a fancy smart watch and a fancy putter are not enough to pop your monocle, there are also a number of co-branded soft goods including hats, golf glove, watch roll, and a very suave travel valise.

That bag is a looker but the shining stars of the TAG Hauer-TaylorMade collaboration are the watch and the putter.

TAG precision in a TaylorMade package

The TAG Heuer Connected Calibre E5 45 mm x TaylorMade Edition is a handsome smart watch. The build begins with the TAG Heuer Connected Calibre E5 golf edition watch. 

I reviewed the TAG Heuer Connected golf watch back in 2023. I found the watch to be comfortable, and informative on the course. My only concerns were the high price ($2,500) and the battery life on the course.

One of those things has not changed. Well, a little. The TAG Heuer Connected Calibre E5 45 mm x TaylorMade Edition is $2,550.

However, the literature says this new edition possesses a more robust battery. That would be a game changer. The version I tested was the E3 model. It struggled to finish a round if you had the brightness too high or too many notifications turned on.

This quote from the press release makes me think that the battery life is no longer an issue.

Battery performance is structured across several modes, including up to two days in performance mode, up to three days in low power mode, and up to 17 hours in sport mode, with up to 12 hours dedicated to golf. Fast charging provides one day of use in 30 minutes.

Twelve hours of golf charge should be enough to get you through 36 holes (even on a weekend). The 30 minute fast-charge speed is a huge improvement over the E3 where that number was closer to 90 minutes.

Even if we ignore all of the TaylorMade coolness, the battery spec upgrade makes me want to take one of these to the course. All of the cool TAG Heuer golf features without the fear of a dead battery? Sign me up.

The TaylorMade Touch

The new TAG Heuer Connected Calibre E5 45 mm x TaylorMade Edition has more than just a better battery. The titanium case is blasted to match the metallic look of golf equipment. Watch collectors, take note that this is the first Connected Calibre E5 not to have a black coating.

The bezel, crown and strap feature TaylorMade logos. The bezel is also engraved with 18 “holes.”

As per usual, the watch automatically tracks your strokes but now it also analyzes your play data using TaylorMade algorithms. Your play data is converted into Strokes Gained numerics, allowing you to identify your game’s strengths and weaknesses.

The watch also works off the course. There are two unique digital faces associated with the TAG Heuer Connected Calibre E5 45 mm x TaylorMade Edition. Both faces incorporate golf themes and TaylorMade branding.

Additionally, you can select complications related to your golf game to display on the always-on face. Your watch can celebrate your longest recorded drive or remind you how long it has been since you have been to the course.

TAG Heuer x TaylorMade Spider ZT

Swinging in the other direction, we have the TAG Heuer-influenced TaylorMade Spider ZT. The Spider ZT has a TAG Heuer logo as the alignment aid and its color scheme matches the TAG Heuer Connected Calibre E5 45 mm x TaylorMade Edition watch.

The watch collaboration is more nuanced than the Spider ZT but the combination of TAG and TM aesthetics produces a very unique-looking putter. Did you notice that the weights were all watch dials?

If you are a fan of both brands but you lack the funds for the watch, the co-branded Spider ZT is a nice second option.

What do you think? Have TAG Heuer and TaylorMade collaborated to produce something truly special or is their best collaboration still their shared brand ambassador Tommy Fleetwood?

I think the watch looks amazing and I really want to see how the new battery performs on the course. The putter and bag are quite fetching as well.

All of the collaboration products are available today at TaylorMadeGolf.com.

The post Is it Time To Check Out What TaylorMade And TAG Heuer Have Dialed Up? appeared first on MyGolfSpy.

I’m not a numbers guy. The most advanced math I can do is adding 15 plus 8 at the blackjack table in Vegas (bust again). Even figuring out the tip after dinner out stresses me out. Thankfully, math has not been a large part of my life as a writer … until I started playing golf. Now, I have numbers swarming through my head all the time because this game is all about the data. Strokes Gained, swing speeds, spin rates, percentage of greens hit in regulation … all of this hard data adds up to tell you a story about your game. And even though numbers don’t come naturally to me, I’ve become obsessed with them in hopes the figures can help me get better at golf. 

Since starting this project, I’ve experimented with a handful of different tools to gather a variety of figures, tracking every shot of every round in the process. I’ve used Shot Scope sensors and Garmin watches and the new Arccos Air during various rounds. At the range, I’ve incorporated inexpensive launch monitors to uncover the cold, hard facts about my swing so my coach can help me dial in the right movements. 

Can all of this data help me get better at golf? I think so. 

Here’s a look at the gear I’m using to track every aspect of my game, some of the hard numbers I’ve collected and how I think it’s getting me on the right track towards scratch. 

On-Course Data 

As I said, I’ve used a few different devices to track each round but I’ve settled into relying on the Arccos Air as the main tool that’s tracking my shots and steering my progress. If you’ve used club sensors before, the Arccos Air collects the same kind of shot data but without the use of sensors. It learns your yardages and tracks your shots and club choices through a small device in your pocket. 

There is a learning curve to this. I found I had to edit the clubs I used for most shots taken for the first 10 or so rounds until it learned my distances. And you need to set the pin and putting distances for most holes after you’re done, too. I’ve gotten in the habit of looking over each hole after I finish to make sure all of the data it collected is correct. The more I use it, the more it learns my game and the less I have to edit. 

And I really like how Arccos breaks down the data and tells you exactly what aspects of your game are on fire and where you need to focus your attention. That might sound unnecessary—you know if you’re chunking your wedges and if you hit your driver a mile, right? But Arccos takes all of the emotional bias out of the assessment of the game. For instance, before using the Arccos Air, I thought my driver was the club that was holding me back so I spent the majority of my practice time banging out buckets of drivers at the range. But after analyzing the data, the driver is actually the strongest part of my game right now. It’s my putting and approach shots that are killing me. And the Arccos Air gets really specific about which aspects of my approach game and putting are lacking. Specifically, I need to work on approach shots in the 100- to 150-yard range; I’m losing an average of 2.2 strokes per round to scratch golfers in that distance alone in my last three rounds. And putting? My lag putting is OK but putts between six and nine feet are my kryptonite. I’m losing 1.4 shots per round in that distance. I’ve lost track of the number of six-foot birdie putts I’ve missed but that’s OK because the Arccos Air tracks those misses for me. And then it tells me what I need to do to start putting like a scratch golfer by suggesting specific drills. 

For the six footers that I keep leaving on the table, Arccos suggests I take the practice onto the course. During my next nine-hole round, after finishing every hole, it suggests I drop a ball in the five- to eight-foot range to simulate a birdie putt on the course I play the most. The goal is to simulate the pressure of a game and make four out of nine of those extra putts during the round. 

Dialing in the Swing

The club specific data the Arccos collects is helpful, too. Over time, it learns your average full-swing yardage with each club and maps out your dispersion rate. Right now, I have a 29-yard dispersion rate with my driver and pretty much an equal chance to miss to the left or right of the fairway. But because I’m obsessed with the data aspect of this project, I decided to take a small launch monitor onto the course with me during a recent round to collect on-course swing numbers.  

I’ve tried two different moderately priced launch monitors, the Rapsodo and the Garmin Approach R10, and I like both. The Rapsodo has a video component to it so you can get an image of your swing and the ball impact but the Garmin gives you more data, such as spin rates in every direction. It’s also a little smaller so it’s easier to shove in your bag and I feel less like a nerd when I whip it out at the range. 

It takes a couple of minutes to set up for each shot so I don’t use it on the course often and I haven’t collected data for every club yet. But I’ve charted enough on-course swings to help inform an upcoming club fitting. I also discovered I have a weird anomaly in my swing speeds. 

I have pretty good swing speed with my irons (90-92 mph with the 7-iron and gap wedge) but my driver swing speed is lacking. It tops out at 102 and I’m usually in the 98- to 99-mph range. Driver speeds are typically 20 mph faster than iron speeds but that’s not the case here. I’m getting decent distance out of my driver so it’s not high on my priority list to address right now. I need to spend most of my time on the putting green. But I’d like to know why I can swing my irons at high speeds but not the big stick. Usually, it’s the other way around. Is there a kink in my driver technique? Am I just being too cautious on the tee box? My coach thinks it might be a little of both. 

And this is why I’m obsessed with collecting this kind of data. Golf is difficult and overwhelming. There are so many facets of the game an amateur like me needs to work on but the numbers can help guide us through the wilderness and shine a light on what we need to focus on most. At least, I hope it will.

The post Scratch by 50: All About That Data appeared first on MyGolfSpy.

PAYNTR has experienced a similar rise, racking up badge after badge in our Most Wanted golf shoe testing. One of our staffers called the Eighty Seven SC PAYNTR’s “best golf shoe.” Luckily for you, that same model serves as the foundation for the latest collaboration between Sugarloaf Social Club and PAYNTR.

The Eighty Seven SC has been praised for stellar traction and a beautiful design that rivals any premium golf shoe on the market.

The Sugarloaf Social Club collaboration highlights a bona-fide shoe and adds a touch of Sugarloaf’s usual flair. If you’re a fan of what Sugarloaf Social Club is building and the apparel they’ve released up to this point, it might be worth copping a pair.

Limited-edition releases can be complicated. Half of the time, you end up with a poor-performing item that has your favorite brand attached to it. The other half of the time, it ends up being just fine.

With the Eighty Seven SC, you don’t have to guess. It’s a winner every time (especially with Sugarloaf Social Club built in).

Shop the whole collection (including apparel) below.

The post PAYNTR Visits The Sugarloaf Social Club appeared first on MyGolfSpy.

If a golf rangefinder has been on your radar, you’ll want to take a look at these. Two of them are heavily discounted and one is at its normal price (but feels discounted because of the incredible value it provides).

Canon PowerShot GOLF Digital Laser Rangefinder

Normal price: $459.99

Current price: $299.99

The $299.99 price-tag is nearly 35 percent off the original $459.99.

• 6-12x zoom
• Photo/video capture
• Stabilization
• Quick distance readings
• Incredible optics and display

At $299.99, you should consider adding the PowerShot Golf to your bag.

Garmin Approach Z30

Normal price: $499.99

Current price: $349.99

The Garmin Approach Z30 is currently 30 percent off and won the “Staff Pick” badge from the 2026 Most Wanted testing pool.

One cool feature is the technology that can locate your rangefinder if you lose it on the course. If you’re forgetful or it falls out of your cart, this will save you a lot of money.

GoGoGo Sport ZeroIn

The GoGoGo Sport ZeroIn isn’t on sale, it’s just always listed at a good price.

For $149.99, you get a golf rangefinder that scored an impressive 9/10 overall during our testing process.

It gets the job done when it comes to:

• Accuracy
• Speed
• Optics
• Display

The post 3 “MyGolfSpy Approved” Golf Rangefinders On Sale appeared first on MyGolfSpy.

Slow swing speed golfers, those swinging a driver under 90 mph, get lumped in with high handicappers, beginners and slicers as if those are interchangeable categories. They are not.

Swing speed is one variable. Handicap is another. Ball flight is a third. None of them are automatically connected. The assumption that “slow” and “draw-biased” go together shows up in nearly every driver recommendation and roundup you’ll find. Our 2026 Most Wanted driver testing gave us a chance to check that assumption against real data. With 42 drivers tested by golfers swinging under 90 mph, I put three of the draw-biased designs to the test. Here’s how the PING G440 SFT, the Callaway Quantum Max D and the COBRA OPTM Max-D perform for slow swing speeds.

Draw bias didn’t find more fairways

The whole premise of a draw-biased driver for slow swingers is keeping the ball in play.

The PING G440 SFT hit 75.4 percent of fairways in our testing. The Callaway Quantum Max D hit 70.5 and the COBRA OPTM Max-D hit 78.3.

The TaylorMade Qi4D, a neutral driver that ranked second overall in this test, hit 79.5 percent of fairways. The Srixon ZXi Max hit 88.5. Neither carries draw-biased technology.

If the core selling point is accuracy, this data doesn’t support the purchase.

Slow swingers can’t afford to give up distance

Distance is already a challenge when you’re swinging under 90 mph which makes it worth asking what draw-biased drivers cost you in yards.

The three draw-biased drivers averaged 193.9 total yards in our testing. The Titleist GT2, which ranked first overall, averaged 200.2 yards, a six-yard gap on average. The COBRA OPTM Max-D averaged just 191.7 total yards and ranked 41st out of 42 drivers tested, trailing the top driver by 8.4 yards.

For a golfer already working with limited speed off the tee giving up this much distance without a return in accuracy is a tough thing to pay for.

The straight shot numbers tell the same story

Fairways hit is one way to measure accuracy. Straight shot percentage, which tracks the percentage of shots landing in a tight window around the target, is another. The results were consistent.

The PING G440 SFT produced a straight shot 56.4 percent of the time. The COBRA OPTM Max-D came in at 55 percent. The Callaway Quantum Max D hit a straight shot just 44.2 percent of the time, second lowest of all 42 drivers in the test.

For context, the highest straight shot percentage in the test belonged to the LA GOLF driver at 64.8, followed by the Srixon ZXi Max at 64.75.

All three draw-biased drivers also ranked at the bottom of the field in smash factor, meaning they were converting club speed to ball speed less efficiently than the rest of the 42-driver field. The average rank across the three draw-biased drivers was 28th out of 42.

A note before you shop

None of this means draw-biased drivers have no place in the game. If you genuinely cannot square the face and your miss is consistently right (for a right-handed player), a draw-biased driver can provide real relief.

But squaring the face is a skill, one that even the slowest-swinging golfers can develop. Slow swing speed does not make you a slicer by default. The next time you see a slow swing speed roundup stacked with draw-biased options, ask whether that recommendation is built on data or on an assumption that has been repeated so many times it passes for conventional wisdom.

The post Do Slow Swing Speed Golfers Really Need A Draw-Biased Driver? appeared first on MyGolfSpy.