when are we going to demand evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ohh boy. Ur now gonna get it. 10ppl are going to jump on u and tell u that robots are worst things ever invented
I think if the robot was set up like I said it would be good information :)

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
 
Ohh boy. Ur now gonna get it. 10ppl are going to jump on u and tell u that robots are worst things ever invented
If only you had answered our questions along the way instead of telling us we are getting nitpicky and reading into it too much.

I think (maybe I am wrong) the op was saying how about using a robot and compare bad hits and slower swing speeds. Set it for 5 toe hits, 5 heel hits and 5 center for example see what really has best lateral miss and center hit. That would be neat to see :)

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

It would be interesting to see stuff like that. It's how we use that info...sorry...average golfer's use that info...that would make it worth anything to them. Which is the point we attempted to ask the fine gentleman posting above. :)
 
For me,these robot tests have no value for me. I am not a robot,or will ever swing like one. I prefer to hear numbers on real golfers hitting in real life conditions

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
 
Isn't this question one of the main reasons THP is here??? THP provides all the evidence I will ever need.
 
I try to keep my take on this subject as simple as possible. I don't take marketing claims seriously because of the vast amount of variables involved, individual swings and preferences being number one(for me). Yea COR and groove rules keep oems within limits and all major oems are right at them, and yea claims of this being the best and yadda yadda yadda-ier are what golf club marketing has become. But nobody is holding a gun to your head and making you buy anything, if a club fits your swing and makes your game better then thats all that matters.

I suggest heading over to the review section here at THP and check out how the writers here interpret such things. In my somewhat biased but completely honest opinion, nobody reviews golf equipment like THP. Its straight to the facts, honest and realistic.
 
My biggest takeaway from this thread. Apparantly everyone on THP lives hundreds of miles from civilization :D
 
If you believe you are going to pick up as many yards as they say in their commercial and don't put it to the test before buying it, I am not sure there is any evidence that will protect you from making a bad purchase.
 
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.
Have you read the thp reviews of almost every new release? They contain all the info you need to make a educated buy. Yiu asked for different contact points on the face, swing paths, etc..well that is what you get from a swing stand point with our staff. They don't have perfect swings but still manage to produce these amazing reviews.

That's not enough? Well ask yourself this, what did you do 6 years ago? How did you buy clubs? What info did you use? Go back 10 years years ago even 20. Marketing and technology have grown with time.

Maybe golfers shoukd stop taking all marketing to heart. I've said it many times. These claims are legit for someone that has a repeatable swing and hit's it solid. The rest of the golfing public get a benefit as well, just not 17 yards further.
 
I suggest heading over to the review section here at THP and check out how the writers here interpret such things. In my somewhat biased but completely honest opinion, nobody reviews golf equipment like THP. Its straight to the facts, honest and realistic.

I don't mean to single your post out but this seems to be the sentiment of many in this debate here. I.e. Robot vs human testing.

I got bashed for mentioning robot testing. Sure it's not perfect I get that. But I'm an Auditor by trade so I inherently like numbers and data no matter the source whether it helps me as a golfer or now.

But let me ask this. If Jman, JB, Hawk or whoever it may be that Reviews a club how is their data (purely numbers, not talking feel and looks, etc) any different than a robot to me. I may or may not swing like Iron Byron but in the same token I don't likely swing like them either.

The response I will likely get is, you need to demo a club for yourself. Sounds easy in theory. But I know of one free demo day in my area a year at an outdoor range. With 2 kids ages 3 and 5 I'm lucky on a Saturday morning to get maybe an hour to attend this. Doesn't leave much time to try a lot. I usually pick a few clubs I think might work and hit them rapidly and get home to my family obligations.

Thankfully I work across the street from a Golfsmith and usually visit once a week on my lunch break to see if any new demos come in or used clubs to hit. Very lucky in this regard. But if I didn't have this access I'd be in the dark often when it came to testing clubs.
 
I don't pay attention to the marketing claims for distance, etc because like others said it's going to vary be person and from swing to swing. Before I joined THP and even now I find demo days an test the clubs to see how they do for me. Thanks to THP my research time and number of places has been reduced. I give tons of credit to the THP staff on their reviews because IMO they are unbiased, provide tons of info on all kinds of contact across the face and the results they see. Their results will vary on misses from mine but I at least have an idea of what to expect on my miss.

Robot testing regardless of swing speed programmed or where they have it set to miss on will still produce a consistent swing and miss. My misses like most amateurs will vary from swing to swing so my toe miss on one shot will not be the same result on the next toe miss.
 
I don't mean to single your post out but this seems to be the sentiment of many in this debate here. I.e. Robot vs human testing.

I got bashed for mentioning robot testing. Sure it's not perfect I get that. But I'm an Auditor by trade so I inherently like numbers and data no matter the source whether it helps me as a golfer or now.

But let me ask this. If Jman, JB, Hawk or whoever it may be that Reviews a club how is their data (purely numbers, not talking feel and looks, etc) any different than a robot to me. I may or may not swing like Iron Byron but in the same token I don't likely swing like them either.

The response I will likely get is, you need to demo a club for yourself. Sounds easy in theory. But I know of one free demo day in my area a year at an outdoor range. With 2 kids ages 3 and 5 I'm lucky on a Saturday morning to get maybe an hour to attend this. Doesn't leave much time to try a lot. I usually pick a few clubs I think might work and hit them rapidly and get home to my family obligations.

Thankfully I work across the street from a Golfsmith and usually visit once a week on my lunch break to see if any new demos come in or used clubs to hit. Very lucky in this regard. But if I didn't have this access I'd be in the dark often when it came to testing clubs.
I do understand what you are saying. I just think the data points you are asking for are among the very least reliable out there. It is a very counter intuitive thing but it's true.
 
I do understand what you are saying. I just think the data points you are asking for are among the very least reliable out there. It is a very counter intuitive thing but it's true.

I'll give you that but I think there would still be some validity to it. For instance if one 10.5 head had 1000 less spin (say an SLDR) than say another head, the low spin offering probably wouldn't cut it for me.
 
I don't mean to single your post out but this seems to be the sentiment of many in this debate here. I.e. Robot vs human testing.

I got bashed for mentioning robot testing. Sure it's not perfect I get that. But I'm an Auditor by trade so I inherently like numbers and data no matter the source whether it helps me as a golfer or now.

But let me ask this. If Jman, JB, Hawk or whoever it may be that Reviews a club how is their data (purely numbers, not talking feel and looks, etc) any different than a robot to me. I may or may not swing like Iron Byron but in the same token I don't likely swing like them either.

The response I will likely get is, you need to demo a club for yourself. Sounds easy in theory. But I know of one free demo day in my area a year at an outdoor range. With 2 kids ages 3 and 5 I'm lucky on a Saturday morning to get maybe an hour to attend this. Doesn't leave much time to try a lot. I usually pick a few clubs I think might work and hit them rapidly and get home to my family obligations.

Thankfully I work across the street from a Golfsmith and usually visit once a week on my lunch break to see if any new demos come in or used clubs to hit. Very lucky in this regard. But if I didn't have this access I'd be in the dark often when it came to testing clubs.
Very few of the THP reviews actually mention numbers or use numbers as a comparison tool. At least that I can remember.
 
when are we going to demand evidence

I don't mean to single your post out but this seems to be the sentiment of many in this debate here. I.e. Robot vs human testing.

I got bashed for mentioning robot testing. Sure it's not perfect I get that. But I'm an Auditor by trade so I inherently like numbers and data no matter the source whether it helps me as a golfer or now.

But let me ask this. If Jman, JB, Hawk or whoever it may be that Reviews a club how is their data (purely numbers, not talking feel and looks, etc) any different than a robot to me. I may or may not swing like Iron Byron but in the same token I don't likely swing like them either.

The response I will likely get is, you need to demo a club for yourself. Sounds easy in theory. But I know of one free demo day in my area a year at an outdoor range. With 2 kids ages 3 and 5 I'm lucky on a Saturday morning to get maybe an hour to attend this. Doesn't leave much time to try a lot. I usually pick a few clubs I think might work and hit them rapidly and get home to my family obligations.

Thankfully I work across the street from a Golfsmith and usually visit once a week on my lunch break to see if any new demos come in or used clubs to hit. Very lucky in this regard. But if I didn't have this access I'd be in the dark often when it came to testing clubs.

Actually I said nothing about the reviews here. I said we offer a way to test everything against each other, outside on range and course which a technology machine to give you exactly what you are looking for.

For the argument that someone gets 1 hour a week to test clubs, I get that, but actually playing golf takes a lot longer and for that, yes, the information is present on places like THP for people that want it, where everything is tested by humans on machines with the data people are asking for.

I'm all for more information, as long as it's relevant. That's why we produce and provide it. We are also the ONLY place that lets you produce and provide your own.
 
I don't mean to single your post out but this seems to be the sentiment of many in this debate here. I.e. Robot vs human testing.

I got bashed for mentioning robot testing. Sure it's not perfect I get that. But I'm an Auditor by trade so I inherently like numbers and data no matter the source whether it helps me as a golfer or now.

But let me ask this. If Jman, JB, Hawk or whoever it may be that Reviews a club how is their data (purely numbers, not talking feel and looks, etc) any different than a robot to me. I may or may not swing like Iron Byron but in the same token I don't likely swing like them either.

The response I will likely get is, you need to demo a club for yourself. Sounds easy in theory. But I know of one free demo day in my area a year at an outdoor range. With 2 kids ages 3 and 5 I'm lucky on a Saturday morning to get maybe an hour to attend this. Doesn't leave much time to try a lot. I usually pick a few clubs I think might work and hit them rapidly and get home to my family obligations.

Thankfully I work across the street from a Golfsmith and usually visit once a week on my lunch break to see if any new demos come in or used clubs to hit. Very lucky in this regard. But if I didn't have this access I'd be in the dark often when it came to testing clubs.
I don't think anyone bashed you, maybe offered up a different opinion but in sure no bashing happened. The difference between the robot numbers and jman numbers is truth. Truth in the numbers of a flawed swing, like the rest of the non pro population. His numbers to a great many are believable because most can say, I've been there. What most can't say is that they mad 100 perfect swing and hit it on one point of the face.

Don't want to take Jman's word then read the 1000s of threads we have with people offering up their thoughts. I promise you, one of their experiences is closer to any number you can get from a robot.
 
I think (maybe I am wrong) the op was saying how about using a robot and compare bad hits and slower swing speeds. Set it for 5 toe hits, 5 heel hits and 5 center for example see what really has best lateral miss and center hit. That would be neat to see :)

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

But again, the speed retention on off center swings is a property of the materials, and swing speed is going not going to be a factor there. It may when it comes to distance, but if we think of speed off the face, the proportions are going to hold. We're talking about a physical property (COR).

As for bad hits, that could be tested, and I think those numbers have been shown by some manufacturers who are advertising the size of the "sweet spot".
 
Very few of the THP reviews actually mention numbers or use numbers as a comparison tool. At least that I can remember.

Ok… so that is that a good thing or bad thing? I am just trying to understand your comment.

I know we are getting off on a tangent here but when I test a club on a monitor I take and record the 4 best swings and come up with an average for comparison. I log this all in a spreadsheet so that I can sort it for analysis and save it for later reference if need be. Is monitor data the end all be all? Nope, as I still prefer to see ball flight on the course or range. But it gives me a starting point for factors such as shaft flex, how a club fits my eye at address, is the club too heavy or light, how is my contact with each, ease of use or consistency from shot to shot, etc.

On Wednesday I went to Golfsmith and tested 10 hybrids. I warmed up then hit approximately 10 balls with each. I logged my best 4 results and sent them over to a buddy with a reader’s digest version about what I liked, disliked about each club as well as if the numbers surprised me at all. We both have similar games, swing speeds, etc so we enjoy sharing research with each other.

If I were to ever start a website and do continual reviews, as long as I was using the same calibrated piece of equipment, I would add any new club data to the existing data and keep a repository for future comparisons. For one it would allow me to see if any of the latest and greatest equipment is really better than old gear and secondly I’d like to see if there is any correlation between the clubs and I end up bagging and the numbers. There could be some magical data that spits out. For example lately I have been noticing my azimuth (face angle relative to the ball) is very different depending on the club I am hitting. Some I consistently leave shut, others open and some freakishly square. I’d like to know why, is it shaft flex, shaft profile, face angle of the club, lie angle, etc. I doubt I would ever find out but it would be neat to digest it all once I had a good bank of information.
 
But again, the speed retention on off center swings is a property of the materials, and swing speed is going not going to be a factor there. It may when it comes to distance, but if we think of speed off the face, the proportions are going to hold. We're talking about a physical property (COR).

As for bad hits, that could be tested, and I think those numbers have been shown by some manufacturers who are advertising the size of the "sweet spot".
It does seem like a lot things get taken the wrong way. I never buy a club based on manufacuters claims. I reads the reviews here then try hit something myself when possible before I purchase.
All I was saying about a robot is it would neat to see one set for a center hit them a toe hit (my main miss is a toe hit) then I would know which driver actually performs better on the toe hit.
I am not good enough to reproduce my toe on command, if I could do that I would not miss on the toe lol.
Saying I would like to see a robot set up like that does not mean I discount the testers here or myself it just means it would be a cool thing to see sometime.

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
 
erock - we occasionally see references from the official testers in posts about the number of swings they've taken, the volume of data points captured and how they use it for historical reference. I just don't think we see that raw data in the reviews. And that makes sense since the reviews are a summary and explanation of the test experience.
 
It does seem like a lot things get taken the wrong way. I never buy a club based on manufacuters claims. I reads the reviews here then try hit something myself when possible before I purchase.
All I was saying about a robot is it would neat to see one set for a center hit them a toe hit (my main miss is a toe hit) then I would know which driver actually performs better on the toe hit.
I am not good enough to reproduce my toe on command, if I could do that I would not miss on the toe lol.
Saying I would like to see a robot set up like that does not mean I discount the testers here or myself it just means it would be a cool thing to see sometime.

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

I actually want to say one of the golf shops did actually do that with hits on the toe at one point, but I can't remember who it was. I agree that would be interesting to see. I was more commenting that a lot of people have talked about swing speed with robot testing - from a ballspeed perspective, it doesn't really make a difference. Though, you can absolutely play with swing speed to get the optimal distance increase (17 more yards!). Wasn't accusing you of discounting the reviews at all.

Though, it will be interesting to see if more folks start doing what Callaway is doing with the 816 to allow you to move the CG to where it best "fixes" your miss.
 
I don't mean to single your post out but this seems to be the sentiment of many in this debate here. I.e. Robot vs human testing.

I got bashed for mentioning robot testing. Sure it's not perfect I get that. But I'm an Auditor by trade so I inherently like numbers and data no matter the source whether it helps me as a golfer or now.

But let me ask this. If Jman, JB, Hawk or whoever it may be that Reviews a club how is their data (purely numbers, not talking feel and looks, etc) any different than a robot to me. I may or may not swing like Iron Byron but in the same token I don't likely swing like them either.

The response I will likely get is, you need to demo a club for yourself. Sounds easy in theory. But I know of one free demo day in my area a year at an outdoor range. With 2 kids ages 3 and 5 I'm lucky on a Saturday morning to get maybe an hour to attend this. Doesn't leave much time to try a lot. I usually pick a few clubs I think might work and hit them rapidly and get home to my family obligations.

Thankfully I work across the street from a Golfsmith and usually visit once a week on my lunch break to see if any new demos come in or used clubs to hit. Very lucky in this regard. But if I didn't have this access I'd be in the dark often when it came to testing clubs.

The bolded ^ is the only point I was trying to make. Sadly I let myself get worked up, and I got off my point
 
I just finished watching The Terminator XXXII, or maybe it was XXII, anyways I think I can speak as an expert on this robot subject briefly. Robots are bad and evil and will kill you if given the chance.

Here's my real problem with robot numbers: It doesn't mean squat when it comes to my swing. Case in point, When the Cobra Bio Cell driver came out, everyone was getting great numbers with it.....but me. No matter what I did I could not hit that driver to save my house. If the robot numbers had said this is the longest and straightest driver out on the market today, it wouldn't have mattered, cause that driver was crap for me.

I wish numbers = perfect driver, but they don't. We all do something a little different in our golf swings. The OEM's can claim the driver will do something based on numbers, but there is only one way to find out if that translates to you: You have to swing the darn club for yourself.

I think most of us know after hitting a few balls with a driver if it's making a difference or not.
 
Wow, this is an interesting one to read. Yeesh.
 
Forge or Cast? Seems to fit in with some of this conversation.:)
 
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...
What shaft, what flex? What swing speed? There are literally so many permutations that it makes little sense to do this. And if the robot uses a swing speed that doesn't match yours, or uses a club with a shaft you won't game ... is that data any good for you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top