We've launched the new forums! Read more here

when are we going to demand evidence

SuperStroke
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jiiim

Banned
Joined
Sep 10, 2015
Messages
110
Reaction score
1
Location
MIDWEST
Handicap
NONE
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...

EDIT: ROBOT TESTING WOULDN'T STOP ALL THE OTHERS THINGS ONE CAN DO TO GET THE PROPER CLUB...MANY POSTS ACT LIKE IT WILL
 
Last edited:
What evidence? Nobody is forced to buy anything of course. Test for yourself, if you like something...Great. If you dont, thats fine too.
 
most major golf stores have hitting bays where you can test clubs or at some THP events JB brings drivers for people to test
 
Why? With the nature of fitting being what it is, there are entirely too many factors to take into consideration in terms of what actually creates increased yardage and consistency. I've personally used a club I thought did very little for my game until I put a different shaft in it. Unfitted irons do not produce necessary consistency no matter the technology. A driver that I can't hit worth a darn might be the best thing since sliced bread to someone else.

There's a reason so many manufacturers survive...because they all have different opinions of how their tech helps the average golfer, or the most golfers, and they produce equipment in line with that opinion. For some people they're right, for some they're not, and in the end the consumer benefits.
 
What does some machines data have to do with how you swing a golf club? I could care less about any sort of evidence and take manufacturer claims with a serious grain of salt. If something suits my eye, I will then try to get ahold of it to hit, if that works then a fitting is in order. The only thing I would demand is clubs that comes with loads of shaft options to fit the masses and fortunately that has started to happen.
 
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...

Because no amateur has a repeatable swing like a robot so what good are robot tests?
 
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.
 
Im so confused. Anybody has the option to test anything they want, as much as they want and get the information directly from THEIR swing about the clubs compared immediately.

Hell, THP provides the service and all one has to do is come to a THP Event.

The information is already there....One just has to use it for themselves.
 
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.
 
if your paying a lot of attention to marketing campaigns your making a mistake. I enjoy the tech info but it all comes down to hitting the club with the correct shaft and settings for your swing. Iron Byron testing doesn't interest me at all.
 
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...

But it seems everyone claims to average 260 yards.
 
Few can get a good fitting????? Hell anyone can good get a good fitting for a couple hundred bucks and a few hours on the weekend. Join up and sign up for a THP event and more than likely you will be able to jump on a launch monitor and hit a sh** load of different clubs and shafts.
 
I get where the op is coming from, but the numbers manufacturers throw our is just marketing. Just like the BMW probably isn't the ultimate driving machine, 5 blades really doesn't make for a smoother shave, and Outback Steakhouse isn't really from Australia.

The ironic part is most of those marketing numbers come from an Iron Byron if I'm not mistaken.
 
I get what the OP is saying. At least I think I get it. So much of new releases are like canned response catch phrases. Lowest COG ever, highest MOI, low spin high spin longest driver ever, most forgiving driver to date, etc...etc... but that's all they really provide is catch phrases unless you dug deep on your own and even then it doesn't tell us anything much more than the catch phrases. I think the OP is saying he would like some data points that validate the claims. An example would be some kind of quantifiable measure of forgiveness and how it translates to the performance.

Sure we can all go and test equipment and yes a fitting is optimal for getting what works best, but from a consumer standpoint readily available standardized data would be nice.
 
While it is natural to want to verify marketing claims I think the OP is ultimately off base here. Drivers are maxed out so hitting them in the middle of the face in a controlled environment doesn't really tell us much about clubs. Conversely, the controlled environment can actually limit info to us. Consider lightweight drivers - the Iron Byron never realizes the extra speed regular golfers would see with the club.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
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...


Very good post +++

I was getting ready to add to my original post but no need to you said it better than I..
 
Last edited:
A robot can only emulate the swings of a golfer who swings exactly like said robot is programmed. Each of us is just so different in how we dynamically deliver the club head to the ball that point of impact is just one of a great many variables ... might not even be the most important variable for some swings either. I'm sure most OEMs do extensive robot testing in the developmental phase of new designs and it's not like they haven't shared some of that with us recently. Was it even a year ago that TaylorMade ran that robot ad demonstrating the RSI face slots mitigating distance loss on robot strikes off the toe, heel, and center?
 
tequila4kapp said:
While it is natural to want to verify marketing claims I think the OP is ultimately off base here. Drivers are maxed out so hitting them in the middle of the face in a controlled environment doesn't really tell us much about clubs. Conversely, the controlled environment can actually limits info to us. Consider lightweight drivers - the Iron Byron never realizes the extra speed regular golfers would see with the club.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



Well most golfers know where they miss the shot on their driver...True... everyone I know..knows exactly where they miss most shots.. what if your miss was on the toe and you had tests that a certain driver was fantastically accurate with toe hits...would that be something you would like to know..?
 
I agree the original post is good. Why give golf manufacturers a free pass on their claims? Specs on golf clubs are poor at best. At least you would know what is the longest, shortest,etc. and golf balls are a big factor which I did not see mentioned.
 
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...

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.

Going back to Cobra's use of "hotter in nine spots on the face" claims, I think they did similar testing vs other clubs.

About the claims, I did notice that when Cally said "longer" they did identify on the commercials and in ads which club it was tested vs so they could make the claim. Same with TM and the R1. They usually have in the small print somewhere what they tested against.
 
Last edited:
It would be fun data to look at but I'm not a robot and if I were to put any value in the test I would want to see it with my swing measurements and that would never happen. There is a thousand and one ways to test a club for yourself and get solid valuable information also fittings are becoming easier and easier to find and sometimes can be deducted from the price of the clubs.
 
when are we going to demand evidence

I am now demanding a robot test battery life on all cell phones despite everybody using them differently. I also want a food robot to test all restaurants to measure ingredient levels. I want robot drivers to test gas mileage. I want all of it.

The truth is all of this data is available for any golfer that wants it for their very own swing.
 
unless I'm mistaken, only blatant and obvious puffery is permissible in advertising without the requirement for substantiation if questioned. recently callaway had to revamp their iron campaign claiming that you would gain 2 clubs because their baseline was ridiculous (at least I think that's why they had to change it), and I was told by someone with an oem that tm was called out for some misrepresentations in their sldr campaign with the drawing and had to re-vamp.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'm confused by this thread
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top