Calling Shenanigans - Whose Responsibility Is It

[Tony Covey MGS]

So here we are into day 2 of #TM2012 product launches, and the latest go around has got me thinking...

 

Well first, let me preface this by saying the issue I'm about to raise is anything but unique to TaylorMade. Nearly every OEM big and small does it. Moving on...

 

It's become standard practice these days for equipment manufacturers to make outlandish claims in their press releases. Sometimes it's a revolutionary new technology (the kind of thing that allows you to manipulate ball flight by 4 miles in either direction), sometimes it's your run of the mill distance claims.

 

Recent examples include TaylorMades' RBZ (17 yards longer than the Burner), Callaway's RAZR Hawk (6 yards longer than the R11), and even TourEdge's claim that the CB4 Fairway is 20 yards longer (not sure what that's compared to).

 

The claims almost always include fine print that includes the testing conditions. Sometimes it is straightforward (based on 10 shots with +90% confidence), sometimes the conditions are a little more unrealistic. If you take TaylorMade's claim about the RocketBallz fairway as a specific example, their claim of 17 yards is based on robots generating 150 MPH ball speed.

 

Now I've done my fair share of testing, and I'm sure guys like Nic who see a lot of swings as well will weigh in...in my experience a substantial majority of golfers cannot achieve 150MPH ball speeds with a driver. With a 3 wood...fuhgettaboutit.

 

And while I believe Callaway when they say 6 yards longer, and TM when they say 17, does anybody have a problem with it when these types of claims are based on truthful, yet unworldly conditions? More to my point, considering golf companies largely power the media (through ad dollars, contests, and other like-things), whose, if anyone's responsibility is it to call them out on this sort of stuff?

[Matt Saternus]

Uh, MyGolfSpy's...duh.

 

To answer your question: no, these claims don't really bother me because I put no stock in them. I know that companies will set up the test in whatever way they have to to prove their point. I feel a little bad for the "average" golfer who might buy into them and be fooled, but if you choose to not educate yourself/read the fine print...well, caveat emptor, pal.

[RookieBlue7]

The 150 MPH ball speeds aren't unattainable. Just ask some of the humans that tested the RBZ, such as DJ, Justin Rose, etc. there's an interview out there with one of the leading techs that was there during DJ's testing of the RBZ (part of the reason he's been playing a blacked out one for a month or so) that watched it with his own eyes. During the interview, they also point to the fact that average joes testing the RBZ gained 4-5 MPH of ball speed, roughly translated, is around 15 yards. I've talked to a few folks that hit it and they swear by the distance increases the RBZ created. Think about it, their speed channel on the bottom does what it's supposed to do, and that's let the face of the wood deform and have a springlike effect, which very few fairways out there do. The technology makes sense from an engineering point of view.

[Tony Covey MGS]

The 150 MPH ball speeds aren't unattainable. Just ask some of the humans that tested the RBZ, such as DJ, Justin Rose, etc. there's an interview out there with one of the leading techs that was there during DJ's testing of the RBZ (part of the reason he's been playing a blacked out one for a month or so) that watched it with his own eyes. During the interview, they also point to the fact that average joes testing the RBZ gained 4-5 MPH of ball speed, roughly translated, is around 15 yards. I've talked to a few folks that hit it and they swear by the distance increases the RBZ created. Think about it, their speed channel on the bottom does what it's supposed to do, and that's let the face of the wood deform and have a springlike effect, which very few fairways out there do. The technology makes sense from an engineering point of view.

 

I'm not arguing that the technology works, nor am I arguing that nobody can achieve 150 MPH with a 3 wood (we have a tester who does). My point is, however, the target audience from a retail and marketing perspective isn't Dustin Johnson or Justin Rose. TaylorMade doesn't make press releases for the benefit of their paid sponsors. The marketing is for the benefit of the average golfer (the kind of guy who thinks 17 more yards is critically important). And I think it's slightly disingenuous to use sample data based on conditions that 99% of golfers will probably never achieve.

 

TaylorMade wanted to go bigger than 10 or even 15 yards, and so they created conditions that allowed them to make the claim, but if we're talking average distances for the average golfer, I'm saying 17 yards is probably nonsense.

 

 

 

[MmmmmmBuddy]

If I remember the presser correctly, the claim is that "better players" will gain 17 yards.....

[Tony Covey MGS]

If I remember the presser correctly, the claim is that "better players" will gain 17 yards.....

 

It does indeed, but... two points.

 

1. They can call it RocketBallz, but we all know it's the next generation Burner, and traditionally, that's not the line TaylorMade targets better players with.

 

2. More to the point...you're a fitter. Perhaps we're of differing opinions, but based on my experience with guys who I've seen play, and who have unfortunately taken my money, swing speed (which is what generates ball speed) is definitely not always a definitive indicator of actual ability, is it? I've lost plenty to guys who hit the ball 40 yards shorter than I do.

 

So while I guess TaylorMade is walking a fine line, the fine print would be more accurate if it read "higher swing speed players", because speed and ability are not the same. Sadly I know this from first hand experience.

[Moecat]

Marketing = Shenanigans, whether it be beer, dog food or golf equipment.

 

I still can't get over the fact that TM is sticking with that ridiculous Rocketballz name.

[Tony Covey MGS]

Marketing = Shenanigans, whether it be beer, dog food or golf equipment.

 

I don't know what you're talking about. I'm pretty sure that if I drink Bud Light hot chicks will surround me 24/7.

[apprenti23]

I don't know what you're talking about. I'm pretty sure that if I drink Bud Light hot chicks will surround me 24/7.

 

Don't forget any one of the AXE products- chics like cRaZayyyyy!

[Xamilo]

Don't forget any one of the AXE products- chics like cRaZayyyyy!

 

I think the difference with AXE (called LYNX in some European Countries and Australia), is their advertisement is obvious to be fake, I mean, they want to make it look funny, while Taylormade is assuring it is true.

 

I do find it uncomfortable when I watch ads about creams curing wrinkles, abs machines making you look like Mr Olympia, or golf clubs being impossible to hit not-straight with 17 more yards than the previous model. So, if that is true, then their "old" Burner Superfast 2.0 line was cr*p?

 

I agree with GolfSpy T, but unfortunately, until people stop pre-ordering the R13 and Mega-Plus-Rocketballz (MPRBZ) two years before they arrive to the stores, stories will keep coming...

[Shambles]

Club manufacturers have been making that claim since the days of Persimmon, and probably before that when mass marketing was beginning. Back when the Iron Byron was the new darling club and ball makers used wrong settings to make the right results for their products vis a vis other products. I generically call such claims 10 more yards and have long since made it a habit to refrain from buying any such products until they have gone into the experienced bin, if at all. I found it a lot cheaper and much more reliable to depend on the feedback from other players I personally knew who liked to keep up with the latest products. Even discussion boards such as MGS are suspect in my eyes because they can be seeded with tamed posters.

 

Marketing has a long distinguished history of polished dishonesty. You need to pay attention.

 

 

Shambles

[Phana24JG]

So here we are into day 2 of #TM2012 product launches, and the latest go around has got me thinking...

 

Well first, let me preface this by saying the issue I'm about to raise is anything but unique to TaylorMade. Nearly every OEM big and small does it. Moving on...

 

...in my experience a substantial majority of golfers cannot achieve 150MPH ball speeds with a driver. With a 3 wood...fuhgettaboutit.

 

And while I believe Callaway when they say 6 yards longer, and TM when they say 17, does anybody have a problem with it when these types of claims are based on truthful, yet unworldly conditions? More to my point, considering golf companies largely power the media (through ad dollars, contests, and other like-things), whose, if anyone's responsibility is it to call them out on this sort of stuff?

 

I think this bs is exactly why MGS has such a following. We KNOW these guys feeding us very nuanced and carefully-worded horsesh*t, hence we come here to find out the best available information.

[drbloor]

And while I believe Callaway when they say 6 yards longer, and TM when they say 17, does anybody have a problem with it when these types of claims are based on truthful, yet unworldly conditions? More to my point, considering golf companies largely power the media (through ad dollars, contests, and other like-things), whose, if anyone's responsibility is it to call them out on this sort of stuff?

 

I guess I'm just jaded, but it doesn't really bother me; it is what it is, and it's nothing new. What they do is Advertising 101, and they're unconcerned with discriminating consumers. They're trying to capture an essentially passive consumer market populated by guys who think there's some wisdom to be gained by asking a bunch of anonymous equipment junkies (ranging from pros to sad-sack, slow-swing hackers like myself) on Golfwrx or wherever which wedges or irons they should buy.

 

Having said that, I greatly appreciate sites like this one, data-driven and not beholden to anyone's checkbook, although I'd say you're providing a public service more than fulfilling anyone's "responsibility."

[Xamilo]

Can anybody with a lot of free time really calculate how much longer should you hit the RBZ compared with the R7 for example?

 

I mean, the Burner was 10y longer than the R7, and the Tour Burner was 5yd longer than the Burner. The 09 Burner was 4yd longer than the 08 Tour Burner, and the Superfast...etc...etc

 

I think it really would be an interesting comparison to sum up all the yards and get the results. Would TM back up a claim of the RBZ being around 60yds longer than the original Burner?

[Tony Covey MGS]

This is something we half-joke about quite a bit. TaylorMade is far from alone. If you mixed and matched distance claims from OEMs going back to say '95. We'd all be driving the ball 450+ uphill into a head wind.

[Shambles]

This is something we half-joke about quite a bit. TaylorMade is far from alone. If you mixed and matched distance claims from OEMs going back to say '95. We'd all be driving the ball 450+ uphill into a head wind.

 

I think I would be driving further because I've been dealing with such " improvements " since the days of Persimmon. Rather sad that even MGS won't be proof against that type of claim because discussion groups can also be seeded with a few of the faithful who will religiously defend such claims and proclaim them as the ANSWER TO ALL.

 

The only real defense is to pay attention and have a caution when buying new equipment. Rather sad that the principles of truth in advertising laws in the USA are so poorly enforced.

 

 

Shambles

[fyzbo]

I can agree that advertising claims should be taken with a grain of salt, but I do believe golf technology has increased distance for each club. Here is an article where they tested different clubs from the 1920s-2009 http://www.milesofgolf.com/blog/golf-clubs/vintage-vs-technology/ They say there have been increases in club head speed, spin, and efficiency, with the largest improvements happening in the last 20 years.

 

Also note this 17 yard figure is only the fairway and TM did not advertise increased distance with last years fairways.

[RookieBlue7]

Saw another test from independent persons on a LaunchMonitor (Trackman data) and ball speeds were up 5-6 MPH on average and the distances were up 15-20 yards on average. This was a test using the RBZ versus the SuperFast 2.0, both in 15 degree 3 wood configurations with the stock shafts. The RBZ is 0.5" shorter than the Superfast 2.0 as well, in club length. The data confirmed the marketing claims, and these were average joes with non-tour swingspeeds. Ball speeds were up, and the offcentered hits were where the RBZ really stood out, being significantly longer.

[Tony Covey MGS]

Saw another test from independent persons on a LaunchMonitor (Trackman data) and ball speeds were up 5-6 MPH on average and the distances were up 15-20 yards on average. This was a test using the RBZ versus the SuperFast 2.0, both in 15 degree 3 wood configurations with the stock shafts. The RBZ is 0.5" shorter than the Superfast 2.0 as well, in club length. The data confirmed the marketing claims, and these were average joes with non-tour swingspeeds. Ball speeds were up, and the offcentered hits were where the RBZ really stood out, being significantly longer.

 

Are you talking about the test on WRX done by "TMBob"? I'm not questioning anyone's integrity here, but an apparent TM loyalist testing the clubs is as suspect as is, according to another WRX reader, the Trackman data itself.

 

I'm open to anything, and there's the possibility that TaylorMade will ultimately prove me wrong, but I can't see why...assuming there club is actually 17 yards longer at ballspeeds achieved by most golfers, why they would use the 150 number as their baseline. It just doesn't make any sense.

 

Why I don't personally agree with the logic, some of my favorite comments about the RBZ fairway are those that are basically, "If this year's club is 17 yards longer, how come last year's sucked so bad".

[RookieBlue7]

No, saw an independent test with trackman data from a friend that was there with a few guys hitting them when the TM Rep brought them to test/display new product to stores, whatever they call that process now. He was there and hit it (he didn't like it, primarily because he swings an x and they had s flex with them only). He said the head feels hot but he couldn't get a feel for it because the shaft was the wrong flex.

[Phana24JG]

This is something we half-joke about quite a bit. TaylorMade is far from alone. If you mixed and matched distance claims from OEMs going back to say '95. We'd all be driving the ball 450+ uphill into a head wind.

 

If you really want to hit some long drives, join Golf WRX. It seems as though the vast majority of those who make at least 50 posts over there rountinely hit 300-350, can tell the difference between every exotic shaft in the world just by feel, and play scratch from 6800+ yard courses. Stop wasting your time with losers like us, a mere 50 posts can cure every golf ailment known to man.