I'll be on my soap box for a few blogs. I had to explain to a new generation of students what a soap box is (literally and figuratively), so I decided to get mine out of the attic and shake off the cobwebs.

Here's the scenario: whilst reading the June 2007 section called The Shop in Golf Magazine, I noticed that the mag had tested four new drivers for 2007. They went with the Cleveland HiBore XL Tour, the Callaway Fusion FT-5, the Titleist 905R and the Tour Edge Exotics Proto. Major names, all, with the exception of Tour Edge, an up-and-comer.

Heres the deal. When you look at the launch monitor testing, the Titleist club came in 4th in three of six categories (clubhead speed, ball speed, and sidespin)3rd in carry, and first in backspin. The nebulous category of launch angle shows that the Titleist club launched the highest, but is that really a good thing? Who knows.

Here's where the Titleist club jumped into first place...look, feel, forgiveness, playability, and distance. If you look at the Tour Exotics club, it is identical to the Titleist, minus the line and triangle feature. So, the line and triangle are worth three stars? Thats the difference between the Tour Edge (two stars) and the Titleist (five stars). Sorry, Golf Magazine, but you're WRONG!

Now, we're talking about drivers for Better Players (their words, not mine.) Since when do forgiveness and look matter to better players? Better players hit fairways with a tea kettle on a stick.

It is clear to me that Golf Magazine wanted the Titleist club to win. Therefore, they minimized the areas in which the club performed poorly, and maximized the point values of nebulous, hazy, foggy, unclear (dare I say "invented") lines.

So much for testing. If I'm spending $300 plus on a driver, I'm not looking at Golf Magazine as a reliable source.

To comment on this blog click here