Jump to content
TESTERS WANTED! ×

ULTIMATE FAIRWAY REVIEW (video added)


Tony Covey MGS

Recommended Posts

  • SPY VIP

I must have misspoke, I knew the shots were one in the same, because that would be dumb to spilt them up. But still, I refuse to believe a range of handicap golfers hitting fairway woods is a good way to distinguish the accuracy of one over the other, because the golfer makes the accuracy. It would have to be the exact same swing every time to tell the accuracy difference between clubs.

 

The golfer makes the distance too. As I keep saying...one (accuracy) does not exist without the other (distance). You have to look at both...and then it becomes a choice between humans or robots (not a huge choice...we don't have 100K+ for a robot).

 

When I'm on the golf course, I'm responsible for both pieces. It's not like I can get the distance right, and then call in the robot to make sure the ball goes straight. Humans make shots (distance and accuracy), and some clubs allow us to perform better than others.

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

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

One more time: the golfer controls the following: Angle of attack, club path, vertical swing plane, horizontal swing plane, centered-ness of contact, swing speed, and face angle. They all influence DISTANCE AND ACCURACY.

 

I'm not going to spend any more time (at least not today) arguing with the robot crowd.

Follow me on Twitter: @MattSaternus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more time: the golfer controls the following: Angle of attack, club path, vertical swing plane, horizontal swing plane, centered-ness of contact, swing speed, and face angle. They all influence DISTANCE AND ACCURACY.

 

I'm not going to spend any more time (at least not today) arguing with the robot crowd. You think what you want to think, I don't care. Until we have unlimited money and time, the robot thing isn't happening. I'm tired of trying to explain things to people who don't want to understand.

 

T has been much more gracious about all of this, and I apologize to him for muddying his thread, but between the comments here and on the blog, I can't take this nitpicking and willful stupidity anymore.

 

What, you don't have $250k lying around for a robot that serves one purpose and the results don't translate necessarily to humans?

 

Seriously though, we have long fought the robot wars and I've been throughouly convinced robot results are not helpful for reviews compared to seeing the results from multiple humans. I would love to see the testers swings via GolfSense or SwingSmart so I could better compare them to my own, but I'm not even sure how much that would help. In the end, I read the results of these kind of tests and try out everything on my own.

 

Having hit the Nike and RBZ, I find the results spot on with my personal experience. I kinda wish I had given the Mizuno more consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • SPY VIP

What, you don't have $250k lying around for a robot that serves one purpose and the results don't translate necessarily to humans?

 

Seriously though, we have long fought the robot wars and I've been throughouly convinced robot results are not helpful for reviews compared to seeing the results from multiple humans. I would love to see the testers swings via GolfSense or SwingSmart so I could better compare them to my own, but I'm not even sure how much that would help. In the end, I read the results of these kind of tests and try out everything on my own.

 

Having hit the Nike and RBZ, I find the results spot on with my personal experience. I kinda wish I had given the Mizuno more consideration.

 

For whatever it's worth...and ultimately it might prove to be nothing...

 

Our plan remains to use FlightScope to power our review process. Because of the indoor trajectory model issues, I personally haven't spent enough time looking at the data that comes out the other end to determine what might be interesting or viable to include in the reviews themselves. It does give us all sorts of path/plane info, and it it proves to be manageable, I will certainly look at including it.

 

If...If...If (and when we get up and running on FlightScope).

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

For whatever it's worth...and ultimately it might prove to be nothing...

 

Our plan remains to use FlightScope to power our review process. Because of the indoor trajectory model issues, I personally haven't spent enough time looking at the data that comes out the other end to determine what might be interesting or viable to include in the reviews themselves. It does give us all sorts of path/plane info, and it it proves to be manageable, I will certainly look at including it.

 

If...If...If (and when we get up and running on FlightScope).

 

That would be awesome T, let me know if you need any help with creating scripts/programs to parse the data (i.e., it comes out one format and you want to automate dumping it out in another format).

 

I can definitely see the indoor space requirement being a tough issue to crack though. Let me know if you don't plan on using the FlightScope, I'm sure I can find a home for it ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more time: the golfer controls the following: Angle of attack, club path, vertical swing plane, horizontal swing plane, centered-ness of contact, swing speed, and face angle. They all influence DISTANCE AND ACCURACY.

 

I'm not going to spend any more time (at least not today) arguing with the robot crowd.

 

What you just said is precisely my point. The golfer makes the shot, not the club.

What's In The Bag:

 

Adams 9064LS

Ben Hogan Edge CFT Ti

Ben Hogan Apex Edge 4-PW

TaylorMade ATV 50* 54*

Mizuno Bettinardi BC3 Tour Issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you just said is precisely my point. The golfer makes the shot, not the club.

 

Right, and having humans hit the club goes through a lot of variables such as swing type, but also club forgiveness and workability. You gain nothing from see robot results over these other than, "Oh, that's cool, all clubs are the same if hit perfectly on the swing spot."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, and having humans hit the club goes through a lot of variables such as swing type, but also club forgiveness and workability. You gain nothing from see robot results over these other than, "Oh, that's cool, all clubs are the same if hit perfectly on the swing spot."

 

You can make the robot do a lot of different swings. My point isn't anti human, my point is that unrepeatable swings don't tell the accuracy tale.

What's In The Bag:

 

Adams 9064LS

Ben Hogan Edge CFT Ti

Ben Hogan Apex Edge 4-PW

TaylorMade ATV 50* 54*

Mizuno Bettinardi BC3 Tour Issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can make the robot do a lot of different swings. My point isn't anti human, my point is that unrepeatable swings don't tell the accuracy tale.

 

We're beating a dead horse here. It's a ROI issue and the justification isn't there IMO. I work in research and can tell you the human factor is an incredibly useful element in almost all research. We have the opposite problem where we want to use people in our experiments, but it's impossible to gather them on a large scale and infinitely difficult to coordinate everything. Our automated runs, which would be comparable to a robot swinging the golf club, provides useful data. However, in the end, testing with a human component is the gold standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • SPY VIP

You can make the robot do a lot of different swings. My point isn't anti human, my point is that unrepeatable swings don't tell the accuracy tale.

 

I'd suggest the opposite. It is unquestionably the variation in swings that tells the accuracy tale. A robot is going to show minute differences because all the variables are always controlled. That tells you almost nothing about what happens when the variables (all the stuff Matt mentioned) change. How well a robot hits a golf ball (whether for distance or accuracy), gives almost no indication as to how it will perform in the hands of a human. Where does the ball go (on average) when real people with imperfect swings hit the ball. That's where you find real differences between golf clubs.

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'd suggest the opposite. It is unquestionably the variation in swings that tells the accuracy tale. A robot is going to show minute differences because all the variables are always controlled. That tells you almost nothing about what happens when the variables (all the stuff Matt mentioned) change. How well a robot hits a golf ball (whether for distance or accuracy), gives almost no indication as to how it will perform in the hands of a human. Where does the ball go (on average) when real people with imperfect swings hit the ball. That's where you find real differences between golf clubs.

 

If you swing all 9 clubs with the exact same swing, that is how you tell the difference. When people with key word imperfect swings hit the ball, the mishit is the result of the human not the club.

What's In The Bag:

 

Adams 9064LS

Ben Hogan Edge CFT Ti

Ben Hogan Apex Edge 4-PW

TaylorMade ATV 50* 54*

Mizuno Bettinardi BC3 Tour Issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • SPY VIP

If you swing all 9 clubs with the exact same swing, that is how you tell the difference. When people with key word imperfect swings hit the ball, the misfit is the result of the human not the club.

 

 

And that, as we keep telling you, tells you nothing about what happens when a human hits a golf ball...and without any knowledge about that, it's meaningless.

 

How many different controlled tests do you propose? 1, 10, 1000? Keep in mind, the results will change across the board for each adjustment to angle of attack, swing plane, swing speed, swing tempo, face angle at impact, and of course, what part of the face contacts the ball. Change a single variable and EVERYTHING changes as a result.

 

Where do you start, where do you end?

 

Assuming you can't test all variables (you can't...not in any reasonable amount of time), all you've learned is how a robot hits a ball with a very specific set of controlled variables...which again is meaningless, because all you've done is assume that however you've configured your robot is more meaningful than any alternative configuration.

 

If the answer is put everything dead square, and then hit the center of the face...well...I promise your deviation is so insignificant that you've ultimately learned nothing.

 

As I've said before...we've talked to the OEMs...the guys who do this stuff full time for a living, and they've told us (and this is a direct quote) "Robots are worm hole you don't want to go down". The big boys I've spoken with all agree that human testing is much more meaningful than robot testing.

 

If you're looking for something very specific (how much spin does a club produce with a 6 degree upward angle of attack at 100 MPH with a path of 3 degrees inside to out, when the contact is made at the center of a face set 1 degree open, robots are invaluable. As a proxy for what happens when imperfect beings hit a golf ball...their value is diminished substantially.

 

I can make a robot hit a ball basically wherever I want it to. If I could do that with a human, I'd be Sean Foley without the pretense.

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 can make a robot hit a ball basically wherever I want it to. If I could do that with a human, I'd be Sean Foley without the pretense.

 

Oh snap. You'd need a sweater vest, too. And you'd need to shrink about 6". And the glasses, don't' forget the glasses.

Follow me on Twitter: @MattSaternus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Ice but aren't those swing "errors" going to even themselves out through out the testing? Isn't golf played by people with flawed swings?

 

Ultimately the results of any test should do nothing more than provide a starting point for a player in his process of club purchase and bagging selection. A robot is meaningless for me in that regard because I certainly don't swing a club like a robot - I very much want to know what happens when I misshit a shot by a little and by a lot. Where will my misses go? How much more will the ball curve? How much distance will I lose? Is there a pattern to the misses with each club? How much less accurate is a particular tester with Club A and Club B?

 

In this case I trust the process well enough to know that the test was fairly well controlled. T has provided us with a both a narrative and the raw data. The narrative explains when he thinks the issues may have been more tester related.

Taylor Made Stealth 2 10.5 Diamana S plus 60  Aldila  R flex   - 42.25 inches 

SMT 4 wood bassara R flex, four wood head, 3 wood shaft

Ping G410 7, 9 wood  Alta 65 R flex

Srixon ZX5 MK II  5-GW - UST recoil Dart 65 R flex

India 52,56 (60 pending)  UST recoil 75's R flex  

Evon roll ER 5 32 inches

It's our offseason so auditioning candidates - looking for that right mix of low spin long, more spin around the greens - TBD   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I more have the problem with is assigning a number to how accurate a club is based on the imperfect swings of golfers. Should I go assume the XCG5 is more accurate than the 910F because of the number you gave it using imerfect swings? I'll use the iron reiew as an example too. Hitting balls at a target or hitting balls seing how straight they go is now measuring how accurate the club is, it is measuring ho accurate the GOLFER is.

 

Anyway, I'm done. See my point or not, I'm never going to succeed with my argument.

What's In The Bag:

 

Adams 9064LS

Ben Hogan Edge CFT Ti

Ben Hogan Apex Edge 4-PW

TaylorMade ATV 50* 54*

Mizuno Bettinardi BC3 Tour Issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I more have the problem with is assigning a number to how accurate a club is based on the imperfect swings of golfers. Should I go assume the XCG5 is more accurate than the 910F because of the number you gave it using imerfect swings? I'll use the iron reiew as an example too. Hitting balls at a target or hitting balls seing how straight they go is now measuring how accurate the club is, it is measuring ho accurate the GOLFER is.

 

Anyway, I'm done. See my point or not, I'm never going to succeed with my argument.

 

Don't ever give up so fast - if your point is an important one continue to make it for goodness sake. I do see your point and don't disagree in theory. The problem is that golf clubs are not static things however - they get swung by humans and different swing will produce different resuls - does that make sense? If you could have an Ice robot and a RevKev robot then we could in fact discover which club is best for our particular swing. I suppose the day will come when that happens.

 

It's entirely possible that there is a 7 iron that I could hit more accurately than you and another one that you hit more accurately than I because of our swing peculiarities. That's why I'm saying that any test is a starting point and not the end all be all. As I recall one of the points that T made was that the test reveals that different clubs work better for different testers not that there is one of the clubs that works best for all of the testers.

 

I have a very consistent repeatable swing there's still going to be a disconnect between my results and a robot who is set up to swing like me because I'll make way more non-Kevin like swings than it will.

Taylor Made Stealth 2 10.5 Diamana S plus 60  Aldila  R flex   - 42.25 inches 

SMT 4 wood bassara R flex, four wood head, 3 wood shaft

Ping G410 7, 9 wood  Alta 65 R flex

Srixon ZX5 MK II  5-GW - UST recoil Dart 65 R flex

India 52,56 (60 pending)  UST recoil 75's R flex  

Evon roll ER 5 32 inches

It's our offseason so auditioning candidates - looking for that right mix of low spin long, more spin around the greens - TBD   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • SPY VIP

This is not in the interest in making both sides feel correct...but to a small degree both sides are correct. Listen, at MyGolfSpy I have said on more than one occasion in conversations with T that we have created this monster regarding any and everyone having the opportunity to tell us how we could improve on our reviews. We unlike any other golf media outlet that performs golf equipment reviews allow and appreciate our readers feedback and opinions. And in many instances have added them to how we go about doing things around here. In the end it is a win/win, we get ideas we might have never considered and the reader hopefully gets more thorough information.

 

So, when you compare the non-open forum atmosphere of the other media outlets who test golf equipment you can quickly see why they don't get bashed as much for their review system. They are not open to advice so why give it. With us that is different. So, it becomes much more clear why readers like Ice give their advice and opinion. We actually value it. Doesn't mean you are right all the time, but we allow everyone to be the Monday Morning Quarterback around here. And when talking about the robot specifically you could see why a lot of readers might suggest it. If you have not tested equipment or worked with people who have their entire careers it sounds like the next logical step for MyGolfSpy to include in their reviews. Robots sound cool and efficient. Well they might be both, one thing they are not is perfect or as valuable as you think for testing golf equipment.

 

Not a single source I have worked with, spoken to or dealt with in anyway regarding testing golf equipment has ever given me reason to think their is enough value in having one for our purposes. Can they give you some base line data? Yes. But you can talk to any of the R&D guys at any of the OEM's I have spoken to or other people that have both designed equipment or tested equipment as their sole ob in this industry and they will all tell you that even they value the human testing of golf equipment much more than they do the robot testing. Do they think it is a nice toy to have around? Sure. But they have the money to throw around to have all those toys. We don't. So when we look at it from the aspect of a business decision it becomes quite hard to justify having a very expensive toy around just to do some cool stuff with.

 

If my experience was different with robots and the people that use them then we might consider it. But at this point all things point us in the direction we are going. One day this might change and their might be some way we think it might benefit the reader and if it does and the other sources I consult with agree it is definitely something we will consider. Until then I hope you understand that we have done our homework and what we are doing is considered not only by us but by those companies we review the gear of to be extremely comprehensive. But we will always look for ways to improve.

 

 

What I more have the problem with is assigning a number to how accurate a club is based on the imperfect swings of golfers. Should I go assume the XCG5 is more accurate than the 910F because of the number you gave it using imerfect swings? I'll use the iron reiew as an example too. Hitting balls at a target or hitting balls seing how straight they go is now measuring how accurate the club is, it is measuring ho accurate the GOLFER is.

 

Anyway, I'm done. See my point or not, I'm never going to succeed with my argument.

#TruthDigest
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't ever give up so fast - if your point is an important one continue to make it for goodness sake. I do see your point and don't disagree in theory. The problem is that golf clubs are not static things however - they get swung by humans and different swing will produce different resuls - does that make sense? If you could have an Ice robot and a RevKev robot then we could in fact discover which club is best for our particular swing. I suppose the day will come when that happens.

 

It's entirely possible that there is a 7 iron that I could hit more accurately than you and another one that you hit more accurately than I because of our swing peculiarities. That's why I'm saying that any test is a starting point and not the end all be all. As I recall one of the points that T made was that the test reveals that different clubs work better for different testers not that there is one of the clubs that works best for all of the testers.

 

I have a very consistent repeatable swing there's still going to be a disconnect between my results and a robot who is set up to swing like me because I'll make way more non-Kevin like swings than it will.

 

You're absolutely right. I'm sure there are 7 irons one hits more accurately than the other between the two of us. But that is dependent on the two of us. I don't think assigning a number as to how accurate a club is works. Sure some clubs work for different testers better, thats a given. My whole issue is that we are assinging numbers to how accurate a club is based on an imperfect swing.

What's In The Bag:

 

Adams 9064LS

Ben Hogan Edge CFT Ti

Ben Hogan Apex Edge 4-PW

TaylorMade ATV 50* 54*

Mizuno Bettinardi BC3 Tour Issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm seriously confused about the accuracy scoring here. By having humans hit balls at a target, it seems to me you are more testing the accuracy of the human, not the club. By the end of the round of testing testers may not be producing as good of swings. SOmeone may just hate the white look of the RBZ and therefore not hit as well with it. Someone may change their swing mid-testing to compensate for bad hits they are making. Humans screw up and don't repeat their swings every time save for the top .01% of golfers. (The dreaded word) makes a 100% repeatable swing every time and will make the same swing every single time with every club. I know (the dreaded word)s don't play golf and people do so you believe in using people. The distance test works great with people, for the most part. The accuracy, not quite.

 

I would rather have the information compiled by players of varying skill levels. It puts the results into a context of "how easy is it for a players of different skill sets to hit the ball to a target?" If I were looking at the results as a purchase guide, I would be far more interested to see if a wider range of players are able to hit the ball where they want it to go, I would expect that a robot would be able to hit it where it is programmed to.

Ping G410 Plus Oban Kiyoshi Tour Limited
Ping G410 LST 3 Wood Oban Tour Prototype V430
Titleist U500 3 & 4 Oban Kiyoshi Purple Tour Reserve
Titleist 620 MB 5-9 Oban CT 125
Titleist Vokey 47* Oban CT 125, 51*, 55*, and 59* Shimada Tour Wedge Black
Bettinardi Studio Stock SS28

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My whole issue is that we are assinging numbers to how accurate a club is based on an imperfect swing.

But since we all have imperfect swings, that is exactly what you would want to know!

MENTOR, L4 COACH & TRAINER  FIRST TEE GREATER HOUSTON
HDCP: 8.3  (GHIN: 3143312)
In my bag, April 2023
:titelist-small: TS3 Driver & 4 Wood Hzrdous Smoke Shaft (Stiff Flex)
:titelist-small: TS2 Hybrids  Mitsubishi Tensei Shaft (Stiff Flex)
:mizuno-small:  MP-59 5-PW; KBS Tour (Regular Flex)
:titelist-small: SM8 Wedges

EVNROLL ER2  Putter
SRIXON Z-STAR DIAMOND BALL
Sun Mountain Cart Bag
:Clicgear: 4.0 Push Cart (I'm walking 9 outta 10 rounds!!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're absolutely right. I'm sure there are 7 irons one hits more accurately than the other between the two of us. But that is dependent on the two of us. I don't think assigning a number as to how accurate a club is works. Sure some clubs work for different testers better, thats a given. My whole issue is that we are assinging numbers to how accurate a club is based on an imperfect swing.

 

Ice,

 

Before I got into research (not golf related) I would probably have agreed with you. I hope I'm not coming off as a dick or MGS fanboy. However, for the past three years I've been building up a simulation environment that tries to capture as many real world effects as possible. The reason for this is in a static test where everything is perfectly controlled, you're going to get a perfect outcome. The problem is perfection is never realized and everything happens in an imperfect world and what we write has to work in that world, not in our lab.

 

There is TONs of money spent on getting our stuff in the hands of real people and their results are never anything we expect, no matter how perfectly we get our software working in the lab. So from that perspective, I would much more readily dismiss robot tests than human tests. (edited for typo)

 

Anyway, I don't want to beat this subject much more because it is very unintuitive, so there's no way to prove to anyone that static lab controlled testing doesn't apply to the real world without seeing concrete examples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find these reviews very helpful, incredibly interesting and very detailed. I've used your reviews as part of the process when making purchases...more often than not your reviews have led me to consider products I may not have considered at all.

 

I don't think anyone should ever consider results from tests like these as "definitive" or "final." The results were based on what the testers were able to accomplish with the products supplied in the time frame provided - and I think the write-up reflected that very well. Would different shafts make a difference in certain clubs with certain golfers? Absolutely! So if I go looking for a 3-wood to replace my Titleist 910 (yep - if you hit the sweet spot it rocks. If you don't....people on my right are in danger. Grave danger), I sure would look at the Mizuno - which I would not have done previously. Would also consider the Nike - with the right shaft -- at least to see how it works for me.

 

This kind of test reminds me of my Hot Wheels races when I was a kid. Back in 1969 on rainy Saturdays, I'd get all of my Hot Wheels, set up the drag strip set I got for my birthday, and do head to head racing. The winner was king of the Hot Wheels -- until the next rainy Saturday, when a different car might win.

 

Personally, I have no complaints at all about how you conducted the tests, and I'm guessing you'll have no complaints at all about how I choose to use them. Thanks for all the hard work to make it happen!

 

 

What's in the bag:
 
Driver:  :titelist-small:TSR3; :wilson_staff_small: DynaPWR Carbon
FW Wood: :wilson_staff_small: DynaPWR 3-wood; :titleist-small: TSR 2+
Hybrids:  PXG Gen4 18-degree
Utility Irons: :srixon-small: ZX MkII 20* 
Irons:;  :Sub70:699/699 Pro V2 Combo; :wilson_staff_small: D9 Forged;  :macgregor-small:MT86 (coming soon!); :macgregor-small: VIP 1025 V-Foil MB/CB; 

Wedges:  :cleveland-small: RTX6 Zipcore
Putter: :cleveland-small: HB Soft Milled 10.5;  :scotty-small: Newport Special Select;  :edel-golf-1:  Willamette,  :bettinardi-small: BB8; :wilson-small: 8802; MATI Monto

Ball: :bridgestone-small: Tour B RXS; :srixon-small: Z-STAR Diamond; :wilson_staff_small: Triad

Stat Tracker/GPS Watch: :ShotScope:


 
Follow @golfspybarbajo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find these reviews very helpful, incredibly interesting and very detailed. I've used your reviews as part of the process when making purchases...more often than not your reviews have led me to consider products I may not have considered at all.

 

I don't think anyone should ever consider results from tests like these as "definitive" or "final." The results were based on what the testers were able to accomplish with the products supplied in the time frame provided - and I think the write-up reflected that very well. Would different shafts make a difference in certain clubs with certain golfers? Absolutely! So if I go looking for a 3-wood to replace my Titleist 910 (yep - if you hit the sweet spot it rocks. If you don't....people on my right are in danger. Grave danger), I sure would look at the Mizuno - which I would not have done previously. Would also consider the Nike - with the right shaft -- at least to see how it works for me.

 

This kind of test reminds me of my Hot Wheels races when I was a kid. Back in 1969 on rainy Saturdays, I'd get all of my Hot Wheels, set up the drag strip set I got for my birthday, and do head to head racing. The winner was king of the Hot Wheels -- until the next rainy Saturday, when a different car might win.

 

Personally, I have no complaints at all about how you conducted the tests, and I'm guessing you'll have no complaints at all about how I choose to use them. Thanks for all the hard work to make it happen!

 

 

 

Well said Barbajo!

 

No test whether done with a robot or human testing is going to tell you how a certain club or shaft is going to perform for your swing. All you can do is look at the testing procedure and the results and determine a starting point for your game.

 

Personally I love the format of this review. It finally stacks up a bunch of clubs side by side and we get numerical and anecdotal feedback on the differences between the clubs and how they performed for a group of golfers. I honestly can't think of a single other site that goes to such extremes to give golfers relevant data.

 

At the very least this should be an excellent starting place to help decide what club is going to work best for you. Then go out and get fit and see if it actually is.

Driver: :taylormade-small: SLDR w/ Fujikura Ventus Black

3w: :taylormade-small:'16 M2 hl w/ Diamana D+ 82

5w: :cleveland-small: Launcher HB w/ HZRDUS Yellow

Hybrid: :cleveland-small: 22 deg. Launcher HB w/ HZRDUS Black

Irons: :cleveland-small: 5i - gap Launcher CBX w/ Nippon Modus 3 125

Wedges: :cleveland-small: 54 CBX & 58 Zipcore w/ Nippon Modus 3 125

Putter: :odyssey-small: Red 7s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something for the robot lovers:

 

While at Callaway HQ this weekend I picked up this useful piece of information (told to me at two separate times by two different individuals: one a fitter who works with their tour staff, the other the head of iron and wood development):

 

On a robot, the difference between a "high launching" shaft and a "low launching" shaft, even with extreme flex differences (the example as an A-flex Ilima vs. an X-flex Ahina), the difference in launch angle would be...wait for it....0.25 degrees. Why? Because the robot doesn't care what the shaft feels like. Humans do.

 

Anyone still beating the drum of robot superiority?

Follow me on Twitter: @MattSaternus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't the results of a human test be biased towards one FW over another if say Titleist gives you whatever shafts best fits the tester regardless of whether it is stock or not and Cobra only gives stock? Generally, the one with the best fit shaft s going to work best.

 

I hit the AMP stock shaft great, but the RBZ one simply did not do it for me. Is that gonna throw the results a bit? Yes. If both had the same shaft, regardless of what it is but ideally if it fit me, the result would be more accurate in doing what the test was meant to do, compare fairway woods, which are truly just comparing heads.

What's In The Bag:

 

Adams 9064LS

Ben Hogan Edge CFT Ti

Ben Hogan Apex Edge 4-PW

TaylorMade ATV 50* 54*

Mizuno Bettinardi BC3 Tour Issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't the results of a human test be biased towards one FW over another if say Titleist gives you whatever shafts best fits the tester regardless of whether it is stock or not and Cobra only gives stock? Generally, the one with the best fit shaft s going to work best.

 

I hit the AMP stock shaft great, but the RBZ one simply did not do it for me. Is that gonna throw the results a bit? Yes. If both had the same shaft, regardless of what it is but ideally if it fit me, the result would be more accurate in doing what the test was meant to do, compare fairway woods, which are truly just comparing heads.

Ice, I'm new to posting here so maybe I shouldn't jump into this. But I'm not new to the site. I've been following the reviews for a couple of years anyway. On one hand I see your point which is to compare apples to apples as much as possible. However as I think T said, if each club were in a robot set up with perfect center square contact, all we would get from that is, "Yup, they all go straight! ".

 

Your point about one shaft fitting a golfer better than the next is a good one. Ideally each golfer would have each head put on the best shaft for them. That "best" shaft may not be the same for each head though either. So how far do you take it? It would be cool to see each golfer have a shaft they know is good for them put in each club head to eliminate that variable. It sure would multiply the amount of time and equipment it takes to do a review though! The next best thing is to use a number of testers so one person's anomaly doesn't override the entire test. Which of course is where we are now.

 

One other thing in my mind about a robot is how rigidly perfect they swing on plane. It seems like the head drooping on the shaft through the ball would be much more than for a person who has some "give" in their hands, wrists, and arms which is just one more reason why the results wouldn't translate to the real world.

 

Just my thoughts on it. Doesn't mean I'm right. Good discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ice, I'm new to posting here so maybe I shouldn't jump into this. But I'm not new to the site. I've been following the reviews for a couple of years anyway. On one hand I see your point which is to compare apples to apples as much as possible. However as I think T said, if each club were in a robot set up with perfect center square contact, all we would get from that is, "Yup, they all go straight! ".

 

Your point about one shaft fitting a golfer better than the next is a good one. Ideally each golfer would have each head put on the best shaft for them. That "best" shaft may not be the same for each head though either. So how far do you take it? It would be cool to see each golfer have a shaft they know is good for them put in each club head to eliminate that variable. It sure would multiply the amount of time and equipment it takes to do a review though! The next best thing is to use a number of testers so one person's anomaly doesn't override the entire test. Which of course is where we are now.

 

One other thing in my mind about a robot is how rigidly perfect they swing on plane. It seems like the head drooping on the shaft through the ball would be much more than for a person who has some "give" in their hands, wrists, and arms which is just one more reason why the results wouldn't translate to the real world.

 

Just my thoughts on it. Doesn't mean I'm right. Good discussion.

 

Don't ever shy away from posting. You don't need tenure to jump in on discussions.

 

A robot with the exact same swing and shaft on each club will tell you which head makes the ball go the farthest without any variables.

 

Of course every head goes straight. Why would someone release a head that does t go straight. Going back to my point that the golfer dictates how straight the ball goes not the club. A head can be fit by benind loft, face angle, etc... To make it go straighter or farther but that doesn't mean one club is better than the other because one company decided to fit the club to the tester and he other didn't.

 

Writing about the accuracy, giving thoughts on where it goes for a particular tester, allt hat stuff is good stuff. Giving a number and saying the XcG5 is more accurate than the 910F is where my problem lies.

What's In The Bag:

 

Adams 9064LS

Ben Hogan Edge CFT Ti

Ben Hogan Apex Edge 4-PW

TaylorMade ATV 50* 54*

Mizuno Bettinardi BC3 Tour Issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Giving a number and saying the XcG5 is more accurate than the 910F is where my problem lies.

The way I see it, it's a valid numerical value given the testing methods. Those testing methods are as transparent as they could possibly be as far as I can tell. So everyone can see how a particular club did for individuals across the board including each shot they made. It's not like we don't get to see all the details of how that number was calculated. If the only thing they told us was,"Here's the clubs we tested and here's the final numbers.", I would agree with you. But we all get to see the variables between individuals as well as each of their shots, and what their tendencies and handicaps are. So it validates the results and gives people an idea of how that club may work for them given their own tendencies. A nice addition may be to include the swing data from each shot, SS, FA, Path, AofA, face contact, etc. to see which golfer's swing comes closest to what you do. But how many people know that data about their own swing anyway? I would find that interesting myself. Others might not see a benefit to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it, it's a valid numerical value given the testing methods. Those testing methods are as transparent as they could possibly be as far as I can tell. So everyone can see how a particular club did for individuals across the board including each shot they made. It's not like we don't get to see all the details of how that number was calculated. If the only thing they told us was,"Here's the clubs we tested and here's the final numbers.", I would agree with you. But we all get to see the variables between individuals as well as each of their shots, and what their tendencies and handicaps are. So it validates the results and gives people an idea of how that club may work for them given their own tendencies. A nice addition may be to include the swing data from each shot, SS, FA, Path, AofA, face contact, etc. to see which golfer's swing comes closest to what you do. But how many people know that data about their own swing anyway? I would find that interesting myself. Others might not see a benefit to it.

 

I know that T isn't testing on FlightScope yet because of technical issues, but this is something that we've discussed doing once we're full-throttle with FlightScope. As with anything, there's a lot of trade offs that need to be considered, but, at least at first glance, I like the idea. The problem we always fight is the once you referenced: do the numbers mean anything to the vast majority of people? Where does "Adding relevant data" end and "Turning people away with pages of numbers" begin?

Follow me on Twitter: @MattSaternus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...