Orikoru
Tour Winner
Plus the M2 irons, I heard absolutely no end of stories of them collapsing and having to be returned.
Equipment Fails
- Thread starter Ethan
- Start date
D
Deleted member 29109
Guest
Wilson Fat Shafts.
I bought the original Deep Red driver and loved it until the head sheared off with the bottom of the shaft still in it. Also had a set of fat shaft irons for a while which didn't last long.
I bought the original Deep Red driver and loved it until the head sheared off with the bottom of the shaft still in it. Also had a set of fat shaft irons for a while which didn't last long.
sunshine
Well-known member
When it comes to epic fails I have to mention the way TM shot itself in the foot - I worked for one of the bidders when Adidas put TM up for sale so I had full insight into the sales debacle.
RBZ Stage 2. The original RBZ was TM's most successful ever club (at the time), especially the 3 wood. Remember the outrageous claim of 17 yards more distance, that turned out to be true for many people? I had a RBZ Tour 3 wood, that had a smaller head, a premium shaft and only 14 degrees loft, and it really did go like a rocket. But then they released RBZ stage 2 less than a year later, while the original RBZ was still the top seller. The perception was the Stage 2 was the same club with a different paint job, nobody bought it, people who had paid full price for RBZ1 were annoyed, retailers were shafted because they had stock they could no longer shift at full price.
TM's response? Jet Speed. Released only 6 months after RBZ2. Don't think I ever saw someone playing a Jet Speed. Total mess, never as good as RBZ or RBZ2, but supposed to replace them at a time when people were still loving the rocketballz, despite the silly name. It just made things worse.
And simultaneously we had SLDR. Apparently this was a decent club and the first I remember with sliding weights. But the failures were: SLDR TP, SLDR white, SLDR mini, SLDR 430.
So there you have it. Two great products (RBZ and SLDR) sabotaged by 6 fails and crazy marketing.
RBZ Stage 2. The original RBZ was TM's most successful ever club (at the time), especially the 3 wood. Remember the outrageous claim of 17 yards more distance, that turned out to be true for many people? I had a RBZ Tour 3 wood, that had a smaller head, a premium shaft and only 14 degrees loft, and it really did go like a rocket. But then they released RBZ stage 2 less than a year later, while the original RBZ was still the top seller. The perception was the Stage 2 was the same club with a different paint job, nobody bought it, people who had paid full price for RBZ1 were annoyed, retailers were shafted because they had stock they could no longer shift at full price.
TM's response? Jet Speed. Released only 6 months after RBZ2. Don't think I ever saw someone playing a Jet Speed. Total mess, never as good as RBZ or RBZ2, but supposed to replace them at a time when people were still loving the rocketballz, despite the silly name. It just made things worse.
And simultaneously we had SLDR. Apparently this was a decent club and the first I remember with sliding weights. But the failures were: SLDR TP, SLDR white, SLDR mini, SLDR 430.
So there you have it. Two great products (RBZ and SLDR) sabotaged by 6 fails and crazy marketing.
Orikoru
Tour Winner
I'm actually kind of against TaylorMade in my mind because of the daft speed with which they seem to bring out new lines. It puts me right off them.
sunshine
Well-known member
Sounds like it was probably a fake club with a plastic shaft. Some of the copies coming out of China are very good and fool most people.
A graphite shaft is made of fibres that unwind if you break it. You don't get a clean snap like you describe.
sunshine
Well-known member
Accelerating their release cycles worked for them in the 2000s. They invested heavily in R&D and if you think about it they were really innovative. It's fair to say that each product brought something new: different sized heads, movable weights, sliding weights, white crown, speed pocket etc.
Then in the early 2010s they got greedy after the success of RBZ and alienated a lot of golfers.
You have to realise that the way we think about products in UK market is very different to the US, and the UK market is tiny compared to the US market. Let's say I splash out on a new driver and get fitted. A year later when a new driver comes out, it might offer some performance benefits, but I will be aware that my current driver is still a good driver. The UK market works on the basis of tempting you to upgrade to newer tech. In the US, many golfers believe in obsolescence, as if there is a use by date on the golf club and it stops working when the new product is released. They are conditioned to believe they have to buy the latest driver.
Since the M1/M2, they've settled on an annual cycle now like Callaway and many other major OEMs.
Imurg
The Grinder Of Pars (Semi Crocked)
To be fair M3 and M4 came out at the same time, M5 and M6 were the same year so replaced every year....
Orikoru
Tour Winner
I guess they were in pairs though. 2018: M3 + M4. 2019: M5 + M6. It still seems like a lot, but I guess on the same basis you could count Ping's SFT, LST & Plus versions as three drivers or one driver release.
Grant85
Head Pro
There's a standing joke with a lot of the American golf twitter and podcast community regarding the direct to consumer infomercials that are on the Golf Channel over there.
The square strike wedge and a kind of mini driver / 3 wood for people to get off the tee with. Ads that make ridiculous claims like get up and down every time and hit every fairway etc.
I remember back in the days of NTL World, I watched a bit of the Golf Channel on that. Ernie Els was advertising the Big Ezee irons - which was basically a complete set of chunky iron / hybrids. The ad was so brazen as if Ernie was genuinely gaming these. This would have been 2006 to 08, so Ernie was very much still competitive in the top rankings.
The square strike wedge and a kind of mini driver / 3 wood for people to get off the tee with. Ads that make ridiculous claims like get up and down every time and hit every fairway etc.
I remember back in the days of NTL World, I watched a bit of the Golf Channel on that. Ernie Els was advertising the Big Ezee irons - which was basically a complete set of chunky iron / hybrids. The ad was so brazen as if Ernie was genuinely gaming these. This would have been 2006 to 08, so Ernie was very much still competitive in the top rankings.
Ethan
Money List Winner
Tiger's irons have always (more or less) been copies of his old Mizuno MP29s, and the Titleist and Nike irons he used certainly were.
I am not sure Nike pulled out because their products were considered bad, a few players kept them in the bag after the company stopped, Tommy Fleetwood in particular, but more because they couldn't make the sort of money they wanted from a market in which they were not dominant. The Vapor Fly, blue with the yellow swoosh near the bottom of the shaft, was a pretty decent club. The Nike VR Pro were also well liked.
Ser Shankalot
Active member
I've always wondered why heads are updated each year or 18 months, but shafts seem to be on a longer product cycle. Less R&D or incremental gains?
sunshine
Well-known member
ok but I'm sure you know that TM have settled on releasing products in pairs to target different golfers.
M1 -> M3 -> M5 -> SIM
M2 -> M4 -> M6 -> SIM Max
sunshine
Well-known member
Spot on.
Nike want to be no1 or no2 in each market in which they compete. If they are not first or second, they ask themselves "What do we need to do to become no1 or 2?" If the answer is easily achievable they will invest, if it's not they will exit.
Nike were probably no.7 in the golf club market at best. Way too much investment requirement to climb that ladder. Especially as equipment R&D spend has little benefit to cross over to other products outside golf. Sensible to keep making golf shoes though, because developments in traction technology (for example) can be shared across football boots, cricket etc.
Being "the seventh most popular driver on tour" doesn't really excite the marketing people or fit with the global brand identity.
Ethan
Money List Winner
No, didn't know that.
But now I know I'm an even numbers guy ?, which given my very unique dob is not surprising ?
Go on then, what is it?
sunshine
Well-known member
No, didn't know that.
But now I know I'm an even numbers guy ?
They have had this strategy since the R series / Burner days. Depends on what you as a golfer prioritise:
Odd = focus on customisation
Even = focus on speed
sunshine
Well-known member
Orikoru
Tour Winner
Surely part of the answer to that is 'have Tiger and Rory playing our clubs' - which they managed. How did they not reach the top two if it wasn't because their clubs just weren't as good as other brands?
SatchFan
Q-School Graduate
Back in 1974, a set of Dunlop Blue Flash irons. They were manufactured without a sweet spot.
Orikoru
Tour Winner
That's normal isn't it? None of the clubs I've ever owned have had one either.
sunshine
Well-known member
Good point, but there's more to it than that. I never really saw Nike clubs in pro shops for example. To be no1 or no2 you need an omni-channel strategy, you need to see the product everywhere and at every level.
There were a couple of guys I know who aren't Nike fanboys but had Nike products. They wouldn't have been swayed by the swoosh, so Nike must have made some decent clubs. They made some good putters too. Maybe Nike Golf didn't have the budget to keep pace with the constant new releases from the competition?
On the other hand, one of my mates was Nike branded head to toe, full Nike equipment in his Nike bag, Nike balls, even made sure his socks had the little swoosh. Spent a fortune. He was gutted when Tiger started using a TM driver
