As I worked through the tests, I started counting how many of the winners I had owned or played. Below is the Most Wanted Driver winner from each of the last 10 years.

One important note: Testing methods and tester pools have evolved throughout the decade so this isn’t a head-to-head ranking of all 10 drivers. It’s simply a look at the driver that came out on top in each individual year.

How many have you owned and which one was your favorite?

2026 TaylorMade Qi4D

The TaylorMade Qi4D won through its lack of a significant performance weakness. It ranked sixth for distance and fourth for both accuracy and forgiveness, making it the most complete driver in the 2026 test.

There wasn’t much to criticize in the data. However, the carbon face produces a distinctive sound and feel that still won’t appeal to every golfer, even though the testing group rated it highly overall.

2025 Callaway Elyte Triple Diamond

The Elyte Triple Diamond finished in the top three for distance and accuracy while providing above-average forgiveness. That combination made it much more playable than many golfers would expect from a low-spin Triple Diamond model.

The main complaint was looks rather than performance. A handful of testers didn’t like the transition from the topline into the glossy crown.

2024 PING G430 MAX 10K

MyGolfSpy described the G430 MAX 10K as “absurdly straight” and its 9.7 accuracy score was the highest of the 2024 test. It also finished inside the top 10 for both distance and forgiveness.

The only real performance limitation was distance. It wasn’t short but distance was its lowest-rated category and there were longer drivers in the test.

2023 TaylorMade Stealth 2 Plus

Exceptional distance and accuracy pushed the Stealth 2 Plus into the top spot. It ranked second for distance and performed well enough that it returned the following year and still finished fifth overall in the 2024 test.

Forgiveness was its clear weakness in 2023. Its low-spin, fade-oriented design also means it’s not an automatic fit for golfers who need more launch, spin or help turning the ball over.

2022 PING G425 Max

The G425 Max won primarily because of accuracy and forgiveness. It finished first for accuracy and second for forgiveness, making it one of the most dependable and widely playable winners on this list.

It finished 19th out of 38 drivers for distance so this wasn’t the choice for golfers chasing every possible yard. Testers also had strong opinions about its sound and prominent crown turbulators.

2021 Callaway Epic Max LS

The Epic Max LS finished first in Strokes Gained and forgiveness while ranking fourth for total distance. It nearly doubled the Strokes Gained score of its closest competitor and was the only driver in its high-speed group to produce a 60-percent fairway-hit rate.

Interestingly, it wasn’t one of the leaders in ball speed. Its win was built on what happened after impact rather than simply producing the fastest number off the face.

2020 PING G410 LST

The G410 LST finished first in Strokes Gained and third in driving distance. Testers also found fairways at a high rate, giving it the kind of balanced performance that has made older PING drivers so appealing on the used market.

The LST was designed to reduce spin and offered settings that could help take the left side out of play. That made it highly adjustable but not necessarily the right model for golfers who already launch the ball too low or need additional spin.

2019 Callaway Epic Flash Sub Zero

The Epic Flash Sub Zero ranked first in Strokes Gained and fairway accuracy while finishing second for total distance. It beat the TaylorMade M6 and PXG 0811 XF to claim the 2019 title.

Testers gave it strong marks for its appearance but rated it poorly for sound.

2018 PING G400 LST

The G400 LST finished in the top three for accuracy and distance and was described as an “absolute fairway finder.” It combined low but playable spin with the type of consistency that helped it remain relevant well beyond its original release.

The LST designation is still important. Golfers who naturally create very little spin or need help launching the ball may get better results from a higher-launching, more forgiving version of the G400.

2017 Srixon Z565

The Srixon Z565 was one of the more unexpected winners on this list. It beat the Callaway Big Bertha Epic in a field that also included models such as the TaylorMade M2, PING G LS Tec and COBRA F7+.

The Z565 wasn’t a tester favorite in every respect. Several golfers thought it looked closed at address and weren’t impressed by its sound and feel. It also lacked movable weighting, giving golfers fewer fitting options than several of its competitors.

Which one was your favorite?

Ten years of testing produced four PING wins, three Callaway wins, two TaylorMade wins and one victory from Srixon.

Some of these drivers are still in golf bags. Others can now be found for a fraction of their original price. Winning a previous test doesn’t guarantee that a driver will fit your swing but it’s a pretty good reason not to dismiss it.

How many of these have you owned and which one would you put back in the bag today?

The post The Best Driver From Every Year Of The Last 10 Years. How Many Have You Owned? appeared first on MyGolfSpy.

With a driver, you are mainly checking loft, shaft, flex and condition. An iron set adds club makeup, shaft weight, length, lie angle and grip condition across several clubs. The process can quickly become overwhelming and exhausting.

I wanted this to serve as a starting point for golfers trying to determine whether a good used iron set is even within their price range.

I searched 2nd Swing for iron sets around $500 or less and compared some of the most interesting options with previous MyGolfSpy testing.

The answer is yes.

You just need to know where to look.

Used inventory changes quickly. The prices and configurations below were available during my research but may no longer be listed. Each model name links to 2nd Swing’s current inventory page.

The sweet spot is about three to four years old

Based on the inventory I looked at, the best combination of price, performance and availability generally came from irons released about three to four years ago.

That range included former MyGolfSpy test winners and irons that originally sold for $1,300, $1,500 or more.

We did find some newer models below $500. However, they were more likely to have noticeable wear, unusual specifications or a less common shaft setup. The real target is a three- or four-year-old iron in average condition with specifications that fit your game, if you want to try and spend less than $500.

Used player’s irons under $500

Player’s irons were some of the newest models we found around the $500 mark.

One of the best examples was the TaylorMade 2023 P7MC. The P7MC won the 2024 MyGolfSpy player’s iron test, earning particularly strong scores for accuracy and forgiveness.

I found P7MC configurations ranging from $336.99 for 7-PW to slightly more than $500 for 5-PW. The least expensive options were generally in below-average condition.

Other player’s irons we saw included:

• TaylorMade 2023 P7MB — A 5-PW set for $497.99 in below-average condition.
• PING Blueprint S — Several configurations around $485.99.
• Tour Edge Exotics Pro 723 — A 4-PW set in average condition for $437.99.

If you play player’s irons, $500 may buy something newer than you expect. Just be prepared to find heavier shafts, X-stiff flexes, and customized specifications.

Used player’s distance irons under $500

Player’s distance irons may offer the strongest overall value at this price.

The standout was the Srixon ZX5 Mk II. It won the 2023 MyGolfSpy players-distance iron test and returned in 2024 as one of the most accurate irons in the category.

I found a 7-PW set in average condition for $455.99. Larger configurations were also close to $500 but generally came with more wear.

Other player’s distance examples included:

• PXG 0311 P GEN6 — Multiple configurations between approximately $414 and $475.
• Callaway Rogue ST Pro — A 5-PW and approach-wedge set for $482.99 in below-average condition.
• TaylorMade 2023 P770 — A standard-length 5-PW set for $450.99 in poor condition.
• PING i525 — Several sets close to $500, depending on condition and setup.

Used game-improvement irons under $500

There were plenty of game-improvement options below $500, especially from the 2022 and 2023 model years.

The COBRA LTDx was the longest iron in the 2022 MyGolfSpy game-improvement iron test. It came with some accuracy issues but it was strong from a distance perspective. I found a standard-length 4-PW set for $499.99 in below-average condition. You’ll go over $500 to get a full set like that in better condition.

Other options included:

• XXIO 2022 X — Several 5-PW sets in average condition for $379.99.
• COBRA Aerojet — A 7-PW and gap-wedge set for $337.99 in average condition.
• Wilson Staff Launch Pad 2 — Several configurations between approximately $329 and $453.

COBRA and Wilson both have a lot of inventory and value in this category.

Condition and grips can change the real price

Average-condition irons will typically show normal face wear, scratches and bag chatter damage but should still have plenty of useful life. With poor-condition irons, groove wear becomes a bigger concern.

The grips also need to be included in your budget.

Replacing six or seven grips can add roughly:

• $42 to $49 for basic grips
• $78 to $91 for mid-priced grips
• More than $100 for some premium options

That does not include installation.

A $475 iron set that needs new grips may turn into a $550 purchase. When comparing two sets, look at the face wear and grip condition before assuming the less expensive option is the better deal.

What can $500 really buy?

A $500 budget is enough to buy a good set of used irons.

Looking three to four model years back gives you access to former MyGolfSpy winners, modern player’s distance irons, recent forged player’s irons and plenty of forgiving game-improvement options.

From what I found, the best value will usually be a set that is:

• About three to four years old
• In average condition
• Built with shafts that fit your game
• Close to your preferred length and lie
• Equipped with grips that do not need immediate replacement

If you want a simple place to begin, start with models released in 2022 and 2023.

That appears to be where $500 stops feeling like a restrictive budget and starts giving you some genuinely good options.

The post Can You Get A Good Used Iron Set Under $500? appeared first on MyGolfSpy.

If you’ve been around the game for a while, you probably know you can’t help this shot into the air. The loft of the wedge has to do that for you. Trying to lift it usually brings thin shots, chunks and all kinds of unnecessary manipulation into play.

However, there’s another mistake that’s much easier to overlook: letting the handle get too low at setup.

Continue Improving Your Game

Our instruction content combines insights from equipment testing, data analysis, and golf experts to help golfers improve with evidence-based advice. You’ve fixed one part of your game. These guides help you take the next step.

What tees should I play? Use this chart!

How should the driver sit at address? Many golfers still get this wrong!

If you miss the center of the face, try THESE irons.

Brittany Olizarowicz

SEO Manager & Staff Writer

Why a low handle can cause problems

When you set up to a tight lie with the handle sitting low, the heel of the wedge gets closer to the turf.

That doesn’t give you much margin for error.

If the heel catches the ground first, it can slow or twist the clubhead and cause the leading edge to move into the ball. That’s when you get the shot that shoots across the green or the club bounces into the middle of the ball.

It’s a small setup adjustment but it can change how the club moves through impact.

The Fix: Grip down and raise the handle

Start by gripping down on the wedge.

You don’t necessarily have to go all the way to the bottom of the grip but shortening the club allows you to stand a little closer and get the handle higher.

From there, the wedge sits more upright and the toe becomes more involved with the turf interaction. It’s not a swing fix, just a simple adjustment at setup.

I also like keeping pressure favoring the lead side and making sure the body keeps moving through the shot. You don’t need a lot of wrist hinge or forearm rotation. This is a controlled motion where the arms and chest work together.

Make a few practice swings and pay attention to where the wedge is brushing the turf. If you constantly feel the heel digging, raise the handle slightly, move a little closer to the ball and see if the strike starts to feel cleaner.

Final thoughts

Tight lies don’t give you much room for mistakes which is why small setup details matter.

Most golfers know they shouldn’t scoop or try to lift the ball. The position of the handle is much easier to miss.

The post The One Pitch Shot Mistake I Try To Avoid On Tight Lies appeared first on MyGolfSpy.

Splurge Worthy

B. Draddy Andy Quilted Hoodie

If I could own only one premium golf hoodie, this would probably be it. The Andy somehow feels like your favorite broken-in sweatshirt while looking polished enough to wear just about anywhere. The quilted front adds just enough texture to elevate it beyond a basic hoodie and the Peruvian Pima cotton blend is unbelievably soft without feeling heavy. It’s expensive but it’s the kind of piece you’ll wear three or four times a week from October through spring.

Fairway & Greene Baruffa Merino Quarter Zip Windsweater

This is old-school golf style done perfectly. On the outside, it’s premium Zegna Baruffa Merino wool. Hidden inside is a windproof lining that makes it perform more like a lightweight jacket than a sweater. If you play a lot of fall golf in cooler temperatures, few layers are as versatile. It looks just as appropriate in the clubhouse as it does on the first tee and should last for years if you take care of it.

Still Pricey

Johnnie-O Sully Quarter-Zip

There’s a reason the Sully has become one of Johnnie-O’s signature pieces. It strikes the sweet spot between performance and everyday wear better than almost anything else in this price range. It’s lightweight enough to swing freely, stretchy enough to never feel restrictive and clean enough that nobody will question if you wear it straight from the course to the office or dinner. If you’re only buying one quarter-zip, this is an easy recommendation.

lululemon Soft Jersey Half-Zip

This is the layer I reach for when comfort is the priority. The brushed jersey fabric is incredibly soft against the skin and has enough stretch that you forget you’re wearing it. While it’s not built specifically for golf, it works exceptionally well as a casual golf layer thanks to its lightweight warmth and athletic fit. It’s equally at home on the range, during travel or lounging around after your round.

Budget Friendly

Quince Flowknit Performance Half-Zip

Quince continues to prove you don’t have to spend $150-plus for quality basics. For around $40, this half-zip delivers moisture-wicking performance, four-way stretch and a clean athletic look that punches well above its price tag. Is it as refined as the premium options above? No. But at less than half the cost, it’s one of the easiest values in golf apparel.

UNRL Highlands Quarter-Zip

UNRL has quietly become one of my favorite athletic apparel brands and the Highlands Quarter-Zip is a big reason why. The fit is athletic without being tight, the fabric is soft and stretchy and it layers exceptionally well over a polo. It feels noticeably more premium than its price suggests, making it an excellent choice for golfers who want performance apparel without venturing into Peter Millar or B. Draddy territory.

The post My Favorite Golf Layering Pieces For Every Budget appeared first on MyGolfSpy.

CityGolf USA, in partnership with simulator pioneer Golfzon, just announced the upcoming opening of its flagship location in Nashville, Tenn., which claims to be the first full 18-hole indoor simulator golf course in the United States. The Nashville location will open later this year and there are multiple future facilities being planned (10–15 locations by 2030, according to the Golfzon website).

The CityGolf concept features full shots being hit into a simulator and then 18 synthetic green complexes that allow for in-real-life short-game pitching, chipping, bunker play and putting.

Think of this as a modified TGL (“half-sim” model) that is consumer-facing. It’s sim golf (Golfzon tech) combined with “real golf” once you get within close range. Hit on a sim, place your ball on the green complex, hole out and then go to the next sim location to repeat.

An 18-hole round will cost between $60 and $125, depending on time of day. It will take about 2.5 hours to play the whole round.

There are also dedicated short-game areas, a driving range with Golfzon simulators, PGA pros offering lessons, player development programs, leagues, restaurant and bar, retail pro shop and private event spaces.

The 174,000-square-foot facility is located (checks notes) … woah, only 11 minutes from where I’m typing this! For those familiar with Nashville, we’re talking about The Nations, west of Tennessee State University’s campus.

This is the third CityGolf location; the first two are in China. The Tianjin site, which opened in September 2024, had 9,937 rounds played in 2025. Through the first half of 2026, 7,623 rounds had been played there, a significant uptick in traffic.

“Golf has never been more popular but for millions of golfers, finding the time, or even a place to play remains a challenge,” said Tony Graffia Jr, CEO of CityGolf USA. “CityGolf USA changes that by making it possible to play a full round before or after work, year-round, in cities where people live and work. It’s a faster, more accessible way to experience the game.”

“CityGolf is creating something that has never existed in the U.S.—a true indoor golf course supported by a full hospitality ecosystem,” said A.J. Zahn, COO of CityGolf USA. “Our mission is to bring real golf into the heart of America’s cities, and Nashville is the perfect place to begin.”

Is this concept going to be successful?

A lot of people have been dismissing this idea since it was announced but I think it will be immensely popular.

Let’s start with the idea in a vacuum—I think it’s cool. It’s going to be really fast to play. You don’t have to worry about weather or daylight. The facility can be a place where all skill levels of golfer can convene. It’s family-friendly. I’m 1,000 percent going to try it.

Think about alternative golf competitors.

Is CityGolf going to be more fun than Topgolf? Uh, yes. Topgolf is struggling for a reason. The novelty factor wears off quickly. You are just hitting bad golf balls with bad golf clubs into a field.

More fun than PopStroke or Puttshack? Definitely. I love me some mini golf but getting to make actual golf swings and hit chips/pitches is way more compelling.

More fun than a standard simulator? Well, it better be.

And Nashville, like many cities, has a supply and demand issue with golf courses. The new golf development is all private. Public golf is limited—especially in the vicinity of downtown—and the tee sheet is packed everywhere. It’s like Sunday morning at Costco if you go to McCabe on a weekend (Nashville people will get that one).

CityGolf will get most of the hard-core golf locals at least once and they’ll get tons of the tourists/bachelor parties. Lots of frat bros will pour into this place to try it. I’m sure CityGolf will also get into northern markets with heavy population centers that can support this kind of facility.

I’ve said a lot of nice things so here is the counterpoint: Should golfers be paying upwards of $100 or more for a round of semi-real golf?

I can play normal golf at a muni down the street for $35. Or, if I wanted to pay $100, I could play a much nicer course.

Nothing can replace actual golf. The best synthetic greens don’t react the same way as real grass. A simulator can’t replace a course.

I’m not anti-simulator by any means. They are an awesome part of our game. There is a time, place and price point for simulators.

What I’m saying is that if you are paying $100 to play golf, it’s hard to stomach doing that for many will feel is a novelty experience. Closer to the $65 and I think we have more of a match.

I also want to mention there is a simulator club downtown called Nashville City Golf. I’m sure that won’t lead to any confusion for anyone who types in “CityGolf Nashville” and sees “Nashville City Golf” as the first search result.

This will test the golf boom boundaries

As I said at the beginning, this type of niche concept at this price point will really test how popular golf has become.

I have no doubt that people are going to be willing to pay to experience CityGolf one time. It’s cool enough for that.

The kicker is whether they will want to pay for the experience a second, third and fourth time.

I’m reserving judgment. My opinion is that this will be very successful for multiple years due to the novelty and then will experience a Topgolf-esque decline when the consumer looks at their golf spending and votes for green grass.

However, I’m writing that prediction in pencil. I also want to go experience it myself before making any bold proclamations.

What do you think? Let me know below in the comments.

The post Will This 18-Hole Indoor Golf Course Concept Work? appeared first on MyGolfSpy.

Discounts are standard operating procedure in the golf equipment business. Everybody does it and by now most of us can set a watch to it. PING is the exception that makes the rule interesting because the company often discounts less than its competitors and, when it finally does, it has a habit of waiting until the replacement product is practically on the boat. Which is why the price drops that just landed across most of the G440 metalwoods lineup are worth a second look.

The timing is early by PING standards

PING runs the G family on a two-year cadence. G430 arrived in January 2023, G440 in January 2025. If that holds, the MAX, LST and SFT, along with their fairway wood and hybrid counterparts, get replaced this coming January.

So the discount itself isn’t a surprise. The timing kinda is. We’re roughly five months out from a launch and PING has historically been comfortable holding the line until a new product is weeks away rather than months.

Why the G440 K isn’t part of it

The G440 K showed up in January 2026, a full year behind the rest of the family, and it’s on its own clock. Assuming the cadence holds there, too, it isn’t due for replacement until January 2028. There’s no reason to cut the price on a driver with that much shelf life in front of it so the G440 K stays where it is while everything around it comes down.

What $449 actually buys you (in the U.S.)

That number puts the G440 drivers level with the discounted Titleist GT series, which also sit at $449. Whether PING moved to meet that number or simply landed on it independently doesn’t much matter. The result is the same either way.

PING and Titleist build a driver from close to opposite directions with PING leaning hard on MOI and forgiveness while Titleist chases speed and a more player-driven shape. Getting both at the same price means you’re choosing between two theories of a driver instead of choosing between budgets.

Among the major OEMs, that’s the best value on the board right now.

Pricing

In the U.S., G440 MAX, LST and SFT drivers are $449, down from $619. Fairway woods are $299, down from $369. Hybrids are $269, down from $319. The G440 irons came down as well, roughly $20 per club to about $143 each.

If you’re buying, buy soon, but get fitted. There’s a long stretch between now and January and it’s fair to wonder whether another cut shows up closer to the launch. The thing that runs out first isn’t the price, though. Lofts, shafts and left-handed builds could thin out early and the right spec at $449 is worth more than a compromise at whatever comes next.

The post PING Drops G440 Driver Prices But Not The G440K appeared first on MyGolfSpy.

On paper, the Snell MTB Black LTD reads like every tour ball launch you’ve skimmed over this year: controlled launch, reduced driver spin, a newly tuned core promising strong ball speed and responsive feel. Three-piece, 360 dimples, compression in the low 80s. Then you get to the cover, where Snell says “cast urethane”, and the whole thing gets a lot more interesting. In the golf ball business, cast urethane isn’t just a feature. It’s kind of an address.

What cast urethane actually buys you

Urethane covers come off the line in one of two ways. Cast urethane starts as a two-part liquid that gets poured into a mold and cured around the ball. It’s slow, it’s fussy and it’s expensive and, if you screw it up, the material cannot be reformed. The upside is that it lets you make a thinner, softer cover without surrendering durability.

The alternative is thermoplastic urethane, injection molded. A solid material, heated and shot into a mold. Faster, cheaper, far more forgiving to manufacture and typically a bit thicker on the ball. TPU covers have gotten meaningfully better and I wouldn’t call them a compromise across the board but, as a general rule, cast is still regarded as the better tech.

Snell’s own shelf makes the point. The PR3 and PR4 use what the company calls TPU-X urethane (code for TPU). The MTB Black LTD goes back to cast and Snell is charging accordingly.

Find the Right Golf Ball for Your Game

A single review only tells part of the story. Compare our complete test results, learn why we robot test golf balls and discover what a professional golf ball fitting can teach you about your game.

Golf Ball Test Results

Why we robot test golf balls

 3 things I learned from a golf ball fitting

Tony Covey

Employee #2, Editor, Jack of All Trades

Where the MTB Black LTD is probably being made

Very few factories make cast urethane covers. Titleist does it in-house at Ball Plant 3 and Ball Plant 4. Foremost handles a chunk of the industry out of Taiwan. And then there’s TaylorMade Golf Ball Korea which used to be Nassau.

The original MTB series was a Nassau ball. TaylorMade bought the plant in 2021, brought it in-house, and third-party production wound down, which sent Snell looking for new manufacturing partners. The official word at the time was that the door hadn’t been permanently closed on outside work.

So: a cast urethane MTB Black, in limited quantities, launched under a Heritage Tour Series banner. I don’t think you need a decoder ring for this one.

Why a re-release is bigger news than it sounds

Snell’s quality data since leaving Nassau has been rough. Case in point: the Prime 3.0. In our Ball Lab testing, 20 of the 36 balls in the sample exceeded the USGA weight limit and compression varied by 17.8 points.

That’s an uncomfortable thing to write about a company founded by Dean Snell who has a Pro V1 on his resume and who spent the better part of a decade building one of the most credible operations in direct-to-consumer golf.

It’s also why the cover is the story. Getting back to cast urethane almost certainly means getting back to a factory that can hold a tolerance. If the MTB Black LTD is the front end of something rather than a one-off nostalgia run, and “Heritage Tour Series” does imply more than one ball, the brand has a real path back. An MTB X LTD would be the obvious next move.

The only downside I can find is that “limited” means limited and not everybody who wants a dozen is going to get one. I’ll take that trade.

Golf is better with a healthy direct-to-consumer ball market and that market is better with a healthy Snell. Consider this the first genuinely encouraging sign in a while.

I like where this could be headed.

Pricing and availability

The Snell MTB Black LTD is available now in white at $38.99 per dozen, dropping to $37.99 for two to four dozen and $36.99 for five or more. Given the LTD in the name, plan on while-supplies-last. For a cast urethane tour ball, $38.99 is a legitimate number when the top of the market sits well north of $50.

Let us know

If you were an MTB guy who drifted away, tell us in the comments whether this pulls you back.

For more information, visit SnellGolf.com.

The post Snell MTB Black LTD: The Cast Urethane Cover Is The Whole Story appeared first on MyGolfSpy.

Where things can get confusing is figuring out how much your takeaway should change from an iron to a driver. The two swings aren’t identical but they’re probably more similar than you think.

So I wanted to break down what an iron and driver takeaway should look like, where they match and where they should be slightly different.

Before we get into those differences, one reminder: changes to your takeaway should be subtle. Small changes early in the swing can have a big impact on everything that happens next.

Continue Your Instruction Journey

Our instruction content combines insights from equipment testing, data analysis, and golf experts to help golfers improve with evidence-based advice. You’ve fixed one part of your game. These guides help you take the next step.

What tees should I play? Use this chart!

How should the driver sit at address? Many golfers still get this wrong!

If you miss the center of the face, try THESE irons.

The basic takeaway should look very similar

For this comparison, think of the takeaway as the movement from address until the shaft reaches roughly parallel to the ground.

With both the driver and iron, the basic pattern is similar. The body turns, the arms have some lift and the club stays in a relatively neutral position.

From down the line, the club should stay in a fairly neutral position in both takeaways. You don’t want to see the club get dramatically pulled behind you or pushed well outside your hands.

In other words, you don’t need one takeaway for your irons and an entirely different one for your driver.

The driver allows a little more movement away

The biggest difference between the two is the movement that the driver swing allows.

With the iron, the golfer stays more centered over the ball. With the driver, there is a little more movement toward the trail side during the takeaway.

That doesn’t mean you should intentionally make a huge sway with the driver. The spine remains almost completely neutral in both swings.

Think of it as giving yourself a little more room to move behind the ball with the driver, not falling away from the target.

Don’t force the lead shoulder down

Some golfers try to manufacture the takeaway by driving the lead shoulder toward the ground.

Because you’re already bent forward at address, the shoulder will naturally work down somewhat as you rotate. You don’t need to create that motion by side-bending or crunching your upper body.

This applies to both the iron and driver.

If you’re working on your takeaway, think more about turning from your setup posture than forcing the shoulder into a specific position.

You probably need less wrist hinge than you think

Adding wrist hinge in the iron is another common amateur move. However, it’s another one that gets exaggerated. There is much less hinge in the takeaway than most golfers think. Most times, you’ll just notice a few degrees of difference between the driver and the iron.

The iron has slightly more but it is not a dramatic difference. If you’re trying to set the wrists early or lift the club with the hands, it’s not necessary. The arms will gain height as the body turns.

Should they be the same?

Your driver and iron takeaways should share the same basic neutral pattern. The club shouldn’t suddenly get sucked inside because you picked up a driver and you don’t need to dramatically set the wrists because you’re holding an iron.

The biggest change is that the driver gives you a little more freedom to move away from the target while the iron stays slightly more centered and over the ball.

The goal isn’t to learn two different golf swings. It’s to build one reliable takeaway that makes small adjustments based on the club in your hands.

And when you start making those adjustments, keep them small.

The post Should My Driver And Iron Takeaways Be The Same? appeared first on MyGolfSpy.

My opinion?

The Presidents Cup should be a training ground for young U.S. talent needing experience in team competition.

Let me explain.

The Ryder Cup vs. Presidents Cup conundrum

The elephant in the room here is obvious: the Ryder Cup means a lot and the Presidents Cup does not.

The Americans are 13-1-1 in the Presidents Cup, a contrived event the PGA Tour created to compete with the Ryder Cup. I was six years old in 1998 when the International side last won this event. The Internationals just don’t have the depth of talent to compete with the U.S. side. The event doesn’t have any juice.

Meanwhile, the Americans have been decidedly bad in the Ryder Cup, going 3-9 over the last 12 editions. The Ryder Cup began organically and it’s deeply important to the Europeans because of Seve Ballesteros and other legends who decided the event meant more to them than just about anything else in their career. The Ryder Cup always has the juice, even if it hasn’t been even the last few decades.

Interestingly, the U.S. has long held the “advantage” of getting to simulate the Ryder Cup every other year by playing in the Presidents Cup. But, like a lot of things in life, what looks good in theory doesn’t always hold its weight in reality.

The problem is that the Tour runs the Presidents Cup. The PGA of America and a collaborative body known as Ryder Cup Europe run the Ryder Cup. There is no cohesion between those entities.

We’ve long established that the PGA of America might as well be the New York Jets front office when it comes to running the U.S. team for the Ryder Cup. Random one-off captaincies that were disasters (Tom Watson, Keegan Bradley, etc.), haphazard plans that get ditched (creating a task force then not following through on its plans) and incredibly shortsighted venue selections (going to Hazeltine twice in 12 years) are their calling cards the past 10-15 years. Now we have Jim Furyk as the captain for next year’s Ryder Cup (how inspiring!). The PGA of America wants to make money; competition is secondary.

The Tour would kill for some competition at the Presidents Cup. They want the International side to win so people can care about this. It’s obvious they will never change the format by adding women which would be a home run—ultimately, the Tour doesn’t want to showcase talent that isn’t their own and helping out women’s golf isn’t in the mission statement.

Is there synergy between these two entities? Not at all. In a perfect world, new leadership role candidates would cut their teeth as Presidents Cup vice-captains before ascending to Presidents Cup captains. If successful, they would graduate to the Ryder Cup.

Nothing like that happens.

And on the player side? Every young American rising star should automatically be on the Presidents Cup team. There should be a certain number of mandatory spots for U.S. players who are 27 or younger (which is kind of the cut-off for being young nowadays). Give us a couple of players each time who will gain experience to give them reps toward the Ryder Cup.

But, to my earlier point, these two events operate individually. The Presidents Cup doesn’t want to be an experimental minor league and the U.S. Ryder Cup side values ticket sales and TV ratings over winning the event.

Why the Presidents Cup should go young anyhow

Take everything I said and grab a grain of salt.

Even after all of that, I still believe the Presidents Cup should focus on young talent. Here is why.

Brandt Snedeker is this year’s U.S. Presidents Cup captain. He may only get one shot to be a team captain. Maybe, maybe not. We don’t know since there is essentially no tangible plan for U.S. team golf.

Snedeker wants to win. He doesn’t want to be known as the American captain who lost a Presidents Cup, let alone a home Presidents Cup.

So, as is his right, he would like the very best 12 players on the team. Who cares about the American golf future? He wants to win right now. If that means including veterans who may be playing in their final team event and have rarely had success in the Ryder Cup? Then that is what he is going to do.

Why add Jackson Koivun, Michael Brennan or Michael Thorbjornsen if, to some people, they aren’t technically some of the best 12 players on the American side? Get in a less risky option, someone with experience.

“I’m not into, ‘Oh, let’s just take a young kid because we need a young kid on the team.’ That doesn’t make any sense to me,” Snedeker said recently.

You know who it makes sense to? Literally everyone else, save for the veteran players who will get passed over.

Let’s count the reasons why the U.S. Presidents Cup team should be an incubator for young talent.

• Marketing—The Tour gets a free run to give young guys a stage. This is a chance to introduce players like Koivun, Thorbjornsen and others to the world. It’s a platform to market emerging stars. The Tour should use it.

• Competition—If Americans take younger players who are getting their first kick at team competition on this stage, it’s reasonable to think there could be more volatility to the Presidents Cup. The young players could be great or they could struggle. Their floor could be lower than a veteran who has done the U.S. team golf dance several times. And this is a feature, not a bug, for the Presidents Cup, which really needs excitement and drama.

• Development—The Americans get a chance to see what they have. New players get acquainted with team culture (and help build it, too). The U.S. Ryder Cup has a losing culture so let’s get fresh blood into the rotation.

So, yes, I am a huge proponent of adding young players to the team. This should honestly be a slam dunk.

It’s good for the Presidents Cup, it’s good for the Ryder Cup, and it’s good for golf fans.

Which young players should make the team this year?

Let’s put what I’m saying into practice.

Here is the U.S. team points race to see which 12 players will be included. The top six guys are in bold because they are in an automatic qualifier spot. Those are solidified on Aug. 23 after the BMW Championship.

1. Scottie Scheffler
2. Cameron Young
3. Russell Henley
4. Sam Burns
5. Ben Griffin
6. Collin Morikawa
7. Chris Gotterup
8. J.J. Spaun
9. Xander Schauffele
10. Wyndham Clark
11. Justin Thomas
12. Jacob Bridgeman
13. Akshay Bhatia
14. Harris English
15. Ryan Gerard

Gotterup, 27, is going to be on the American team. He’s won three times this season and is easily within the top 10 players in the Data Golf rankings. You can mark that one down in permanent ink.

This is a great development for the U.S. team but I’m a little worried that the other captain’s picks will be retreads.

Here is the team I would take to Medinah—a team that has an eye on the present and the future. Keep in mind this absolutely won’t happen, but I’m saying this is what I would do.

1. Scottie Scheffler
2. Cameron Young
3. Russell Henley
4. Sam Burns
5. Ben Griffin
6. Collin Morikawa
7. Chris Gotterup
8. Xander Schauffele
9. Justin Thomas
10. Wyndham Clark
11. Jackson Koivun
12. Michael Thorbjornsen

Let’s talk about these captain’s picks after Gotterup.

Schauffele is still a bona-fide top-10 player in the world by nearly every measure. He’s 7-5-0 in the Ryder Cup, one of the few successful veteran players. You have to put him on this team.

Thomas is 17-7-4 in Presidents Cup/Ryder Cup competitions. He’s in very solid but not outstanding form. I want him on the team because he is a key piece and loves team golf. We need more guys like him.

Clark won the U.S. Open and Byron Nelson this year. He’s top 20 in Data Golf and had a great summer. This is one where you could convince me to go in another direction but it feels like Clark fully earned his spot.

This leaves two picks for two young guys: Koivun (21) and Thorbjornsen (24).

Beyond Koivun’s win at the 3M Open, making the FedEx Cup playoffs and the fact he is already top 30 in Data Golf, you have to trust the eye test. Statistically, he was the best amateur in 16 years. He’s on that Scheffler/Rahm track. He will be a part of American team golf for a long time. Give him the start in a home Presidents Cup where there isn’t that much pressure.

Thorbjornsen is also having an awesome summer including a win at the Rocket Mortgage. He has loud traits. He’s on the precipice of making the Tour Championship and is ridiculously talented. High ceiling guy. Put him on the team.

Along with Gotterup, you have three young stars on the team, each being three years difference in age. I love it.

These picks exclude a few guys:

• Michael Brennan—The 24-year-old Wake product just won the Wyndham Championship but he is pretty far behind Koivun and Thorbjonsen statistically.

• Patrick Cantlay—Decent Ryder Cup record so maybe he should be on but he’s been just OK throughout the year and I’m tired of looking at him in these team competitions.

• Ryan Gerard—Consistent all year and a 27-year-old talent but doesn’t have the ceiling of Koivun or Thorbjornsen.

• J.J. Spaun—Good player but he’s a veteran we have to cut to give the young guys a spot.

• Maverick McNealy—Same as Gerard but Mav is three years older.

• Rickie Fowler—Quietly having a nice season but he has a terrible team golf record and it’s time for the next generation to have a shot.

• Akshay Bhatia—Fits the youth movement mindset but he had a dreadful summer.

So I stand by the team I have listed, barring some major changes from the FedEx Cup playoffs.

What are your thoughts? Should the U.S. go with a youth movement?

Let me know below in the comments.

Top Photo Caption: Michael Thorbjornsen is a rising star in American golf. (GETTY IMAGES/Raj Mehta)

The post Why The U.S. Presidents Cup Team Should Opt For Fresh Blood appeared first on MyGolfSpy.

For me, it’s wondering how golf’s two biggest publicly traded companies are doing on a quarterly basis. Instead of counting sheep, I’m counting revenue, profit and loss, earnings per share and basis points.

Anyway, both Callaway and Acushnet released their Q2 financial reports last week. After digesting both reports for a few days, we’d like to share some thoughts on what it all means to you, the golfer as opposed to you, the investor.

There’s a reason for that, and you can find it in our standard disclaimer that corporate makes us disclaim:

We are not, nor do we claim to be, financial experts, investment counselors or Wall Street-level business analysts. We’re simply golf industry geeks who like to read.

As we’ve said before, the very fact you’ve read this far tells us you, too, are a golf industry geek. So, let’s proudly let our geek flag fly, and dive in with both feet, shall we?

#1. Both companies are doing quite nicely, thank you very much

As we said in our Q1 review, no one is happier that Callaway and Topgolf have split than Callaway CEO Chip Brewer. Callaway is posting Q2 sales of $612.2 million, up two percent from Q2 of 2025. That may not sound like much, and price increases probably account for much of it. Sales for the first six months, however, are at $1.299 billion. That’s up nearly six percent over last year.

The good news lies in the bottom line. Quarterly profit hit $75.2 million. That’s up from $20.3 million last year. Year-to-date profits are $168.3 million. There are a few reasons for increased profits, which we’ll tackle in the next section.

“We’re pleased with our second quarter results,” Brewer told investors last week. “While there is more opportunity ahead, we’re pleased with the significant progress we have made, both operationally and financially, only six months into our return as a pure play golf company.”

Acushnet’s quarterly numbers are even more impressive. Q2 sales hit $820 million, a nearly 14 percent increase over 2025. Year-to-date sales are $1.573 billion. That’s up 10.5 percent over last year.

Q2 profits were nearly $125 million. That’s up an unworldly 65 percent over last year. (Again, there’s a reason. There’s always a reason). Year-to-date profits stand at $206 million, up 18 percent year-over-year.

“Acushnet delivered strong results in the second quarter,” CEO David Maher told investors. “Our results benefitted from the launch of the new Titleist GTS drivers and fairways, which occurred earlier in the year than our typical third-quarter metalwoods launch.”

#2: Those reasons profits were up?

Both companies cite tariff refunds as key drivers to Q2’s profit performance. Acushnet reports it received approximately $38 million in tariff refunds, which led to a 46-percent increase in adjusted EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization). Without that refund, the company says, profit growth would have been meaningfully lower.

Callaway also benefitted from tariff refunds to the tune of nearly $11 million. It expects to recoup up to $50 million in tariff refunds by the end of the year. That refund definitely helped Callaway’s quarterly bottom line.

Callaway also reaped the benefits of its ongoing gross margin improvement efforts. In fact, Callaway’s top bullet point in its press release cited gross margin improvement as a major accomplishment for the quarter (we’ll get into how the company expressed that increase momentarily). The primary drivers for gross margin improvement, according to the company, were cost reduction programs combined with select price increases and rationalizing (i.e., eliminating) lower margin business.

Gross margin, of course, is sales minus cost of goods sold (materials and labor). Net profit is what’s left over after all the other expenses associated with running a global business are subtracted.

#3 What the heck is a “basis point?”

As we’ve said before, Callaway’s quarterly financial press statements are weird. Where Acushnet’s lead bullet points are straightforward, leading with sales and profit numbers, Callaway gives you this as its top bullet point:

Q2 GAAP and Non-GAAP Gross Margin increased 620 basis points and 420 basis points year over year respectively.

I had to look that one up.

A basis point is a business reporting unit used to express percentage-point increases or decreases. One hundred basis points equals one percentage point of change. When Callaway says it’s GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) gross margin increased by 620 basis points, it’s telling us its gross margin increased 6.2 percentage points in Q2 to 50.1 percent. That’s significant, in that last year’s Q2 gross margin was 43.9 percent. The improvement gives Callaway significantly more room to pay its people, fund R&D and enhance sales and marketing programs. It also means more is left over for net profit.

Callaway also reports its golf ball market share rose 250 basis points in June alone. That equates to an increase of 2.5 percentage points. Overall, Callaway’s golf ball market share as of June 30 stood at 22 percent. It ended 2025 at 21 percent. Callaway golf ball sales for Q2 were up 15 percent over last year, at $113.8 million. Ball sales for the first half of the year topped $219 million, up 7.4 percent over 2025.

By comparison, Acushnet sold nearly $274-million worth of golf balls in Q2 and over a half a billion dollars’ worth year-to-date.

That’s a lot of basis points, right there.

#4 Callaway is putting its Topgolf money to good use

When Callaway sold controlling interest in Topgolf for a little over $1 billion last year, it said it planned to use the proceeds to pay off debt. Welp, it’s doing just that. Callaway reports it paid off $421 million in debt in Q2. Specifically, it settled $163 million in long-term bank loans while repaying $258 million in convertible notes.

Both are important as both lower interest payments (the “I” in EBITDA) and strengthen the balance sheet. Paying off the convertible notes is perhaps more significant as it avoids the possibility that those notes could be converted into stock shares which would dilute existing share value.

Additionally, Callaway announced it repurchased $84 million in common stock so far this year including $42 million in Q2 alone. The company still has $120 million left to fund additional stock repurchase.

Why would a company buy back its own stock, you may ask? Usually, there are two reasons.

First, there may be a tax advantage (the “T” in EBITDA) to buying back stock as opposed to paying dividends. The second reason might be the more important one: it can increase EPS, or earnings per outstanding share.

Which leads us to the final thing you need to know.

#5: Wall Street Loves It Some EPS

By all accounts, both companies had very solid second-quarters. I don’t care who you are, $820 million in sales by Acushnet and $612 million by Callaway ain’t chicken feed.

Both companies posted healthy profits, as well.

So, why then, in the days after both companies released their Q2 reports, did Callaway stock stumble a little and Acushnet stock tumble a little more? The answer can be found in EPS (earnings per share), expectations and outlook.

Acushnet stock peaked at $118,71 per share in June. When Q2 numbers were released last Thursday, Acushnet opened at $108.31 but closed at $93.85, with more than 1.1 million shares traded. Apparently, even though revenue beat analysts’ expectations, Acushnet’s earnings per share fell short.

If you divide net profit by the number of outstanding shares, you get earnings per share. Analysts expected Acushnet EPS to be in the $1.33 range. Instead, it came in at $1.28. That doesn’t sound like a lot but it was enough to give analysts the heebie-jeebies. That says margins were tighter or expenses were higher than expected. When combined with management’s cautious outlook for the remainder of the year, Acushnet’s stock took a hit.

A different story for Callaway

Even though Callaway’s sales and earnings weren’t even in the same ballpark as Acushnet’s, its stock rallied after its report was released Aug. 4. Its EPS for Q2 reached $0.40 (40 cents) per share, up 67 percent from Q2 last year. For the first half of 2026, EPS was $0.78 per share, up nearly 40vpercent over 2025.

Callaway stock hit $19.85 per share on Aug.4 before closing at $19.57. By Friday, Aug. 7, it was down to $17.59. Despite the EPS performance, analysts cited Callaway’s conservative third-quarter estimates for dampening market enthusiasm.

In the big picture, though, Callaway’s stock has, for the most part, rallied in 2026. On Jan. 1, when the Topgolf split became official, Callaway stock stood at $11.72 per share. One year ago, it was around $8 per share.

So, even though Acushnet earned more money per share than Callaway, sold more golf stuff than Callaway and made more profit dollars than Callaway, it took a Wall Street hit because its EPS was eight cents lower than what analysts were expecting.

On the other hand, even though sales and profits were lower, Callaway’s increasing margins and its stock buyback program had analysts slightly more bullish on its prospects. The stock lost a little steam, but the company still has $120 million left to buy back shares. Less outstanding stock means earnings per share will likely continue to increase.

The post Five Things You Need To Know About The Callaway And Acushnet Q2 Financials appeared first on MyGolfSpy.