Recommend Deep Face Low COG Driver

My miss with driver is typically low on the face. Not too far off center, just a few grooves low. If I consciously try to hit higher on the face I start getting steep and ugliness ensues. (Lessons needed...I know). Currently using a Ping Rapture V2 with some success. Curious if there is anything out there that fits this profile. Doesn’t matter if it is an older model. TIA

Wilson Staff FG Tour F5.

G400 Max, Rogue, TS2/3, ST-190(released Feb.) are some of my favs. ;)

Ping anser it’s a beast keeps up with new big dogs

Never hit it, but the Ping K-15 looks promising. Really big footprint though and looks like it might want to go left.

SLDR has a deep face with a low CG.

Bio Cell Plus is great.

I had a k15, spun a lot for me. My miss is low heel.

G400 Max is pretty tough to beat...

The lowest COGs as measured with modern drivers are in order of forgiveness:

- Taylormade 2016 M1 430

- Callaway XR16 Sub Zero

- Cobra F6+

- Callaway Rogue Subzero

- Cobra King LTD/LTD Pro

- Callaway Fusion

- PING G400 MAX

As the forgiveness increases (MOI gets higher) the penalty for a low strike also decreases. That makes the King LTD a standout due to its extremely low CG and moderately high MOI and makes the Fusion and G400 MAX extremely good options as well because of their extremely high MOI and relatively low CG. Keep in mind though that even the lowest CG drivers still don't fall below the center of the face (in fact they still fall slightly above) so nothing will ever truly compensate for a low strike, but these will do the best, more specifically the last 3. There are other good options as well but those are basically the highlights and I suggest you avoid the M1 430 despite it's low CG because the very low MOI largely negates that benefit and low strikes will be punished severely, unless of course the smaller footprint instills a ton of confidence like it does for some (me included).

The lowest COGs as measured with modern drivers are in order of forgiveness:

 

- Taylormade 2016 M1 430

- Callaway XR16 Sub Zero

- Cobra F6+

- Callaway Rogue Subzero

- Cobra King LTD/LTD Pro

- Callaway Fusion

- PING G400 MAX

 

As the forgiveness increases (MOI gets higher) the penalty for a low strike also decreases. That makes the King LTD a standout due to its extremely low CG and moderately high MOI and makes the Fusion and G400 MAX extremely good options as well because of their extremely high MOI and relatively low CG. Keep in mind though that even the lowest CG drivers still don't fall below the center of the face (in fact they still fall slightly above) so nothing will ever truly compensate for a low strike, but these will do the best, more specifically the last 3. There are other good options as well but those are basically the highlights and I suggest you avoid the M1 430 despite it's low CG because the very low MOI largely negates that benefit and low strikes will be punished severely, unless of course the smaller footprint instills a ton of confidence like it does for some (me included).

^^ THIS

This post above is basically a Reader's Digest summary of the MGS annual MOI / CGNA charts.

Cleveland classic, and the Cleveland classic xl custom

Bio Cell Pro.

King LTD is super low but not really deep faced

Tmag r9 superdeep TP

Agree on King LTD and Callaway sub zero's.

I'm a high-face contact person and none of those worked for me. They were great when I could hit them low (center), but that's not the norm for me. If that's your standard contact area, those would be great.

Thanks for the rec’s.

I have tried both Fusion and King LTD. Pretty decent results with both but seem to get best results from deep faced drivers. Surprised that the Sub Zeros were on this list. I never even bothered hitting them under the assumption that the forward weighting would raise COG. Don’t know where I even got that idea. Same with the TM 430. Just assumed it would be a poor fit. Will have to check them out.

The 400 Max was too high spin with the stock shafts for me. I’d like to try it with a Tensei or Blueboard. That would be an expensive experiment though.

Thanks for the rec’s.

 

I have tried both Fusion and King LTD. Pretty decent results with both but seem to get best results from deep faced drivers. Surprised that the Sub Zeros were on this list. I never even bothered hitting them under the assumption that the forward weighting would raise COG. Don’t know where I even got that idea. Same with the TM 430. Just assumed it would be a poor fit. Will have to check them out.

 

The 400 Max was too high spin with the stock shafts for me. I’d like to try it with a Tensei or Blueboard. That would be an expensive experiment though.

A couple things here. To better understand weighting to explain why your preconception was off, lets use this image:

Following the shape of the sole you can see it is lowest closest to the face and highest at the rear, so the more forward the weight the lower the CG (not every driver is the same shape obviously but they generally follow this curve). Unfortunately that also decreases MOI which I want to emphasize because when it comes to spin reduction on low strikes, MOI is more important than CG which was why I recommended the higher MOI drivers. The lower ones will not likely get you good results despite their low CG, my M1 430 performs terribly on low strikes, I lose probably 15 yards there over higher MOI drivers.

Agree on King LTD and Callaway sub zero's.

 

I'm a high-face contact person and none of those worked for me. They were great when I could hit them low (center), but that's not the norm for me. If that's your standard contact area, those would be great.

Out of curiosity, what performance aspect wasn't working for you? Even low CG drivers still have sweetspots that are above the center of the face i'm curious what was lacking for you there.

You answered the question on your post... Lessons needed. Strike is king, always will be. Why search for a driver that will give you 3 more yards on a low strike when you could fix your strike, hit centre and gain 10 yards with your current model?

You may just need to raise the tee a tiny bit.

But when it comes to deep faced driver, the Cleveland Classic 290 or Classic XL/Custom is the deep of the deep. I think the face is more than twice the height of a ball. And it's a bomber.

Thanks for the rec’s.

 

I have tried both Fusion and King LTD. Pretty decent results with both but seem to get best results from deep faced drivers. Surprised that the Sub Zeros were on this list. I never even bothered hitting them under the assumption that the forward weighting would raise COG. Don’t know where I even got that idea. Same with the TM 430. Just assumed it would be a poor fit. Will have to check them out.

 

The 400 Max was too high spin with the stock shafts for me. I’d like to try it with a Tensei or Blueboard. That would be an expensive experiment though.

 

A couple things here. To better understanding weighting to explain why your preconception was off, lets use this image:

 

 

 

Following the shape of the sole you can see it is lowest closest to the face and highest at the rear, so the more forward the weight the lower the CG (not every driver is the same shape obviously but they generally follow this curve). Unfortunately that also decreases MOI which I want to emphasize because when it comes to spin reduction on low strikes, MOI is more important than CG which was why I recommended the higher MOI drivers. The lower ones will not likely get you good results despite their low CG, my M1 430 performs terribly on low strikes, I lose probably 15 yards there over higher MOI drivers.

 

Agree on King LTD and Callaway sub zero's.

 

I'm a high-face contact person and none of those worked for me. They were great when I could hit them low (center), but that's not the norm for me. If that's your standard contact area, those would be great.

 

Out of curiosity, what performance aspect wasn't working for you? Even low CG drivers still have sweetspots that are above the center of the face i'm curious what was lacking for you there.

Forgive my ignorance but M1 430 also has a very forward CG,no?

Thanks for the rec's.

 

I have tried both Fusion and King LTD. Pretty decent results with both but seem to get best results from deep faced drivers. Surprised that the Sub Zeros were on this list. I never even bothered hitting them under the assumption that the forward weighting would raise COG. Don't know where I even got that idea. Same with the TM 430. Just assumed it would be a poor fit. Will have to check them out.

 

The 400 Max was too high spin with the stock shafts for me. I'd like to try it with a Tensei or Blueboard. That would be an expensive experiment though.

 

A couple things here. To better understanding weighting to explain why your preconception was off, lets use this image:

 

 

 

Following the shape of the sole you can see it is lowest closest to the face and highest at the rear, so the more forward the weight the lower the CG (not every driver is the same shape obviously but they generally follow this curve). Unfortunately that also decreases MOI which I want to emphasize because when it comes to spin reduction on low strikes, MOI is more important than CG which was why I recommended the higher MOI drivers. The lower ones will not likely get you good results despite their low CG, my M1 430 performs terribly on low strikes, I lose probably 15 yards there over higher MOI drivers.

 

Agree on King LTD and Callaway sub zero's.

 

I'm a high-face contact person and none of those worked for me. They were great when I could hit them low (center), but that's not the norm for me. If that's your standard contact area, those would be great.

 

Out of curiosity, what performance aspect wasn't working for you? Even low CG drivers still have sweetspots that are above the center of the face i'm curious what was lacking for you there.

 

Forgive my ignorance but M1 430 also has a very forward CG,no?

Correct, very forward and very very low. I actually have 3 weights in mine with the two heaviest at the back plus lead tape at the back of the track in an attempt to extract as much forgiveness out of the club as I can.

One thing I wish could be made available is heavy steel or tungsten versions of the weight caps which sit much lower than the weights they are actually attached to. It would lower the CG of the driver even further. If cost were no object i'm sure they would be made that way as it makes more sense for performance.

Agree on King LTD and Callaway sub zero's.

 

I'm a high-face contact person and none of those worked for me. They were great when I could hit them low (center), but that's not the norm for me. If that's your standard contact area, those would be great.

 

Out of curiosity, what performance aspect wasn't working for you? Even low CG drivers still have sweetspots that are above the center of the face i'm curious what was lacking for you there.

On the King LTD, it was feel. The feel was much different (more harsh and dull) higher on the face. In the simulator, I was able to see that the numbers were better than what I would have expected based on the feel, but ultimately out on the course that feel was a dealbreaker.

On the XR16 and Epic sub zero, I would lose the penetrating ball flight that I got lower. I would expect the backspin to be higher with a higher strike, but I was starting to get a ballooning flight. I was also demoing them at stock length which is over an inch different than my normal playing length, so that could have affected the results I got.

In both cases, I'm sure it's caused by my swing mechanics and not the club's fault, but in both cases I saw/felt much better results from strokes closer to center, and even a little below.

Agree on King LTD and Callaway sub zero's.

 

I'm a high-face contact person and none of those worked for me. They were great when I could hit them low (center), but that's not the norm for me. If that's your standard contact area, those would be great.

 

Out of curiosity, what performance aspect wasn't working for you? Even low CG drivers still have sweetspots that are above the center of the face i'm curious what was lacking for you there.

 

On the King LTD, it was feel. The feel was much different (more harsh and dull) higher on the face. In the simulator, I was able to see that the numbers were better than what I would have expected based on the feel, but ultimately out on the course that feel was a dealbreaker.

On the XR16 and Epic sub zero, I would lose the penetrating ball flight that I got lower. I would expect the backspin to be higher with a higher strike, but I was starting to get a ballooning flight. I was also demoing them at stock length which is over an inch different than my normal playing length, so that could have affected the results I got.

 

In both cases, I'm sure it's caused by my swing mechanics and not the club's fault, but in both cases I saw/felt much better results from strokes closer to center, and even a little below.

Gotcha, that makes sense. All the data in the world goes out the window if a club feels bad to you.

With regards to the high strikes, the bulge of the club will launch the ball higher since there is more loft higher on the face but the vertical gear effects imparted on the ball cause a big drop in spin, so you won't get ballooning but you WILL get a higher ball flight for sure. It is basically like catching a flyer with an iron, accept in this case it is a very good thing since you want more distance if possible. If the launch is too high for then you can always loft down, but then that becomes more dependent on strike. Having a swing that naturally strikes the ball high on the face is a very good thing, most people strive for that and it means you'll achieve much more optimal launch conditions with a driver with less effort.

I asked about your experience because there is a misconception that high CG drivers are better for people that strikes high on the face and that they are "missing" the sweet spot more if they use a lower CG driver. In reality, the actual sweet spot moves very little and most every player can more easily achieve optimal launch conditions with a lower CG club. Higher CG is just cheaper/easier from a design and manufacturing standpoint and it also happens to line up with the golfing majority that actually NEED spin. Both the advent of sophisticated launch monitors and a marketing push towards minimizing spin have changed the game here and we now better understand how all the pieces fit together.

I find myself clicking on each of these "deep faced" drive topics, and continue to be disappointed with the recommendations. Outside of the new Bridgestone lineup and a handful of JDM drivers, I wouldn't classify any of the recent drivers from the big OEM's to be "deep faced". Some are deeper than others (e.g. Cally DBD's, TM M1 430/440, Titleist D3/D4) while others have appearance of being deeper from their compact headshape (e.g. Ping G400), but classify any of them to be in the same league as older deep faced drivers (e.g. TM R9 superdeep, Cleveland Classic/XL, Adams 9015D, etc.).

I don't refute any of the MOI discussions in this thread, but I have a hard time classifying Cobra LTD as a deep faced driver.

It seems like there are specs listed for every club feature, but never once has I seen driver face height (or ground to top of face). How do we have multiple MOI measures, but face height is discluded?

Cleveland Classic XL makes the ball look small.

There are few to no new drivers that are what you'd consider deep faced. And at the time deep face drivers were popular, the concept of low COG wasn't really a thing, so a combination of the two really doesn't exist to my knowledge.

You answered the question on your post... Lessons needed. Strike is king, always will be. Why search for a driver that will give you 3 more yards on a low strike when you could fix your strike, hit centre and gain 10 yards with your current model?

If it were only that easy. Age, injury, lack of practice and lack of talent are my top 4 excuses. Besides, this is WRX...I am certain there is a piece of equipment that will paper over all my flaws until I can really fix them. :-)

The Rapture V2 is about as good as it gets,,,,,,,, even now,,,,,,,,

Save yourself some ca$h. Tee the ball a groove or 2 higher and make the same swing. :hi:

I find myself clicking on each of these "deep faced" drive topics, and continue to be disappointed with the recommendations. Outside of the new Bridgestone lineup and a handful of JDM drivers, I wouldn't classify any of the recent drivers from the big OEM's to be "deep faced". Some are deeper than others (e.g. Cally DBD's, TM M1 430/440, Titleist D3/D4) while others have appearance of being deeper from their compact headshape (e.g. Ping G400), but classify any of them to be in the same league as older deep faced drivers (e.g. TM R9 superdeep, Cleveland Classic/XL, Adams 9015D, etc.).

 

I don't refute any of the MOI discussions in this thread, but I have a hard time classifying Cobra LTD as a deep faced driver.

 

It seems like there are specs listed for every club feature, but never once has I seen driver face height (or ground to top of face). How do we have multiple MOI measures, but face height is discluded?

Do you only classify a head as deep faced, if it's at the legal limit for face height? The Taylormade Super Deep was designed right at that limit

I find myself clicking on each of these "deep faced" drive topics, and continue to be disappointed with the recommendations. Outside of the new Bridgestone lineup and a handful of JDM drivers, I wouldn't classify any of the recent drivers from the big OEM's to be "deep faced". Some are deeper than others (e.g. Cally DBD's, TM M1 430/440, Titleist D3/D4) while others have appearance of being deeper from their compact headshape (e.g. Ping G400), but classify any of them to be in the same league as older deep faced drivers (e.g. TM R9 superdeep, Cleveland Classic/XL, Adams 9015D, etc.).

 

I don't refute any of the MOI discussions in this thread, but I have a hard time classifying Cobra LTD as a deep faced driver.

 

It seems like there are specs listed for every club feature, but never once has I seen driver face height (or ground to top of face). How do we have multiple MOI measures, but face height is discluded?

I guess that depends on why you are looking for a deep face. If its purely a visual/confidence thing then I totally get it, there isn't much available to satisfy that. But if a deep face is somehow being equated to a certain performance metric then that simply isn't going to be true. A deeper face means a larger face overall, a larger face means more weight up front, and more weight upfront means less forgiveness. The illusion of a bigger hitting area is nulled by the fact that more of that hitting area is unfriendly given the MOI concerns of weight being forward. Plus, if the CG isn't pulled down significantly then all you have accomplished is adding MORE surface area to the bad part of the face below the CG creating the potential for even lower and this higher spin contact.

I find myself clicking on each of these "deep faced" drive topics, and continue to be disappointed with the recommendations. Outside of the new Bridgestone lineup and a handful of JDM drivers, I wouldn't classify any of the recent drivers from the big OEM's to be "deep faced". Some are deeper than others (e.g. Cally DBD's, TM M1 430/440, Titleist D3/D4) while others have appearance of being deeper from their compact headshape (e.g. Ping G400), but classify any of them to be in the same league as older deep faced drivers (e.g. TM R9 superdeep, Cleveland Classic/XL, Adams 9015D, etc.).

 

I don't refute any of the MOI discussions in this thread, but I have a hard time classifying Cobra LTD as a deep faced driver.

 

It seems like there are specs listed for every club feature, but never once has I seen driver face height (or ground to top of face). How do we have multiple MOI measures, but face height is discluded?

 

I guess that depends on why you are looking for a deep face. If its purely a visual/confidence thing then I totally get it, there isn't much available to satisfy that. But if a deep face is somehow being equated to a certain performance metric then that simply isn't going to be true. A deeper face means a larger face overall, a larger face means more weight up front, and more weight upfront means less forgiveness. The illusion of a bigger hitting area is nulled by the fact that more of that hitting area is unfriendly given the MOI concerns of weight being forward. Plus, if the CG isn't pulled down significantly then all you have accomplished is adding MORE surface area to the bad part of the face below the CG creating the potential for even lower and this higher spin contact.

Great topic and insight my man......slightly off topic but you mentioned players that need spin needing higher CG heads...does that normally mean shallower faced clubs or strictly design? I'm using M3 now but I remember how I on occasion over spun my jpx900 and old school R7 limited...both in the vein of shallow face.... strangely I had success with R9 superdeep and Hibore XL ....I've slowed a little but swing M3 fairly well. ...but this IS wrx and always looking for the next great thing....

I find myself clicking on each of these "deep faced" drive topics, and continue to be disappointed with the recommendations. Outside of the new Bridgestone lineup and a handful of JDM drivers, I wouldn't classify any of the recent drivers from the big OEM's to be "deep faced". Some are deeper than others (e.g. Cally DBD's, TM M1 430/440, Titleist D3/D4) while others have appearance of being deeper from their compact headshape (e.g. Ping G400), but classify any of them to be in the same league as older deep faced drivers (e.g. TM R9 superdeep, Cleveland Classic/XL, Adams 9015D, etc.).

 

I don't refute any of the MOI discussions in this thread, but I have a hard time classifying Cobra LTD as a deep faced driver.

 

It seems like there are specs listed for every club feature, but never once has I seen driver face height (or ground to top of face). How do we have multiple MOI measures, but face height is discluded?

 

I guess that depends on why you are looking for a deep face. If its purely a visual/confidence thing then I totally get it, there isn't much available to satisfy that. But if a deep face is somehow being equated to a certain performance metric then that simply isn't going to be true. A deeper face means a larger face overall, a larger face means more weight up front, and more weight upfront means less forgiveness. The illusion of a bigger hitting area is nulled by the fact that more of that hitting area is unfriendly given the MOI concerns of weight being forward. Plus, if the CG isn't pulled down significantly then all you have accomplished is adding MORE surface area to the bad part of the face below the CG creating the potential for even lower and this higher spin contact.

 

 

Great topic and insight my man......slightly off topic but you mentioned players that need spin needing higher CG heads...does that normally mean shallower faced clubs or strictly design? I'm using M3 now but I remember how I on occasion over spun my jpx900 and old school R7 limited...both in the vein of shallow face.... strangely I had success with R9 superdeep and Hibore XL ....I've slowed a little but swing M3 fairly well. ...but this IS wrx and always looking for the next great thing....

No problem!

I would say that is more design than anything else. But when I say "need" when it comes to spin and the CG of their drivers i'm mostly referring to the average Joe who may not know any of these technical bits. Pros and most *good* players don't necessarily "need" anything in particular because they have the knowledge and resources, or at least desire, to get fit and learn the details necessary to make the right choices. The average Joe on the other hand, he has a swing of 90-something mph and he needs a decent amount of spin for optimum carry. The problem is, average Joe may not know this and might be too proud to game the 11*+ driver that is actually the better fit for what he needs, so the higher CG driver works to add some spin to the mix to keep his carry up.

The problem now is that marketing and launch monitor proliferation has lead people to believe they need less and less spin which ends up compromising dispersion more than it is adding yards. Jordan Spieth for example wasn't spinning the ball enough at 2,100rpm when he switched from the 910D2 to the 915D2 so a shaft change and likely a loft change as well got him up to 2,500rpm where he wanted to be. Unless any of us are swinging harder than Jordan Spieth we really don't gain much and stand more to lose by chasing sub 2,000 spin.

Loft and MOI are the main concerns, CG location is a smaller but still important part depending on your strike pattern. They all work together to produce the numbers, and whether or not your success with the deeper faced drivers had to do with those specs or something else I really can't say.