Is there a brand.....

[Draven]

Very interesting question. For me the answer would be no - I try everything, and like many have already stated, would be willing to buy anything provided it worked.

What I have found though, is that pretty much all of the top manufacturers' stuff does work. In many of the tests I've done I haven't seen major differences in the numbers I get when comparing equivalent models from different OEMs. So often it just comes down to sound, look, options and brand. Sound is probably the most important for me, but in recent memory there haven't been many clubs that I really hated the sound of. Look is the most subjective, but I have found things to like amongst both the subtle and the 'out there'. Options are always nice - for example part of the reason I like ping irons is because of their fitting options, along with things like the ability to bend a cast iron past 3 degrees flat (which a few other OEMs have said is not possible with their stuff). Titleist have tons of loft/bounce combos in their Vokey wedge range also which I like. Then there's brand - all other things being equal, TaylorMade's aggressive (and at times somewhat deceptive-unless-you-read-the-fine-print) sales engine can sometimes be a bit off putting. Also the 'boutique' brands like XXIO and Miura where the performance doesn't justify the enormous premiums.

Interested to hear other people's thoughts regarding the above though.

 

[robmypro]

The older I get the more selective I become regarding who gets my hard earned money. I see a company like Nike and have no desire to do business with them. And now that I am into golf a lot more, TM is in the exact same category. That's interesting, because initially I had some positive thoughts about them. The ultra hype machine was a total turnoff. Ping is no secret, but they are more subtle. I like that.

 

[Nixhex524]

Ping is one of the companies that has really grown on me whereas before I may have never considered them. For a short time I had a set of i20s and I really liked them, I could see myself going back to Ping, now that they use ferrules.

 

[Smithfaced]

I have worn or played every major brand out there. If it works it works.

 

[ArmyGolf]

I have a weird aversion to anything Ping or Adams. I know they make quality products all across the spectrum but not one of their items has ever screamed "hit me!" while I was browsing through the golf store.

 

[Paladin]

There are certain brands that I tend to avoid due to cost. I'm deathly afraid of hitting a Scotty Cameron, for fear I might really like it.

I haven't really liked any Nike driver/woods I've hit, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be willing to give future models a try. I don't think there's any brand that I've ever said, "No, because it's brand X."

 

[BuckeyeMark]

Can't stand Nike. Will not play them. I'm sure they are really concerned about that, but I loathe them.

 

[TNTCigarguy]

Same with the other answers. I am open to anything. If it helps make me better than yes its good to go.

 

[JOEE]

Why buy any club then...

Titleist is on a 2 year cycle. I bought mine at the end of 2012 with confidence knowing I have the best Titleist driver out there for 2 solid years. With Taylormade you blink and they have a new driver claiming to put their previous model to shame.

 

[JOEE]

I'm not economics major, but seems golf clubs and investment should never be in the same sentence.

But they are? You're spending money on clubs, that if taken care of properly, can last you a long time while maintaining performance. I don't see how that can't be considered an investment in your golf game? Investing isn't just to make a profit from something. You spend "x" hoping that it will last you "y".

 

[blugold]

Titleist is on a 2 year cycle. I bought mine at the end of 2012 with confidence knowing I have the best Titleist driver out there for 2 solid years. With Taylormade you blink and they have a new driver claiming to put their previous model to shame.

Speaking with Taylormade about their release cycles, their intention is not to make people change drivers out every year. Their goal is to get the guy playing an R5 to finally upgrade to better tech. The technology in the R1 will still be valid and just as good as it was when it was released, but just different than what's in the Jetspeed or SLDR. The perception is that they are obsoleting their own equipment, in reality it is the market demand that is doing that.

 

[Golf Ghost]

But they are? You're spending money on clubs, that if taken care of properly, can last you a long time while maintaining performance. I don't see how that can't be considered an investment in your golf game?

It is an investment in your golf game. Sorry, I thought you were talking about buying clubs based on resale values ie investment for profit.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[JOEE]

Speaking with Taylormade about their release cycles, their intention is not to make people change drivers out every year. Their goal is to get the guy playing an R5 to finally upgrade to better tech. The technology in the R1 will still be valid and just as good as it was when it was released, but just different than what's in the Jetspeed or SLDR. The perception is that they are obsoleting their own equipment, in reality it is the market demand that is doing that.

Regardless their marketing tactics, they're known for flooding the market. It's panning out for them, which is great. It's just not a brand I'd buy. I feel more comfortable with Titleist knowing they put whatever they had into the 913, and didn't save some of the technology to release the 913.5 only 8 months later. Just my two cents.

 

[blugold]

Regardless their marketing tactics, they're known for flooding the market. It's panning out for them, which is great. It's just not a brand I'd buy. I feel more comfortable with Titleist knowing they put whatever they had into the 913, and didn't save some of the technology to release the 913.5 only 8 months later. Just my two cents.

You're making an assumption here that isn't fair to Taylormade and is filled with conspiracy theory.

On the flip side, I can have an unfounded theory that Titleist releases a driver and sits around for a year then rushes to release a new product that isn't that much different/better than the previous model. {please note, I do not believe that}

 

[JeffReedMO]

Regardless their marketing tactics, they're known for flooding the market. It's panning out for them, which is great. It's just not a brand I'd buy. I feel more comfortable with Titleist knowing they put whatever they had into the 913, and didn't save some of the technology to release the 913.5 only 8 months later. Just my two cents.

Agreed. I could probably get as much return selling my 2011 910D2 as one of TM-Callaway's 2013 one of three model drivers. It works for those brands. Yay. Not for me.

Like updates for you iPhone. The Titleist 913D2.2.0.8. Lol.

 

[GoldenBear67]

Alot of Nike bannings, I have nothing against Nike but after last year looking at Hybrids I'm glad I included Nike in the testing as I was shocked that it came in 2nd behind the Xhot and opened my eyes to them, then last weekend I was in GG and the Nike rep was there doing the head-2-head challenge and I was shocked I was hitting VRS Covert 275-285 a tad longer then what I was hitting the X2 Hot, so come June (my bday) when I will be shopping for a new driver Nike will be included and maybe win. Just by looking at my sig you can see I will try everything from all the major OEM's and buy from whoever suits me better.

 

[blugold]

Agreed. I could probably get as much return selling my 2011 910D2 as one of TM-Callaway's 2013 one of three model drivers. It works for those brands. Yay. Not for me.

Like updates for you iPhone. The Titleist 913D2.2.0.8. Lol.

*please note - just trying to have a discussion*

What if Titleist's R&D Department had a design that could improve on technologies already in place and the club was ready for production and the market, but chose to sit on it for a year and a half until the two years of the 913 was up. Wouldn't that be a disservice to the golfing public?

 

[ATLGolfer]

*please note - just trying to have a discussion*

What if Titleist's R&D Department had a design that could improve on technologies already in place and the club was ready for production and the market, but chose to sit on it for a year and a half until the two years of the 913 was up. Wouldn't that be a disservice to the golfing public?

I think that's the constant paradox with OEMs. They have a marketing department working hard to sell their current line, while they have an R&D staff working just as hard to make the current line obsolete.


It's pretty interesting when you think about it.

 

[JOEE]

You're making an assumption here that isn't fair to Taylormade and is filled with conspiracy theory.

On the flip side, I can have an unfounded theory that Titleist releases a driver and sits around for a year then rushes to release a new product that isn't that much different/better than the previous model. {please note, I do not believe that}

The argument could be made that any company could do that. However, given the drivers that have been put out in the last 5 years for Titleist compared the Taylormade, I'm still on board with what I said earlier.

 

[flog2424]

For me it is PING. I just have never liked their feel in any of the clubs

 

[JOEE]

*please note - just trying to have a discussion*

What if Titleist's R&D Department had a design that could improve on technologies already in place and the club was ready for production and the market, but chose to sit on it for a year and a half until the two years of the 913 was up. Wouldn't that be a disservice to the golfing public?

Why call it a disservice? If they come up with something in the first year, can't they try to perfect it and add to it during the second year? You think of it as, "We came up with the new technology early in our 2 year cycle, but are still going to sit on it until it's time to release it." Why not look at it as they're giving us 2 full years of RND before releasing something?

 

[JeffReedMO]

Is there a brand.....

*please note - just trying to have a discussion*

What if Titleist's R&D Department had a design that could improve on technologies already in place and the club was ready for production and the market, but chose to sit on it for a year and a half until the two years of the 913 was up. Wouldn't that be a disservice to the golfing public?

No. Not really. It would be a disservice to the golfing public to continue to say "X club is 7 yards longer, due to a new paint scheme and a few screws moved, than 1 of the 3 we released last year" or ads featuring tour pros swinging GI irons, with small disclaimers at the bottom "Player X actually plays an iron you could never dream of hitting...."

Like I said, good for TM and Callaway. They're making money, which is fantastic for them as a business. I just choose not to buy into these "technological advances" because they tell me to.

 

[JB]

or ads featuring tour pros swinging GI irons, with small disclaimers at the bottom "Player X actually plays an iron you could never dream of hitting...."

Im not in this discussion, but frankly that is no different than another company with their golf balls. Find out how many of "the most used on tour" is using the current ball that you can buy in the store. At least some add the disclaimers....Because in the case of the balls...None exists.

 

[blugold]

Why call it a disservice? If they come up with something in the first year, can't they try to perfect it and add to it during the second year? You think of it as, "We came up with the new technology early in our 2 year cycle, but are still going to sit on it until it's time to release it." Why not look at it as they're giving us 2 full years of RND before releasing something?

That is an interesting way to look at it. My only qualm with that is speaking specifically to Titleist, they advances from the 910 to the 913 series were not very well stated, or made clear. Not to me reading up on them. Just that the 913 was better. 909 to 910, huge change, and it was awesome. I say this as somebody who really likes the 913 line. I also say this as somebody who likes shiny toys. I feel better about being invested in a company that wants me to be as good as possible right now, and not two years from now.

No. Not really. It would be a disservice to the golfing public to continue to say "X club is 7 yards longer, due to a new paint scheme and a few screws moved, than 1 of the 3 we released last year" or ads featuring tour pros swinging GI irons, with small disclaimers at the bottom "Player X actually plays an iron you could never dream of hitting...."

Like I said, good for TM and Callaway. They're making money, which is fantastic for them as a business. I just choose not to but into these "technological advances" because they tell me to.

I think the marketing departments have a hard time because there are two demographics in golf. The smaller demographic is THPers and the like. We understand face thicknesses, material selection, internal weighting, and COR. The large demographic is most golfers who only know that "driver make ball go far!"

 

[JOEE]

That is an interesting way to look at it. My only qualm with that is speaking specifically to Titleist, they advances from the 910 to the 913 series were not very well stated, or made clear. Not to me reading up on them. Just that the 913 was better. 909 to 910, huge change, and it was awesome. I say this as somebody who really likes the 913 line. I also say this as somebody who likes shiny toys. I feel better about being invested in a company that wants me to be as good as possible right now, and not two years from now.

In the grand scheme of things it all boils down to preference. Taylormade is the #1 driver for a reason I guess.