TaylorMade vs. Callaway driver tech battle
- Admin
- #77
Lets go ahead and return this one to the topic at hand for the OP.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2017
- Messages
- 24,435
- Reaction score
- 25,984
- Handicap
- 17.2
This sounds like you believe that Callaway’s marketing claims are more valid than TaylorMade’s marketing claims. I would genuinely like to know why you think this.
- Admin
- #80
I actually think both are valid.
If the claims are based on
Innovation?
Weight Savings?
Actual Performance?
Those seem pretty easy to determine. If you took the two brand names out of the equation, I believe the debate doesnt change.
For whatever reason, from a marketing perspective, the whole “welcome to the carbonwood age” seemed louder to me than the paradigm shift. Maybe it was just the red face, I’m not sure.
- Staff
- #83
Or, it’s because they’re not the same? Things can be similar, but different. Why does it always come back to marketing for you?
- Staff
- #84
I kinda agree, if we talk purely on initial POP/wow messaging, I think that resonated more. Now, long term resonance I think will be different, ya know?
- Admin
- #85
Ya know, I agree with you. I think part of that is because as it pertains to drivers, many golfers have never seen a face that wasnt your typical steel or titanium. So the big bold color and different from everybody else stood out. They have seen carbon on the top and sole and despite Paradym being so much different than anything previously done, it is still harder to say that.
What I don't understand about the paradigm shift thing is this: Let's say Callaway's claims are valid and this carbon chassis is the next big thing in driver construction. How can you keep the Rogue ST line a current product in the line-up? This means you either sell an inferior product or you don't have a paradigm shift. It cannot be both from a purely logical point of view.
I am not a TM fan at all and I think the whole carbonwood thing is a bit silly, but at least they employ the carbon face across all driver models.
- Staff
- #87
They’ve ALWAYS had two lines (previously epic and rogue, now paradym and rogue this go around) that were different tiers and design/tech implementations. This isn’t new. It doesn’t mean you have an inferior product, it means you have options, and one was produced the cycle before this.
Yea that was my impression purely from an initial announcement/marketing perspective. I never did get a chance to actually get numbers with the Stealth so it doesn’t really go beyond that for me.
I know a ton of people who got the Stealth last year, which is saying something since we have a Callaway Club in terms of sponsorships. That being said , most of the guys i know who used it, including 2 of my closest friends both said it didn't really seem any better than any other driver they'd used at the end of the day.
This seems to be the norm the last 5-6 years. I'm interested in trying this new Callaway but i go into most years just assuming i'm gonna have to do all the heavy lifting and most clubs are the same , more or less
This seems to be the norm the last 5-6 years. I'm interested in trying this new Callaway but i go into most years just assuming i'm gonna have to do all the heavy lifting and most clubs are the same , more or less
Well one is $450 and one is $600
Right, I agree with you there. But then you cannot have a paradigm shift.
- Staff
- #92
Sure you can. 360 chassis is gen1, carbonface is gen2, so it’s natural back to back cycles will have that tech. Now, if the next Callaway driver doesn’t use 360 chassis, THEN you have an argument imo
It’s interesting that TaylorMade went carbon face and Callaway went carbon body with a >40% weight savings in each. Will we ultimately see both a carbon face and 360° carbon chassis?
- Admin
- #94
Why? Paradigm shift at the highest level of performance. I mean you can walk in Dicks and still see RBZ and M2 and others despite the brand saying they were only making carbon fiber faces. Its no different than Apple touting their amazing camera features, but those being on the Pro Model and still offering a standard. Or BMW touting new performance and only being on the M series.
Im a huge fan of innovation from all brands. But I also understand that every company should hit different price points.
- Admin
- #95
I have asked both companies this. Callaway said their AI face isnt conducive for carbon fiber. Which makes sense when you see the backside of it. TaylorMade didn't really dive into the tech side other than to say they are fans of stability.
We don't have all of the details yet. But, the Stealth2 will have a significant amount of carbon as well in the body. Not sure it will be 360 but there will be a lot.
i like the tech story behind this stuff...but for the folks that i've played with (outside of @time4tim 
), if i begin to even talk about it with new gear, it's almost always met with a bunch of skepticism with regard to how it helps...and honestly, i read what is written/posted/reviewed and it gets taken into account...but when i go to hit something, if it doesn't feel good, it doesn't go in the bag. idk...i'm probably not the target audience with respect to how tech is presented to sell me on something.
), if i begin to even talk about it with new gear, it's almost always met with a bunch of skepticism with regard to how it helps...and honestly, i read what is written/posted/reviewed and it gets taken into account...but when i go to hit something, if it doesn't feel good, it doesn't go in the bag. idk...i'm probably not the target audience with respect to how tech is presented to sell me on something.I see both of your points. I guess, I just have a narrower definition of the concept "paradigm shift". If you ask me, a paradigm change would be something like going from persimmon to metalwoods. Adopted by all companies and a radical change on how clubs are constructed and developed further.
EDIT: Quoted the wrong post, my apologies
I'm all about the tubes, man!
I’d be afraid to see the price point on that driver. I’d imagine more dense, expensive metal would be used to get the MOI and/or speed up. Taking cost of living increases into consideration I think that starts getting close to being out of reach for a bigger portion of the market. But I did think seeing ~44% weight reduction in both releases was pretty cool. Part of me wonders if it was just what was achievable or if that was some magic number that achieved better results.