Does a senior golfer necessarily need a Senior-flex shaft? Should they choose a lighter, longer driver with more loft to compensate for declining swing speed? Between November 2015 and 2017, we used the many testing sessions conducted with Jean, a 66-year-old 24-handicap recreational golfer, to put some of these widely accepted ideas to the test with TrackMan. Nearly a decade later, large datasets covering millions of amateur drives allow us to revisit that experiment with a fresh perspective. On several important points, its conclusions remain surprisingly relevant.
One senior golfer, 18 months of data and 41 drivers
Starting in November 2015, Jean, then 66 years old, a 24-handicap recreational golfer, regularly took part in our equipment testing. Over 18 months, he tested 141 clubs in various configurations, including 41 drivers. The value of his case obviously does not lie in statistical representativeness: one golfer cannot represent the entire senior population. Its interest lies elsewhere. By repeatedly putting the same golfer in front of the same launch monitor, using balls and measurement conditions that were kept as comparable as possible, we accumulated enough data to observe how he performed with different head types, lofts, shaft flexes, weights and lengths. The original article was not conceived as a scientific study. It emerged from this accumulation of measurements and from a question that gradually became impossible to ignore: do the conventional recommendations for choosing a senior golfer’s driver actually stand up to real-world measurement?
That methodological caution remains essential in 2026. We still cannot turn Jean’s results into a universal rule. What we can now do, however, is compare them with datasets on a completely different scale. Arccos’ 2026 report, for example, is based on more than 37,000 golfers who each recorded at least 100 drives, representing nearly 9.7 million driver shots played on the course during 2025. This huge dataset confirms two phenomena that matter here: driving distance decreases with age, but playing ability remains an extremely important factor as well.
Distance declines with age — but the story is more complicated
When we compared Jean’s results from the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 seasons, we found a decline of just 0.5 mph in average swing speed over 18 months. The difference was too small and our sample too limited to establish any general rule about ageing, but something else caught our attention: his longest drives remained very similar from one season to the next. It was therefore not necessarily his maximum potential that appeared to be declining, but rather his ability to reproduce it consistently. In our measurements, that change could represent approximately five metres of lost average total driving distance.
Nearly a decade later, Arccos data allows us to place that individual observation in a much broader context. Among male golfers with handicaps between 20 and 24.9 — relatively close to Jean’s playing profile — average driving distance in 2025 was 193 yards for golfers in their 50s, 188 yards for those in their 60s and 168 yards for those in their 70s, or approximately 176, 172 and 154 metres. Handicap, however, remains crucial: among men in their 60s, Arccos measured an average of 227 yards for golfers with handicaps between 0 and 4.9, compared with only 165 yards for those at 30 or above. Age matters, but it clearly does not tell the whole story.
Biomechanics provides another perspective. A study involving 17 male golfers with an average age of 62.2, measured using a Vicon motion-capture system and TrackMan, found lower clubhead and ball speeds than those reported in younger populations, along with differences in trunk and lower-body kinematics. The researchers nevertheless highlighted the importance of considering strength, mobility, balance and movement strategies together rather than reducing ageing to a number on a birth certificate. Research involving older golfers has also shown that physical training can make a measurable difference: one study of male golfers averaging 70.7 years of age found that an eight-week programme combining mobility, stability, balance and strength work significantly improved maximum clubhead speed.
The first lesson from our experiment with Jean therefore remains relevant: being a senior describes an age, not a swing speed — and certainly not one universal way of swinging a golf club.
A more forgiving head does not radically transform distance
At the time, we also separated the drivers into what we described as “Improvement” and “Player” models. The terminology has evolved and the boundaries between categories have become even less distinct, but the idea was to compare heads designed with greater forgiveness in mind against models aimed more at golfers looking for control, workability or spin optimisation. The TaylorMade M1, XXIO Prime and Mizuno JPX-EZ mentioned in the original study obviously belong to an earlier generation of equipment today. They should be regarded as the equipment used in the experiment, not as buying recommendations for 2026.
With Jean, however, the average difference in total distance between the two groups was only three metres, while average smash factor increased only from 1.41 to 1.42. That did not mean all driver heads were equivalent. Differences in moment of inertia, centre of gravity, mass distribution and performance on off-centre strikes can have genuine consequences. It simply showed how difficult it was to predict one golfer’s performance from the commercial category into which a driver had been placed. For Jean at least, the numbers showed no revolution.
More loft? Yes — but not automatically more distance
Loft produced much clearer results. As we moved from approximately 9.5 to 12 degrees, Jean’s launch angle increased from around 12 to 16 degrees, while spin increased from roughly 3,000 to 3,400 rpm. Yet once again, it was impossible to conclude that a senior golfer should systematically choose the highest loft available. In our measurements, 10 degrees produced Jean’s best average distance, at 158 metres compared with an overall average of 153 metres across the configurations considered. Between the 9- and 12-degree configurations, however, the higher-lofted option proved more favourable.
This is one section of the original article that deserves some qualification today. We had associated higher loft with a lower smash factor by explaining it in terms of reduced ball compression and the ball potentially “sliding” more across the face. That explanation was too simplistic. Smash factor is the ratio between ball speed and club speed and is influenced by several factors, including strike location, dynamic loft and impact conditions. It is therefore better to retain what we actually measured — launch angle, spin, speed and distance — rather than attribute the variations to one isolated cause.
The broader lesson remains valid: more loft can help a relatively slow golfer create more favourable launch conditions, but the optimal loft is not determined by age. It depends on speed, delivered dynamic loft, angle of attack, spin and quality of contact.
Does a senior golfer really need a Senior-flex shaft?
This was at the heart of our investigation in 2017, and it is probably the part of the experiment that has aged best. When we compared Jean’s results with Senior, Regular and Stiff shafts, we found no clear superiority for the Senior-flex shaft. In fact, Jean achieved his best results with a Regular shaft despite his relatively modest swing speed. Between some Regular and Stiff configurations, the difference in distance was only three metres. With the Senior shaft tested, we also recorded approximately 400 rpm more spin than with some of the other configurations.
Again, this should not be turned into another simplistic rule suggesting that Regular is better than Senior for older golfers. The conclusion is precisely the opposite: the letter printed on the shaft is not enough to prescribe the right shaft. Senior, Regular and Stiff are useful labels for broadly positioning products within manufacturers’ ranges, but they are not universal units of measurement allowing every shaft on the market to be compared directly. Weight, stiffness profile, torque, club balance, length, the golfer’s transition and strike consistency all contribute to the final result. Two golfers producing the same speed at impact can load a shaft very differently, while a relatively slow player may actually strike the ball more consistently with a slightly firmer profile.
That is why the question, “I’m over 60, should I switch to Senior flex?” is probably the wrong one.
You don’t fit an age. You fit a golfer.
Shaft weight produced much larger differences
Once we stopped looking only at the letter printed on the shaft and considered weight instead, the differences became much more substantial. The shafts tested by Jean ranged from 36 to 68 grams. Across this particular series of tests, increasing shaft weight generally coincided with lower clubhead and ball speed, while the difference between the two extremes reached 13 metres in distance.
Again, it would be a mistake to turn this observation into a new rule claiming that a senior golfer should use the lightest possible shaft. Shaft weight changes feel, tempo and the overall balance of the club, and interacts with head weight, club length and the way the golfer moves. A lighter shaft may allow some players to generate more speed, but that additional speed is only useful if they maintain sufficient control and quality of contact. Our experience with Jean illustrated this point even more clearly when we examined shaft length.
Longer and faster — but not necessarily better
This is arguably the most striking result of the entire experiment. With a 44.75-inch driver, Jean produced a smash factor of 1.46. With the shaft extended to 46.5 inches, his smash factor fell to 1.39. Yet his swing speed reached 77.9 mph with the longer configuration, approximately 7 mph faster than with the shortest shaft. On paper, the formula looked perfect: increase the radius of the swing to create more clubhead speed. In practice, Jean found it more difficult to centre the strike, and the additional speed did not translate proportionally into additional distance.
It is interesting to compare this individual result with scientific literature. Research involving highly skilled golfers has found that increasing driver length can indeed increase initial ball speed and potentially carry distance, although the resulting gains are not necessarily as large or as straightforward as the extra clubhead speed might suggest. Other research has similarly shown that club length interacts with swingweight, moment of inertia and launch conditions. The relevant point for Jean is therefore not that longer drivers “do not work”, but that their effect depends on the golfer using them.
For a 24-handicap senior, gaining a few mph is of limited value if strike quality deteriorates enough to absorb the benefit. That is precisely what our TrackMan measurements suggested.
What nearly ten million drives add to Jean’s experiment
Arccos’ 2026 data adds a dimension that was much harder for us to quantify at the time: what actually happens on the golf course. Across nearly ten million drives recorded during 2025, average male driving distance remained broadly stable compared with 2018 despite eight years of equipment development. Arccos also found that accuracy increases with age: between golfers in their 20s and those in their 70s, the percentage of fairways hit rises by 18 percentage points among men. Most importantly, golfers with handicaps of 30 or higher find themselves in a penalty or recovery situation after 45.1% of their drives, compared with roughly 12% among golfers below a 5 handicap.
That puts the relentless search for another five or ten metres into perspective. For a recreational senior golfer driving the ball 150, 160 or 170 metres, additional distance can obviously be useful. But the quality of a drive cannot be reduced to its maximum length. If chasing speed leads to more off-centre strikes, greater dispersion or more shots requiring a recovery on the next stroke, the theoretical gain can disappear very quickly from the scorecard.
Nearly ten years later, what remains of this experiment?
The limitations of the experiment must remain clear. Jean was one golfer. The 41 drivers were not tested within a scientific protocol designed from the outset to isolate every variable independently, while heads, lofts, shafts, weights, lengths and overall club balance could change simultaneously. We therefore cannot claim that Regular is inherently better than Senior, that a 50-gram shaft is preferable to a 60-gram model, or that one particular length will suit every golfer over 60. That caution was already present in the original article.
What this accumulation of measurements did reveal, however, was something far more useful — and the evidence available in 2026 has certainly not made it obsolete. There is no universal “senior driver”. Age may be associated with declining speed, but it tells us too little about a golfer’s ability, tempo, mobility, shaft loading, strike pattern or launch conditions. More loft may improve launch without automatically being optimal. A lighter shaft may increase speed without necessarily improving the outcome. A longer club may produce considerably more clubhead speed while reducing impact efficiency. And above all, a shaft labelled “Senior” is not, by definition, the best shaft for a senior golfer.
That was ultimately what Jean taught us before we had access to databases containing millions of drives: be wary of equipment prescriptions based on a single characteristic of the golfer. At 66 years old and playing off 24, Jean did not need a label to decide what he should play. He needed different configurations to be tested and their actual results measured.
In 2026, fitting, launch monitors and adjustable equipment are considerably more accessible than they were when we began this experiment. They should allow us to rely less, rather than more, on predetermined categories. So for a senior golfer considering a new driver, the right question is probably still not: “Which driver is designed for my age?”
It is much more personal:
“Which combination of head, loft, weight, length and shaft allows me to produce my best drives most consistently?”
On that point, nearly a decade later, our 41-driver experiment has barely aged at all.
