jmschaffel1

Yeah, sorta. I now carry: D 16° Super Hybrid 19° Utility Wood (this replaces my 3h, so I do not consider this a fairway wood) 4i-PW three wedges putter

What are the parameters for "most wanted"? Purchasing trends over the last three weeks? Internet chatter in the last 24 hours? To me, it implies the best club because who doesn't want the best club. What do you mean "work for best for the largest percentage of golfers"? Based on what metrics?

I think it will too. Makes you wonder about the validity of the data? Who's data is correct? And if there is a difference, how can you trust either? Which has, sort of, been my point today.

To each their own. I just like to make sure my fellow consumers are aware that they may be being "driven towards a club", as you put it. Isn't that what "influencers" do? The game has changed. The tactics have not.

Fair enough. Lol...I still read MGS, don't I?

Likewise. I appreciate your thoughts here too and cannot disagree. But if you are ultimately going to go and test yourself, and buy based on your personal results with the club, wouldn't that relegate everyone else's prior opinions irrelevant? I mean your not going to buy a club you cannot hit straight because someone says it looks cool. Or sounds good. How could a reviewer really recommend anything without knowing anything about you or your swing? Or vice versa. All they can really offer is their opinion based on their experience. I would say that brand/product awareness and personal use/testing are the only things that matter, IMO. But to each their own.

Not at all. Only that anyone's opinion on what is "the best" is quite subjective and should be taken with a grain of salt and should, ultimately, not be considered or portrayed as a universal truth or fact. But the source, and their motivations, should always be considered. And it was really the only logical response I could offer to the poster's original question...something along the lines of "why does MGS recommend a club that didn't score particularly well in any tested metrics?" I was attempting to answer the "Why would a business do that?" question. The answer is usually financially motivated. In this case, how can we boost sales of a product that does not score particularly well? Let's call it a "staff pick". That's just capitalism, not a personal attack on how MGS conducts their business. Nor am I implying that MGS is deceptive in their marketing as they are certainly not unique in this approach.

Sorry...I meant a marketing tactic by the golf industry as a whole or by anyone that "may collect a commission" if you buy via their articles or by anyone that just wants you to read their reviews and articles instead of others (think advertising dollars). There is always an angle unless, of course, MSG has gone the way of a non-profit. And how else would you explain captured data not being consistent from publication to publication despite the notion they all claim to be unbiased and properly tested?? These reviews/articles should only serve as a brand/product awareness piece. As you were kind enough to point out, as every human tester's opinion is different, they are equally irrelevant. Therefore, opinion pieces are completely unnecassary and only serve to push the writer's preferred choice. Raw data with consistent, repetitive (robotic) swings are the only metrics worth sharing. With raw/robotic data, you will find out what the club alone is capable of when striking the ball properly and consistently. That's apples to apples. Once you give them to a person to swing, you're no longer comparing apples to apples. More like apples to applesauce to apple pie, etc. And, again, raw data should only be used as a tool to guide your testing and purchasing. You need to get your own hands on and swing away. I agree that the look, feel, and sound of a club are important to the purchase, but you're not going to learn about that from anyone's review.

Pretty simple really…it’s a marketing tactic to push sales. “Awarded” products sell better than those that are less heralded. This is why different sites offer differing “best of”. If they really used static, consistent, robot testing, they would all have the same results. This is why they use human testers instead of the aforementioned robots. Allows for differing results/opinions all in an effort to sell you something. Be smart. Go get fitted. Don’t buy based off someone else’s experience.