Jump to content

Eric Cartmenez

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

15 Good

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thanks for the response. I hear you on all of this and understand the mission of MGS - they do good work and work hard at what they do. As I have mentioned, I'm on here, search the site, follow them and keep up so I do enjoy the information! Just thought I would point out a discrepancy that I perceived to be at least mentionable and wanted to see if anyone else echoed or could see from a potentially different view/angle. Anyway, I enjoyed the constructive dialogue and hearing the opinions of others in a civil manner! Very well could have been 1000% off on my opinion, but had to check to see if I was just "seeing" things. Appreciate the kind response!
  2. I would agree. I would 100% agree with it being as close to being unbiased as we have out there.
  3. My point was you can still successfully and sometimes (two years in a row) beat the latest and greatest "face tech". I'm not saying face tech hurts, but I am not saying it will make you make more putts - I am not even disputing the "roll" on the ball - not here to dispute that..simply here to state that you don't need face tech to be a top performing putter...that's all I was looking for anyone to say? There have been other studies outside of MGS - go look at what Bob Bettinardi says about face tech - they've done some research as well. Also, I happen to love Evnroll putters, I simply just don't make more putts with them than I do a SeeMore or a Cleveland. As for my research, as I am sure you will be asking about. I have a state of the art beachfront facility in Arizona that I perform my tests at and their results will be published in the near future.
  4. Got you. Again, I'll leave 5 alone - it was just a joke but understand the nature of our world now. Just thought I'd ask, but I'll go away silently!
  5. Understand I hear you on all of this - just pointing out the discrepancies and potential "bias" I do see. A definitely lean towards the smaller guys - not saying they don't publish when a major manufacturer succeeds. I've just noticed, and it would be silly to think there isn't somewhat of a bias after they clearly state they would prefer to "level the playing field"...seems like...they're trying to level the playing field lol. Only point with the TA winning was to point out that if your putter doesn't have face tech then you aren't necessarily playing an inferior putter - as MSG would prefer us to believe. I just call it like I see it and thought others might have seen the same - I guess I'm alone in the opinion and I got about the response I figured I would get. My bad on the political reference - it was a joke.
  6. I have long suspected that MGS has "favorites" in the golf manufacturing community. Please, guys, if this doesn't tell you they do - I don't know what else will - straight from the mouth: "MyGolfSpy reaches over 7+ Million golfers every year. We also accept $0 advertising dollars from any of the major golf manufacturers. This allows us to maintain our high level of integrity and ensures our content is never in conflict with our business interests. Delivering the unbiased truth to you is our only business. MyGolfSpy does, however, allow small and medium-sized golf companies that maintain a proven track record of performance to advertise. We believe this benefits both the consumer and the industry. It helps level the playing field by giving small budget companies with above average performing products a place to compete. It also helps expose the golfing consumer to a wider array of brands and products." I think they might want the "little guys" to succeed - they're telling you their biased opinion - "we believe this benefits both the consumer and the industry". I'm not saying it DOESN'T - just stating there IS at least some bias with MGS. I pay attention to how they always leave off or don't have "glowing" reviews for Scotty Cameron Putters (regadless of where they finish, top five or not) or other major manufacturers at times (they're the first to point out Evnroll putters whether they finish in the top 5 or not - they'll create a category in which they can finish "near the top in" if they don't already in initial testing). They swear by face tech, yet a Tommy Armour putter won their mallet test two years in a row - with NO face tech and basic alignment tech - standard for all putters - no mention of the lack of face tech putters are just as good if not better at times than "high tech" putters. All I'm saying is, "give me a break." If you are going to be totally unbiased, then great. If not, it's OK to say you would prefer to see light shed on other smaller groups or medium sized golf manufacturers (because they're just as good sometimes, if not better - I believe that!) - just don't say otherwise. You can deny it and fight it all you want but I'm not going to take every test MGS does for the "gospel". All that being said, I enjoy MGS, I just don't appreciate people claiming one thing and then it actually not being true. I'll still support and watch, but go test all equipment for yourself. I appreciate the testing they do, I'll just come to my conclusions and I won't be swayed whether it's a large or small manufacturer - I could not care less about "leveling the playing field for small and medium-sized golf companies." Wake up guys - this isn't the bible - it's MGS. Am I the only one that notices this?
  7. This is exactly what I mean! U hit the nail on the head. Every single player would be using grooves if it gave them an advantage. I'll stick with what I put with - whether that's grooves or not - whatever you make more putts with!
  8. Although grooves may help the ball roll end over end consistently (some would argue they roll the ball end over end just as well without grooves), I will stand by the greatest putter of all time using a smooth faced Scotty Cameron putter - even experimenting with grooves - only to go back to his Scotty. Say what you want, Mr. Rife, Ping, Odyssey, Bobby Grace, etc., if grooves made that drastic of a difference, I don't care what they say, every single pro would be using them. And after years of experimentation, you would think that I (not a pro golfer), would be able to make more putts with a grooved or technology filled putter. As it turns out, I make more puts with a newport Scotty Cameron, white hot pro Odyssey, Bettinardi milled face, and a Cleveland milled face. I can also make putts with groove tech - which obviously doesn't hurt to have, but it by no means makes me a more consistent putter or makes me hole more putts. I wish someone would come out and say that they don't matter as much as they want you to believe they matter - they certainly can't hurt your game, just like a smooth face or milled face won't hurt or make you make exponentially more putts...just my thoughts - im sure others out there share the same!
  9. Long live groove technology in putters - it's the secret to making more putts.
  • Create New...