Recently, I delved into the burgeoning trend of Mini driver options, hoping to shed some light on whether one could be the right fit for you.
During my exploration, I speculated that, although Mini drivers are fascinating, they might not be the go-to choice for the typical golfer. For most of us, a full-sized driver trimmed to a more manageable length, akin to a fairway wood, might be more beneficial.
Having tested a similar setup myself, I can attest that if your goal is to achieve straighter shots from the tee, this approach is effective, as much as shorter driver builds have been heralded.
The prevailing opinion about these configurations is that, contrary to popular belief, a 3-wood isn’t necessarily more accurate from the tee than a driver. And while better tee performance can be expected over a fairway wood, maneuvering a Mini driver from the deck presents some challenges.
This rationale led a reader to describe the Mini driver as the worst of both worlds. It’s a bold statement, but if you’re seeking confirmation that Mini drivers cater to a niche audience, it holds water.
In this context, it’s telling that PING is noticeably absent from the list of brands rumored to be working on a Mini driver anytime soon. It’s not that PING disregards the benefits of a more controllable driver, but the company appears to believe that if hitting shots off the deck frequently is required, sticking with a 3-wood is wiser. If not, you might consider what’s sometimes dubbed a “thriver.”
A thriver, or as PING’s VP of Fitting and Performance, Marty Jertson, calls it, a “macro driver,” is essentially a full-sized driver head paired with a shorter shaft—cut down to a length typical of a 3-wood (43.5 inches), a 5-wood (43 inches), or even a 7-wood (42.5 inches).
Jertson shared an insightful graphic that outlines who should consider a thriver/macro driver and includes data from PING’s Proving Grounds comparing a shorter driver build to a standard 3-wood.
In summary, what we’ll refer to as a “macro driver” has hit 10% more fairways and shown a 40% tighter dispersion than a PING LST 3-Wood.
Unlike the Mini drivers, there’s no claim that the macro driver will work well off the deck. At a 3-wood length, it offers comparable distance to a 3-wood but with enhanced control.
As the data suggests, this makes the macro driver an excellent option for golfers who have sufficient distance but require more control than a typical driver can offer, especially if they don’t often hit a 3-wood from the deck.
For those looking to start, the advised starting point for building a macro driver is a 12-degree G440 head. PING offers several shaft options to customize to 3-, 5-, or 7-wood lengths. Logic suggests that as the shaft shortens, control improves.
Like Mini drivers, a macro driver might not fit in every golfer’s bag. However, if it sounds like something that could enhance your game, it might be worth consulting a PING fitter to explore this option further.
So, what do you think? Does a macro driver make more sense than a Mini driver for your game? We’d love to hear your thoughts.
