We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Why no indepeendant testing of drivers?

SuperStroke
I have hit almost every driver on the market, and there wasn't a huge difference between any of them. I was scratching my head over this thinking Driver A would be longer than Driver B, but it wasn't. I don't think there is any method that is right for anyone person. The bottom line is how much is gaining 10 yards of distance worth? With most drivers costing $349 or more, it's a tough call.
 
I see where the OP is coming from and often wondered the same thing. I think both types of reviews offer something. I would like to see a comparison of all the current drivers on the market which are sold in their stock form, same loft, stiffness and stock shaft and see what the results are with a robot with center hits, off center, toe, heel, low, high etc. across a range of swing speeds. Taking that information I see could be very beneficial as then you maybe narrow the list down based on that data as say your miss is a toe hit, you would get rid of all the drivers which suffered the most from toe hits, but were good on the rest of the test. Then take those remaining drivers and read the human reviews to see what they found out and finally in the end head to the store to get your own results. I believe having both would get you a great baseline to start with.
 
I liked the article published last year from the robot. I like the staff reviews offered here - they are comprehensive, honest and insightful.

That said, I think the single most valuable source of info anywhere is the collective feedback on this forum - including the staffers - on a given club. I get a high degree of confidence about the club's characteristics and performance by seeing X number of people provide feedback, having trends and commonalities develop, and reading the discussions about different experiences. IMHO there is no substitute.
 
tgtt said:
That's great. I'd still read every review possible too. However, if every driver was hit the exact same way and one showed it was 10 yards further and 10 yards straighter on toe hits it'd get my attention. It could very well end up being a club I would've had no intention of trying no matter how many reviews I read on it.

It'd be even more info to digest and that's never a bad thing.
Click to expand...

The point here, that you seem to be missing is, do you think you hit the ball the same way a robot does?....No matter what part of the face the ball is struck on? I would say no, and I know for a fact when I hit a ball off the toe it won't have the same performance characteristics as it will when a robot hits it off the toe.
 
blugold said:
Unbiased!!!! Hahahaha
Click to expand...

??? Are you saying that site is biased? I don't know if they are or aren't...but the more advertising money a company takes...the more their opinions might be bias. No one wants to bite the hand that feeds it.
 
zooropa said:
A point you make ad nauseum without any real explanation as to why. I have seen a stack of his videos and he doesn't love every mizuno club nor does he bash every tm one (the main reason around here why people give it to him) I think he is honest, amusing and tells it like he sees it. Happy to stand corrected if someone wants to post some actual evidence rather than just an opinion.
Click to expand...

Yet I don't see you posting any actual evidence yourself, yet rather an opinion. The same kind of opinion that you seem so eager to discount as long as it's not your own.
 
bobgeorge said:
??? Are you saying that site is biased? I don't know if they are or aren't...but the more advertising money a company takes...the more their opinions might be bias. No one wants to bite the hand that feeds it.
Click to expand...

[autocensor] that.
 
JB said:
I understood what you were saying. Just merely explaining why we dont do it.
However to be fair, Hawk has included numbers in many of his reviews and here is a perfect example of what I think is the most complete driver review done on the internet.

http://www.thehackersparadise.com/?p=19051
Click to expand...

That is a fantastic review. I really appreciate how it combines the subjectives like look/feel/sound but then gives the hard feedback of "this is where I hit the ball and this is what it did". I also like that he pointed out that himself and another player had completely different interpretations of what the shaft felt like and didn't say either was actually gospel.

As far as online reviews go, if I just found this site today because I googled "TM R1 Reviews" that is the type of review that could actually really influence whether or not I actually went to my local store and tried that club out.
 
zooropa said:
Can you not tweek it to deliver an off centre hit?
Click to expand...
Actually, yes. Callaway does this at the ECPC with their robot. In fact, if I remember correctly, they can put in swing-path angles and numbers, swing speed, angle of attack, etc to match a certain golfer's swing characteristics. They test heel, toe, high/low on the face etc. Thus, that's how they can tell you a comparison vs a previous model and how performance has improved overall. One of the OEMs actually has "9 points on the face" where they analyze data to find distances gained/lost, spin, etc.
 
ddelloch said:
That is a fantastic review. I really appreciate how it combines the subjectives like look/feel/sound but then gives the hard feedback of "this is where I hit the ball and this is what it did". I also like that he pointed out that himself and another player had completely different interpretations of what the shaft felt like and didn't say either was actually gospel.

As far as online reviews go, if I just found this site today because I googled "TM R1 Reviews" that is the type of review that could actually really influence whether or not I actually went to my local store and tried that club out.
Click to expand...
Welcome to THP!
 
SmoothC83 said:
The point here, that you seem to be missing is, do you think you hit the ball the same way a robot does?....No matter what part of the face the ball is struck on? I would say no, and I know for a fact when I hit a ball off the toe it won't have the same performance characteristics as it will when a robot hits it off the toe.
Click to expand...

A robot hitting the club is no different than a person hitting the club whether on center or off center, all you are looking for is consistent data across the face. I would say it would offer valuable data over a person "trying" to hit on center or off center for pure data purposes. With the robot it is the same swing over and over, so you can rule out any bad swing mechanics, whereas a person may have to compensate in their swing to make an off center hit, toe, heel, etc. I think from a data standpoint the robot would be more accurate and from a feel the human obviously.
 
So, it might be a mistake of me to do so but after reading through I do have a couple things to throw out there. Please keep in mind this is not a defense thing or anything like that, but as I staff writer I do have a couple of thoughts on some things.

When reviewing golf equipment, one cannot simply defer to an iron byron IMO because it takes out the human variable of consistency. Yes, you can set them up to miss, alter the SS, angle of attack and whatever else, but it simply cannot impart the variables onto a club that using human testers can do, it literally allows the gambit to be covered.

Now, as for the numbers. My numbers will not be your numbers, so there is no reason for me to list off umpteen numbers during a review as in the long run the percentage of readers which that will help is minimal as the majority have different speeds, tempos, AoA, and the list goes on in on. Rather, what I believe my job is to do as it pertains to information like that is to relate it in manners that are not blunt numbers, how does the club respond across the face, how does it respond on typical misses, is there a massive distance loss anywhere, how does it situate itself on distance etc.

I am a firm believer that it does not matter if it was a good club for me or a bad club for me (and this was the hardest thing to come to grasps with personally when I began) as I am not writing a review for me, period. Rather, the fact is that every single piece of equipment out there fits someone and will be a game changer for someone BECAUSE of that human factor I mentioned earlier and the uniqueness of the swing and of us as golfers. Instead, even if a club does not work for me I understand that I can analyze it from the angle of other golfers in the spectrum by looking at what the design of the head is intended to do, what the company says it is intended to do, and then seeing if it does that and how well it does it. Not all clubs work well for all individuals, but that doesn't mean its a bad piece of equipment, in fact golf equipment we see coming out is really good and the work has been done t by R&D departments to accomplish the things they set out to. I believe I should educate the people looking at a club as it pertains to the claims that are out there about it and help the consumers identify just what range of golfer or swing it will accommodate, from there people are better educated to go out, hit it, and make their decisions.

Some people are numbers learners, I get that, and people like Crossfield will spew them until the cows come home, that is their way anf there is NOTHING wrong with that, but frankly to me it alienates the majority for the sake of the minority.

This was long I know and undoubtedly it might ruffle feathers, but I just thought since my name was in here I would pitch my take on it all in there.
 
bobgeorge said:
I agree. I normally look at a little bit of both. I like the reviews by regular golfers here on the site & I also like pure unbiased comparisons with just the data.

As an example of unbiased reviews, one site just did a driver review/comparison of 22 current drivers. The Callaway SLDR finished 1st...while the Big Bertha Alpha finished 9th and the regular Big Bertha finished 20th. Makes you wonder if the Big Berthas are worthy of all the hype.
Click to expand...

Really? Did you take the time to actually look at the numbers they provided? There was clearly no effort made at optimizing launch and spin. 90% of the clubs they showed were producing over 3000rpms of spin with equally un-optimized launch numbers. That alone tells me all I need to know about that club testing.
 
A couple of JMan's paragraphs in particular would serve quite nicely as a primer for new equipment testers.
 
Some good thoughts and discussion here, guys.

Lets just remember that different sites and different people have a way of doing their reviews and giving their thoughts on clubs to the masses. Here on THP, our reviews are based on feedback from the testers from their thoughts on the course and on the range. We are not professional golfers, nor do we have 100% perfect swings, those 2 aspects alone can lead to some great reviews, as often times many people when reading a review look at things such as misses high/low on the face, out on the toe, low spin/high spin forgiveness, etc.

That honest and unbiased feedback is what we have built a foundation here on, and that alone sets us apart from many others out there. Just as others do their reviews a certain way, we do ours a certain way. In my opinion, there is no right or wrong way to do a review, as long as the feedback is there, I do believe we can all benefit from a mass of information on the clubs utilized to get us around the course playing the game we all love.
 
SmoothC83 said:
Really? Did you take the time to actually look at the numbers they provided? There was clearly no effort made at optimizing launch and spin. 90% of the clubs they showed were producing over 3000rpms of spin with equally un-optimized launch numbers. That alone tells me all I need to know about that club testing.
Click to expand...

If an individual got fit for any driver it would perform better.

They said how they did it:
-----------------

  • All drivers were tested in their stock configuration (off-the-rack). Where multiple stock shafts are available, we tested with the combination that produced the best results for each individual tester.
 
troyefl said:
Which part?
Click to expand...

9k spin. That's wedge like spin on a driver. Impressive.

bobgeorge said:
??? Are you saying that site is biased? I don't know if they are or aren't...but the more advertising money a company takes...the more their opinions might be bias. No one wants to bite the hand that feeds it.
Click to expand...

I disagree. While yes that does happen, that does no good to be a "yes man" to a manufacturer. If "nothing can be improved, it's perfect" is said about every club, the company cannot improve on their line. They also will know you don't give honest reviews with actual tactful criticism of the club, which will lead to less and less people going to said website to get reviews etc etc. A company is always happy when they put out a successful club, but they do need to hear what doesn't work so they know what needs to be looked into, why it's doing it, and what can be done to improve upon it.
 
SmoothC83 said:
Really? Did you take the time to actually look at the numbers they provided? There was clearly no effort made at optimizing launch and spin. 90% of the clubs they showed were producing over 3000rpms of spin with equally un-optimized launch numbers. That alone tells me all I need to know about that club testing.
Click to expand...

The thing I took most from those reviews is... the drivers coming out now vs in years past are all so close that one out of that top 20 probably will suit me best and it doesn't matter if I like #1 #2 or #15, I am not going to be at a disadvantage.
 
SmoothC83 said:
Yet I don't see you posting any actual evidence yourself, yet rather an opinion. The same kind of opinion that you seem so eager to discount as long as it's not your own.
Click to expand...

I can link vids until the cows come home but for what point? You and the other bashers are hardly likely to watch them given your aversion to him. I'm not the one bashing the guy, if you are going to criticize someone at least use some kind of reasoning for why you do. I gave a reason as to why I like his stuff.
 
bobgeorge said:
If an individual got fit for any driver it would perform better.

They said how they did it:
-----------------

  • All drivers were tested in their stock configuration (off-the-rack). Where multiple stock shafts are available, we tested with the combination that produced the best results for each individual tester.
Click to expand...

Haha that's my point exactly. If they claim that was the combination that produced the best possible results for each individual tester, then they obviously didn't try very hard to find what worked best. Based on what they claim then, a large majority of stock clubs provide poor launch and spin characteristics for consumers?
 
ddelloch said:
The thing I took most from those reviews is... the drivers coming out now vs in years past are all so close that one out of that top 20 probably will suit me best and it doesn't matter if I like #1 #2 or #15, I am not going to be at a disadvantage.
Click to expand...

Agree. I think a lot just goes into personal preference. You can get fit by a driver from any brand...Taylormade, Nike, Callaway, Cleveland, etc & they will all work to a point where you can't tell the difference. I mean can the avg golfer really tell or get any benefit over a round if their driver goes 3 yards further per drive?
 
zooropa said:
I can link vids until the cows come home but for what point? You and the other bashers are hardly likely to watch them given your aversion to him. I'm not the one bashing the guy, if you are going to criticize someone at least use some kind of reasoning for why you do. I gave a reason as to why I like his stuff.
Click to expand...

Ok, the point is though, the vid you would be posting is one mans opinion just like any other review. Are you saying because Crossfield puts his face on camera that his review is more legitimate in some way?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top