We've launched the new forums! Read more here

when are we going to demand evidence

SuperStroke
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pkielwa said:
A number of years ago I was playing the TM Tour Burner TP and had it with me at a big demo day. I went around to each tent and was trying to find a better driver. Well, the Mizuno rep called me out as I passed by and said that since I'd hit everything else, I owed it to him to try their new driver. I think it was the MX700 or something. Anyway, as a way to get me to think about their club, he showed me a printout where they had actually used an "iron byron" and hit balls in all of the different areas of the club and tracked the ball speeds, distance, spin, etc. They also had the results from the exact driver I was playing. Their numbers were better from each spot tested (9 or 10 across the face). They had actual tangible data and he had the printout in a binder. Had them vs other clubs also. It was the only time I've seen this to date. It impressed me because the numbers/claims were validated. Pretty cool stuff! In the pharmaceutical world, we have mandatory testing required by the FDA called "non-inferiority trials", or proof that your drug is, at minimum, "just as good as" the control. Wouldn't hurt to see similar data in clubs. Why not? The more info the better for the consumer, I think.
Click to expand...

Comparing medications that have side effects to a luxury consumer item is a bit of a stretch. But the truth is, all of this information is there for any golfer. Technology has made it available. Heck even THP makes it available....but then again most asking for it (not the op as he is brand new) are not willing to grab what is in front of them.
 
JB said:
Comparing medications that have side effects to a luxury consumer item is a bit of a stretch. But the truth is, all of this information is there for any golfer. Technology has made it available. Heck even THP makes it available....but then again most asking for it (not the op as he is brand new) are not willing to grab what is in front of them.
Click to expand...
JB, I agree with you. Just making an observation and sharing a story. It's a definite stretch, just making a point about more data can always be useful. ��
 
jiiim said:
When are we going to start demanding evidence from these mfg's of all the claims they make regarding distance...forgiveness...trajectory...of clubs and balls

At one time there used to be Iron Bryan tests so you could find out exactly what the ball did when it was struck in all portions of a driver face...and what balls did ...irons and everything else...why are there no tests...

These clubs are serious money and people need to have a better idea of what they are buying...

I'm betting that some are going to come on and say that's why you need fittings...the reality is few can get a good fitting plus you still don't know because these guys are selling something...and many charge you for these services..

I call for tests to be produced before I buy...
Click to expand...
Always try for yourself. Really who cares what the company's claims are. If it fits your eye and works for you then by all means go thwt route. I've never been one to follow the masses and fall for marketing ploys, especially in the equipment industry it just isn't feasible and realistic and honestly once you get comfortabl, improve and are having fun what difference does it make.
 
It would be great if manufactures shared testing data to back up their claims or if the USGA would "fact check" the claims that are made. I doubt it will ever happen though. There have been some crazy claims in the past like the 17 more yards campaign a few years ago. At the end of the day the best thing to do as consumers is to test the clubs ourselves and share experiences like we all do here on THP, so everyone can make informed decisions.

There is a independent lab test that Tour Edge promotes on their site showing the E8 Beta beating the compition but the test was at 110+mph CHS. Which isn't really applicable for most golfers out there IMHO. This is an example of something I'd like to see done away with since it's misleading to the average consumer.
 
I have never purchased a golf club based on marketing claims, I only purchase after testing the club myself with my swing

This argument would have been more relevant 10-15 years ago, but every golf store has product available to test yourself.
 
The evidence is there with most manufacturers.
bertha-iron-dist-claim.gif

Manufactures are held to their claims and can be subject to discipline if not factual.

See this letter from Callaway.

Recently, it came to our attention that our “Up to 2 Clubs Longer” advertising claim for the Big Bertha Irons and XR Irons could potentially be interpreted as all clubs providing an equal distance benefit. As we all know from our experience with the sets, the distance and forgiveness benefits of our Cup 360 technology are real!Consumers love them and they are going to set a new standard of iron performance.
Consistent with our passion for delivering ultimate performance that benefit golfers on the course, the distance benefits are built into these sets starting with small benefits in the short irons and building in an impressive manner with large benefits in the mid and long irons.
It was never our intent to imply that the short irons delivered an equivalent distance benefit as the rest of the set and we thought that this would be naturally understood. To ensure the consumer clearly understands the benefits of these clubs, we believe it makes better business sense to simply modify the claim to accurately describe what consumers have been experiencing in droves with Big Bertha and XR. Specifically, they both deliver incredible distance through the set, or as we call it, “Distance Where You Need It.”

The reality of these companies is they want you to test their clubs before you buy. But they want you individually to test it and see how it performs for you. If the Iron Byron was the only testing model used it would be very inaccurate with different lengths, lofts, lies, shafts, weights that would be submitted. The forums that THP provides should provide you with a starting point for what will fit you.

 
Just a note on testing, although it easier now than ever to to test most new equipment available, just consider this for a different prospective. I know of only two places in a 100 mile region of my house that you could test almost every piece of equipment available on the market (Redtail and Fiddlers Green- Golfsmith doesn't carry near the lines ie. Wilson, Cleveland, etc.). There is a lot of golfers out there, probably not a THP member, that don't fell comfortable taking there crappy swing and trying out these clubs in these settings. Many golfers I know go the Ebay used market route because of the high cost of new equipment, and clubs that are 2-4 years old are not available to be tried out anyway. I know a chunk of THP members are golf fanatics and spend a lot of money on new equipment fairly frequently. Just remember there are plenty more "normal" golfers that buy used equipment less frequently and dont have the option at trying out before buying. I think it would be a mistake to forget about this segment of golfers. I get what the OP is trying to say to an extent maybe without the edginess of the post. If you are buying new, try it yourself and figure it out. But if you are buying older club it becomes more difficult to figure out what is best for yourself sometimes cause you cant hit it first. I think this is one of the reasons THP will be an asset in the future though because it will give a reference on older clubs from years past.
 
The problem with golf clubs is, the other 50% (or even more) of its performance needs to come from the player. Advertising and marketing will be what they are, whatever it takes to sell. I guess, in the end, it's "caveat emptor" (buyer beware). Let's buy clubs out there as if we're getting a bespoke suit, tailored to our specifications, and not as if we're buying a nice shirt (still, it's wiser to try the shirt on first than just looking at the size). So whether we know our numbers (clubhead speed, spin rate, etc) or not, I think it's always wise to try before we buy.

That said, the spirit of the thread also has something to do with the manufacturers respecting the intelligence of its market. If it's consulting its market, THP included, and offering opportunities for the market to try and to tweak its products to the correct shaft/loft/face specs for its market, then I think the philosophy of the manufacturer is headed into the right direction. Now if we could only influence them on the design, quantity, price and timing of its new products.....
 
Most amateurs will be given 10 balls to hit. And out of that 10 you will have 10 different ball flights

impossible request from the op
 
JB said:
What evidence? Nobody is forced to buy anything of course. Test for yourself, if you like something...Great. If you dont, thats fine too.
Click to expand...

I agree. Well stated. I once said that if I gained every yard hyped over the past 15 year with drivers alone, I'd be driving the ball 650 yards today. With that said, there have been some pretty big gains in recent years for us "hackers".

I spent several hours last Sunday at a certified Callaway dealer hitting the new GGB vs. my current but still new in 2015 XR driver. There were some gain in distance, and I am demo'ing the driver on the course all of this week vs. my XR, and the jury is still out for me distance wise, but the GGB is straighter or less penal on mishits at least to this point.

Try before you buy or write off all of the claims made today. Some are VERY true.
 
I personally don't care what a companies claims are. When I'm looking for something new I base my decision on how it looks and sets up for me and how it meshes with my swing. It's going to be different for everyone, you need to test for yourself and not depend on a robot. I'm very interested in the GBB driver based on the look, but if I go to test it and it doesn't perform with my swing, I won't buy it even with the great claims from Callaway.
 
If you're talking about co-efficient of restitution (which the watermelon driver thread has me thinking about way more than I should be) It doesn't matter if the iron byron tests the club at 100mph or 80mph. That's a physical property. Sure, stuff like PING's turbulators or the Speed Step on the XR will have a greater effect at faster swing speeds, but on the whole, a lot of these properties that are being talked about are going to carry over to the slower swing speeds.
 
erock9174 said:
I understand what the OP is talking about.

I'd love to see an Iron Byron test with clubs. Most of the golfing public I see probably swing a driver around 85-95 mph. Not 115 like a tour pro. I put on an outing every year with about 16-20 golfers and in the past 8 years only 2-3 are capable of a drive over 260. So I'd like to around a 90 mph swing tested.

I'd like to see the club hit off the heel, high on the face, in the center, low on the face and off the toe. Hit with a neutral swing, an out to in path and inside out path. You know a mid to high capper-like inconsistent swing.

I believe Edwin Watts performed a test in the past similar to this. Arc testing I think it was.

Sure it's not a person swinging the club but I like data and I think this would be a great indicator of how a club performs. From accuracy/dispersion, to forgiveness on misfits to pure raw distance.

For those who do not have access to demo days or in store simulators it at least gives them a reference point to start with. Perhaps an indicator of whether or not a certain club May or may not work for them.

Golf Digest used to issue their ball test which was done using a robot. They measured launch and spin rpm. Sure all the urethane balls had more spin that a surlyn but every now and then you'd get an outlier that performed above its outer coating, number of layers and price point. For example the Gamer and Noodle Easy Distsnce going back a few years. I suspect a ball like the Supersoft would also show performance above its price point and 2 PC surlyn class.
Click to expand...

There's a certain German site that does this exact testing methodology....
 
There is hardly a manufacturer that makes a bad club these days, if you are considering a club purchase, do your own testing and comparisons. It is that simple. I like seeing the claims, it might get me to try a new club (the SLDR Mini comes to mind). But I'll test, compare and decide what works for me.
 
Of course you have to try the club you might buy but if you had enough info it would narrow things down a lot. A good example are the very low spinning drivers. They don't work well for me with my pathetic swing speed. Knowing that in advance can save me a lot of time and effort. I remember a chart from Golf Digest that showed the real sweet spots on each new driver. Most were NOT in the center but more towards the toe where most amateurs hit the ball. Also, some ladies balls are so hot they cannot be used in competition. These things are nice to know.
 
With respect to the Bertha irons vs my S 55's I saw a 25 yard gain 7 iron to 7 iron on the course when I tried my dads. It was for a couple holes but not the clubs I wanted to buy.
 
To all who just say "Ohh just go to a THP event" really not that easy. If one is near you, u have to get off of work and pay money unless ur fortunate enough to get to the all inclusive ones." since I have been on here there haven't been any within 4 hours of driving distance to my knowledge

And to all who say just go hit them also not that easy. I wanted to test out my driver vs the best that was currently on the shelf. It took 5 swings at least to feel that i had a groove with the driver. Well when there is at least 8 drivers ur interested in ur talking a minimum of 50 driver swings at very minimum. I know i took 100 driver swings for my test. Freaking hard. I'd like to see the avg person be able to go out and do that, let alone hit good enough shots to tell what u really like.

I really think Robot testing saying "here is a shot at so and so mph and here is the result" and then "here is the same mph off to the toe and the result". Definitely helpful.
 
mcrobertsjmac32 said:
To all who just say "Ohh just go to a THP event" really not that easy. If one is near you, u have to get off of work and pay money unless ur fortunate enough to get to the all inclusive ones." since I have been on here there haven't been any within 4 hours of driving distance to my knowledge

And to all who say just go hit them also not that easy. I wanted to test out my driver vs the best that was currently on the shelf. It took 5 swings at least to feel that i had a groove with the driver. Well when there is at least 8 drivers ur interested in ur talking a minimum of 50 driver swings at very minimum. I know i took 100 driver swings for my test. Freaking hard. I'd like to see the avg person be able to go out and do that, let alone hit good enough shots to tell what u really like.

I really think Robot testing saying "here is a shot at so and so mph and here is the result" and then "here is the same mph off to the toe and the result". Definitely helpful.
Click to expand...

Have you ever been on a doppler radar system? Shots off of the toe are not all the same. A change in the face angle to swing path, when comparing you versus a robot, would make those robot test meaningless.

My toe side contact is not the same as yours or Byron's
 
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.
 
blugold said:
Have you ever been on a doppler radar system? Shots off of the toe are not all the same. A change in the face angle to swing path, when comparing you versus a robot, would make those robot test meaningless.

My toe side contact is not the same as yours or Byron's
Click to expand...

Have u hit 100 drives in one session? None of my toe shots are the same anyway. At least the robot gives more evidence than just saying 2 clubs longer etc
 
mcrobertsjmac32 said:
Have u hit 100 drives in one session? None of my toe shots are the same anyway. At least the robot gives more evidence than just saying 2 clubs longer etc
Click to expand...
I have hit 100 drivers in one range session. It is not a smart move really. That robots evidence is meaning less to any consumer though. Consumers are not robots. What if a robot says that 6i-A is 12 yards longer than 6i-B, but in my testing 6i-B was actually longer. Am I wrong or is the robot wrong?
 
mcrobertsjmac32 said:
Have u hit 100 drives in one session? None of my toe shots are the same anyway. At least the robot gives more evidence than just saying 2 clubs longer etc
Click to expand...
Why do you have to hit 100 drives in a session? Why not 2 sessions of 50? 3 sessions of 30-40? Etc. There's tons of ways around it that make much more sense.

Yes, the robot testing would be definitive. But what does that mean for you and the performance you'll see out of it? Absolutely nada.
 
Here you go, we never need to be fitted for a ball, try different sleeves or read user reviews again:


uyHVpmT.png
 
Crud Frank, I need to sell my supersoft they aren't on the chart. You interested :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top