We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Company Guidelines: Right or Wrong?

SuperStroke
Golf Ghost

Golf Ghost

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 3, 2011
Messages
25,455
Reaction score
1,662
Multiple companies post "guidelines" or recommendations of what handicap of player should play a specific club. We talk about fittings and different swings fitting different clubs, not necessarily using handicap as an indicator of what a player should be playing.


Do you think that companies who use these guidelines are misleading the casual golfer or uneducated consumer and if so, if they are to use a sort of guideline, how should the go about doing so?
 
Company Guidelines: Right or Wrong?

I don't think they are misleading or right or wrong. I think it may help the casual or novice golfer. If they see a iron designed for 0-5 handicap they should know to stay away from it and look for something in the 15 and above range.

I think most knowledgable golfers...I.e. THP pretty much know what clubs are designed for what level and if it fits them or not. jMO
 
I think it's a pretty good guideline for people who have no idea what type of club fits them the best, but useless for golfers who already know what they prefer.
 
Neither they are simply trying to keep the uneducated golfer from buying the wrong club and receiving a bad rep for making a iron player D can't play, when the iron was designed for player A
 
I don't see it as right or wrong. They are called guidelines for a reason and not rules. It does give people an idea of where they should be looking at when shopping for clubs. Each persons handicap could be where it's at for different reasons. There could be someone who,strikes his/her irons well but has a shaky short game so instead of being a low digit hdcp the have a mid.
 
I'd say right AND wrong.. From what I've seen, some/most? companies tag their SGI as x to 25 hdcp... Like if the worst golfer was playing 97... Lol

There will always be casual golfers with deep pockets that doesn't feel like being fitted for multiple reasons (shy of being judged by the fitter, feels like they doesn't need it, etc.). They need guidelines at the very least to prevent them from buying the most expensive players blades available thinking they "will get better buying better clubs".
 
Bullitt5339 said:
I think it's a pretty good guideline for people who have no idea what type of club fits them the best, but useless for golfers who already know what they prefer.
Click to expand...

Well said.

BTW.....you can't buy a better game!
 
Golf Ghost said:
Multiple companies post "guidelines" or recommendations of what handicap of player should play a specific club. We talk about fittings and different swings fitting different clubs, not necessarily using handicap as an indicator of what a player should be playing.

Do you think that companies who use these guidelines are misleading the casual golfer or uneducated consumer and if so, if they are to use a sort of guideline, how should the go about doing so?
Click to expand...

Some people want a quick consumable guide to explain who a product is for. For those that want more detail, the club companies almost universally recommend that you really get fit.

No different than someone trying to evaluate the quality of a club based solely on MPF, or a car based on horsepower or MPG.
 
I'm fine with it, it can help a lot of people with a starting point if they don't really know where to start. It's the guys at golf town who disregard what a person is interested in and they try to force the clubs they like onto the consumer.
 
It's a good thing. It helps prevent some people from buying the wrong clubs.

Dave
 
dthrog00 said:
It's a good thing. It helps prevent some people from buying the wrong clubs.

Dave
Click to expand...

Mind expanding some on that?

This is what I'm wondering, is how do we know they are wrong?
 
I read an interview with Ben Sharpe claiming TaylorMade was hoping to be for aspirational players with a 0-4 handicap and Adams was for everyone else. I was kind of shocled.
 
The "average" golfer plays for fun and can rarely break 90. They need all the help they can get. If there is one thing technology has done it is to help that segment of golfers. The segment that hits the ball off centre more than on. The guy who can't tell where on the face he made contact. He's the guy who needs super GI clubs to play a better game.

It is the smaller segment that plays a better game and needs tools that are more suited to their game. Tools to tell where they made contact and that can tell when they were a groove low or how far inside or outside they made contact. The guy who can dig a ball out of a divot and pick it clean out of a bunker.

I think company guide lines usually hit the nail on the head. When I did my fitting last year it was obvious that I hit the stuff designed for my handicap factor and slightly below better than the stuff from higher or lower brackets.
 
I think that they are fine for the everyday hack who doesn't pay too much attention or care too much about getting better. For those who are very much into the sport however, I think they are aware to take those recommendations with a grain of salt. I'd say that those charts a good starting and reference point, but not the absolute truth.
 
Golf Ghost said:
Mind expanding some on that?

This is what I'm wondering, is how do we know they are wrong?
Click to expand...

Someone like me hitting the bladiest blades on the market isn't going to end well, but it's what the PGA tour guys are striping.

Dave
 
I think they are great if taken as a guideline, not an absolute. A good place to start for the beginner, and likely good advice for those who struggle to improve, or struggle with their own ego. The only problem I have with them is if they are taken as the end all be all, and maybe scaring some off from trying clubs that are deemed "too difficult" for them.
 
Golf Ghost said:
Multiple companies post "guidelines" or recommendations of what handicap of player should play a specific club. We talk about fittings and different swings fitting different clubs, not necessarily using handicap as an indicator of what a player should be playing.
Click to expand...
Er...disagree.

My experience as a high handicapper posting about trying clubs I "shouldn't" be playing is you get an awful lot of nudges toward GI and SGI.
 
I think they are fine. Perfect? No, but it's confusing enough as it is and in general you'll find that the traits a high handicapper possesses match well with index recommendations. Club that want to square up, are designed to launch high, negate heavy misses to a degree, provide higher ball speed retention off center, etc, are addressing (or helping to address) the issues that are most common for poor swings.

Cleveland had a pretty good system in the 588 Alt/MT/TT lineup by focusing on trajectory a little, but again that's not perfect either.
 
Hawk said:
I think they are fine. Perfect? No, but it's confusing enough as it is and in general you'll find that the traits a high handicapper possesses match well with index recommendations. Club that want to square up, are designed to launch high, negate heavy misses to a degree, provide higher ball speed retention off center, etc, are addressing (or helping to address) the issues that are most common for poor swings.

Cleveland had a pretty good system in the 588 Alt/MT/TT lineup by focusing on trajectory a little, but again that's not perfect either.
Click to expand...

I heart you.
 
Like Hawk said, they give you a starting point to what to look at, but they do not categorically state that you have to be 'x' handicap to play a particular club - just look at the pros on tour who are playing clubs that are considered GI (I can't remember off the top of my head any examples, but I do seem to remember a few being posted on here previously)

Now if companies stated that you couldn't play a particular club unless your handicap was at least 'x' then I would say that is wrong, but giving you a rough idea of who they are aimed at is a good thing for those who maybe aren't as well educated on the characteristics of any given club

Guidelines and recommendations are just that, a suggestion of what may work best for the majority of people, I guess a little bit like the standard shafts that you get in a driver which are designed to work for the widest spectrum of players, but you will always get people that find something outside of their supposed range of clubs that they can hit well. At the end of the day, as long as you are happy with what you have bought and how you hit them, why should it matter who they are supposedly aimed at
 
Erky said:
I read an interview with Ben Sharpe claiming TaylorMade was hoping to be for aspirational players with a 0-4 handicap and Adams was for everyone else. I was kind of shocled.
Click to expand...

Boy, if your market is 0-4 handicappers, you must aspire to be a small boutique product. That's not really a big enough market to support a company IMO.

To the original question, guidelines are guidelines not regulations but there's probably good reasons one should look for clubs that fit ones game and those guidelines are a starting point.
 
JMN57 said:
Boy, if your market is 0-4 handicappers, you must aspire to be a small boutique product. That's not really a big enough market to support a company IMO.

To the original question, guidelines are guidelines not regulations but there's probably good reasons one should look for clubs that fit ones game and those guidelines are a starting point.
Click to expand...

I don't remember him saying 0-4. I do remember him saying 'better player'. What I took away was that what they were aiming for was TM = Titleist and Adams = Cobra when both were under Acushnet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top