.png)
Driver fitting result
Our recommendation
Based on your measured session, the recommendation is PING G440 LST with Project X Denali Red 60.
Report confidence: Very HighPING G440 LST
PING | Low-Spin Driver
Project X Denali Red 60 | X | 62.0 g
Recommended loft start point: 9.0
Why this was chosen
Based on your measured session, the recommendation is PING G440 LST with Project X Denali Red 60.
We would start this head at 9.0 as the recommended loft setting.
- Stock shaft ranked well on rules-based flex/weight plausibility.
- Bucket priority nudged the combo upward in tie-breaks.
- Shaft launch bias aligns with the baseline trajectory need.
Close second
TaylorMade Qi4D
Mitsubishi REAX 50 High Rotation Red | X | 59.0 g
Close alternative | Evidence Index 68.97
The closest alternative was TaylorMade Qi4D.
Why this is the recommendation
PING G440 LST finished with an Evidence Index of 69.21; TaylorMade Qi4D was next at 68.97. TaylorMade Qi4D is still a useful comparison, but the measured evidence supports PING G440 LST as the recommendation rather than treating both heads as equal.
How the fitting works
- Step 1: Clean the session data
- Step 2: Analyse the session data and identify the main fitting priority
- Step 3: Explain the head fitting funnel and show how the field narrowed
- Step 4: Explain the stock shaft selection process and explain the best option for the fitting
- Step 5: Final recommendation and why these heads made the cut
Step 1
Clean the session data
Shot quality control
We reviewed the driver shots and did not need to remove any outliers. That gives the fitting a clean baseline from the session you uploaded.
14 usable shots | 0 excluded shots | 14 total shots reviewed
Expand reviewed shots and exclusions
| # | Status | Club speed | Ball speed | Launch | Spin | Carry | Lateral | QC notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Used | 109.9 | 164.4 | 9.6 | 2229.0 | 259.5 | -2.0 | - |
| 2 | Used | 113.0 | 167.8 | 9.7 | 2392.0 | 264.4 | -1.3 | - |
| 3 | Used | 116.7 | 176.7 | 9.6 | 2131.0 | 279.8 | -4.2 | - |
| 4 | Used | 114.9 | 171.2 | 10.8 | 2070.0 | 273.6 | 2.0 | - |
| 5 | Used | 111.7 | 165.1 | 9.7 | 2033.0 | 261.9 | -11.0 | - |
| 6 | Used | 112.5 | 169.0 | 9.9 | 1918.0 | 269.2 | -6.8 | - |
| 7 | Used | 111.9 | 168.8 | 10.1 | 2167.0 | 268.0 | -0.7 | - |
| 8 | Used | 111.5 | 170.0 | 9.6 | 2064.0 | 269.5 | 6.8 | - |
| 9 | Used | 112.0 | 167.1 | 9.5 | 2330.0 | 263.2 | 4.1 | - |
| 10 | Used | 114.0 | 173.7 | 9.8 | 2286.0 | 274.6 | 2.1 | - |
| 11 | Used | 114.7 | 171.0 | 9.6 | 2290.0 | 269.8 | 7.7 | - |
| 12 | Used | 113.0 | 167.6 | 9.6 | 2117.0 | 265.3 | -7.8 | - |
| 13 | Used | 114.5 | 173.8 | 10.3 | 2315.0 | 275.6 | -2.8 | - |
| 14 | Used | 114.9 | 174.2 | 10.0 | 2167.0 | 276.4 | -6.2 | - |
Step 2
Analyse the session data and identify the main fitting priority
Baseline numbers behind the fit
Baseline metrics
Expand to show the full baseline metrics table
| Metric | Session value | StdDev | Used N | Coverage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Club Speed (mph) | 113.23 | 1.74 | 14 | 100% |
| Ball Speed (mph) | 170.03 | 3.48 | 14 | 100% |
| Smash | 1.50 | 0.01 | 14 | 100% |
| Launch (deg) | 9.84 | 0.35 | 14 | 100% |
| Spin (rpm) | 2179.21 | 129.26 | 14 | 100% |
| Carry (yd) | 269.34 | 5.84 | 14 | 100% |
| Total (yd) | 281.16 | 6.94 | 14 | 100% |
| Peak Height (ft) | 83.66 | 3.82 | 14 | 100% |
| Lateral Range (yd) | 18.70 | 5.35 | 14 | 100% |
| Spin Axis (deg) | -0.59 | 4.55 | 14 | 100% |
| Attack Angle (deg) | 2.75 | 0.81 | 14 | 100% |
| Spin Loft (deg) | 11.25 | 0.81 | 14 | 100% |
These baseline numbers come from the 14 usable shots in your cleaned session. The recommendation was built from this baseline rather than guessed. For speed, launch, spin, and carry, the report shows straightforward averages. Dispersion is shown as the total spread across the usable shots.
Lateral Pattern (Lateral vs Carry)
Launch vs Spin
Speed Efficiency (Club Speed vs Ball Speed)
This shows how much ball speed came from the club speed in the cleaned session. It helps separate speed that is already being used well from speed that needs better strike retention.
Smash Distribution
Smash shows how efficiently club speed became ball speed. The dotted benchmark is a useful driver reference point, not a pass/fail line for every player.
What does the data tell us
A strong pattern that needs refinement, not correction
You are already bringing plenty of driver to the table. At 113.2 mph of club speed and 170.0 mph of ball speed, the baseline is strong, and the distance output is already useful. The carry average was 269.3 yards, with total distance at 281.2 yards, so the first job is not to rebuild the driver setup.
The better read is refinement. We want to protect the speed, strike efficiency, and control you already have before chasing a small change that looks good in one metric but makes the club less predictable.
Launch and spin are where the main opportunity sits. Launch was 9.8 degrees with spin at 2179 rpm. For your speed, that spin is already in a controlled place, so the useful gain is a little more launch without letting spin climb too far.
Directionally, this was not a one-sided fitting problem. Across 14 usable shots with none excluded, the finish pattern stayed close enough to target on average that it should be treated as a both-sides window, not a simple correction fit. The overall directional window was 18.7 yards, which is playable and worth protecting.
That matters because your stated miss pattern was neither side, and the measured pattern supports that kind of balanced read. The fit should tighten the whole window without adding more directional correction than the pattern needs.
So the next step is to screen heads and builds that can support launch while keeping spin controlled. Speed and control come first, then we look for small stability gains that do not take away the workability and predictability already present.
Fitter read: this is a refinement fit. The baseline already has speed, efficient distance, and a playable directional window, so the fitting priority is to add launch carefully while protecting spin control and not over-correcting direction.
The cards below show the evidence behind that read. They separate what the ball did, what the club-delivery data can support, and where the report stays cautious.
Distance efficiency
Distance efficiency is workable
Carry and total distance are broadly in line with the speed, so the fit can make balanced improvements without treating distance as the only problem.
Flight window
The flight is on the flatter side
Launch is low enough that the fit should be careful about removing loft or spin too aggressively. The goal is to add useful flight without making the ball float.
Direction pattern
Direction is a strength
The directional pattern is tight, so the fit should not overcorrect face angle or built-in bias. In this kind of session, control and workability can stay in the conversation.
Delivery pattern
Face and path were not measured deeply enough
Face and path data were not available at useful coverage in this file. That is not a failure of the fit; it just means the report should lean more on ball flight, spin axis, and dispersion rather than claiming a precise face/path diagnosis.
Loft delivery
Positive attack angle gives room to tune loft
Attack angle is helping the ball launch, so the fit has more freedom to manage spin and loft without making the flight too flat.
Data completeness
Optional launch-monitor fields gave the analysis strong evidence depth
The report uses every measured field that has enough coverage, but it does not punish the player when a launch monitor omits an optional field. Missing optional data lowers the detail level for that topic; it does not lower the baseline confidence by itself.
Step 3
How the head fitting funnel worked
The head screen protected control before chasing launch
The head funnel was built around a narrow trade-off: add launch, but do not let spin get away from the fit. Because your baseline driver pattern is already strong, the screen was not looking for a dramatic directional fix or a totally different flight. It was looking for heads that could make the launch window easier while keeping speed, spin, and the directional pattern under control.
That is why the final group leans toward heads that can balance lower-spin control with enough launch support. A head that only chased launch risked adding too much spin. A head that only chased spin risked making the build too exacting for a pattern that already works.
The screen did not reward the most extreme option. It rewarded heads that could add launch support while preserving the controlled spin and playable directional window already in the baseline.
Head traits
Our brand neutral way of describing the properties for each head in categories such as spin, launch, forgiveness, stability, and directional help.
Shortlist score
The head-only score used in this stage to decide which families deserve deeper comparison before shafts are added.
Final fit score
The later score created only after the best stock shaft routes have been compared inside each remaining head.
Heads screened
20
The starting field of driver families before any filtering.
Excluded early
10
Heads that moved away from the fitting direction or created the wrong trade-off.
Heads shortlisted
10
Heads that still looked credible enough to carry forward.
Heads shaft-fitted
6
Shortlisted heads taken into stock-shaft fitting before the final score is created.
Final comparison
5
The heads left once complete head-and-shaft builds have been compared.
The field breakdown below shows what that funnel produced in this run.
20 heads entered the screen.
Callaway
- Callaway Quantum Max
- Callaway Quantum Max D
- Callaway Quantum Triple Diamond
- Callaway Quantum Triple Diamond Max
Cobra
- COBRA OPTM LS
- COBRA OPTM MAX-D
- COBRA OPTM MAX-K
- COBRA OPTM X
PING
- PING G440 K
- PING G440 LST
- PING G440 MAX
- PING G440 SFT
TaylorMade
- TaylorMade Qi4D
- TaylorMade Qi4D LS
- TaylorMade Qi4D Max
- TaylorMade Qi4D Max Lite
Titleist
- Titleist GT1
- Titleist GT2
- Titleist GT3
- Titleist GT4
10 heads were removed early because they were less convincing against the main priority of adding launch without letting spin climb too far.
Too demanding for this session
These heads may have taken spin down, but they asked for more strike precision than the session supported.
-
Callaway Quantum Triple Diamond
It may have reduced spin, but it asked for more strike precision than this session supported.
-
COBRA OPTM LS
Lower-spin, control-led head in its range, meaning it asked for more precision than this session had shown.
-
TaylorMade Qi4D LS
One of the more demanding lower-spin options in the lineup, but it was too demanding once stability was considered.
-
Titleist GT4
Most aggressive spin-control head in the range, meaning it asked for more precision than this session had shown.
Solved the wrong directional problem
These heads stayed too neutral, or solved a different directional problem than this session needed.
-
COBRA OPTM MAX-D
Draw-support model in the range, but it solved a stronger draw problem than this session actually showed.
-
PING G440 SFT
Draw-support model in the range, but the session did not need that much built-in directional correction.
Another head with a slightly different set of characteristics matched the fitting target better
These heads still had some relevant traits, but another head with a slightly different set of characteristics matched the fitting target better.
-
COBRA OPTM MAX-K
Most stability-first head in its range, but it lost out to the COBRA OPTM X that was the better-suited route for this fitting.
-
PING G440 K
Straightest, max-stability model in the lineup, but it lost out to the PING G440 LST that was the better-suited route for this fitting.
-
TaylorMade Qi4D Max
Max-forgiveness head in the lineup, but it lost out to the TaylorMade Qi4D that was the better-suited route for this fitting.
Support profile not strongly needed here
These heads offered a support pattern that was less important than the main priority identified in the session.
-
PING G440 MAX
High forgiveness, higher launch, and that type of support was less important than the main fitting priority here, with PING G440 LST proving the better-suited route for this fitting.
10 heads reached the final shortlist: Titleist GT3, TaylorMade Qi4D, COBRA OPTM X, Callaway Quantum Max, Callaway Quantum Triple Diamond Max, PING G440 LST, Titleist GT1, Callaway Quantum Max D, TaylorMade Qi4D Max Lite, and Titleist GT2. They stayed alive through different routes, some through lower-spin control, some through launch support, and some through balanced all-round fit.
Balanced all-round options
These heads stayed in because they avoided an obvious weakness while the field narrowed.
-
Titleist GT3
The more control-led adjustable head, without leaning too far into one specialist direction.
-
TaylorMade Qi4D
The adjustable all-round option, without leaning too far into one specialist direction.
Lower-spin but still stable options
These heads stayed in because the fit still needed spin reduction without losing too much stability.
-
COBRA OPTM X
A more balanced route between forgiveness and lower spin, stable enough to remain credible.
-
Callaway Quantum Max
The more neutral all-round model, keeping spin reduction in play without turning demanding.
-
PING G440 LST
A lower-spin route with enough stability left in it, stable enough to remain credible.
Launch-support options
These heads stayed in because launch and carry support were still useful in the shortlist.
-
Callaway Quantum Triple Diamond Max
The lower-spin route with some stability still built in, keeping launch and carry help in the field.
-
Titleist GT1
The lighter launch-support option, still useful while the shortlist looked for more height.
Other reasons
-
Callaway Quantum Max D
Directional-help optionThe draw-biased forgiveness option, keeping directional help in the field.
-
TaylorMade Qi4D Max Lite
Lighter speed-support optionThe lighter speed-support option, without relying on a heavier head.
-
Titleist GT2
Max-forgiveness optionA higher-forgiveness route, with the most strike protection left in the field.
After the shortlist was formed, the remaining heads were checked again against the same fitting priority. The final comparison kept the heads that made the strongest case as complete builds, not just as head-only ideas.
5 heads reached final comparison: PING G440 LST, TaylorMade Qi4D, Titleist GT3, Callaway Quantum Triple Diamond Max, and Callaway Quantum Max. These were the heads that best justified deeper build and stock-shaft comparison.
- PING G440 LST: It stayed under consideration because it controlled spin without becoming too exactingA lower-spin route with enough stability left in it.
- TaylorMade Qi4D: Its more rounded overall profile kept it in the last comparisonThe adjustable all-round option.
- GT3: Launch support kept it in the last comparisonThe more control-led adjustable head.
- Callaway Quantum Triple Diamond Max: Its lower-spin profile kept it in the final comparisonThe lower-spin route with some stability still built in.
- Quantum Max: Its lower-spin profile kept it in the final comparisonThe more neutral all-round model.
Step 4
How the stock shaft fitting worked
Stock-shaft pairings were matched to each head’s job
Once the head group was narrowed, the shaft screen became about completing each head properly. The same shaft direction does not always make sense in every head, because one head may need help launching while another may need the shaft to keep the overall build from getting too spinny or too demanding.
These are the selected stock-shaft pairings within each final comparison head. That does not make every head a final recommendation. It simply shows the best stock-shaft match for that head based on the fitting priority.
If you try any of these heads, start with the listed stock shaft for that head. It is the cleanest starting point inside that head before comparing nearby alternatives for feel, sound, or personal confidence.
Flex
How firm or soft the shaft feels and how it times up with your swing. It influences feel, delivery, and how easy the club is to repeat.
Weight
How heavy the shaft feels in the club. Shaft weight changes tempo, timing, strike pattern, and how easy speed and control are to repeat.
Launch and spin tendency
A shaft can nudge the flight slightly higher, flatter, spinier, or lower-spin, but always inside the head that it is paired with.
Heads shaft-fitted
5
Heads taken beyond the head-only shortlist and opened up to their full stock shaft options.
Stock shafts screened
108
The real stock-shaft volume considered across those heads, not just the short list shown below.
Heads shown below
5
The heads that survived into the final comparison, each shown with its best stock starting shaft.
Stock shafts were compared head by head across the final-comparison field. The fairest comparison is to keep each finalist head with its own best stock shaft first, rather than forcing one shaft across every head.
PING G440 LST
Stock shaft menu screened: 13
Best stock shaft: Project X Denali Red 60 | X | 62.0 g
The selected stock shaft for this head is Project X Denali Red 60 in X flex. Its high-launch, high-spin direction helps support the main goal of getting launch up, while the head profile still keeps the overall build from simply turning into a high-spin option. The less suitable direction here was an X flex, low-launch, low-spin route, because that would be more likely to work against the launch gain this fit is looking for.
TaylorMade Qi4D
Stock shaft menu screened: 9
Best stock shaft: Mitsubishi REAX 50 High Rotation Red | X | 59.0 g
The best stock-shaft pairing for this head is Mitsubishi REAX 50 High Rotation Red in X flex. It keeps the build in a sensible flex and weight range while adding launch help inside a more rounded head option. The mid-launch, mid-spin X direction was less convincing because it did not support the launch priority as clearly.
Titleist GT3
Stock shaft menu screened: 10
Best stock shaft: Project X DENALI Red 50 | X | 53.0 g
The selected stock shaft for this head is Project X DENALI Red 50 in X flex. The high-launch, high-spin direction fits the role this head played in the comparison, which was to keep launch support in the conversation without moving too far away from control. Heavier X flex, mid-launch, mid-spin alternatives were less suitable for this specific fit direction.
Callaway Quantum Triple Diamond Max
Stock shaft menu screened: 38
Best stock shaft: VENTUS BLACK (Fujikura) | X | 60.0 g
The best stock-shaft pairing within this head is VENTUS BLACK (Fujikura) in X flex. In this head, the low-launch, low-spin shaft direction made sense because the head stayed in the final comparison through its lower-spin profile. The goal here is not to suppress launch at all costs, but to keep the whole build disciplined while still matching the fit.
Callaway Quantum Max
Stock shaft menu screened: 38
Best stock shaft: VENTUS BLACK (Fujikura) | X | 60.0 g
The selected stock shaft for this head is VENTUS BLACK (Fujikura) in X flex. This pairing keeps the build in the right flex-and-weight window while holding a low-launch, low-spin direction that still suited the comparison. Heavier X flex, mid-launch, mid-spin alternatives were less attractive for this head because they did not match the overall build direction as cleanly.
Step 5
Final recommendation and why these heads made the cut
The purchase-ready route is PING G440 LST
The final recommendation is PING G440 LST. It earned the strongest complete-build position because it protected the controlled-spin part of your baseline without becoming too exacting, and it still gave the fitting a sensible path to add launch.
This is a data-backed buying route, not a guess from a head list. The fit did not need a major directional correction, so the winner is the build that best respects the speed, efficiency, and playable window already present while addressing the launch priority.
How the final options compared
Evidence Index is a 0-100 display of how strongly each head matched the measured fitting evidence. The chart labels show where each head finished in the fitting process.
The chart below gives the final comparison at a glance, showing how the recommended head finished ahead of the close second once the last trade-offs were compared. In this session, the key question was how to find the best balance between launch support and spin control. PING G440 LST finished clearly enough ahead of TaylorMade Qi4D to justify a single recommendation.
- Recommendation
- Close alternative
- Final comparison
- Shortlisted
- Excluded early
- Entered field only
This is a single-winner recommendation because one head made the cleanest overall case once head fit and stock-shaft pairing were considered together. The other final-comparison heads had useful traits, but PING G440 LST gave the best blend of spin control, launch pathway, and predictability for this specific fit.
The Evidence Index is a relative 0-100 display of how well each option matched your measured session. It is not a promise of distance, and it is not a forecast of exact yardage.
It moves up or down based on how well a head and shaft combination fits the measured launch, spin, dispersion, stability, and suitability checks in your session.
In this run, the ranking was driven by the measured session evidence: 14 usable shots, launch around 9.8 degrees, spin around 2179 rpm.
The next section turns this purchase-ready recommendation into a practical buying decision.
Driver build
Driver build
Driver loft recommendation
Recommended loft: 9°
Your club speed points the base loft toward this loft window, and the session data did not create a strong reason to move higher or lower.
Where the calculated loft sits between two available lofts, the report protects launch and carry by favouring the higher loft unless the session clearly supports moving lower. This matters because too little loft can cost playable height and carry more quickly than a small amount of extra loft costs control.
Some delivery details were not available, so the loft recommendation avoids false precision and leans on the measured ball flight data that was supplied.
Recommended loft: 9°. The calculated fit lands on 9°, and this head offers that loft exactly, so there is no compromise between available loft options.
Loft Sensitivity
Loft is an important part of the fit and we have provided a loft optimisation tool for exploring differences. This is not because the recommendation needs validating. It lets you see how the recommendation could change if your speed, attack angle or delivery changes later, for example after lessons.
To use the loft optimisation tool, adjust the swing speed, angle of attack or driver loft to see how the adjusted carry distance compares with your session data and recommendations.
The loft optimiser is a sensitivity model, not a second fitting recommendation. It shows how carry can react when loft, speed or attack angle changes around the recommended setup, and why it is usually safer to lean toward enough loft first.
Length
Driver length guidance: Standard length is suitable.
Starting point: manufacturer standard
The measured strike and delivery pattern does not give a strong reason to move away from the manufacturer's standard length. Most of the length-intake detail was available, so this guidance can use both static-fit and current-driver feedback. It would be more precise with current driver playing length.
Use this as the build direction for the recommended driver.
PING G440 LST
Use manufacturer standard as the starting length for this head. Exact OEM finished length was not available, so the report keeps this as manufacturer-standard language.
Hosel
Use the hosel as a small setup refinement
The hosel note comes after the head and shaft choice. It is not why the PING G440 LST ranked first, and it is not a separate recommendation.
For this build, the sensible first setup refinement is a little more loft. That lines up with the fitting story: look for added launch, but keep the rest of the build disciplined.
PING G440 LST
For PING G440 LST, start with a little more loft as the first hosel direction. The confidence is moderate supporting evidence. Treat it as a setup refinement to help the launch priority after the head and shaft choice are set, not as a separate fitting conclusion.
What to do next
How to choose and buy from this recommendation
The report gives a clear buying route through PING G440 LST. This is the purchase-ready option best supported by the measured session, with any in-person work treated as a secondary feel check.
The buying route starts with PING G440 LST, with TaylorMade Qi4D kept as the closest optional comparison.
If you are able to try clubs in person, keep the optional feel check focused on whether PING G440 LST still does the best job of add enough launch while still keeping spin in a good range, rather than just producing one standout swing.
How to use this guide
The simplest buying route is to start with the recommended build.
Start with PING G440 LST
Lower-spin but still stable option
PING G440 LST, with Project X Denali Red 60, X flex, 9° loft start point
Choose this if you want the lower-spin but still stable option. If you want the option that leans most clearly toward keeping spin down without turning demanding, this is the clearest place to start.
If you can try them in person
An in-person check is optional. If you have access to a shop, pro, or fitting bay, start with the exact head, shaft, flex, and loft shown in this report. Use that time to judge feel, looks, sound, and personal confidence, not to restart the fitting from scratch.
Does the recommended build feel easy to aim, easy to repeat, and consistent with the flight window the report is trying to improve?
Final buying guidance
If price, availability, delivery time, returns policy, or personal preference supports the recommendation, it is reasonable to buy from the report rather than restart the search. If nothing else changes the decision, buy the recommended build shown above.
Report confidence
Report Confidence
Very High
Very High report confidence. The session has 14 usable driver shots and enough core launch-monitor evidence to support the recommendation. The top options are grouped because the evidence does not justify separating them more strongly.
What affects this confidence rating?
| Factor | Result |
|---|---|
| Usable shots | Strong sample for a driver recommendation |
| Key metrics | Strong coverage |
| Delivery metrics | Partly present, added some setup context |
| Strike consistency | Repeatable enough to support the recommendation |
| Fit direction | Clear fitting direction from the measured pattern |
| Top-club separation | Top options were close, so they are grouped |
Appendix
Details appendix
The summary above shows the best stock starting shaft in each recommended head. The detail below explains why those shafts came out strongest, which nearby alternatives stayed close, and what the next best fallback would be if the top stock option was unavailable.
Detailed shaft reasoning
PING G440 LST
Best stock starting shaft : Project X Denali Red 60 | X | 62.0 g | High launch | High spin
This was the strongest stock starting point in this head.
It suited this head best because its high-launch / high-spin direction stayed aligned with the fitting without pushing flex or weight away from the right range.
Other stock options considered
- Ping Tour 2.0 Black 65 | X | 65.0 g: its flex stayed in step with the delivery pattern shown in your session its weight sat in a sensible range for the way you are loading the club
- Mitsubishi Tensei 1K Black 65 | X | 68.0 g: its flex stayed in step with the delivery pattern shown in your session its weight sat in a sensible range for the way you are loading the club
Other shaft profiles were considered, but the recommended stock shaft stayed the cleaner starting build for this head.
The selected shaft is the recommended starting build for that head. If you try the club in person, start with this build first and only compare close alternatives if the first option gives a clear reason to adjust.
TaylorMade Qi4D
Best stock starting shaft : Mitsubishi REAX 50 High Rotation Red | X | 59.0 g | High launch | High spin
This was the best-aligned stock starting point in this head.
It was the best fit in this head because its high-launch / high-spin profile stayed aligned with the fitting while keeping flex and weight in a sensible range.
Other stock options considered
- Mitsubishi REAX 50 Mid Rotation Blue | X | 56.0 g: its flex stayed in step with the delivery pattern shown in your session its weight sat in a sensible range for the way you are loading the club
- Mitsubishi REAX 60 Low Rotation White | X | 65.0 g: its flex stayed in step with the delivery pattern shown in your session its weight sat in a sensible range for the way you are loading the club
Other shaft profiles were considered, but the recommended stock shaft stayed the cleaner starting build for this head.
The selected shaft is the recommended starting build for that head. If you try the club in person, start with this build first and only compare close alternatives if the first option gives a clear reason to adjust.
Titleist GT3
Best stock starting shaft : Project X DENALI Red 50 | X | 53.0 g | High launch | High spin
This was the strongest stock starting point in this head.
It suited this head best because its high-launch / high-spin direction stayed aligned with the fitting without pushing flex or weight away from the right range.
Other stock options considered
- Mitsubishi Tensei 1K Blue 55 | X | 61.0 g: its flex stayed in step with the delivery pattern shown in your session its weight sat in a sensible range for the way you are loading the club
- Project X HZRDUS Black 5G 60 | X | 67.0 g: its flex stayed in step with the delivery pattern shown in your session its weight sat in a sensible range for the way you are loading the club
Other shaft profiles were considered, but the recommended stock shaft stayed the cleaner starting build for this head.
The selected shaft is the recommended starting build for that head. If you try the club in person, start with this build first and only compare close alternatives if the first option gives a clear reason to adjust.
Callaway Quantum Triple Diamond Max
Best stock starting shaft : VENTUS BLACK (Fujikura) | X | 60.0 g | Low launch | Low spin
This was the best-aligned stock starting point in this head.
It was the best fit in this head because its low-launch / low-spin profile stayed aligned with the fitting while keeping flex and weight in a sensible range.
Other stock options considered
- Project X Denali Blue 60 | X | 65.0 g: its flex stayed in step with the delivery pattern shown in your session its weight sat in a sensible range for the way you are loading the club
- Project X Denali Frost Blue 60 | X | 65.0 g: its flex stayed in step with the delivery pattern shown in your session its weight sat in a sensible range for the way you are loading the club
Other shaft profiles were considered, but the recommended stock shaft stayed the cleaner starting build for this head.
The selected shaft is the recommended starting build for that head. If you try the club in person, start with this build first and only compare close alternatives if the first option gives a clear reason to adjust.
Callaway Quantum Max
Best stock starting shaft : VENTUS BLACK (Fujikura) | X | 60.0 g | Low launch | Low spin
This was the most suitable stock starting point in this head.
This stock setup was the best fit in this head because it kept the build in the right flex-and-weight window while holding a low-launch / low-spin direction that still suited the fitting.
Other stock options considered
- Project X Denali Blue 60 | X | 65.0 g: its flex stayed in step with the delivery pattern shown in your session its weight sat in a sensible range for the way you are loading the club
- Project X Denali Frost Blue 60 | X | 65.0 g: its flex stayed in step with the delivery pattern shown in your session its weight sat in a sensible range for the way you are loading the club
Other shaft profiles were considered, but the recommended stock shaft stayed the cleaner starting build for this head.
The selected shaft is the recommended starting build for that head. If you try the club in person, start with this build first and only compare close alternatives if the first option gives a clear reason to adjust.
Why other head types were not the best place to start
That same problem shaped the rest of the fitting. That consistency requirement remained part of the final sort. The heads below the recommendation dropped away when they either tackled the wrong correction or gave away too much of the balance the finalists kept.
Excluded early
Callaway Quantum Triple Diamond
Reduced spin, but flattened the flight too much.
Callaway Quantum Triple Diamond was not the best place to start because it attacked the spin side of the problem, but it risked making the launch window even flatter than the session wanted Callaway Quantum Max was the better-suited route for this fitting.
Excluded early
COBRA OPTM LS
Reduced spin, but flattened the flight too much.
COBRA OPTM LS was not the best place to start because it attacked the spin side of the problem, but it risked making the launch window even flatter than the session wanted. Within its own lineup, this sits at the lower-spin, more control-led end of the range COBRA OPTM X was the better-suited route for this fitting.
Excluded early
COBRA OPTM MAX-D
Added directional correction that was not justified.
COBRA OPTM MAX-D was not the best place to start because it introduced more draw help than the session really called for, which risked solving the wrong problem. Within its own lineup, this is the draw-support model rather than a neutral starting point COBRA OPTM X was the better-suited route for this fitting.
Excluded early
COBRA OPTM MAX-K
Offered stability, but not enough spin improvement.
COBRA OPTM MAX-K was not the best place to start because it covered the stability side of the problem, but the finalists paired that with a better spin correction COBRA OPTM X was the better-suited route for this fitting.
Excluded early
PING G440 K
Offered stability, but not enough spin improvement.
PING G440 K was not the best place to start because it covered the stability side of the problem, but the finalists paired that with a better spin correction PING G440 LST was the better-suited route for this fitting.
Why enough loft is usually the safer miss