Rankmark Driver Test

[JB]

The Rankmark driver test is officially released to the public and it is available on www.rankmark.com

I have always thought VERY LITTLE of Rankmarks tests. So do most manufacturers for that matter. Distance and accuracy were both won by the same club which was the TM Burner. Yet it finished 2nd. Look and feel were both won by the G10 which took the overall.

The part that stuck out to me was that a few of the clubs that finished high in some categories and low in others is completely baffling.

For instance the Evolver not being near the top in distance was a stunner. Finishing below the 909D2 in distance is crazy. We have had over 30 people hit them side by side and say the same thing. As well as we have seen the results side by side from Iron Byron. As well as having the Burner the most accurate despite the fact that it is a closed face (1* IIRC). Must not have had anybody that plays a draw there.

But they are out for everybody to see.

 

[Paul McCormack]

The Rankmark driver test is officially released to the public and it is available on www.rankmark.com

I have always thought VERY LITTLE of Rankmarks tests. So do most manufacturers for that matter. Distance and accuracy were both won by the same club which was the TM Burner. Yet it finished 2nd. Look and feel were both won by the G10 which took the overall.

The part that stuck out to me was that a few of the clubs that finished high in some categories and low in others is completely baffling.

For instance the Evolver not being near the top in distance was a stunner. Finishing below the 909D2 in distance is crazy. We have had over 30 people hit them side by side and say the same thing. As well as we have seen the results side by side from Iron Byron. As well as having the Burner the most accurate despite the fact that it is a closed face (1* IIRC). Must not have had anybody that plays a draw there.

But they are out for everybody to see.

JB,

First, thank you for sharing the results and sending traffic to our site. Always very much appreciated!

You may, or may not know that Rankmark is under new ownership. I bought the company, with my business partner, Andrew Birnbaum (formerly COO of Sonartec) in late 2008.

I am sorry to hear that you think "very little" of Rankmark's testing. Further, your statement about most manufacturers also thinking the same is incorrect. In fact, the level of support that we have from manufacturers has never been higher. Where do you think we get clubs to test?

Rankmark has provided unbiased testing results to the golfing public for over 10 years. We have a very loyal base (both domestic and international) that clearly sees value in what we do. We are in the top 2.78% of ALL websites (per Alexa).

Regarding the driver test, we tested over 35 products. For each test, in partnership with a PGA professional, Andrew and I gather the results from the testers. We do not edit the results. The results may not make sense from your perspective, however, that is what our testers reported.

As you note, distance and accuracy were won by one club, yet another won overall. Again, that is what the testers noted on their questionnaires, that is what we report. That simple.

By the way, as our founder, Charlie Mandel is fond of saying, "Iron Byron does not buy clubs".

We do not accept advertising from manufacturers. Simply put, we do not care who wins. In fact, we regularly have conversations with major manufacturers that ask why their clubs did well (or not so well).

I encourage you to take a second look at Rankmark. Our testing process is not perfect, but it is very honest. That said, we will continue to revise and develop our testing process. We aim to provide best service possible to our loyal visitors.

Since we bought the company, Andrew and I have made a number of significant changes. Better yet, we have a number of exciting developments planned for Rankmark. Stay tuned, you might just agree with what we do!

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to respond.

Paul McCormack
COO
Rankmark

 

[JB]

Paul,
I hope so and when you guys bought the company, I was first in line to say that hopefully some changes would take place.

However this driver test was so far off from every driver test we have done over the last 6 months, with both humans and iron byron, that it baffles us. But that is okay, because conversation and numbers is all we want the public to see. It rips through the marketing and that is a good thing. But when making results, IMHO certain criteria should out weigh other criteria like we did with our testing. First, Distance and accuracy should outweigh other things with a driver. (we call that performance) Because after all, that is what people are after.

As far as manufacturers , we are having different conversations with them obviously. But we love testing, and the more testing the merrier. We want people to visit Rankmark just like we want people to visit other sites to get data.

But in the end, we want people to hit the clubs to decide which works best for them. We look forward to Rankmark's future stuff and will continue to promote it on our site.

 

[Paul McCormack]

Paul,
I hope so and when you guys bought the company, I was first in line to say that hopefully some changes would take place.

However this driver test was so far off from every driver test we have done over the last 6 months, with both humans and iron byron, that it baffles us. But that is okay, because conversation and numbers is all we want the public to see. It rips through the marketing and that is a good thing. But when making results, IMHO certain criteria should out weigh other criteria like we did with our testing. First, Distance and accuracy should outweigh other things with a driver. (we call that performance) Because after all, that is what people are after.

As far as manufacturers , we are having different conversations with them obviously. But we love testing, and the more testing the merrier. We want people to visit Rankmark just like we want people to visit other sites to get data.

But in the end, we want people to hit the clubs to decide which works best for them. We look forward to Rankmark's future stuff and will continue to promote it on our site.

JB,

We appear to have the same goal in mind - "rip through the marketing"! (BTW, Wonderful wording)

You make a good point regarding the weighting of criteria, we have considered doing so. In fact, we are currently studying how best to develop and assign weighting. I am sure that if, and when we add weights, someone would complain :confused2:

That said, if it makes sense to our viewership, and increases the value of the test, it will happen.

I share your goal of arming golfers with data. A better informed consumer, means a better purchasing decision, more golf played etc. Good for the industry.

We will continue to refine our testing process, after all, we have only owned the company for around 5 months!

Thanks again for allowing me to present the "new" Rankmark. I hope that we find a way to collaborate in the future.

Regards,

Paul McCormack
COO
Rankmark

 

[JB]

Paul,
We look forward to that too. Welcome to THP, and you are always welcome here.

 

[worst_shot_ever]

I don't have an opinion on the merits of the test, but I thought I might add that I hadn't heard about the Rankmark driver testing before, so I certainly appreciate the link. Also, since Paul has checked in on the thread, perhaps it may be worthwhile to provide some feedback about the layout of the rankings. I liked the menu bars that allow you to click on the particular category you are interested. I also like the photo representation of the clubs, and the fact that you can click the club and be brought to the mfgr's site for that club. I would recomend that the link open in a new window, however -- I found it a bit irritating to have to use the back key to get back to the Rankmark site. But the big problem for me, at least, is that I couldn't find any of the data (the methodology page also didn't have any information in it yet). I am not sure if I am just overlooking the link (in which case that should be made more prominent), but I suspect the decision to publish only the top 5 in each category is a purposeful one. If so, I would encourage you to reconsider providing more of the information on the results in each category for all the clubs, as I'd find it very interesting to browse through and it would also give me more confidence in the ultimate top 5 rankings in each category. This is all just academic for me (as I will try the club myself before buying and I'm not in the market for a driver at the moment, anyway), but I expect that is also true of many who would find their way to the site -- serious hobbyists would likely enjoy seeing the data behind the results as well as the results themselves.

Anyway, good luck with the venture and I look forward to seeing more tests in the future!


Edit: I found the methodology. On my screen for some reason the text falls very low on the page, which is off the screen when you open the link.

Edit #2: More browsing of the site suggests the data is made available in a newsletter. Is that correct?

 

[Paul McCormack]

I don't have an opinion on the merits of the test, but I thought I might add that I hadn't heard about the Rankmark driver testing before, so I certainly appreciate the link. Also, since Paul has checked in on the thread, perhaps it may be worthwhile to provide some feedback about the layout of the rankings. I liked the menu bars that allow you to click on the particular category you are interested. I also like the photo representation of the clubs, and the fact that you can click the club and be brought to the mfgr's site for that club. I would recomend that the link open in a new window, however -- I found it a bit irritating to have to use the back key to get back to the Rankmark site. But the big problem for me, at least, is that I couldn't find any of the data (the methodology page also didn't have any information in it yet). I am not sure if I am just overlooking the link (in which case that should be made more prominent), but I suspect the decision to publish only the top 5 in each category is a purposeful one. If so, I would encourage you to reconsider providing more of the information on the results in each category for all the clubs, as I'd find it very interesting to browse through and it would also give me more confidence in the ultimate top 5 rankings in each category. This is all just academic for me (as I will try the club myself before buying and I'm not in the market for a driver at the moment, anyway), but I expect that is also true of many who would find their way to the site -- serious hobbyists would likely enjoy seeing the data behind the results as well as the results themselves.

Anyway, good luck with the venture and I look forward to seeing more tests in the future!


Edit: I found the methodology. On my screen for some reason the text falls very low on the page, which is off the screen when you open the link.

Edit #2: More browsing of the site suggests the data is made available in a newsletter. Is that correct?

worst_shot_ever,

First, great username!

Great feedback. Let me see if I can respond to all of your questions and comments. For ease of reading, your comments are in bold.

"Also, since Paul has checked in on the thread, perhaps it may be worthwhile to provide some feedback about the layout of the rankings. I liked the menu bars that allow you to click on the particular category you are interested. I also like the photo representation of the clubs, and the fact that you can click the club and be brought to the mfgr's site for that club."

Thanks for the feedback.

"I would recomend that the link open in a new window, however -- I found it a bit irritating to have to use the back key to get back to the Rankmark site. "

We considered using new windows, but so many people use pop up blockers, we decided against the idea. I suppose we could provide the option - To open in a new window, click here.

To be totally candid, the site navigation is not where it needs to be. We have made massive changes to the site since we bought the company. Navigation has not quite caught up with our changes. We will work harder to improve navigation.

"Edit: I found the methodology. On my screen for some reason the text falls very low on the page, which is off the screen when you open the link."

I believe that your trouble also resulted from the number of changes we made. We have tested the site in hundreds of browsers, yet we still find unexplained differences in how it appears on different computers. We will continue to work hard to improve the site appearance in different browsers.

"I suspect the decision to publish only the top 5 in each category is a purposeful one. If so, I would encourage you to reconsider providing more of the information on the results in each category for all the clubs, as I'd find it very interesting to browse through and it would also give me more confidence in the ultimate top 5 rankings in each category."

You are correct, it is a decision that we discussed at length. We came to the conclusion that knowing a club ranked 21st, or 19th, really didn't help a golfer with equipment selection. Now, we could be wrong in that assumption. We obviously have all of the data available to publish, so we may do so in some shape or form in the future if we feel that it would help the majority of golfers.

You would be amazed how low some clubs from major (and minor) manufacturers rank. From time to time, every company, big and small, makes a club that our testers do not like. We are not afraid to name them, we just question the overall value to the golfing public. It could make for a VERY crowded site. I digress.....

"...serious hobbyists would likely enjoy seeing the data behind the results as well as the results themselves."

Now, regardless of my comment above, we are constantly evaluating our testing and the value it provides. We have some pretty cool ideas in the works, but nothing I can share at this point Stay tuned!

"Edit #2: More browsing of the site suggests the data is made available in a newsletter. Is that correct?"

The newsletter actually contains the same information, HOWEVER, newsletter subscribers get advance notice of test results, news on upcoming tests etc. They will also begin receiving information on some really cool competitions that we will be launching.

As I said above, we are considering how much information to release. We have such a loyal viewership, we did not want to shock them with too much, too soon right after buying the company.

I hope that I responded to all of your questions and comments. As I have said before, Rankmark is not perfect. However, we will continue to improve if golfers like you take the time to comment and provide such great feedback.

Thank you very much for taking the time to document your thoughts. We truly appreciate it.

Regards,

Paul McCormack
COO
Rankmark

 

[JB]

WSE,
I agree with the fact that more than the top 5 needs to be listed. Because with their weighting (or non-weighting) of categories, you can have a driver listed in a top five somewhere or even two, and never know that it may have placed sixth. For instance with their lack of weighting for things, a driver could technically finish top 3 in distance and accuracy (the two most important things for a driver) and not make the top 5. (in years past anyway)

But you would have no idea where it did finish.

 

[Paul McCormack]

WSE,
I agree with the fact that more than the top 5 needs to be listed. Because with their weighting (or non-weighting) of categories, you can have a driver listed in a top five somewhere or even two, and never know that it may have placed sixth. For instance with their lack of weighting for things, a driver could technically finish top 3 in distance and accuracy (the two most important things for a driver) and not make the top 5.

But you would have no idea where it did finish.

JB,

Your post is a little confusing, but I'll do my best to answer.

As we regularly test 20 to 25 plus products in each test (36 in this driver test), as I said, I am not sure what the benefit would be in publishing the entire list. However, I will definitely consider it going forward. After all, we provide a service to golfers. What makes sense to them, ultimately makes sense for Rankmark. We aim to continually improve our product.

As for your comment re finishing in top 3 and distance and accuracy, and not make the top 5, that is possible I suppose, but that also tells you something valuable about the club. It may be too loud, an awful color, feel awful, or just not be a "good" club in the eyes of the tester.

Further, if distance and accuracy are the most important, why not just test for distance and accuracy?

It is not as simple as testing for ONLY distance and accuracy, or weighting those attributes. If that was the case, the longest, most accurate club would corner the market (hint: it is not the same club for all golfers).

Testers opinions are subjective, yet paramount. Testers aka consumers buy the clubs for a host of reasons. That's what makes testing more of an art than a science (and fun). Consumer behavior is notoriously difficult to observe, predict and influence. However, Rankmark has conducted tests for over 10 years. We appear to be doing something right :act-up:

We'll agree to differ for now. We both produce good information. I leave it to the ultimate boss, the golfer, to vote with his eyeballs!

All the best,

Paul McCormack
COO
Rankmark

 

[JB]

Paul,
Thank you for responding, however my point was that most people look for distance and accuracy as the most important factors in buying a driver. Sound, Look, and Feel are very important as well.

But to think that in theory a driver could finish in the top three in both distance and accuracy and would not be published in the overall because it finished 6th or 26th is what my point was. People cannot tell if it finished dead last in the other categories or 8th. There is no way of knowing.

We have always felt that distance and accuracy when reviewing DRIVERS, is the most important factor in a review. At THP we combine those rankings into something we call performance. We give that factor as 2 points and each other category 1 point. Because after all the game is about lowering ones score.

But just because we think it is the best way to determine our rankings, does not make it so. We love that other places do testing and get input from players. You will never please everybody, of course. We just took the input of all the readers out there and decided to do it based on what the masses wanted and asked for.

 

[Paul McCormack]

Paul,
Thank you for responding, however my point was that most people look for distance and accuracy as the most important factors in buying a driver. Sound, Look, and Feel are very important as well.

But to think that in theory a driver could finish in the top three in both distance and accuracy and would not be published in the overall because it finished 6th or 26th is what my point was. People cannot tell if it finished dead last in the other categories or 8th. There is no way of knowing.

We have always felt that distance and accuracy when reviewing DRIVERS, is the most important factor in a review. At THP we combine those rankings into something we call performance. We give that factor as 2 points and each other category 1 point. Because after all the game is about lowering ones score.

But just because we think it is the best way to determine our rankings, does not make it so. We love that other places do testing and get input from players. You will never please everybody, of course. We just took the input of all the readers out there and decided to do it based on what the masses wanted and asked for.

In theory, if a club rated top 3 in distance and accuracy, it is very unlikely that it would be dead last, or 26th in overall. That is pure speculation.

We have sliced and diced our results to be of maximum value to ALL golfers. We have 20 plus categories (high, low handicap, seniors, women, price points etc). I believe that we are right on the edge of "too much" info. "Analysis by paralysis" can also result if you overwhelm the golfer with excessive amounts of data. Some will want it, most will not. I reserve the right to take good ideas from anywhere! But, for right now, we will not publish beyond top 5.

As I said, we both have the same goal - actionable data in the hands of golfers. For now, our approach works for the vast majority of our worldwide viewership. Overall, golfers are very happy with our product. Consequently, we are very happy with the number of loyal visitors that return to our site.

I enjoyed the exchange, hopefully, your readers did too.

Paul McCormack
COO
Rankmark