Are golf equipment companies falsely representing their products?

[krusher74]

On 6/5/2020 at 6:46 AM, TimoTe said:

Great response. 

I guess I forgot to mention/question custom specs like loft (strong/weak) and even maybe a different sole grind. 

I just have to think that without publishing the specs the pros play there could be a bait and switch. 

Clubs the big box stores have to offer also have to fit the largest segments of the target golfing population based on the head design category (players/game improvement etc). 

If specs were published then it would reveal what manufacturer has clubs being played closest to standard specs. This would seem to equate to the company also having more integrity and better engineering. 

Conversely, a result of the most altered from stock spec would reveal the poorest engineering and a less honest company.

Obviously, only knowing the specs would we even be able to really figure all this out for sure. 

I think you have that backwards. As putting a club on the shelf that was 100% to the pro spec would then make that off the shelf club only be suited the the top 1% of players. If people arnt going to get fit for a club then they have to make there best guess for the shelf spec club as whats going to fit the average golfer.  Wtach these scratch, golf teachers struggle with a pro spec club 

 

[PlaidJacket]

On 6/4/2020 at 4:13 PM, TimoTe said:

Are PGA/LPGA sponsored players playing clubs that are markedly different than what is for sale to consumers as "stock" offerings?

 

No.

I wish amateur golfers (like us) would stop worrying about the Pros by comparing their equipment or game. 99% of golfers are amateurs. Who cares what 3-clubs Justin Thomas uses. They will always be better than you. And they will be better than you even if they're playing a boxed set of Pine Meadows and a Sponge Bob golf ball. I've known a few tour players in my time and none of them had any special - secret forgings for example. They might use a proto shaft we can't get but that doesn't mean you're getting jipped. They do however have the advantage (although not so much any more) of having their club heads hand selected and superbly fit. But mostly it's their ability. If you're really all worked up due to suspecting you're not getting tour equipment - schedule a private fitting at the headquarters of Titleist, TM, Callaway, Ping, Cobra, etc. etc. I bet they can fix you up just like Joe Pro. Then you can get back home and shoot and 88.

 

[FrogginBullfish]

I haven't seen a company use that advertising in at least 5 years. None of them are advertising yards anymore. Just that it's faster than last year's.

Yeah but how many golfers actually read the rest of that? They see the 10-15 in large print and don't bother reading the rest of the smaller print.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[RickyBobby_PR]

6 hours ago, beelzeberto said:

Yeah but how many golfers actually read the rest of that? They see the 10-15 in large print and don't bother reading the rest of the smaller print.

The amount that read it is probably the same amount of companies actually claiming it. The only brand I’ve seen make any claims was srixon and the small print wasn’t so small.  I don’t recall where it was advertised but somebody had posted here on mgs in another thread.

Im curious if you can show me a company that’s advertising it and what their small print says.

[Grit Golf]

My thoughts:

 

1. Most agree that changing lofts and lies for pros is not bait and switch. Ditto for adding lead tape or rat glue, anyone can do that.

 

2. Hand sorting of heads for pros to ensure maximum CT and oddball lofts is a little shoddy if the end consumer can’t get the same. Ditto for hand sorting for roundness in shafts.

 

3. Where it crosses a line to me is if a player is playing a 1-off prototype shaft or wood head painted to look like it’s in the same product line as an off the shelf shaft, when it’s really something else at that point. I don’t think that is what’s happening today, but that would be deceptive.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

 

[beelzeberto]

58 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

The amount that read it is probably the same amount of companies actually claiming it. The only brand I’ve seen make any claims was srixon and the small print wasn’t so small.  I don’t recall where it was advertised but somebody had posted here on mgs in another thread.

Im curious if you can show me a company that’s advertising it and what their small print says.

Taylormade was the culpruit. I can't remember what driver started it. They stopped using that distance line and went with more forgiveness and added in for the their sim +/- 20 yards on the draw/fade bias.
Now after looking it's mostly "reviewers" saying they're gaining so much distance.

[beelzeberto]

So yeah, I guess it's not the OEM but more so the "influencers" who are leading the marketing campaigns and "possible" misleading.

[GaDawg]

Blows my mind when a High H/C Golfer knows everything about clubs and equipment. I guess it's possible.....

Edited June 8, 2020 by GaDawg
correct spelling

[aerospace_ray]

On 6/4/2020 at 4:13 PM, TimoTe said:

Are PGA/LPGA sponsored players playing clubs that are markedly different than what is for sale to consumers as "stock" offerings?

If yes, then does that mean golf companies are falsely advertising their equipment, basically lying to consumers?

It has been a question I have been contemplating for some time that I wonder if anyone really knows the answer to?

My assumption is that tour pros are often playing clubs that are either not using shafts available without a huge upcharge, if available at all, and/or not standard length and lie (and grips too even).

Assuming I am right, I propose that any sponsored player must meet two requirements in order to be sponsored: (1) publish the complete specs they are using, and (2) the manufacturer must offer those specs to the consumer (I'm OK if it is for additional cost). 

My opinion is that this will paint a complete picture of the equipment used by pro golfers and might have another intentional ripple: some pros might not want their specs floating around because they might think there is an advantage they might be giving away. I say that if they are wearing advertising then they have already sold out, so disclose all the details. 

The real ripple could be, if I'm right, that people will see how different from stock the clubs really are which will encourage more people to see the need to get fit properly. 

What do you think?

Does anyone know any specs that either are nearly stock or are they super customised?

Are PGA/LPGA sponsored players playing clubs that are markedly different than what is for sale to consumers as "stock" offerings?

***Yes they are different regarding specs and possibly components that make the total club (Shaft and Grip). 

If yes, then does that mean golf companies are falsely advertising their equipment, basically lying to consumers?

***There was a time I would say yes but with the trend in custom fitting and unique custom fitting centers gaining in popularity, I don’t think there is total false advertising. I believe today it is understood that if you are serious about your game you most likely are aware of custom fitting of some type. (note I don’t want to deviate to far but I have a strong opinion or two regarding quality of fitting — another topic/another day perhaps)

It has been a question I have been contemplating for some time that I wonder if anyone really knows the answer to? 

****Very good question and a opportunity to grow ones knowledge base regarding their equipment and industry trends.

My assumption is that tour pros are often playing clubs that are either not using shafts available without a huge upcharge, if available at all, and/or not standard length and lie (and grips too even).

****I view these professional men/women as making a living through competitive golf. They will play the best clubs (components and fit specs) to maximize their potential to win/earn a living. It is no different than a skilled professional that invest in the best tools of his/her trade, profession. The professional golfer most likely has invested substantial time regarding club fitting and testing multiple brands of golf equipment so they can compete. I do not expect them to play what I would buy off the shelf — retail. I do think I could get close (ie. same club head, same shaft (maybe), same grip) through custom fitting from say a Club Champion/Cool Clubs, etc. Close but not exact. 

***Maybe the grips and putters are about as close to identical as we can get but definitely not the woods, irons. 

Assuming I am right, I propose that any sponsored player must meet two requirements in order to be sponsored: (1) publish the complete specs they are using, and (2) the manufacturer must offer those specs to the consumer (I'm OK if it is for additional cost). 

****So this one is tricky to me. I will attempt to make sense. First let me reference Tom Wishon. In one of his books he speaks of a time long ago when an amateur like you or me would go to a golf course and take a lesson from the golf pro. The same golf pro would build you one club at a time for what fit you based on your ability, etc. The game began to grow in popularity and club pro’s could not keep up with demand. Club companies develop concept that they would make x number of clubs in  a set  (think 3-9, pw) — make that set with two shaft offerings (reg and stiff) with one grip model at same set lengths. So everyone that goes to a retail golf shop pretty much got either a reg or stiff set of clubs in their set. Like a lottery ticket, some people hit their clubs well, some hit half the clubs in the set well, and some got mad and quit (ok that might be extreme but you get the point).  For the longest no one talked about what the pro winning  a major played regarding shaft flex or grip or sole grinds, etc only the “brand name”. 

My opinion is that this will paint a complete picture of the equipment used by pro golfers and might have another intentional ripple: some pros might not want their specs floating around because they might think there is an advantage they might be giving away. I say that if they are wearing advertising then they have already sold out, so disclose all the details. 

**** I am not disputing what you say but I will say that while I absolutely love watching a pro like B. Langer  hit his lasers on the driving range of a Champions Tour event, I don’t want his club specs. I want my swing to have exact rhythm and tempo like his. IMO, the specs the pro’s use are not what is important, rather it would be what fits me. 

The real ripple could be, if I'm right, that people will see how different from stock the clubs really are which will encourage more people to see the need to get fit properly. 

What do you think? 

**Thankful for MGS testing and reviews.

Does anyone know any specs that either are nearly stock or are they super customised? 

**fully customized to my fitting. I gave up off the rack clubs ~1995 when I began listening to Tom Wishon and his views regarding off the rack clubs. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

9 hours ago, beelzeberto said:

Taylormade was the culpruit. I can't remember what driver started it. They stopped using that distance line and went with more forgiveness and added in for the their sim +/- 20 yards on the draw/fade bias.
Now after looking it's mostly "reviewers" saying they're gaining so much distance.

And Callaway did the same with irons but that hasn’t been done by either company in several years and some of the ones that did at Taylormade were the also the ones who did it a Callaway. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

13 hours ago, beelzeberto said:

So yeah, I guess it's not the OEM but more so the "influencers" who are leading the marketing campaigns and "possible" misleading.

Any proof of this as it pertains to everyone will see distance gains? Or is it that they are saying they see gains and it may very by person?

[bens197]

13 hours ago, beelzeberto said:

Taylormade was the culpruit. I can't remember what driver started it. They stopped using that distance line and went with more forgiveness and added in for the their sim +/- 20 yards on the draw/fade bias.
Now after looking it's mostly "reviewers" saying they're gaining so much distance.

Taylor Made introduced .86 COR drivers in 2003 under the R500 line.  

The 510,540 & 580 all had a .86 option and if you had the chance to swing one you could easily tell the difference.  The shop where I worked in college had a demo package arrive and we took them out to play during our regular Friday game.  This was prior to the Taylor Made TP "made for" Speeder & Mitsubishi shafts were available so we were playing with OEM stock and EI-70 shafts.  

The .86 driver was easily 25-30 yards longer for each of us who were 110-115 SS guys.  This wasn't hyperbole by any means; the geometry of that club was engineered to create more distance and it did.  Any historians out there will also remember that the early 2000's were the introduction of not just the ProV1 but the X as well.  This ball with an R510 would flat out send it.  

Today the governing bodies use CT rather than COR to measure face springiness.