Is Equipment more like the Space Program or Vintage Wines?

[markb]

So I just tossed aside another driver which failed to best my archaic 2013 Optiforce and as I sunk into the depressive realization that drivers are not really getting any longer or substantially more forgiving, the thought struck me that maybe I'm thinking about equipment all wrong.  

 

You see, I had it in my mind that with the march of progress and improvements in technology equipment should continually get better.   That's what manufacturers have trained us to believe, is it not?   7 yards more every new driver release?   In my brain,  I had been thinking of equipment as akin to 1960's Space Program, with the Mercury program being kinda crude, but made obsolete by the Gemini program, which was in turn replaced by Apollo, then the Shuttle etc.   Each step got better, right?

 

Now I think I'm wrong.  Golf equipment doesn't inexorably improve.   Oh sure, occasionally changes in the ball have made a significant difference -- but the last big change was like 14 years ago, was it not?  Does anyone really see any difference in performance between those various models of ProV's with the solid arrow, dotted arrow, and outlined arrow etc?

 

And sure, drivers have gotten bigger and more forgiving -- but how much better since about 2007.  I can still hit my old 983K about as far as my current driver (although not as consistently).   And yes, there's no question that today's long irons are longer and easier to hit than my old Eye 2's, but the difference shrinks to almost nothing when I compare true lofts and shaft lengths to each other and ignore the numbers stamped on the bottoms of the clubs.  

 

It also seems that the shorter the clubs get, the less technology matters.   Have there been any real technological revolutions in putters?   Isn't a forged Hogan wedge every bit as good as a modern Vokey or Cleveland?   Heck, this year I switched all my low irons (9-LW) BACK to small headed forged Scors and saw my short game get significantly sharper.   Now I'm wondering how many forged irons I can move up the ladder before I can't hit them any more.   Isn't that shift completely contra-sensical?

 

Maybe the problem is with my thinking.   Maybe I should look at golf equipment as if they were fine wines.   Sometimes a vineyard will have a good year and strike upon just the right balance in tending the vines, harvesting the grapes, and fermenting the wine, but they don't change much of what they do from year to year.  Sometimes they strike gold if the weather cooperates and sometimes they screw up.  

 

I think I see this with many golf clubs.   I liked Callaways 2013 drivers, but none of their 2014 offerings.   I liked the Titleist 910's much more than the 913's, and I'm hopeful that the 915's will be good again.  The Rocketbladez regular irons were great, but the Rocketbladez Tours were just awful.  

 

Anybody else notice strange back-sliding in equipment you used to like?   I know there are some Mizuno guys who rave about older designs more than new ones.   Who do you think is having a good year versus a bad year?

[MattF]

You see, I had it in my mind that with the march of progress and improvements in technology equipment should continually get better.   That's what manufacturers have trained us to believe, is it not?   7 yards more every new driver release?   In my brain,  I had been thinking of equipment as akin to 1960's Space Program, with the Mercury program being kinda crude, but made obsolete by the Gemini program, which was in turn replaced by Apollo, then the Shuttle etc.   Each step got better, right?

 

Now I think I'm wrong.  Golf equipment doesn't inexorably improve.   Oh sure, occasionally changes in the ball have made a significant difference -- but the last big change was like 14 years ago, was it not?  Does anyone really see any difference in performance between those various models of ProV's with the solid arrow, dotted arrow, and outlined arrow etc?

 

And sure, drivers have gotten bigger and more forgiving -- but how much better since about 2007.  I can still hit my old 983K about as far as my current driver (although not as consistently).   And yes, there's no question that today's long irons are longer and easier to hit than my old Eye 2's, but the difference shrinks to almost nothing when I compare true lofts and shaft lengths to each other and ignore the numbers stamped on the bottoms of the clubs.  

 

It also seems that the shorter the clubs get, the less technology matters.   Have there been any real technological revolutions in putters?   Isn't a forged Hogan wedge every bit as good as a modern Vokey or Cleveland?   Heck, this year I switched all my low irons (9-LW) BACK to small headed forged Scors and saw my short game get significantly sharper.   Now I'm wondering how many forged irons I can move up the ladder before I can't hit them any more.   Isn't that shift completely contra-sensical?

 

Maybe the problem is with my thinking.   Maybe I should look at golf equipment more like fine wines.   Sometimes a vineyard will have a good year and strike upon just the right balance in tending the vines, harvesting the grapes, and fermenting the wine, but they don't change much of what they do from year to year.  Sometimes they strike gold if the weather cooperates and sometimes they screw up.  

 

One of the best reasoning of clubs and marketing that I've seen. Thanks for your thoughts Mark.

[Kenny B]

And sure, drivers have gotten bigger and more forgiving -- but how much better since about 2007.  I can still hit my old 983K about as far as my current driver (although not as consistently).   And yes, there's no question that today's long irons are longer and easier to hit than my old Eye 2's, but the difference shrinks to almost nothing when I compare true lofts and shaft lengths to each other and ignore the numbers stamped on the bottoms of the clubs.  

 

It also seems that the shorter the clubs get, the less technology matters.   Have there been any real technological revolutions in putters?   Isn't a forged Hogan wedge every bit as good as a modern Vokey or Cleveland?   Heck, this year I switched all my low irons (9-LW) BACK to small headed forged Scors and saw my short game get significantly sharper.   Now I'm wondering how many forged irons I can move up the ladder before I can't hit them any more.   Isn't that shift completely contra-sensical?

 

Maybe the problem is with my thinking.   Maybe I should look at golf equipment more like fine wines.   Sometimes a vineyard will have a good year and strike upon just the right balance in tending the vines, harvesting the grapes, and fermenting the wine, but they don't change much of what they do from year to year.  Sometimes they strike gold if the weather cooperates and sometimes they screw up.  

 

 

I think you've got it.  I ran across some deals on drivers this past year so I picked a few up, tried them, and realized that basically they are all the same.  Sure, some feel better to me and I might be a little more consistent with those, but not perceptively better.  I keep trying, but my hopes of finding the one that feels the best and gives the best performance is dwindling.  I am back to my 2009 driver.

 

As for the forged irons...  I have also found some are very difficult to hit and others are pretty forgiving.  My friend had Mizunos and I could not hit them at all; guess players clubs are not for me.  When I got the 46 and 50 SCORs last week, I loved them and then my thought process turned to "maybe I should go back to my Macgregor M685 forged irons".  The long irons were OK but not great, but now I am using hybrids that didn't exist back then so maybe the mid/short irons will be fine.  They were pretty easy to hit but I can't play stiff steel shafts anymore.  So now I am thinking about reshafting with graphite; lots to choose from though, weight ball flight, torque, color, PRICE.  Maybe something to do over the winter.

 

I like your idea about fine wines with one exception.  A new driver model would compare to the winemaker coming up with a new variety or blend, not for example, a cabernet from year to year.   I live in the heart of the Washington wine region of the state, and I can certainly say that there is some variation from year to year, but it is not as much as it used to be.  The differences are very subtle, and unless you are a oenophilist, you probably can't tell the difference.  Our weather is very consistent from year to year and the grape growers can put just the right amount of water on the vines, when they want to.  The result is consistency from year to year.  In an effort to keep coming up with something new every year (or several times a year) the OEMs tweak this and tweak that, and maybe they get lucky and all the right things come together for a model.  Unfortunately, because they have to keep changing (they think they do), that perfect combination is tweaked out the window.  It would seem that with all of their R&D testing, they would know when they get it right.  It might be that a tweak is good for some, but not others.  Clearly the Opti is tweaked just right for you, but I have never had any luck with any model of Callaway.

[markb]

Kenny, your refinement of my wine analogy is spot on.  I think you are right about the fact that American wines are less subject to variation because of the weather and improvements in wine-making technology have tended to "save" the bad years, bringing their end results upwards towards the more acceptable mean.  Blending also has a huge part in this.  To some extent these improvements have made all wines better.   Likewise, technological improvements in golf equipment have "raised the tide" for everyone. 

 

Golf manufacturers play with  "blends" of perimeter weighting and slots and investment casting in a similar attempt to find the right mix.  They're all just attempts to select from a basketful of ingredients in search of an optimal combination.  We might extend the analogy further by saying that graphite shafts are golf's "oak aging" and the choice of the right shaft can either send the "wine" soaring to new heights, or ruin it, just like the wrong aging techniques can help or hurt a wine.    Right now, I think that shafts make more of a difference than heads.

 

But it's true that different types of players need different types of clubs and this is where the wine analogy probably falls short.  Wine enthusiasts don't need only expensive wines, although they might appreciate them more.  I know that even rank beginners can spot a good wine from a weak one.   Sometimes newbies will say, "Eew that dark wine is tooo concentrated, it's like two bottles smashed into one" because they aren't used to getting so much flavor, but they will keep coming back to the good wine.   It isn't that way in golf.   As long as I live, I'll never be able to get a forged, no-offset 3 iron up in the air like some people can and I'd probably quit the game if forced to play with old Tourney VIP's and persimmon woods.

 

In one sense, golf club manufacturers are EXACTLY like winemakers -- they need to harvest a new crop every year to stay in business.   So they try changing the label and the bottle shape and the ad campaign to help move it.   Trouble is, golf clubs mostly don't "age" and they aren't disposable like wine.  With golf, if a guy tries a club, he doesn't come back to his pro and say, "I really liked that 'bottle' of Trusty Rusty you sold me before, I'll take a case this week."     So to move this year's vintage, manufacturers have to convince us that it is significantly improved over last year's and that last year's vintage has actually somehow "gone bad" over the winter.

 

I suppose golf balls are the most like wine.   Titleist has firmly secured its place as the Chateau Lafite of the ball industry.  They can charge whatever they want and their product is disposable.   Other upstarts may come along and make as good or even better balls as the ProV, but they're not gonna knock Chateau Lafite off its pedestal.

 

In the end it still comes down to personal preference.   You're right, I've gotten along well with my Optiforce.   I'm the guy who likes weird Rhone wines and I'm partial to my Chateauneuf-du-Pape.   Others find it too harsh or rustic and they prefer Burgundy or Bordeaux or Big Bertha.  Meanwhile I'm sitting here quibbling that last year's Callaway vintage was much better than this year's.  I need to just drink what I've got and enjoy it.

[Kenny B]

I like it!  100% agree.

 

The ball analogy is absolutely true.  I have used ProV1s for years; I like them, but I always search for others.  Why?  There's nothing wrong with ProV1s.  Yes, they are expensive like the Chateau Lafite, but so are other similar balls.  I know of several very nice wines that are a lot less expensive than the Lafite, so maybe I am looking for a ball that is just as good as the ProV1 but cheaper. Actually, I don't think it exists, but I keep looking.  Currently with Srixon Z-Stars but I could change next week if another ball comes along that I like; but I would always play a ProV1.

 

Same with clubs, and the shaft is the key.  It is the oak barrel; it is what gives a club its feel.  Sure, there are some characteristics of manufacturer's heads that are unique, but the construction is basically the same.  The major differences will show up in the shaft they use.  Even if you and I played the same flex (which I know we don't), the same shaft from one shaft maker's would probably feel different to you than it does to me.  Our swings are different, but I bet we could find different shafts for the same head that fit us both.  I suspect that golf club manufacturers would do well to sell the heads with many shaft options available at their dealers.  Some do this already, but I think it needs even more expansion.  I  look for a wine that has the best taste for me, and I would like to shop for for a club/shaft combination that has the best feel for me.  Not possible in my area.

[markb]

I just read Tony's latest article on the Titleist 915 and danged if it didn't feel like my wine analogy was even more appropriate.  

 

Titleist has always been the Robert Mondavi of club makers.  Solid, quality-focused, reliable, conservative.   Tony's take on the 915 is that this new club hopes to be the right combination of already-known attributes, none of them revolutionary in and of themselves, but which together promise to make for the perfect barrel-aged, cabernet-merlot blend of a driver.   It's Titleist's Opus One -- or that's the hope anyway.

 

(Sorry if all the wine metaphors are unfamiliar to some readers.   Trust us, they fit.)

[Kenny B]

Yep!  Looks like the 915 has been aging in Titleist barrels for quite awhile.  Time to uncork it.

[BK in TEXAS]

I just read Tony's latest article on the Titleist 915 and danged if it didn't feel like my wine analogy was even more appropriate.  

 

Titleist has always been the Robert Mondavi of club makers.  Solid, quality-focused, reliable, conservative.   Tony's take on the 915 is that this new club hopes to be the right combination of already-known attributes, none of them revolutionary in and of themselves, but which together promise to make for the perfect barrel-aged, cabernet-merlot blend of a driver.   It's Titleist's Opus One -- or that's the hope anyway.

 

(Sorry if all the wine metaphors are unfamiliar to some readers.   Trust us, they fit.)

 

Yup.  I have to admit I'm optimistically looking forward tot he 915 driver release than any driver before.  I'm not a fan of Vokey's....the irons are just OK...but their hybrids woods and drivers just seem to fit.

[sp0rtsfan86]

I think the comparison is pretty bang on. Looking back int he past 5 years, I don't see that great of innovation. Sure a few name changes, and maybe an extra weight or two, but nothing major. 

 

I look at it like cell phones... What's the biggest thing now? the screen is bigger? 10 years ago the average phone last 3 years... now the iPhone comes out every year... And the changes haven't been the big. Sure a few tweaks here or there, but the main innovation seems to be done.

 

I feel that way with clubs, specifically drivers. Other than the slot technology, there really hasn't been that big of a radical change in years.... I'm still hoping someone has something up their sleeves in R&D

[markb]

In evolutionary terms, that's punctuated equilibrium.   Species remain the same over long periods of time, until the environment or the population is shaken up by an unexpected big change, then the species adapts to the change fast.   Afterwards, it settles in for another long period of no change -- until the next big environmental shake-up comes along.

 

Take just irons, for example.  How many big changes have occurred since the 1950's?    I'd say that Perimeter Weighting and Investment Casting are about it.  Long and mid irons became easier to hit because of the above and that allowed the strengthening of lofts and lengthening of shafts to occur.  Everything else like hosel offset and weight redistribution and the fusing of mixed metals and slots and different soles and lowering of CG are all just small incremental improvements.  Refinements, not revolutions.

[ZenGolfer]

IMO, its a mix of both.  Clubs do get better over time but that doesnt always mean that each and every model generation is better than the one it replaces.

[revkev]

I like the wine analogy very much and do believe that so long as it's not pushed too far, it fits.

 

I think the current iteration of the Pro VI is better than the first but I don't believe that it's been a gradual progression.  Once they figured out the seeming issue there was a big jump - since then it seems more like sending out the same stuff under a slightly different label.

 

In regards to clubs - I don't know that the Eye 2 modern iron totally holds - there have been enough changes in technology that have allowed lofts to be jacked and shafts to lenghthen, if you simply jacked the loft and lenghtened the shaft using the old technology you may have lots of trouble getting the trajectory and also hitting the ball on the sweet spot.

 

I think shafts have gotten much better over the past 15 years allowing for lighter, which leads to a more speed and distance.  Again these aren't huge things but they have their times when it jumps.  The last time I played Magnolia was 23 years ago - I had the second generation Taylor Made metal woods and Ping Eye 2's in my bag with some sort of surlyn covered ball.  Of course I don't remember where I drove the ball on each hole but I recalled the course as playing much longer than it did Tuesday.  I know that I played the same set of tees and that it was much wetter this week than the last time which was in the early summer before the rains really started. 

 

My clearest comparison was 17 which is a bear of a hole - 400 yards, dogleg left that's sharp enough that you add significant length to it if you go a bit right (that happens often because of water left).  I know that I hit my drive on a similar line to the time I played there before, right center, little draw.  I remember being shocked that I had 195 in that time before - I had 168 in this time and it was all carry off the tee (the ball was right next to its pitch mark.)  The hole plays a little easier when you are hitting 5/6 insteand of 3 iron/5 wood.  Also it plays much wider now because my duck hook miss in 1992 is replaced with a small self correcting hook today.  In '92 that miss was nearly once a round - today it's more like once a month.

 

So equipment has improved, I don't think it's a straight line improvement but more like jumps here and there along the way.

[Kenny B]

Does anyone really think there is going to be major jump in golf technology that will impact how you and I play golf?  I am not expecting that.  Sure, each year there are subtle changes to "You know, clubs, bags, shoes, gloves, shirt, pants.  Hey, orange balls!  I'll have a box of those and give me a box of those naked-lady tees..."  Even if there is a small incremental change each year that helps us, wouldn't we show improvement every year?  I don't know about you all, but I haven't seen that much improvement in people because they keep buying the latest equipment.  Lesson would help a lot more!  

 

I would say that the biggest change in equipment since i started playing is the 460cc head.  Ten years ago I played a Cobra 350cc driver and did OK, except that the sweet spot was small compared to today's drivers.  I actually think that "on the screws" with both drivers there is little difference.  Current drivers may have a little more spring off the face, but the Cobra may be a little faster because of wind resistance.  The major difference is on off-center hits.  Todays's drivers are much more forgiving.  They are so forgiving that drivers are becoming smaller again for the better hitters.  I don't put cavity back irons in here because I started with Ping Eye 2 and I think they are still competitive with equitable lofts.

 

I don't look for big changes in a wine every year.  If I find a good one, I want it to stay the same.  Consistency from year to year; a good wine will be successful with that criterion.  

[sp0rtsfan86]

Does anyone really think there is going to be major jump in golf technology that will impact how you and I play golf?  I am not expecting that.  Sure, each year there are subtle changes to "You know, clubs, bags, shoes, gloves, shirt, pants.  Hey, orange balls!  I'll have a box of those and give me a box of those naked-lady tees..."  Even if there is a small incremental change each year that helps us, wouldn't we show improvement every year?  I don't know about you all, but I haven't seen that much improvement in people because they keep buying the latest equipment.  Lesson would help a lot more!  

 

I would say that the biggest change in equipment since i started playing is the 460cc head.  Ten years ago I played a Cobra 350cc driver and did OK, except that the sweet spot was small compared to today's drivers.  I actually think that "on the screws" with both drivers there is little difference.  Current drivers may have a little more spring off the face, but the Cobra may be a little faster because of wind resistance.  The major difference is on off-center hits.  Todays's drivers are much more forgiving.  They are so forgiving that drivers are becoming smaller again for the better hitters.  I don't put cavity back irons in here because I started with Ping Eye 2 and I think they are still competitive with equitable lofts.

 

I don't look for big changes in a wine every year.  If I find a good one, I want it to stay the same.  Consistency from year to year; a good wine will be successful with that criterion.  

Well perimeter weighting was huge, but don't forget the custom fitting and also how much that has improved. Think the big thing now is going to be how can clubs be able to fly higher while they get bent stronger.... That would be the best case, where clubs keep the distance, but also add height it took away after bending the clubs stronger.