First Callaway Rogue epic driver Reviews on YouTube

[BirdieBob]

I find it interesting in all of these videos about any clubs that the comparisons are usually made with stock shafts vs stock shafts.

And of course the stock shafts may not be the best shaft for the person doing the comparisons.

So, why would we expect the results to be the best!

 

And of course they always say to get the best results you need to be fitted, Ie a proper shaft, etc.

Especially for drivers that all are maxed out for distance, and now we are looking for better dispersion, consistency, etc. That also is related to the best shaft.

 

When I pick a Driver or Fairway wood it comes down to Looks, Sound and Feel. Get the best shaft and GO>

[Uhit]

I find it interesting in all of these videos about any clubs that the comparisons are usually made with stock shafts vs stock shafts.

And of course the stock shafts may not be the best shaft for the person doing the comparisons.

So, why would we expect the results to be the best!

 

And of course they always say to get the best results you need to be fitted, Ie a proper shaft, etc.

Especially for drivers that all are maxed out for distance, and now we are looking for better dispersion, consistency, etc. That also is related to the best shaft.

 

When I pick a Driver or Fairway wood it comes down to Looks, Sound and Feel. Get the best shaft and GO>

 

Well, there is probably no way to do a comparison perfect for every person and situation - especially every time...

...for me, it is:

 

1. adjustability (this helps to use the same driver despite changes in shafts, swing and fitness)

 

2. sound, and feel

 

3. looks

[dmeeksDC]

Looking at someone else’s smash factor means nothing. Only tells me how they were hitting it and it is the stat I am most skeptical of on monitors. I see all these smash factors above 1.50 and I disregard. Simply do not believe they are real. Launch monitor jacking.

 

Ball speed is what I look at, along with where on the face it is coming from. But even then, was the test on an outdoor range with open data? I see indoor monitors as a sales tool. So easy to manipulate.

[Uhit]

Looking at someone else's smash factor means nothing. Only tells me how they were hitting it and it is the stat I am most skeptical of on monitors. I see all these smash factors above 1.50 and I disregard. Simply do not believe they are real. Launch monitor jacking.

 

Ball speed is what I look at, along with where on the face it is coming from. But even then, was the test on an outdoor range with open data? I see indoor monitors as a sales tool. So easy to manipulate.

 

Oh, if I look at someone else's smash factors, it helps me to get an idea in regard of the relative performance of different clubs...

...which is for me more interesting, than the absolute performance, at the early stage of a buying decision.

 

This video:

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

...contains the information, that it could be, that the M4 has a comparably hot face - at least in this test.

 

M2 2017 smash 1.49

 

M3 440 smash 1.49

 

M3 460 smash 1.49

 

M4 smash 1.51

 

Rogue smash 1.47

 

Rogue SZ smash 1.48

 

...and in regard of manipulation - you are never save - starting at selected clubs sent to reviewers, selected clubs at demo days, for fittings etc...

[dmeeksDC]

Looking at someone else's smash factor means nothing. Only tells me how they were hitting it and it is the stat I am most skeptical of on monitors. I see all these smash factors above 1.50 and I disregard. Simply do not believe they are real. Launch monitor jacking.

 

Ball speed is what I look at, along with where on the face it is coming from. But even then, was the test on an outdoor range with open data? I see indoor monitors as a sales tool. So easy to manipulate.

 

Oh, if I look at someone else's smash factors, it helps me to get an idea in regard of the relative performance of different clubs...

...which is for me more interesting, than the absolute performance, at the early stage of a buying decision.

 

This video:

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

...contains the information, that it could be, that the M4 has a comparably hot face - at least in this test.

 

M2 2017 smash 1.49

 

M3 440 smash 1.49

 

M3 460 smash 1.49

 

M4 smash 1.51

 

Rogue smash 1.47

 

Rogue SZ smash 1.48

 

...and in regard of manipulation - you are never save - starting at selected clubs sent to reviewers, selected clubs at demo days, for fittings etc...

 

I hear what you’re saying — I want to read everything about a club I might buy, it’s fun — but a smash factor that is higher than PGA Tour players produce makes me wonder. I agree that the “Average smash factor” of say, 20 shots, would tell you how a club performs across the face on mishits (if impact location of each shot is part of the data so you can correlate) but some of these are really high for an amateur player. And I’m always skeptical of data provided by a store that wants to sell you a new driver.

 

I guess the key is to always bring your current driver to check it as well. Just make sure the guy does not change any settings during the switch from one club to another.

[BirdieBob]

Smash Factor:

 

Michael Newton Golf

Callaway Rogue SZ vs Taylormade M3 440

 

Rogue SZ - 1.46

M3 440 - 1.44

 

So, YMMV!

[Uhit]

Looking at someone else's smash factor means nothing. Only tells me how they were hitting it and it is the stat I am most skeptical of on monitors. I see all these smash factors above 1.50 and I disregard. Simply do not believe they are real. Launch monitor jacking.

 

Ball speed is what I look at, along with where on the face it is coming from. But even then, was the test on an outdoor range with open data? I see indoor monitors as a sales tool. So easy to manipulate.

 

Oh, if I look at someone else's smash factors, it helps me to get an idea in regard of the relative performance of different clubs...

...which is for me more interesting, than the absolute performance, at the early stage of a buying decision.

 

This video:

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

...contains the information, that it could be, that the M4 has a comparably hot face - at least in this test.

 

M2 2017 smash 1.49

 

M3 440 smash 1.49

 

M3 460 smash 1.49

 

M4 smash 1.51

 

Rogue smash 1.47

 

Rogue SZ smash 1.48

 

...and in regard of manipulation - you are never save - starting at selected clubs sent to reviewers, selected clubs at demo days, for fittings etc...

 

I hear what you're saying — I want to read everything about a club I might buy, it's fun — but a smash factor that is higher than PGA Tour players produce makes me wonder. I agree that the "Average smash factor" of say, 20 shots, would tell you how a club performs across the face on mishits (if impact location of each shot is part of the data so you can correlate) but some of these are really high for an amateur player. And I'm always skeptical of data provided by a store that wants to sell you a new driver.

 

I guess the key is to always bring your current driver to check it as well. Just make sure the guy does not change any settings during the switch from one club to another.

 

Yes, you are absolutely right.

 

You should always try to compare the new club directly to your current club, like this guy, during the fitting:

 

[media=]

[/media]

[dmeeksDC]

Looking at someone else's smash factor means nothing. Only tells me how they were hitting it and it is the stat I am most skeptical of on monitors. I see all these smash factors above 1.50 and I disregard. Simply do not believe they are real. Launch monitor jacking.

 

Ball speed is what I look at, along with where on the face it is coming from. But even then, was the test on an outdoor range with open data? I see indoor monitors as a sales tool. So easy to manipulate.

 

Oh, if I look at someone else's smash factors, it helps me to get an idea in regard of the relative performance of different clubs...

...which is for me more interesting, than the absolute performance, at the early stage of a buying decision.

 

This video:

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

...contains the information, that it could be, that the M4 has a comparably hot face - at least in this test.

 

M2 2017 smash 1.49

 

M3 440 smash 1.49

 

M3 460 smash 1.49

 

M4 smash 1.51

 

Rogue smash 1.47

 

Rogue SZ smash 1.48

 

...and in regard of manipulation - you are never save - starting at selected clubs sent to reviewers, selected clubs at demo days, for fittings etc...

 

I hear what you're saying — I want to read everything about a club I might buy, it's fun — but a smash factor that is higher than PGA Tour players produce makes me wonder. I agree that the "Average smash factor" of say, 20 shots, would tell you how a club performs across the face on mishits (if impact location of each shot is part of the data so you can correlate) but some of these are really high for an amateur player. And I'm always skeptical of data provided by a store that wants to sell you a new driver.

 

I guess the key is to always bring your current driver to check it as well. Just make sure the guy does not change any settings during the switch from one club to another.

 

Yes, you are absolutely right.

 

You should always try to compare the new club directly to your current club, like this guy, during the fitting:

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

What a video. Don’t see many swings like this gentleman. He is all arms and his left arm collapses on the way back, which is not so unusual, but his backswing is amazing: He crosses the line so much at the top that the head of the club is actually out in front of his face right before he starts down. If he stopped at the top and turned his head left, he’d be looking at the crown of the club!

[Uhit]

Looking at someone else's smash factor means nothing. Only tells me how they were hitting it and it is the stat I am most skeptical of on monitors. I see all these smash factors above 1.50 and I disregard. Simply do not believe they are real. Launch monitor jacking.

 

Ball speed is what I look at, along with where on the face it is coming from. But even then, was the test on an outdoor range with open data? I see indoor monitors as a sales tool. So easy to manipulate.

 

Oh, if I look at someone else's smash factors, it helps me to get an idea in regard of the relative performance of different clubs...

...which is for me more interesting, than the absolute performance, at the early stage of a buying decision.

 

This video:

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

...contains the information, that it could be, that the M4 has a comparably hot face - at least in this test.

 

M2 2017 smash 1.49

 

M3 440 smash 1.49

 

M3 460 smash 1.49

 

M4 smash 1.51

 

Rogue smash 1.47

 

Rogue SZ smash 1.48

 

...and in regard of manipulation - you are never save - starting at selected clubs sent to reviewers, selected clubs at demo days, for fittings etc...

 

I hear what you're saying — I want to read everything about a club I might buy, it's fun — but a smash factor that is higher than PGA Tour players produce makes me wonder. I agree that the "Average smash factor" of say, 20 shots, would tell you how a club performs across the face on mishits (if impact location of each shot is part of the data so you can correlate) but some of these are really high for an amateur player. And I'm always skeptical of data provided by a store that wants to sell you a new driver.

 

I guess the key is to always bring your current driver to check it as well. Just make sure the guy does not change any settings during the switch from one club to another.

 

Yes, you are absolutely right.

 

You should always try to compare the new club directly to your current club, like this guy, during the fitting:

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

What a video. Don't see many swings like this gentleman. He is all arms and his left arm collapses on the way back, which is not so unusual, but his backswing is amazing: He crosses the line so much at the top that the head of the club is actually out in front of his face right before he starts down. If he stopped at the top and turned his head left, he'd be looking at the crown of the club!

 

His swing is really unbelievable... :shok:

 

...the first time I saw it, I thought this can't be serious.

 

Jim Furyks swing looks like a text book robot swing in comparison! :D

[Uhit]

Again Mr. smooth swing:

 

[media=]

[/media]

[Uhit]

Again, my favorite tester in regard of entertainment:

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

Alex, the big hitter, Etches, from GolfBox Australia - with Kangaroos!

[Uhit]

One more comparison Rogue SZ vs Epic SZ:

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

...if you ask me...

 

...despite I like the look of the Rogue, it is lacking the adjustability which I am used to,

and I see no huge improvements in regard of performance, which could make me buy one...

...however I will probably try one anyway.

[Uhit]

This is interesting, because you see the strike locations:

 

[media=]

[/media]

[Uhit]

[media=]

[/media]

[Uhit]

This one is pretty interesting, because it includes the Vertical Groove driver, and on course testing beside the numbers and the strike locations:

 

[media=]

[/media]