We Tested A Year’s Worth Of Gear. Here’s What Mattered Most

Testing across categories for an entire year reveals patterns that are easy to miss when looking at individual rankings. These takeaways are not about winners or trends. They reflect what consistently influenced performance and what made us all smarter in 2025.

Balance mattered more than specialization

Across drivers, putters, shoes and balls, products that avoided weak areas consistently outperformed those built around one standout trait. Strong results came from stability and consistency rather than dominance in a single metric. One poor performance area repeatedly erased several good ones.

MOI alone did not explain driver forgiveness

High MOI helped preserve ball speed on off-center strikes but did not guarantee tighter dispersion. Forgiveness showed up as a dynamic result influenced by head design, shaft pairing and how golfers responded to visual cues at address. MOI contributed to outcomes but never explained them on its own.

Mini drivers solved a consistency problem

Mini drivers did not outperform full-sized drivers for distance. Their value showed up in launch control and repeatability for golfers who struggled with standard driver length. Testing confirmed that reliability mattered more than speed on many tee shots.

Golf ball fit was defined by flight and spin windows

Compression proved to be a poor starting point for ball selection. Launch, peak height, descent angle and spin rates explained how a ball performed throughout the bag. Balls that produced playable flight first delivered better overall results.

Relative distance performance mattered more than totals

Some golf balls are longer than others but the gap is often smaller than golfers expect. Testing showed that while absolute distances changed with conditions, the way balls compared to each other did not. That made relative performance a more useful way to evaluate distance.

Unconventional putter design did not hurt performance

Zero torque putters looked unfamiliar but their performance stayed competitive across the test pool. The spread from best to worst was tighter than both blade and mallet categories.

Subjective appeal was a poor predictor of results

Putters (and other equipment) that rated highly for looks and feel did not consistently perform better. Several models with lower subjective scores finished near the top of performance rankings. Visual preference failed as a reliable way to predict testing outcomes.

Lower-priced gear often excelled in one area, not all of them

Across multiple categories, lower-priced products frequently delivered standout performance in a single metric such as distance or forgiveness. What they struggled to do was maintain that level across all measured areas. Testing showed that peak performance was easier to find than balanced performance.

Simpler design often delivered better real-world performance

Across rangefinders, GPS devices and golf bags, added features did not always improve usability or results. Clear optics and fast target acquisition mattered more than advanced modes in rangefinders while reliable stand mechanisms proved more important than pocket layouts and additional features in golf bags.