when are we going to demand evidence

[Awkward silence]

I've never seen a robot play golf before. So why should it tell me what a club should do if I buy?

That's why THP and it's awesome staff and member reviewers are so great. Real people, real experiences, real results, right from those people.

Not yet...

 

[rjb01camaross]

An OEM just claimed they had the longest total distance 3 wood on the market. Backed by robot testing. They used a 115 mph swing speed and provided no other relevant launch data.

Is that a credible test for making the claim as the longest 3w available?

It isn't in my opinion. Heck most pros don't swing a 3wd that fast. This sounds like the Tour Edge test I mentioned earlier

 

[Ole Gray]

That robot would have to be liquored up to make a move like my flat arse swing. Until it can mimic my swing plane, speed, eccentric moves, etc. I'm not going to put much thought into a robot's golf game. I enjoy the reviews on this site and generally if a large percentage of those who are reviewing a certain type of club have positive vibes, it's pretty darn solid data. On the other hand you really have to find a way to try something your self. Not everything works for everybody. Unless you're a robot.

 

[jiiim]

Thanks to all the input....I'll try to answer a few of the pertinent ideas...

First not all golfers can get fittings... this is a big country...many can not afford the fitting fees...
Plus are all fittings honest..I say no...

Iron Bryan can be set to any setting one wishes as far as path...direction... speed just to name a few
it can replicate anything you want...You're telling me driver info on all areas struck on the face wouldn't be
important info for you...if no go get your $200+ fitting

The idea behind the robot testing is the Mfg's would have to start to justify their claims...maybe we could start to get
some honest advertising...I don't understand why some threads resist to having additional info on clubs and
keeping these Mfg's honest

Few mentioned Balls they are perfect for robot testing also..If I added up all the distance claims made by Mfg's
the next ball I buy should fly 550 yards straight as a arrow with a average swing..

Why do Mfg's get away with lying when no one else does..

Lastly.. robot testing is just additional info... it doesn't stop you from doing anything else you deem
important....but it may start a better line of communication from these Mfg's

 

[Awkward silence]

Thanks to all the input....I'll try to answer a few of the pertinent ideas...

First not all golfers can get fittings... this is a big country...many can not afford the fitting fees...
Plus are all fittings honest..I say no...

Iron Bryan can be set to any setting one wishes as far as path...direction... speed just to name a few
it can replicate anything you want...You're telling me driver info on all areas struck on the face wouldn't be
important info for you...if no go get your $200+ fitting

The idea behind the robot testing is the Mfg's would have to start to justify their claims...maybe we could start to get
some honest advertising...I don't understand why some threads resist to having additional info on clubs and
keeping these Mfg's honest

Few mentioned Balls they are perfect for robot testing also..If I added up all the distance claims made by Mfg's
the next ball I buy should fly 550 yards straight as a arrow with a average swing..

Why do Mfg's get away with lying when no one else does..

Lastly.. robot testing is just additional info... it doesn't stop you from doing anything else you deem
important....but it may start a better line of communication from these Mfg's

If you are really considering buying a brand new driver for say $500. Most people want to hit that thing first, during this "test" you can see for yourself if YOU see better results.

 

[mikeg_74]

Club clash

Dropping this right here bc this is better than any robot testing. Also the home page has all the details you need in the comfort of your home or office, so that should help with the travel issue.

I don't think a robot hitting balls will ever be more useful than a THP review because the review will give you a better perspective IMO. The way information is laid out all you have to do is take the time to read them, figure out if the technological advancements for said club might benefit you & that should shrink down your list of gear to test/hit in person.

I don't need to hit every club out there because if I'm being honest with myself I have no business hitting anything targeting a low handicap player or a "pro" version of any driver/wood. I know what my game is and what type of clubs fit me well. Does that mean I don't tinker, of course not, but it does mean I dont need to get upset or bothered bc OEM's claim something robots haven't validated.

 

[blugold]

Thanks to all the input....I'll try to answer a few of the pertinent ideas...

First not all golfers can get fittings... this is a big country...many can not afford the fitting fees...
Plus are all fittings honest..I say no...

Iron Bryan can be set to any setting one wishes as far as path...direction... speed just to name a few
it can replicate anything you want...You're telling me driver info on all areas struck on the face wouldn't be
important info for you...if no go get your $200+ fitting

The idea behind the robot testing is the Mfg's would have to start to justify their claims...maybe we could start to get
some honest advertising...I don't understand why some threads resist to having additional info on clubs and
keeping these Mfg's honest

Few mentioned Balls they are perfect for robot testing also..If I added up all the distance claims made by Mfg's
the next ball I buy should fly 550 yards straight as a arrow with a average swing..

Why do Mfg's get away with lying when no one else does..

Lastly.. robot testing is just additional info... it doesn't stop you from doing anything else you deem
important....but it may start a better line of communication from these Mfg's

What are the examples of lying done by manufacturers? Callaway explained their "2 Clubs Longer" claim on the Big Bertha irons. What are you thinking of when you say that they lie?

 

[Daddio]

I don't mean to single your post out but this seems to be the sentiment of many in this debate here. I.e. Robot vs human testing.

I got bashed for mentioning robot testing. Sure it's not perfect I get that. But I'm an Auditor by trade so I inherently like numbers and data no matter the source whether it helps me as a golfer or now.

But let me ask this. If Jman, JB, Hawk or whoever it may be that Reviews a club how is their data (purely numbers, not talking feel and looks, etc) any different than a robot to me. I may or may not swing like Iron Byron but in the same token I don't likely swing like them either.

The response I will likely get is, you need to demo a club for yourself. Sounds easy in theory. But I know of one free demo day in my area a year at an outdoor range. With 2 kids ages 3 and 5 I'm lucky on a Saturday morning to get maybe an hour to attend this. Doesn't leave much time to try a lot. I usually pick a few clubs I think might work and hit them rapidly and get home to my family obligations.

Thankfully I work across the street from a Golfsmith and usually visit once a week on my lunch break to see if any new demos come in or used clubs to hit. Very lucky in this regard. But if I didn't have this access I'd be in the dark often when it came to testing clubs.

Not to downplay robot testing or our reviews here at THP but this is the crux of the matter right here. Not one review or objective set of numbers is likely to accurately quantify differences for any of us. I know from carefully reading say JMan's reviews and getting to witness a few of his swings that his reviews aren't apllicable to me for instance. He has gotten along well with clubs that are forgiving higher on the face while I know now (after JB's poll on misses) that I'm a less common low on the face miss guy. For instance drivers JMan kills like like Vapor,14 Bertha, Aero, or 815 Alpha were horrible performers in my hands, while I hit the R15 DBD, SLDR and Bio+ great. Hawk, I wish I knew. Only saw one swing at the KC event, and while straight (and dang loud) it went 5 yards lol. Some might think averaging results of many THPers helps out but IMO it only makes it worse. I think it makes great sense to figure out your own tendancies and then look to objective reviewers with similar swing tendancies to start weeding out what might perform best for you.

I don't really think any of those OEMs are blantanly lying BTW. There are threads of truth in each claim made. Their marketers frame it in such a way to lead us to hope WE will reap every one of those benefits and then some in our quest for more, but really there isn't a BEST for everyone... just a better fit for you.

 

[emart2173]

Another great thing about THP is the number of embers who post in the threads when they test the clubs. After awhile one can figure out who swings similar to themselves and can find the comments that are more helpful to them. Live driver testing in two locations, Bridgestone U, Legacy, The King, upcoming with The Gauntlet and club clash and others have some sort of equipment involved and lots of good feedback in there. Real golfers providing real feedback for the rest of us. I will trust the information from fellow THPers to help me make a decision to check something out over OEM marketing or a robot.

 

[cwmonroe87]

Thanks to all the input....I'll try to answer a few of the pertinent ideas...

First not all golfers can get fittings... this is a big country...many can not afford the fitting fees...
Plus are all fittings honest..I say no...

Iron Bryan can be set to any setting one wishes as far as path...direction... speed just to name a few
it can replicate anything you want...You're telling me driver info on all areas struck on the face wouldn't be
important info for you...if no go get your $200+ fitting

The idea behind the robot testing is the Mfg's would have to start to justify their claims...maybe we could start to get
some honest advertising...I don't understand why some threads resist to having additional info on clubs and
keeping these Mfg's honest

Few mentioned Balls they are perfect for robot testing also..If I added up all the distance claims made by Mfg's
the next ball I buy should fly 550 yards straight as a arrow with a average swing..

Why do Mfg's get away with lying when no one else does..

Lastly.. robot testing is just additional info... it doesn't stop you from doing anything else you deem
important....but it may start a better line of communication from these Mfg's

Every golfer CAN get a fitting and a lot of fittings are very affordable is you some research. Some places do charge $200-$500 for a fitting but I have seen countless times on Coupon websites where reputable people giving cheap fittings.

 

[parsaver]

It sounds like what people really want is a third party to do testing of all different OEM's and publish comparison charts. While that might sound good on paper it's much more difficult to put into action. Which manufacturers get included? What drivers are compared to each other? Having a Callaway 815 DBD 9° hit at 85 mph, and a TaylorMade Aeroburner 10.5° hit at 110 mph doesn't make much sense, so who decides which driver falls into which category?

Even though a lot of companies have similar specs for similar clubs (lengths, lofts, lies), there really aren't any industry standards. So creating a standardized test for products that have no common standards is not only almost impossible, but the results of such a test wouldn't be statistically significant. Really, seeing some of these bigger player tests and reviews is about the best thing there is out there when wanting to narrow your search to 2 or 3 clubs.

It ridiculous to try and hit every new driver, FW, irons, wedges, etc. I cannot understand why MORE information is considered worse when buying a golf club. Manufacturer specs are horrible. That's one reason a third party, hopefully neutral would be good. It was done in the past and I never heard any complaints. BTW, industry standards are +/- one flex and .5 degrees for loft. They are horrible. TM puts almost a $500 price tag on their new drivers and then a year later they sell for $75 bucks. With that loss I what to know the driver is for me and the more info the better.

 

[T2GRN18]

What value is it if someone else can hit a club, or a machine can hit a club? When it comes right down to it. It YOU that is going to play the club (s). It's your $$ that is paying for said club(s). So why would you want outside information to help with a purchase? Reviews we get here are an unbiased look, our staff writers do a ton of the leg work, for which we are all grateful. But everyone of them will tell you "go get fit". Many places apply your fitting cost towards the purchase so that's a wash. If not it's still a sound investment to ensure your getting what is best for you.

 

[Daddio]

It ridiculous to try and hit every new driver, FW, irons, wedges, etc. I cannot understand why MORE information is considered worse when buying a golf club. Manufacturer specs are horrible. That's one reason a third party, hopefully neutral would be good. It was done in the past and I never heard any complaints. BTW, industry standards are +/- one flex and .5 degrees for loft. They are horrible. TM puts almost a $500 price tag on their new drivers and then a year later they sell for $75 bucks. With that loss I what to know the driver is for me and the more info the better.

Whoah, I want in on THAT deal! Resale on those new premium TP shafts alone has to trump that. Not arguing that more info isn't better, it obviously is. But I think the point many are trying to make is that this robot info might not be all that helpful and might even be harmful to many to be honest. How many casual off the rack buyers do you think might just look at robot results and wrongly assume they must be the most accurate unbiased and accurate source available and go that route, only to buy a horrible match for them?

 

[parsaver]

People who feel ignorance is bliss do not have to read any of the information mentioned on this thread. I think the members on this site are smart enough to read robotic numbers and decipher that info intelligently.

 

[1badbadger]

I think most of the guys who are "pro-robot testing" aren't wanting to see this type of info to determine which club they should get, but rather as a baseline to give some perspective on how they stack up compared to each other. This could narrow down the number of drivers for him to consider. The OP's reason was as proof that OEM's marketing claims were legit.

I think there is a reason why there is a noticeable lack of OEM-supplied data on these performance tests...the results from the extensive testing that manufactures do is very valuable and there is no way they are going to release it so everyone can see what they learned. I think it's reasonable to want proof of certain performance claims though.

 

[Jman]

So, what I've garnered from all of this thread thus far is that I have to start swinging like a robot for any info gathered over tens/twenties/+ of hours with each club to matter in my reviews now? That's interesting.

 

[CAA_Beat]

So, what I've garnered from all of this thread thus far is that I have to start swinging like a robot for any info gathered over tens/twenties/+ of hours with each club to matter in my reviews now? That's interesting.

More like BS James.

I'll take your real world unbiased opinion any day over a robot lab test. Some can say more info is better. Maybe for them. I'll take the THP reviews then go hit the ones I'm interested in. Seems pretty simple to me.

 

[Jman]

More like BS James.

I'll take your real world unbiased opinion any day over a robot lab test. Some can say more info is better. Maybe for them. I'll take the THP reviews then go hit the ones I'm interested in. Seems pretty simple to me.

I wouldn't call it BS, everyone has different things they want to see and that's cool, I'm just a better in real world golf swings and the ability to test a clubs performance traits in that environment. A robot does me literally no good in knowing what I want to know about a club.

 

[mcrobertsjmac32]

So, what I've garnered from all of this thread thus far is that I have to start swinging like a robot for any info gathered over tens/twenties/+ of hours with each club to matter in my reviews now? That's interesting.

I don't think that's what anyone was saying, and if that's the way u perceived it, I don't think anyone meant to convey it that way. All that was asked was that companies throw more testing and statistics into their advertising. That's all. Its nice to have as much info as possible. Just like when I get butt hurt about too many driver releases and people say "how can more options be bad?". Same thought applies here. How could more testing be bad?

 

[blugold]

I don't think that's what anyone was saying, and if that's the way u perceived it, I don't think anyone meant to convey it that way. All that was asked was that companies throw more testing and statistics into their advertising. That's all. Its nice to have as much info as possible. Just like when I get butt hurt about too many driver releases and people say "how can more options be bad?". Same thought applies here. How could more testing be bad?

I think part of the disconnect here, I think, you assume the oems aren't doing that testing. I think they do th as t testing and look at the numbers and say, "wow, this new 6i is 25 yards longer than a 6i we released 5 years ago."

 

[mcrobertsjmac32]

I think part of the disconnect here, I think, you assume the oems aren't doing that testing. I think they do th as t testing and look at the numbers and say, "wow, this new 6i is 25 yards longer than a 6i we ryears ago."

I know they do it. At least most of them, and the fact that it's usually not shown or talked about makes me think they aren't getting the results they want. I've seen Wilson Staff ball commercials where they show that the Duo is a better fit for people with sub 100mph swing speeds. I wish there were more of those commercials

 

[Scrap Iron]

Robot testing IMO would have been great back when all we had was the hot list. Equipment has become more sophisticated and the information available has also developed thanks to THP. I have learned that so much more is needed than club x goes this much further. I love and appreciate the time thoughts and availability of the testers. They make decisions on what clubs to try easier and see what works best for me.

 

[sposey013168]

I did not see that said anywhere in this thread. No one said THP reviews were not valuable and great to read!

Like many threads on the net, this one went off track. I am not the OP but I think perhaps all he was trying saying is that if Manufacturer A says their 2016 driver is 15 yards longer than their 2015 driver he would like to see their actually testing that proved such claim?

So, what I've garnered from all of this thread thus far is that I have to start swinging like a robot for any info gathered over tens/twenties/+ of hours with each club to matter in my reviews now? That's interesting.

 

[blugold]

I know they do it. At least most of them, and the fact that it's usually not shown or talked about makes me think they aren't getting the results they want. I've seen Wilson Staff ball commercials where they show that the Duo is a better fit for people with sub 100mph swing speeds. I wish there were more of those commercials

No offense here, but that is just your critical and semi cynical view of marketing. Which is fine. Bridgestone as plenty of commercials like that, Titleist does as well. They just come to different conclusions.

Let me ask you this, if a company continues to make marketing claims, but their products fail to meet those claims, how long will that company stay in business?

 

[sposey013168]

I would say they could stay in business a long time, The Air Hammer is still in business

No offense here, but that is just your critical and semi cynical view of marketing. Which is fine. Bridgestone as plenty of commercials like that, Titleist does as well. They just come to different conclusions.

Let me ask you this, if a company continues to make marketing claims, but their products fail to meet those claims, how long will that company stay in business?