Bad Equipment?

[bigskyirish]

I think people are comparing "best in class" vs "bad equipment". You can have some great equipment that is even a bit better than others without making the others "bad".

This is a good point. Just to clarify, my interpretation (using ArmyGolf's hypothetical) is based on the assumption that a particular set marketed as general GI irons were actually the best fit for only some very small percentage of players versus other general GI sets. For example, let's say that the ACME GI iron performed the best for 2% of players, but Callaway, TaylorMade, Titleist, Cleveland, Cobra, Bridgestone and Ping all made general GI irons that performed the best for a substantially larger percentage. I wouldn't say that ACME's clubs were "bad" in the sense that they were garbage that nobody could hit - after all, they were the best option for 2%. But I would say that their GI iron design was bad in the sense that 7 OEMs were able to come up with designs that objectively outperformed them.

 

[JB]

I think that's the focal point of the whole issue. 'Bad' has a different meaning for all of us.

If I say "those clubs are bad" what I'm saying is that there is a better option out there for the same money.
If you say "those clubs are bad" you are saying that they are absolute garbage and should be touched by nobody.

My AP1s do nothing that the Apex dont do, and the Apex look better and feel better and sound better. My AP1s are bad clubs by comparison.

So going back to that analogy that you used. The M3 is the gold standard. Does that make the G37 or the Civic Si bad?

 

[ArmyGolf]

So going back to that analogy that you used. The M3 is the gold standard. Does that make the G37 or the Civic Si bad?

If the G37 or Civic SI costs even close to what the M3 costs I sure wouldnt buy one. To me they would be bad cars.

 

[JB]

If the G37 or Civic SI costs even close to what the M3 costs I sure wouldnt buy one. To me they would be bad cars.

So price dictates good or bad in this scenario. Does that mean you think when reviewing drivers they should be broken down into $299, $399 and $499 and $599 models? Or should they be compared as drivers across the board since the goals are the same? Genuinely curious.

 

[dciccoritti]

My Cleveland 588 Altitudes are BAD ASS!!

 

[ArmyGolf]

So price dictates good or bad in this scenario. Does that mean you think when reviewing drivers they should be broken down into $299, $399 and $499 and $599 models? Or should they be compared as drivers across the board since the goals are the same? Genuinely curious.

I haven't even considered that before but I suppose they could be.
For some the 1-200 dollar difference isn't a big deal and for others it could be a deal breaker so that would change the landscape quite a bit as far as comparing clubs.

If a review ended with "All in all this driver is the best in its price group, and if you want more performance you have to spend more money" I'm not sure if that would be good for a club or bad for a club.

 

[amsmith61]

I don't think there is bad equipment. In my mind I try to distinguish between equipment that fits or works for me and equipment that doesn't. Doesn't make it bad because it doesn't fit me. Probably fits somebody else really well.

 

[bigskyirish]

So price dictates good or bad in this scenario. Does that mean you think when reviewing drivers they should be broken down into $299, $399 and $499 and $599 models? Or should they be compared as drivers across the board since the goals are the same? Genuinely curious.

I can see both sides of this one and to me a lot of it has to do with marketing. If a Honda Civic were marketed as a direct competitor of the M3, I think it would be fair to call it "bad" because it certainly would not be a very good luxury sedan. On the other hand, I think it's also true that just because it's not a very good luxury sedan doesn't necessarily mean that it is a "bad" overall car; it would just be poorly marketed.

 

[JB]

I haven't even considered that before but I suppose they could be.
For some the 1-200 dollar difference isn't a big deal and for others it could be a deal breaker so that would change the landscape quite a bit as far as comparing clubs.

If a review ended with "All in all this driver is the best in its price group, and if you want more performance you have to spend more money" I'm not sure if that would be good for a club or bad for a club.

But again, that will be different for every person testing. So saying something is the best, means its only the best for a single reviewer. That to me in the end would be giving really really bad advice to golfers.

I can see both sides of this one and to me a lot of it has to do with marketing. If a Honda Civic were marketed as a direct competitor of the M3, I think it would be fair to call it "bad" because it certainly would not be a very good luxury sedan. On the other hand, I think it's also true that just because it's not a very good luxury sedan doesn't necessarily mean that it is a "bad" overall car; it would just be poorly marketed.

A bad car? It has similar safety, does a similar job and costs tens of thousands less. Wouldnt that make it better? See my point?

For some reason people are searching for a resolution rather than information. Nobody should EVER dictate what should be used. That is a pound my chest moment to say "what I say goes". Bad way of being in the game to educate.

 

[Paladin]

So price dictates good or bad in this scenario. Does that mean you think when reviewing drivers they should be broken down into $299, $399 and $499 and $599 models? Or should they be compared as drivers across the board since the goals are the same? Genuinely curious.

This is where the car/golf club argument breaks down for me. You can make the argument that a player might choose a less expensive option for a golf club or set of clubs, even when shopping for a deal. But because I consider a golf club a luxury item, I don't personally think that a specific club like a driver needs to be broken down by price. Would I prefer to pay less? Sure. But if I'm in the market, I'm in the market because I have spending cash.

On the other hand, automobiles vary tremendously by price and quality, far beyond the spectrum of golf clubs. Also, a car sits somewhere much closer to a need. If my car were to croak on me today, I would have to start shopping or get it fixed, and quickly. My life looks and functions very differently if I'm limited to my bicycle. So if we agree that the M3 is the best car out there, then we also have to accept the $75K price tag that comes with it makes it difficult to compare to, say, a Ford Mustang, despite being being 2-door coupes with 8 cylinder engines...being that a Mustang similarly equipped goes for about $42K.

If I'm buying a driver, I'm going to buy the best driver/shaft for my game, because I can. If I'm buying a car, I'd like to get a nice one, but getting there still takes massive precedence over getting there quickly or in the lap of luxury.

 

[ryebread]

Then the golf industry is the only industry that does not produce 'bad' gear. Car companies do it, clothing, food, makeup, you name it. All industries make bad stuff. But the golf industry is devoid of this practice.

Hmm... I think there are some reasons for this:
1) Golf clubs really aren't that complex with in ways that could impact the "quality." Adjustability is about it.
2) Most are leveraging all the same build companies, foundries, etc. with slightly different designs or materials. If the shaft company or foundry ups their quality, then it applies to multiple OEMs. If a shaft provider improves, then many OEMs benefit.
3) This is a niche market of people with disposable income. There's a quality floor in order to really be able to play and make any dent in the market at all.
4) All of the product is fundamentally very similar. Sure some of it is more forgiving, looks different, has different specs, etc., but really from a functionality perspective, very few offerings are really that different in a way that would impact their quality.

The other industries mentioned either have:
- Many more options (e.g. food)
- Much cheaper materials that are more fragile (e.g. clothing)
- Much more complex (e.g. automobiles, computer software, phones/laptops)
- Much more abusive consumers with respect to treating the object out of design spec (e.g. children's toys)

 

[deuce]

My AP1s do nothing that the Apex dont do, and the Apex look better and feel better and sound better. My AP1s are bad clubs by comparison.

Looks and feel and sound are all subjective. What you love, others may hate. That would make the Apex clubs "bad" based on your definition.

 

[bigskyirish]

A bad car? It has similar safety, does a similar job and costs tens of thousands less. Wouldnt that make it better? See my point?

For some reason people are searching for a resolution rather than information. Nobody should EVER dictate what should be used. That is a pound my chest moment to say "what I say goes". Bad way of being in the game to educate.

Let me say first that I absolutely agree that nobody should ever dictate what will be best for someone else. I think that's a particularly bad approach in golf. But that's why I think ArmyGolf's original hypothetical is so interesting. If you took 1,000 10-20 handicappers and had them all test a whole host of GI irons and there were some brands that overwhelmingly outperformed others, could you then say that the good performers had objectively better designs than others? I tend to think yes. But that comes with the HUGE qualifier that I do not think that would mean that the relatively poorer performers were bad for everyone. Even if a particular OEMs design was the best performer for only 1 of 1,000 testers, it would obviously not be a bad design to that tester. In fact, to that tester, it would not only be a good design, it would be the best.

In the car example, I get your point that in one sense, the Civic could be said to be a better car, with its similar safety ratings and ability to get you from here to there at a lower price point. But that's why I said bad in the sense that it wouldn't be a very good luxury sedan, instead of saying it wouldn't be a very good car. I think it completely depends on the criteria you are marketing for. In the luxury sedan category, it wouldn't have the handling, tight suspension, or any of the other luxury-type options buyers in that market are looking for. To me, it's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison, kind of like comparing a set of GI irons to a set of tour style blades. Just because the GI irons can't do some of the things that the blades can (and vice versa) doesn't mean either is bad. But the blades would be bad GI irons and the GI irons would be bad for a scratch player looking for a ton of feel and ability to work the ball. Just like the Civic would be a bad luxury sedan and the M3 and its huge price tag would be a bad affordable sedan.

 

[McLovin]

If the G37 or Civic SI costs even close to what the M3 costs I sure wouldnt buy one. To me they would be bad cars.

that's QPR (quality to price ratio), and typically has little to do with quality.

I'm into wine. take a white burgundy, and a California Chardonnay. let's say domaine de la romanee conti le Montrachet vs mer soleil. the DRC Montrachet will run you $3k-$5k, where the mer soleil will be around $25-$30. without a doubt the DRC is the better wine. but there is nothing wrong the mer soleil. it is varietally correct. it has no residual sugar. it has no volatile acidity, premature oxidation, brettanomyces, or other flaws that can affect poorly-made wine. it is true to what it wants to be. so just because the DRC is the superior wine doesn't mean the mer soleil is bad. if you and I take the same test and you score 100 and I score 95, did I do badly?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JB]

that's QPR (quality to price ratio), and typically has little to do with quality.

I'm into wine. take a white burgundy, and a California Chardonnay. let's say domaine de la romanee conti le Montrachet vs mer soleil. the DRC Montrachet will run you $3k-$5k, where the mer soleil will be around $25-$30. without a doubt the DRC is the better wine. but there is nothing wrong the mer soleil. it is varietally correct. it has no residual sugar. it has no volatile acidity, premature oxidation, brettanomyces, or other flaws that can affect poorly-made wine. it is true to what it wants to be. so just because the DRC is the superior wine doesn't mean the mer soleil is bad. if you and I take the same test and you score 100 and I score 95, did I do badly?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A fellow wine guy. Love the analogy.

 

[rjb01camaross]

When I hear bad equipment I think of quality issues not so much performance. I don't think there are bad performing clubs sold by any top OEMs just not everything is going to appeal or be customized enough for everyone's taste.

 

[Six4three5]

Honestly, no I do not think that any big time OEM puts out any bad equipment. It's all top notch stuff, but everything is personal for everything. Just because something doesn't "work" for me does it mean it's bad. Everything these companies are putting out is just quality, if they weren't they wouldn't still be in business.

 

[bigskyirish]

I agree with both of the last two posts - I honestly don't think any of the major OEMs put out bad clubs, either in terms of quality or performance. ArmyGolf's post just really got me thinking whether, in a fairly large test, some OEMs' products would significantly outperform their direct competitors in the same category. I still think that the answer is probably yes. But even assuming that is true, I also agree that even if product A works better for 90% of people, that doesn't mean that products B, C or D that work better for the other 10% are "bad."

I probably side tracked the discussion a little on this one by giving the impression that I was equating the idea of something being objectively better than its competition with the idea of the competition being "bad." That definitely wasn't my intent. Because none of the major OEMs put out low quality products (at least in my opinion), I think bad is pretty much entirely subjective when it comes to golf equipment - what is bad for me is almost certainly great for someone else. But the idea of whether some products are objectively better than others is an interesting one to me because I think that it's almost impossible to measure and that OEMs wisely use that to their advantage.

One more example, using real products - the Apex and Speedblade irons. Is there any way to say which is better? My gut reaction would be no way - some people will prefer the Apex irons while some will prefer the Speedblade and rightly so, because the Apex will be better for some people's games and the Speedblade for others. But what if you put 100,000 people with a handicap of say, 5-20 on a launch monitor with top notch testers and the Apex irons were the better clubs for 80% of the 100,000? Or vice versa? Of course, the subjective results wouldn't change in that case - neither clubs would be "bad" because each was the best for some people. But objectively, would we then say that the winner was a better club? That's the question ArmyGolf got me thinking about.

 

[JB]

I can go a step further. We did blind shaft testing at a few THP Events. These were steel shafts that were unlabeled from 5 different places. Every single test gave us the same result on the range as to manufacturer. I would not say the other companies produced bad shafts however. In fact some would say they make very high quality shafts.

 

[bigskyirish]

Interesting. So if each test gave the same result and the same manufacturer always came out on top, would you say that manufacturer an objectively better shaft even though the other companies made high quality shafts that are undoubtedly subjectively better for some people? Or do you think that the subjectivity means that it's impossible to say that one shaft was objectively the best even though it was preferred by the most people in each test?

I obviously wasn't there and don't know the particular shafts, but I'm with you on the idea that each test giving the same result as to manufacturer doesn't mean that the other companies produce bad shafts.

 

[JB]

Interesting. So if each test gave the same result and the same manufacturer always came out on top, would you say that manufacturer an objectively better shaft even though the other companies made high quality shafts that are undoubtedly subjectively better for some people? Or do you think that the subjectivity means that it's impossible to say that one shaft was objectively the best even though it was preferred by the most people in each test?

I obviously wasn't there and don't know the particular shafts, but I'm with you on the idea that each test giving the same result as to manufacturer doesn't mean that the other companies produce bad shafts.

Subjective. Its feel based of course. Since every head was identical and all shafts were unknown.
THP Events are full of fun and product testing.

 

[Wicked Cool Bearded Man]

In a further post after this I also mentioned numerous other golfers of all abilities & swings at our course all struggled with this stock shaft. I would never consider a club bad just because it did not work for me and somebody would be wrong to do so. Considering the AMP was a driver aimed at the majority of golfers and most golfers buy a club off the rack as a stock set-up, how can this club not be considered a bad performing club?

Because some still found success with it. Hence it is not bad for them = subjectivity

 

[Wicked Cool Bearded Man]

Looks and feel and sound are all subjective. What you love, others may hate. That would make the Apex clubs "bad" based on your definition.

and arbitrary to that individual. Great clarification.