Bad Equipment?

[Tadashi70]

So I'm gathering everyone thinks these is no bad golf equipment. Golf companies make gear that is all good. That's because the equipment will fit someone means it's not bad.

How does that make sense? How is it the golf industry doesn't produce bad equipment. Either I am completely off my rocker or everyone is just too PC to say bad equipment exist.

 

[T2GRN18]

So I'm gathering everyone thinks these is no bad golf equipment. Golf companies make gear that is all good. That's because the equipment will fit someone means it's not bad.

How does that make sense? How is it the golf industry doesn't produce bad equipment. Either I am completely off my rocker or everyone is just too PC to say bad equipment exist.

I know with my response it wasn't to stay PC, but when I read the question my mind was thinking along the lines of what consider reputable club manufacturers. Sure there are some that either I have never heard of or whatever.

 

[Tadashi70]

I know with my response it wasn't to stay PC, but when I read the question my mind was thinking along the lines of what consider reputable club manufacturers. Sure there are some that either I have never heard of or whatever.

That's a given as far as I am concerned and I think everyone is thinking modern day. But even in modern day equipment there is bad equipment.

The SLDR is one piece that comes to mind. And I know there are going to be guys that say they hit it great so it's not bad. But that simply isn't the case from where I sit.

If a club has drastic distance lose on off veneer hit, where most golfers hit it, it bad equipment. The amount of distance and direction loss with the club is epic in this day and age. I would constitute that as bad equipment. Again just because a handful of amateurs can hit doesn't mean it's not bad. We are talking amateur and not pros, right?

Back in the day, Timmy amour made a set of clubs that were all the same
Length as the 6 iron, bad set of clubs. Callaway produced a few line prior to 5 years ago that failed in a big way, bad equipment.

 

[T2GRN18]

So do you think a club is bad if it doesn't work well for the masses? Like the SLDR? I've hit it a few time and absolutely hate it. Cause that would mean the majority of true blade irons would be bad too. Other than internet golfers who really can play true blade style irons. Only the better ball strikers. Which is probably top 10 percent of the golfing population.

 

[JB]

That's a given as far as I am concerned and I think everyone is thinking modern day. But even in modern day equipment there is bad equipment.

The SLDR is one piece that comes to mind. And I know there are going to be guys that say they hit it great so it's not bad. But that simply isn't the case from where I sit.

If a club has drastic distance lose on off veneer hit, where most golfers hit it, it bad equipment. The amount of distance and direction loss with the club is epic in this day and age. I would constitute that as bad equipment. Again just because a handful of amateurs can hit doesn't mean it's not bad. We are talking amateur and not pros, right?

Back in the day, Timmy amour made a set of clubs that were all the same
Length as the 6 iron, bad set of clubs. Callaway produced a few line prior to 5 years ago that failed in a big way, bad equipment.

But the SLDR is not marketed as a forgiving driver. In fact I dont think they use the word forgiving once across their entire campaign and website. The best in the world are showing that the SLDR is not bad equipment. Just that it might be bad for some golfers or even a large section of golfers. You used the perfect example of the EQL from Tommy Armour. That was not bad equipment. It was terrible marketing. In fact the creator of that set, is the same as the 845s, which some consider the best iron ever. He will be the first to tell you why it failed and it was not about the clubs.

Based on the above, you would have to say that the Big Bertha Alpha was terrible right? Or the Bio Cell Plus/Pro? Because they are not as forgiving as their counterparts, and offered the same COR in the center. That's just not fair in my opinion.

I have stayed out of this thread because I believe my opinion is well known on the subject. I dont believe that any of the major manufacturers are making bad equipment currently. The same could not be said for even 5 years ago. Materials, R&D and partnerships have taken this to new heights. Now with that said, there are certainly clubs that dont hold up for me compared to others. And certainly those that have some QC issues more than others. And without a doubt there are innovations and better designs than others.

 

[Tadashi70]

So do you think a club is bad if it doesn't work well for the masses? Like the SLDR? I've hit it a few time and absolutely hate it. Cause that would mean the majority of true blade irons would be bad too. Other than internet golfers who really can play true blade style irons. Only the better ball strikers. Which is probably top 10 percent of the golfing population.

For me it has to work for more than a small segment. Top level ball strikers pale in comparison to the average golfer.

There is difference between not liking blades and being able to hit them. I know you can play them but don't like the feel, correct

 

[JB]

For me it has to work for more than a small segment. Top level ball strikers pale in comparison to the average golfer.

There is difference between not liking blades and being able to hit them. I know you can play them but don't like the feel, correct

But this is where you lost me. The SLDR will work fine for every golfer. It wont be as forgiving as other drivers. Not by a long shot, but that should not make it bad. I will give you the comparison as to why. Just as a muscle back will do the same. In fact, one could argue that your entire Morgan Cup bag could be considered that way based on the description being used.

I understand what you are saying, that for equipment to not be bad, it has to perform for the masses, but that would technically mean that just about every low spin and workable club on the market is a bad piece of equipment.

 

[T2GRN18]

For me it has to work for more than a small segment. Top level ball strikers pale in comparison to the average golfer.

There is difference between not liking blades and being able to hit them. I know you can play them but don't like the feel, correct

Correct with the blades. I see your point too btw.

 

[Tadashi70]

But the SLDR is not marketed as a forgiving driver. In fact I dont think they use the word forgiving once across their entire campaign and website. The best in the world are showing that the SLDR is not bad equipment. Just that it might be bad for some golfers or even a large section of golfers. You used the perfect example of the EQL from Tommy Armour. That was not bad equipment. It was terrible marketing. In fact the creator of that set, is the same as the 845s, which some consider the best iron ever. He will be the first to tell you why it failed and it was not about the clubs.

Based on the above, you would have to say that the Big Bertha Alpha was terrible right? Or the Bio Cell Plus/Pro? Because they are not as forgiving as their counterparts, and offered the same COR in the center. That's just not fair in my opinion.

I have stayed out of this thread because I believe my opinion is well known on the subject. I dont believe that any of the major manufacturers are making bad equipment currently. The same could not be said for even 5 years ago. Materials, R&D and partnerships have taken this to new heights. Now with that said, there are certainly clubs that dont hold up for me compared to others. And certainly those that have some QC issues more than others. And without a doubt there are innovations and better designs than others.

You make great points as usual and I knew you would respond as such. I agree the SLDR was not marketed as forgiving but the masses don't listen, they watch and see the top guys hitting and want the same. Their results are less than stellar. Isn't this the barometer we use to judge equipment?

And yes the 845s were great clubs, I had a set. I also swung the EQL and thought they stunk to high heaven. At the time of release I heard the same from many golfers from many different circles. I would not consider that bad marketing, which I really saw none, but poor equipment.

Am I missing something? I know all clubs produced get the ball up and away. Are we saying if that happens it's already not bad equipment?

 

[T2GRN18]

You make great points as usual and I knew you would respond as such. I agree the SLDR was not marketed as forgiving but the masses don't listen, they watch and see the top guys hitting and want the same. Their results are less than stellar. Isn't this the barometer we use to judge equipment?

And yes the 845s were great clubs, I had a set. I also swung the EQL and thought they stunk to high heaven. At the time of release I heard the same from many golfers from many different circles. I would not consider that bad marketing, which I really saw none, but poor equipment.

Am I missing something? I know all clubs produced get the ball up and away. Are we saying if that happens it's already not bad equipment?

That in itself is a totally different beast. It's kind of like skinny jeans bro. Not all the ladies should try them....but many do?!?

 

[Trout Bum]

So I'm gathering everyone thinks these is no bad golf equipment. Golf companies make gear that is all good. That's because the equipment will fit someone means it's not bad.

How does that make sense? How is it the golf industry doesn't produce bad equipment. Either I am completely off my rocker or everyone is just too PC to say bad equipment exist.

Nah man no PC BS coming from me, I truly don't think the gear being made today is bad. I think there's something for everyone and because I don't like it doesn't mean it's a bad piece of gear. I would deem a piece of gear that was marketed to do certain things and not be able to do it at all as bad and I just haven't seen that.

 

[bobgeorge]

I don't think there is "bad" equipment. I do think, however, that there is a greater amount of false or misleading claims about equipment right now - especially distance claims. (I don't necessarily blame them. We all seem obsessed with distance right now!)

I agree with the point about false and misleading claims. Bringing out drivers and irons every year or 2-3 times a year in the case of drivers/woods and claiming more distance is misleading at best and a flat out lie at worst. Maybe a machine can create more distance or someone with a 110 mph swing speed....but I doubt if the common player seems much distance gains.

It's like the ads for GNC products where you lose weight or gain muscle.

Every company does it....and for me it has became a big turnoff.

 

[Paladin]

You make great points as usual and I knew you would respond as such. I agree the SLDR was not marketed as forgiving but the masses don't listen, they watch and see the top guys hitting and want the same. Their results are less than stellar. Isn't this the barometer we use to judge equipment?

And yes the 845s were great clubs, I had a set. I also swung the EQL and thought they stunk to high heaven. At the time of release I heard the same from many golfers from many different circles. I would not consider that bad marketing, which I really saw none, but poor equipment.

Am I missing something? I know all clubs produced get the ball up and away. Are we saying if that happens it's already not bad equipment?

Bad customers do not equal bad equipment. TaylorMade released a driver that grants what golfers crave, more distance. They don't market it as forgiving (though as I said in an earlier port, they ran it on the heels of other fairly forgiving drivers) so how is it their fault that players bought it and it didn't work for them? Also, they talked about lofting up, it's part of the advertising campaign, the whole bit, is it now TM's fault that players are ignorant of the tech they're buying?

I think the SLDR is a pretty novel piece of equipment, and the fact that it doesn't work for a large portion of golfers doesn't change that. Bladed irons don't work for a large subset of golfers, does that make them bad equipment?

In this age of computer assisted design for golf clubs, where a club can be proven for a long time by a computer before the first prototype is physically constructed, a bad golf club requires conscious effort to make a bad club, or a bad concept, like, I dunno, a chipper club.

 

[ArmyGolf]

Am I missing something? I know all clubs produced get the ball up and away. Are we saying if that happens it's already not bad equipment?

I agree with Freddie here. Bad equipment is out there just like bad phones, bad cars, and bad construction is out there. I just cannot buy that all golf equipment is created equal and that there is no poor equipment being released. The notion that because a piece of equipment works for somebody, somewhere makes it a solid piece of equipment isn't something I can get behind.

If a car has fewer features, looks uglier, gets worse mileage or has an uncomfy cheap interior we label it "Awful" real quick. Just because the car starts and get's someone from A to B doesn't exclude it from being a bad creation.

 

[JB]

TaylorMade released a driver that grants what golfers crave, more distance.

This is debatable.

I agree with Freddie here. Bad equipment is out there just like bad phones, bad cars, and bad construction is out there. I just cannot buy that all golf equipment is created equal and that there is no poor equipment being released. The notion that because a piece of equipment works for somebody, somewhere makes it a solid piece of equipment isn't something I can get behind.

If a car has fewer features, looks uglier, gets worse mileage or has an uncomfy cheap interior we label it "Awful" real quick. Just because the car starts and get's someone from A to B doesn't exclude it from being a bad creation.

Cant compare those listed. And I dont think anybody said all equipment is created equally.
To give you an example. Would you give the Lambo Aventador the mark as bad? It gets terrible gas mileage and does not have comfortable seats. It also lacks many features that are discussed in newer cars. Some would even call it quite ugly, although we all know looks are subjective. Or would you say, man it does what its supposed to do rather well? Then again, its not the fastest vehicle out there either, so therefore it would have to be labeled bad.

So lets take drivers. Give me a driver in 2014 that was a bad driver. What would make a driver a bad driver? COR will be maxed. Certainly some will perform better than others in certain areas, and there will clearly be winners and losers in performance and technology, but I would be hard pressed for someone to label a release from a major company a bad product.

 

[Jman]

You make great points as usual and I knew you would respond as such. I agree the SLDR was not marketed as forgiving but the masses don't listen, they watch and see the top guys hitting and want the same. Their results are less than stellar. Isn't this the barometer we use to judge equipment?

And yes the 845s were great clubs, I had a set. I also swung the EQL and thought they stunk to high heaven. At the time of release I heard the same from many golfers from many different circles. I would not consider that bad marketing, which I really saw none, but poor equipment.

Am I missing something? I know all clubs produced get the ball up and away. Are we saying if that happens it's already not bad equipment?

If it does what it's supposed to for who it is designed for in the spectrum though, how is it bad?

Every club is designed for a specific group, low spin, mid spin, high spin, low launch, mid launch, high launch, so every club will work well for a specific need but not every need, that doesn't mean any of them are bad IMO.

You can class the SLDR as unforgiving, penal, demanding, and even straight up not a good fit for the majority of golfers out there. But as far as being an ultra low spin head with forward CG like it was defined to be, it is damn good there. I don't like the club, I've made no denials of that here it anywhere else, but I still don't believe it's a bad club because I have seen people that it does fit absolutely change their games.

It's not PC, it's seeing the big picture, and I have hit and tested enough clubs to know that with these releases we are seeing today everything fits someone, it just does.

 

[Jman]

I agree with Freddie here. Bad equipment is out there just like bad phones, bad cars, and bad construction is out there. I just cannot buy that all golf equipment is created equal and that there is no poor equipment being released. The notion that because a piece of equipment works for somebody, somewhere makes it a solid piece of equipment isn't something I can get behind.

If a car has fewer features, looks uglier, gets worse mileage or has an uncomfy cheap interior we label it "Awful" real quick. Just because the car starts and get's someone from A to B doesn't exclude it from being a bad creation.

No one is saying it's equal, they are saying it will fit SOMEONE, not EVERYONE.

Every club isn't DESIGNED to fit everyone, that is just not how it works, there is a reason companies release multiple lines.

 

[JRod]

If I can't hit it well it's bad.

/thread

 

[ArmyGolf]

As far as the Lambo is concerned I think its different because the Manufacturer isn't trying to have any of those things. They aren't trying to sell it to the masses and their only competition is other Car makers in the same boat.

As far as a bad 2014 driver that is a tough one. The Jetspeed was a bad driver (IMO) but I think it was 2013. The 588 Custom is pretty uninspired and doesn't outperform its competition in any way.

Is there a golfer out there that will hit the EZ Forged better than the Apex? Maybe, but not many at all. I personally doubt that when Mizuno designed and built the EZ Forged that they were hoping a couple golfers here and there would like them. They wanted to be a contender in the GI market and failed.

I'm not trying to start a crap storm or anything I'm just trying to vocalise my opinion.

 

[ArmyGolf]

And I realize that not all equipment is geared towards every single golfer. But within each category I don't think it would be a stretch to find a club or two that is superior and a club or two that is inferior.

Using the Lambo comparison. If a Ferrari, Aston, or McLaren has more performance, more comfortable interior, and more features at a similar price point than the Lambo would be found lacking. In it's segment, it's a bad car. (I don't know anything about it just using an example).

 

[JB]

As far as the Lambo is concerned I think its different because the Manufacturer isn't trying to have any of those things. They aren't trying to sell it to the masses and their only competition is other Car makers in the same boat.

As far as a bad 2014 driver that is a tough one. The Jetspeed was a bad driver (IMO) but I think it was 2013. The 588 Custom is pretty uninspired and doesn't outperform its competition in any way.

Is there a golfer out there that will hit the EZ Forged better than the Apex? Maybe, but not many at all. I personally doubt that when Mizuno designed and built the EZ Forged that they were hoping a couple golfers here and there would like them. They wanted to be a contender in the GI market and failed.

I'm not trying to start a crap storm or anything I'm just trying to vocalise my opinion.

Your absolutely allowed to have your opinion. I strongly disagree with it, after testing everything released for the last 7 years, but its no more right (my opinion) than anything else. What you are saying is based on swings for you. To give you an example, the 588 Custom outperformed many drivers for LOTS of people (me included). The JetSpeed is an interesting example, because at the end of the day, calling that a bad driver would be no different than calling the SLDR or SLDR S a bad driver. Because outside of minor tweaks, the drivers are quite similar. Same metals, same CG spot, same weighting.

So that goes back to the question. What makes a bad driver? Im asking genuinely. The 588 Custom kind of makes my point (in my opinion) even based on your feedback. You called it uninspired and said it did not outperform others in the category. But wouldnt that make every driver other than what you hit the best then a bad driver. To give you an example, in our testing, the 913 and the 588 Custom are so similar its scary. Both lower spin. Both similar weighting and CG placement. Both the same materials or close. Both designs are quite similar. Both traditional looking. Both lack a ton of lateral forgiveness while being maxed at COR. So while one might not outperform the other for you personally, what would make it a bad product?

 

[JB]

And I realize that not all equipment is geared towards every single golfer. But within each category I don't think it would be a stretch to find a club or two that is superior and a club or two that is inferior.

Using the Lambo comparison. If a Ferrari, Aston, or McLaren has more performance, more comfortable interior, and more features at a similar price point than the Lambo would be found lacking. In it's segment, it's a bad car. (I don't know anything about it just using an example).

This is another great point. But I dont think anybody would argue that you will find top performers. Especially the way fitting comes in. I do however argue that that does not make one that underperforms for an individual a bad product. It might not be top in the class, but to me, a bad product is about manufacturing and design and I truly believe that is the only way to measure it.

 

[Jman]

As far as the Lambo is concerned I think its different because the Manufacturer isn't trying to have any of those things. They aren't trying to sell it to the masses and their only competition is other Car makers in the same boat.

As far as a bad 2014 driver that is a tough one. The Jetspeed was a bad driver (IMO) but I think it was 2013. The 588 Custom is pretty uninspired and doesn't outperform its competition in any way.

Is there a golfer out there that will hit the EZ Forged better than the Apex? Maybe, but not many at all. I personally doubt that when Mizuno designed and built the EZ Forged that they were hoping a couple golfers here and there would like them. They wanted to be a contender in the GI market and failed.

I'm not trying to start a crap storm or anything I'm just trying to vocalise my opinion.

How is the Lambo any different than what we are discussing here then? Companies that don't want or need to have "all of those things" in their designs of clubs? Who aren't trying to sell it to the broadest part of the spectrum (masses) but rather a more finite area?

The Jetspeed wasn't a bad design, it was just one that made no sense because its the same as the SLDR, and that was a major eff up by TM on their end marketing wise as they tried to be reactive and not proactive, it did what it was designed to with low and forward, but they already had one of those in the lineup (and then another with the SLDR S haha). 588 was a higher spin head so its on the other end of the spectrum and not in that middle section where most golfers sit in spin/launch needs, again, it was for a more finite section, but did what it was designed to.

I've been incredibly vocal about there being something off in the EZ's as far as CG, but I have two guys at my club who got fit for them and hit them just as well as I do my Apex, so even though the design is off, they work for someone, so I can justify calling them bad per say (but they got damn close).

Dude, you aren't starting a **** storm man, I love back and forth like this without people getting bent out of shape. Its good talk, and we all see things different brother.

My whole point here is some seem to think that there isn't enough negative in reviews, but if it does what it is claimed and designed to do, then why SHOULD there be a ton of negative? I could rant and b*tch about something I personally don't like every review be it paint or whatever, but shouldn't I tell you if it does what it claims and supply you with info to educate yourself before YOU go hit it and see how it fits you?

 

[Tadashi70]

If it does what it's supposed to for who it is designed for in the spectrum though, how is it bad?

Every club is designed for a specific group, low spin, mid spin, high spin, low launch, mid launch, high launch, so every club will work well for a specific need but not every need, that doesn't mean any of them are bad IMO.

You can class the SLDR as unforgiving, penal, demanding, and even straight up not a good fit for the majority of golfers out there. But as far as being an ultra low spin head with forward CG like it was defined to be, it is damn good there. I don't like the club, I've made no denials of that here it anywhere else, but I still don't believe it's a bad club because I have seen people that it does fit absolutely change their games.

It's not PC, it's seeing the big picture, and I have hit and tested enough clubs to know that with these releases we are seeing today everything fits someone, it just does.

So basically it's never the arrow but always the Indian.

 

[Jman]

So basically it's never the arrow but always the Indian.

Never said that, certain Indians need certain arrows (spin/launch), but that doesn't mean the others are bad, they just don't work for them. It really is that simple IMO.