Jump to content

Head to Head Reviews


Recommended Posts

  • SPY VIP

Hopefully by now you've had a chance to read through our 4-part "Clash of the Adjustable Drivers" Series (Intro, User Rankings, Distance, Accuracy). As we always do, we tried to included a ton of actual data from the simulators at Tark's Indoor Golf in Saratoga Springs, NY, but we also learned very quickly that it's impossible to undervalue the impact the subjective "stuff" has when one considers purchasing new clubs.

 

We're extremely interested in your opinions as we're always looking for ways to improve. Please share any thoughts you might have, but we're especially interested in your thoughts on the following:

 

The format in general - This is our first larger scale head to head style review and we tweaked the layout several times during the planning phase. Overall, does it work for you? Is it too much all at once, to little (more clubs, fewer clubs)? What changes should we consider?

 

The data/charts, etc - Too much, too little?

 

The content - did any of you suffer from information overload. What should we have left out, what should we have included that we didn't?

 

What would you like to see "head to head" or "Clash" in the future?

 

We welcome any and all input, and will no doubt try in incorporate a suggestion or two (or three, or four), into our next big review.

 

Thanks for reading,

-T

MyGolfSpy is only major golf site that refuses advertising from large golf companies. With your support we can keep it that way. Donate Today
 


Subscribe to the MyGolfSpy Newsletter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the "Clash of the Adjustables" was perfect. I liked how you broke it up into four parts, so that it wasn't information overload. In the future I would like to see a wedge review with conforming and nonconforming wedges, from different manufacturers, so that we can see who has the best CC wedges.

 

Keep up the good work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great Article. No overload here. More data sounds good to me. The only thing I can think of to compare apples to apples would be to compare the heads using the same shaft, but I wonder if there would be anything to compare, because your results were so close that if the shaft was the same, they may all perform the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked the Adjustable Drivers review, very thorough, imo. It would be just want I wanted to read if it involved clubs I was interested in. However, it really seemed that at the end of the day, the determination was that there's really not much difference in the performance of those clubs, and it all boiled down to the "subjective stuff". Which is fine, now we know, right? But that was a whole lot of work on your end, and reading on ours, to find that out!

 

Would have been interesting to have had a couple non-adjustable drivers in there for a comparison, of course, if you have a good, consistent review system then you will be able to review other drivers and compare the new reviews to the previous reviews and be able to draw reasonable conclusions. So it seems that it is of utmost importance and usefulness to develop a fairly consistent review process to be able to more easily compare your reviews to each other. So changing the presentation of the data is fine, but changing the data and the process of collecting said data should be very carefully considered.

 

I know people are always wanting to make something better, but realize that in doing so you are impacting the relevance of previous review efforts. Its not like you're going to go back and rerun a review of what would then be older clubs. Consistency in data collection will also through time provide historical performance information, so in 5 years you'd be able to actually go look and answer such questions as "do CompanyX's claims of better accuracy/more distance/less spin actually show up in review data?"

 

What I'm trying to say is that whatever you decide to do I'd like to see you stick with that process through time instead of change it frequently. You can change how you show us what you did, the look of the Reviews, the style of them, the way you show us the info, but don't change the underlying data itself unless there's very good reason to, and even then, still collect the same baseline information you did before, just expand that to accomodate new advances in data collection.

 

You're probably already doing this, I just wanted to state that I feel its important!

Ping I20 8.5* - Aldila NV 65g S
Adams XTD Super Hybrid 15* - Stock Fubuki S
Adams DHY 21* - Stock Matrix Ozik White Tie S
Mizuno MP58 4-8 Irons - Fujikura MCI 100 S
SCOR 42,46,50,54,58* - SCOR/KBS Genius S
STX Robert Ingman Envision TR 35", Iomic grip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, it might be a good idea to apply the same standardization of review data to the member product reviews.

 

Take, for example, the MGS Lottery currently ongoing. What if you had a good thorough evaluation sheet that you sent with the product and had the member fill that out in addition to writing thier subjective review? So for example if you were sending out a driver, you'd ask the recipient to take it to the range and hit it side by side with thier current driver and record the results. You'd do the same with wedges, putters, hybrids, etc. Send each with a form to be filled out and returned.

 

It would take some work to develop, but once done, you would begin to gather some more consistent and useable data to go along with the subjective impressions.

 

Just ramblin', perhaps a bit of a threadjack!

Ping I20 8.5* - Aldila NV 65g S
Adams XTD Super Hybrid 15* - Stock Fubuki S
Adams DHY 21* - Stock Matrix Ozik White Tie S
Mizuno MP58 4-8 Irons - Fujikura MCI 100 S
SCOR 42,46,50,54,58* - SCOR/KBS Genius S
STX Robert Ingman Envision TR 35", Iomic grip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tyk, that's a nice bit of ramblin', and I agree with you that the reviews and the analysis process needs to be as standardized as possible. I think that what mgs has is a very good system and as they tweek it to get the info we want, it will turn into a very standardized measurement system, but it's still in the development stage and what can make it better is also what will make it last. As they take all of our feedback into account, they can then give us an objective analysis of some very subjective equipment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a nice conclusion page with all the data included in the finial conclusion and give us the ranking, over all, of each, short and concise.

 

This was by far the best review I have ever seen, breaking it into 4 parts was perfect, you don't, and it's too long of a read and you lose people attention. If I were to grade it, 99.9/100

John Barry

Bring the Funk, Back to Golf

The Golfer's Trip

 

chevy_chase22.jpg

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • SPY VIP

I think a nice conclusion page with all the data included in the final conclusion and give us the ranking, over all, of each, short and concise.

 

This was by far the best review I have ever seen, breaking it into 4 parts was perfect, you don't, and it's too long of a read and you lose people attention. If I were to grade it, 99.9/100

 

Thanks John. We talked about a final conclusion post (everything in one place, toss in some final thoughts, that sort of thing), but the fear was that after 4 posts, people would start to lose interest.

 

We also discussed the notion of deciding an overall winner, but with numbers being so close, depending on how we weighted user ratings, accuracy, and distance, we could easily make the case for 4 of the drivers we tested. Different people value those individual categories differently, and we didn't want to usurp individual priorities.

 

I'm probably going to throw a pole question up in the next couple of days, but...

 

What other type (format, clubs, or both) would you like to see?

MyGolfSpy is only major golf site that refuses advertising from large golf companies. With your support we can keep it that way. Donate Today
 


Subscribe to the MyGolfSpy Newsletter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't really care if its 1 long review or broken into 4 parts. If I'm interested, I'm going to read it, if I'm not interested in the products, I will still probably at least skim it. The one bad thing about multiple parts is that the conversations get scattered among the different parts, making it harder to follow. I think that if you're going to break it up into parts as you present it, after a bit all parts should be combined into one just to keep the info together on the board. Not a huge deal now, but down the road it will be a big pita to have the different parts scattered through the pages of the review section.

 

I like JB's idea of a "results summary". That lets those with a passing interest at least get the gist of the info, and those that are interested in the methods and specific results can read the whole thing.

Ping I20 8.5* - Aldila NV 65g S
Adams XTD Super Hybrid 15* - Stock Fubuki S
Adams DHY 21* - Stock Matrix Ozik White Tie S
Mizuno MP58 4-8 Irons - Fujikura MCI 100 S
SCOR 42,46,50,54,58* - SCOR/KBS Genius S
STX Robert Ingman Envision TR 35", Iomic grip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about a head-to-head of past and current models? For instance, a Nike SQ v. the SuMo 5000 v. DyMo v. Vr. Same shafts, lengths, grips, etc. Let's see how much the new "technology" works.

 

I would love to see this, too. While Golf Digest is publishing their "Obsolete List" trying to push people to buy new clubs, I'd like to see an MGS version of that, a "Save Your Money List" of clubs that don't offer significant improvements over the last iteration.

Follow me on Twitter: @MattSaternus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love to see this, too. While Golf Digest is publishing their "Obsolete List" trying to push people to buy new clubs, I'd like to see an MGS version of that, a "Save Your Money List" of clubs that don't offer significant improvements over the last iteration.

That would be awesome.

 

I can't remember who it was, but one of the guys on the PGA is still rocking a Callaway Steelhead Plus 3 wood, which if I remember right is from the late 90's. I used to have one and it was definitely one of the best fairway woods I have ever owned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love to see this, too. While Golf Digest is publishing their "Obsolete List" trying to push people to buy new clubs, I'd like to see an MGS version of that, a "Save Your Money List" of clubs that don't offer significant improvements over the last iteration.

 

That would be a great idea... from being a member of multiple golf forums, the same questions comes up over and over again: "what are good game improvement irons at a decent price"... most people recommend irons that are 2-3-4 years old.

 

I would love to see how the x-18/x-20 and x-22's compare, or the R7's and the burners, or how about the mx950 to the mx300's.

 

I know it would be A LOT more clubs to cover, but if you chose one category to cover (players, GI, SGI), and the most common clubs, I would love to see something like that.

My Bag:
Driver - 
:cobra-small:  King F6+

3 Wood -  :callaway-small: XR16
Hybrids -  :srixon-small:  ZH45
Irons -  :mizuno-small:  JPX 850 Pro

Wedges -  :callaway-small: Mac Daddy 2
Putter -   :taylormade-small: Spider Tour Red
Bag - Ogio Grom Stand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I loved the format. I liked it being broken down, because like someone else said, if it were any longer it would be too long to hold my interest.

I also like the idea of comparing results from older - newer models. Lets face it, the results of the driver test alone showed there are MINISCULE differences between brands/models. I am willing to bet the same holds true for model years, until you go back so far in technology it is obvious.

I'd like to see you compare wedges with a lot of different factors. Is a Vokey worth the money? Is a Cleveland that much better than a Callaway? Does a Nike promote spin better than a Taylormade? Does an Eidelon's grooves last longer than Scratch? The industry says wedges should be changed often. Just how often is often? I've heard the opinions and recommendations, but how about some real numbers on how long different wedges take to wear down. Just some thoughts....

•Never argue with an idiot. First, he will drag you down to his level. Then he will beat you with experience!•

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love to see this, too. While Golf Digest is publishing their "Obsolete List" trying to push people to buy new clubs, I'd like to see an MGS version of that, a "Save Your Money List" of clubs that don't offer significant improvements over the last iteration.

 

That would be great. Maybe with one with all of the r7 and R9 drivers too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where consistency in the review process will come in handy. If there's a standardized review system, then in 5 years we will be able to compare data, not by going out and running head to head reviews of old clubs against new, but just by pulling up the 5 year old data and comparing it to the new data. I mean, sure, it'd be great to go back and review the 3 year old drivers, but who has that kind of time? I mean, if I had to choose, I'd rather MGS be testing the new stuff, not going backwards. Going forward is where it will become very useful, imo.

Ping I20 8.5* - Aldila NV 65g S
Adams XTD Super Hybrid 15* - Stock Fubuki S
Adams DHY 21* - Stock Matrix Ozik White Tie S
Mizuno MP58 4-8 Irons - Fujikura MCI 100 S
SCOR 42,46,50,54,58* - SCOR/KBS Genius S
STX Robert Ingman Envision TR 35", Iomic grip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...