AccuSwing Club Comparison

Executive Summary

Scigolf is now offering Accuswing golf clubs. I read through the sales information and wondered if the claims could really be true. Could these clubs, sold by an organization I respect, really lead to an improvement in my game. Could a little known brand actually outperform or even match a major brand like Titleist or Callaway, or shafts by premium manufacturers like Fujikura and Graphite Design? I decided that the best thing to do would be to compare some of the Accuswing clubs to my own and judge for myself. This report documents my findings.

Biographical Information on the Tester

I am a 45 year old male, 6’ 175lbs. I have played golf for 35 years, primarily on public golf courses. I have had no formal instruction. From 1984 – 2000 I played about twice per year, and my skills suffered. I was always a slicer, and my average score in 2000 was in the low to mid 90s. That’s when I started to practice again, and that’s when I discovered the single-axis swing. The single-axis swing seemed to be bio-mechanically superior to what I had learned, and it seemed easy enough to use, so I tried it. It didn’t take long for me to decide to switch from the traditional golf swing to the single-axis swing. After 5 years of single-axis I now shoot in the low 80s on most courses. I still struggle with some of my old swing habits, like turning the hips too abruptly and swinging around my body (the old baseball swing) because practice time is hard to come by and the cost of personal instruction and/or video feedback is prohibitive. But nonetheless, I hit the ball better than ever and score better than ever. So, I have settled on Scott Hazeldine’s videos and the Scigolf website for my teaching advice. Only recently have I considered new golf clubs as a resource for game improvement.

Methodology

I decided to do a 3 part comparison: at the driving range, on the golf course, and before a launch monitor.

Clubs

My comparison involved the clubs shown in the table below.

Current Club	Accuswing Test Club
Top Flite Tour irons with Harrison Gold R3 steel shafts, cavity back design	Accuswing 4 and 8 irons with regular flex True Temper Lite steel shafts
	Ballista hybrid 4 iron with True Temper Lite steel shaft
	Recovery 3 wood/iron with stiff flex Rapid Fire Multi-Flex shaft
Titleist 905T 10.5° driver with a stiff flex Fujikura Speeder shaft	Magnum 550 Ultra XL 10° driver with a stiff flex Rapid Fire shaft
Titleist 904F 15° fairway wood with a stiff flex Graphite Design YS 6+ shaft	Synchron II 16° fairway wood with a stiff flex Rapid Fire shaft

I also tested a Callaway X460 driver and a Nickent Genex 3D hybrid during my launch monitor testing.

At the driving range

At the driving range I wanted to compare direction, trajectory, ball flight, and relative distance. Relative distance was a comparison of which club hit the ball farther, with reference to fixed points on the ground: Long, average, or short.

Dispersion was measured as where the ball landed in comparison to the flag: left of the green (over 10 yards left of the flag), left center of the green (5-10 yards left of the flag), center (within 5 yards left or right of the flag), right center of the green (5-10 yards right of the flag), and right of the green (over 10 yards right of the flag).

Trajectory was measured as expected trajectory for the clubs being tested: high, medium, or low.

Ball flight was the path of the ball after initial launch: hook, draw, straight, fade, or slice.

The targets at the driving range were greens that were 20 yards in circumference. They were 150 yards and 185 yards away from the tee. I chose to hit off artificial turf for the irons and hybrids, and off standard wood tees for the fairway woods and driver. I later hit balls off grass turf to confirm my initial findings.

I chose to warm up first, and then hit several dozen balls, 10 at a time, with each the clubs. I would hit 10 with the Accuswing club, and then 10 with my current club, and continue back and forth until I felt I had a good comparison. I recorded the results of each shot and summarized my statistics afterwards. I did this more than once, just to verify that my results were consistent over time. I did not work on swing changes during my test sessions. I wanted to try to swing the same with both clubs throughout my testing.

I also recorded weather conditions during each session, but that didn’t seem to affect my results.

On the golf course

On the course, I wanted to compare ease of hitting from different lies, such as fairway, rough, downhill, and side hill. I went several times and played both clubs wherever I could.

Before a launch monitor

With the launch monitor I wanted to measure launch angle, clubhead speed, initial ball velocity, and spin. I hit several balls with each club and recorded the average measurements for each.

Findings

Top Flite 8 iron versus Accuswing 8 iron

Distance: Both irons performed about the same in terms of distance. My current club, a cavity back design, hit the ball somewhat farther on off-center hits, but also pulled the ball well left of the target. Off-center hits with the Accuswing iron still carried in the right direction.

Dispersion: This was the most striking difference. The Accuswing iron was within 5 yards of the pin on 80% of the shots, with the other 20% either left center or right center. So 100% of the shots were within the 10 yards of the pin. My current iron was within 5 yards only 40% of the time, with 50% of the shots falling left of the green. Thus, I experienced a 40% improvement in shots within 5 yards of the flag, and an overall 50% improvement in the number of shots within 10 yards of the flag, which was an amazing and unexpected improvement.

Trajectory: With both clubs I achieved a high trajectory shot, although the Accuswing required less conscious effort to launch the ball high.

Ball flight: The ball flight with both was relatively straight. My current club was more prone to draw the ball while the Accuswing consistently delivered a straight shot.

On the course: The Accuswing 8 iron performed excellent on the course. I hit shots from the tee, the rough, and the fairway and all flew straight, high, and with the expected distance. It is clearly a more consistent performer than my current irons.

Launch monitor: I didn’t perform a launch monitor comparison for the 8 irons because the other tests were convincing by themselves.

In general, the two clubs performed about the same with the exception of my shot dispersion, which was greatly improved with the Accuswing iron. I also noticed that it was easier for me to feel the center of the club head with the Accuswing iron, so it was easier to “throw it” at the ball and hit centered shots.

Top Flite 4 iron versus Accuswing 4 iron

Distance: Both irons performed about the same in terms of distance. Like the 8 irons, my current club hit the ball somewhat farther on off-center hits, but also pulled the ball well left of the target. Off-center hits with the Accuswing iron still carried in the right direction.

Dispersion: I experienced the same difference between these irons as I did with the 8 iron test. The Accuswing iron showed a 40% improvement in accuracy over my current iron.

Trajectory: With both clubs I hit most shots with a high to medium trajectory. A few of my mishits with the Accuswing iron took a low trajectory, but that didn’t seem to hurt the distance too much.

Ball flight: I was more prone to a fade or draw with the longer irons, but they both performed about the same, with about 50% of the shots going straight and the remainder with either a slight draw or slight fade.

On the course: I didn’t perform a course comparison for the 4 irons because the Ballista hybrid proved superior to either.

Launch monitor: I didn’t perform a launch monitor comparison for the 4 irons because the Ballista hybrid proved superior to either.

As with the 8 irons, the two clubs performed about the same with the exception of my shot dispersion, which was greatly improved with the Accuswing iron.

Accuswing 4 iron versus Ballista hybrid 4

I wanted to determine if the Ballista hybrid offered any performance improvements over the regular 4 iron.

Distance: The Ballista hybrid showed significant improvements in distance. It wasn’t so much that I hit the ball farther with the hybrid, but rather I hit it long about 30% more often. In other words, I achieved the expected distance about 30% more often with the Ballista hybrid than with the 4 iron.

Dispersion: I experienced a great improvement in shot dispersion with the hybrid. From 185 yards, the Ballista was within 10 yards of the pin about 70% of the time.

Trajectory: With both clubs I hit most shots with a high to medium trajectory. There wasn’t much difference on average between the two. However, the Ballista hybrid was easier to hit high than the iron – because of its design I could swing with a shallower attack angle and still achieve a high launch.

Ball flight: My ball flight with the Ballista hybrid was about 25% straighter. I was much less likely to hit a draw or fade with it, but when I did it was always a slight fade. The more consistent ball flight contributed to the better dispersion of shots noted above.

On the course: The Ballista hybrid performs well on the course. It gets the ball airborne quickly which makes it good for shots where you need the ball to drop and stop.

Launch monitor: The Ballista gave me just over 78mph clubhead speed with an initial ball velocity of 110mph and launch angle of 20 deg. This is similar to what I recorded with a standard 4 iron.

In general, the Ballista performed better across the board and was an easy choice to replace my current 4 iron. When you strike the ball it makes a high pitched “ping” and sounds weak, but distance is not compromised. It’s just something you have to get used to with this club.

Ballista 4 hybrid versus Recovery 3 wood/iron hybrid

I was certain that the Recovery 3 would outperform my 3 iron in a way comparable to the Ballista hybrid versus 4 iron test, so I decided to compare it to the Ballista hybrid instead. Both clubs were designed as replacements for 3 and 4 irons and I wanted to compare them to decide which was a better substitute for me. There were several factors to consider. The Recovery was comparable to a 3 iron so it had 3° less loft, thus it should be at least 10 yards longer. Furthermore, it has a longer shaft, more like a fairway wood, and it has a graphite shaft rather than steel, so it should generate more clubhead speed. All told, I expected the Recovery 3 to hit the ball 15-20 yards longer than the Ballista 4, but perhaps with less accuracy because of the graphite shaft.

Distance: The Recovery 3 did, in fact, hit the ball farther. On average it was about 20 yards longer than the Ballista 4. This was a little more separation than I expected, but it was nice to see a 3 iron equivalent flying consistently over 200 yards.

Dispersion: My dispersion was almost identical between the two clubs. Both were within 10 yards of the pin 60% of the time.

Trajectory: Both clubs hit with a high or medium trajectory almost 100% of the time. Since this test I have hit both clubs extensively and discovered that my trajectory could vary significantly depending on my swing plane and other factors, but compared to long irons both types of hybrids hit the ball with medium to high trajectory almost effortlessly.

Ball flight: The Recovery 3, with a longer graphite shaft, had a greater tendency to fade than the Ballista 4, with its shorter steel shaft. I expected this. In working with the club designer, Harry Lundberg, we did a second test with a slightly stiffer shaft on the Recovery 3. This seems to have helped. Now both perform about the same.

On the course: Both clubs have performed well on the course. I hit both well from tee, fairway, and normal rough. My mishits seem to fly farther with the Recovery 3, but I’m also more likely to fade the ball with it.

Launch monitor: The launch monitor bore out what I observed elsewhere. The Recovery 3 carried the ball about 9 yards farther, generated about 6 mph more clubhead speed and 6 mph more initial ball velocity, but it also generated about 500 rpm more spin with a launch angle just under 20 deg, which was barely lower than the Ballista 4.

My launch monitor testing included the Nickent Genex 3D hybrid. It was easier to hit straighter and longer, and generally outperformed both the Ballista and Recovery hybrids. If you have the money to buy them and get them properly fitted, the Nickent would be a good choice. Even so, the Ballista and Recovery hybrids are a better value, in my opinion, for the cost-conscious.

The Ballista hybrids have the same MOI as the Accuswing irons, so they “feel” the same when swinging them. If one’s highest priority is the consistency of feel from PW – 3, then the Ballista hybrid is a better choice. If one prefers the ease of hitting a wood-like alternative with more distance potential, then the Recovery hybrid is probably the better choice. Due to the differences between the two styles of hybrids, I believe that one should choose either one or the other as iron replacements but not both.

Titleist 905T driver versus Magnum 550 Ultra XL driver

I am not accustomed to hitting with such a large clubface, so it took some time to adapt to the size of the Magnum 550. It wasn’t difficult, but it took time. The first thing you must do is tee the ball higher in order to take advantage of the design. You want to strike the ball on the upper portion of the face to achieve the proper launch angle and spin rate.

Distance: See launch monitor results.

Dispersion: My dispersion was almost identical between the two clubs. For the driver I couldn’t aim at a green, so I tried to keep the ball between two landmarks that approximate the width of a normal fairway. I was within the boundaries about 70% of the time with both clubs.

Trajectory: My trajectory was about the same with both clubs. I tend to have a somewhat high trajectory, and I was able to replicate that with the Magnum 550. Since it has a larger clubface, I need to tee the ball higher.

Ball flight: My ball flight was about the same with both clubs, ranging from straight to a slight fade. However, on mishit shots I had a greater fade with the Magnum than with the Titleist. This seems to be a result of the larger clubhead, which is more difficult to square at impact. For those who aren’t accustomed to it, they may need to make some slight swing alterations in order to square the larger clubface.

On the course: Both clubs performed well on the course. During my most recent round I hit 12/14 drives pretty much where I wanted to. One difference was that I could control trajectory a little better with the Magnum. There were certain holes where I wanted to hit a high fade in order to cut the corner on a dogleg, and it was easier for me to do so with the Magnum 550 than with my Titleist 905T. Overall, the Titleist hit the ball higher.

Launch monitor: I generated about 1.5 mph more clubhead speed and 2.5 mph higher initial ball velocity with the Magnum than with the Titleist. Furthermore, the launch angle on the Magnum was about 16 deg compared to 18 deg with the Titleist. This is a more ideal launch angle for most golfers. Finally, the Magnum generated about 2500 rpm backspin compared to 2800 rpm with the Titleist. My distance with both clubs was roughly the same, according to the launch monitor, despite the fact that my launch characteristics were better with the Magnum. This anomaly could be attributed to the fact that I generated more sidespin with the Magnum than with the Titleist. Given equal sidespin, the Magnum would have hit the ball somewhat farther than the Titleist.

My launch monitor testing also compared the Callaway X460 driver. It was a distant third in my test results.

When you consider that a new custom-fitted Magnum driver costs several hundred dollars less than a new or used Titleist driver and yet performs the same and perhaps slightly better, it’s hard to come up with a reason to purchase the Titleist club. I’m ready to trade mine in!

Titleist 904F fairway wood versus Synchron II fairway wood

Distance: See launch monitor results.

Dispersion: As with the drivers, I tried to keep the ball between two landmarks. I tended to hit the Titleist straighter than the Synchron, although both clubs kept the ball in play. So the overall dispersion was about the same.

Trajectory: My initial trajectory was about the same with both clubs, but the Synchron has a tendency to balloon on me. In other words, it starts out with good trajectory but then rises too high, causing a loss in distance and reducing the amount of roll after it lands.

Ball flight: My ball flight was relatively straight with the Titleist with a consistent trajectory, whereas I usually had a slight fade with the Synchron with a ballooning pattern.

On the course: Both clubs performed well on the course. I had no trouble getting the ball airborne from either fairway or rough. Both have a low profile so they are easy to get down and under the ball from most lies. As I mentioned above, I’ve noticed that balls hit with the Synchron tend to balloon after starting with a nice launch angle, whereas balls hit with the Titleist have a consistent trajectory with good roll.

Launch monitor: I generated about 5 mph more clubhead speed and 4 mph higher initial ball velocity with the Synchron than with the Titleist. This is probably a result of the fact that the shaft on the Synchron is 2 inches longer than the Titleist. For the average golfer, a longer club allows for more clubhead speed, although it may also result in less control. Furthermore, the launch angle on the Synchron was about 17.5 deg compared to 18.5 deg with the Titleist. Finally, the Synchron generated about 4700 rpm backspin compared to 3600 rpm with the Titleist. This last characteristic caused the Titleist to travel about 7 yards farther, even though the clubhead speed was less.

The excessive backspin from the Synchron would explain why the ball ballooned on me both on the range and on the course. I am exploring the possibility that the shaft is too flexible and needs to be trimmed a little stiffer. At this point, the Titleist fairway wood outperforms the Synchron model.

Summary

My experience testing the Accuswing clubs has been excellent. I believe they are an excellent club at a tremendous value. I found that the Accuswing irons hit the ball more consistently, more accurately, and with better overall trajectory than my two previous sets of irons. I may have lost a little bit of distance, but I’d happily trade a few yards distance for more greens in regulation. Both the Ballista and Recovery hybrids outperformed any long irons I’ve ever used. The Magnum driver seems comparable, if not slightly better than top of the line clubs like Titleist. Plus, best of all, each club is custom fitted to your swing at no additional charge. You cannot overestimate the value of having a club fitted to your size, swing, and skill level.

I would encourage anyone who wants to test these clubs for themselves to take the time needed to fit the clubs properly. The fitting makes a difference when trying to match the clubs to your swing habits. You also need to give yourself time to evaluate the differences and decide what you like, what you don’t like, and then tell Harry, the club fitter, and let him make recommendations. We made several modifications to the clubs during fitting, each of which improved overall performance.

Keep in mind that these are not miracle clubs – no club is. As single axis golfers we should be well aware that the biggest difference in overall performance is improving your swing. After that, you find clubs that aid you in swinging consistently. These clubs do just that.

And last, but by no means least, the club designer and fitter, Harry Lundberg, has been very helpful during the entire process. He has educated me about the clubs and how they were designed to improve performance, from a technical standpoint. He has helped me to choose the appropriate shafts and has made suggestions based on all the feedback I have given him about performance. His input and responsiveness was invaluable during my evaluation.