Not long ago, I wrote a story about the rise in Mini driver offerings and hopefully provided some insights into whether a mini might be right for you.
Along the way, I suggested that perhaps that, while intriguing, the mini approach might not be ideal for average golfers. Most of us might be better served with a full-sized driver cut down to more playable (fairway wood) lengths.
Having tried a similar build, I can tell you that if straighter tee shots are your goal, it works as advertised (insomuch as shorter driver builds have ever been advertised).
The general thinking behind these type of builds is that, contrary to what many believe, a 3-wood isn’t likely to be more accurate off the tee than a driver and while better off the tee than a fairway wood, a mini driver is going to be harder to hit off the deck.
It’s why one reader called the mini driver a worst of both worlds solution. Harsh, but if you want to read that mini drivers have a limited audience, that’s likely fair.
Macro > Mini
Within this context, it’s at least interesting that you won’t find PING among the list of brands rumored to have a mini driver in the short-term pipeline. That’s not to say PING doesn’t think there’s value in a more controllable driver but it appears the company thinks that if you need to hit shots off the deck with any regularity, keep your 3-wood. If you don’t, you might want to consider what is sometimes referred to as a “thriver.”
Simply, a thriver or what PING’s VP Fitting and Performance, Marty Jertson, suggests could also be called a “macro driver”, is a full-sized driver head with a shaft cut down to 3-wood (43.5 inches), 5-wood (43) or even 7-wood (42.5) length.
Jertson posted the graphic below. It provides some key insights into who should consider a thriver/macro driver as well as some data from PING’s Proving Grounds showing comparisons between a shorter driver build and a conventional 3-wood.
The summary version is that the … let’s call it a “macro driver”, I really like that … hit 10 percent more fairways and produced 40 percent tighter dispersion than a PING LST 3-Wood.
Unlike mini drivers, there’s no suggestion that the macro driver (I’m sticking with that) is going to work off the deck. At 3-wood length, it’s going to fly about as far as 3-wood but you’re getting added control.
As the graphic suggests, that makes the macro driver a great option for golfers who already have plenty of distance, need something more controllable than a driver and if you’re going to pull your 3-wood, aren’t generally inclined to hit 3-wood off the deck anyway.
Where to start
The recommended starting point for a macro driver build is a 12-degree G440 head. PING has a number of supported shafts that allow you to build to 3-, 5- or 7-wood length. Presumably, control increases as shaft length decreases.
As with mini drivers, you may not have a spot in your bag for a macro driver but if you think it might be a good fit for your game, it’s probably worth spending some time with a PING fitter.
Have your say
Do you think a macro driver makes more sense than a mini driver? Let us know.
The post Never Mind The Mini. Do You Need A Macro Driver? appeared first on MyGolfSpy.
