Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
fixyurdivot

Golf Club Testing

Golf Club Testing  

7 members have voted

  1. 1. Which method of club testing is the best?

    • Robot
      1
    • Human
      6


Recommended Posts

I was just reading Tony's article on golf club testing - and the long standing debate as to whether robots or humans provide better reviews. It's an interesting question really and both have some compelling arguments supporting their case.  From a purely analytical perspective, and ability to precisely control the ball strike, the robot wins hands down.  But from a feel and "playability" standpoint, I think humans get the nod.  The aesthetics and feel of a club will almost certainly fall into our laps but as time rolls along advancements in robotic and AI technology could very well put us testers out of a job and in the unemployment line... or will they?

At present, I'm leaning towards robots.  I say this because a robot affords an OEM's engineering team the ability to more precisely analyze a clubs performance and make iterative design changes to yield optimum ball flight - to include a more forgiving strike zone.  I like that they can repeatedly miss hit balls and/or impact at less than optimal conditions to see how the club performs. 

Were it possible to have a completely "blind test", I think it would be interesting to see how closely ball flight data between robot and human testing would correlate.

Concerning the poll question, "best" is in the sense that the equipments attributes will, more often than not, agree with the majority of players.  I purposely did not offer a "both" option in the poll; that's a punt, a cop out.  Nope, you need to stand tall and choose a side.  

https://mygolfspy.com/golf-club-testing-results-you-can-trust/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For design when it comes to specs the robot is a great tool because they can get consistent strikes and gather data similar to how ball testing is done.

human testing comes into play for the subjective aspects. Looks, sound, feel (many equate this to the sound they hear rather than what they feel in the hands arms). 
 

both are needed in my opinion. It’s why brands bring in testers for their prototype testing 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

unfortunately i think the answer is really both.  Test are designed to achieve a specific purpose and both robot and human testing have  specific purposes.  What is best accomplished with a robot is not best accomplished with a human and vise versa. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im with both. An engineer or team can make the best golf club that checks all the boxes but it it looks like a iron that fell down the stairs into a furnace i.e. the human factor then its not worth its weight in scrap. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's definitely both. I had this conversation with the people at Titleist on Friday.  And you know what.  They had both going on at the very moment. 

They were using the robot for ball testing, and on one of the teeing areas they were using real live humans for club testing at that moment.  But they also use them for ball testing along with the robot. 

Sound famaliar?  MGS has said many times they get it's protocols from the OEM's.  

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/2/2019 at 7:37 AM, fixyurdivot said:

Were it possible to have a completely "blind test", I think it would be interesting to see how closely ball flight data between robot and human testing would correlate.

Anyone know if this has been attempted?  I've seen (been part of) blind tests with fly rods.  You would be amazed at the results. Same goes for blind tests of wine (they even made a movie about it, Bottle Shock, a good one btw). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone know if this has been attempted?  I've seen (been part of) blind tests with fly rods.  You would be amazed at the results. Same goes for blind tests of wine (they even made a movie about it, Bottle Shock, a good one btw). 

I'd agree with previous posts in that it's a combination of the two. As to the wine reference - it's purely personal preference - no robot testing as far as I know. There are some pretty expensive wines that I don't care for. Also some less expensive wines that I'd take over the expensive ones.


Sent from my iPad using MyGolfSpy
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this article hits some great points. I actually didn't realize the fact that shafts so not affect a robot swing. As an engineer he hit most of the key points of any product I have every tested. Use machines for precise repeatable testing to develop the product use humans/customer's to drive feedback requirements for the product.
Humans are flawed, inconsistent, and emotional beings but that's who is paying for the product that's who is playing the product.
Smartphones, cars, computers, everything today is tested my machines to be able to stand up to benchmark performance and benchmark it against the competition. Those benchmarks may be meaningless if you don't need/want/fit into them. I don't need a gaming computer if I only write emails and I can't accommodate a Prius if I need to haul drywall every day.

Using MyGolfSpy mobile app

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
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.   Paste as plain text instead

  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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...