Equipment review Conundrum

[PhilTheFragger]

Having read a few Golf Mags recently (including this one) I have seen quite a number of "Mass Reviews" whereby 10 or so blokes of various handicaps, try out 10 clubs each in each category, (Drivers, Fairway Woods, Hybreds, Irons, Wedges, Putters etc.)

Also I have seen some mass Ball reviews on the same lines. Which were done blind (they didnt know which ball they were hitting)

What I found interesting is that not one product stood out head and shoulders above the rest, there was a fairly even spread accross the board with some guys hating some and loving the others and some taking an opposite view.

Therefore, why do we read such reviews, nothing is definitive, everybody is different and so different clubs will suit different people

Is the whole review bandwagon a waste of time?

DISCUSS

 

[haplesshacker]

Interesting.

I fit into the camp of 'not a waste of time'. I actually enjoy reading what your average golfer thinks of a club. Yes, we have our preferences, but a pro can hit anything, and what he likes may not be suited to some (most) weekend players. What it does do, is give you an indication of what might suit your abilities and likes.

I tried a different ball after a very thorough test in one of the mags. I did use them for quite a while after that. I only stopped as I needed to find a cheaper ball to use!

 

[RGDave]

Is the whole review bandwagon a waste of time?

DISCUSS

I think yes and no. With a wide variety of player "profiles" it's fairly easy to see why no club/ball/thing (?) comes out on top.

However, if I'm keen to buy something new and it's been up for test, I tend to read more closely how the mid-h'cap players felt about something.

For example, if a 2 h'cap said some clubs were good, and the 12 said "not for me", then I'd bear that in mind.

 

[EaseNgrace]

I think the reason no single product stands out in the tests is that surely the magazines refrain from showing a bias towards a certain manufacturer. or am I being too sceptical?

 

[Imurg]

One of the reasons GM doesn't give ratings for equipment is that there is very little poor gear out there anymore. The vast majority is decent quality and as such if you stick to a "name" brand you're not going to go far wrong. Whether it works for you or not is another story. Just because Joe Average, who happens to play off the same handicap as me, hits this club long,high and straight, doesn't mean that I am too.
But it does give an insight into performance. If Joe manages to hit 5 different drivers more or less the same distance/accuracy then there can't be a whole lot of difference between them. Or if everyone hits the new Tayloway HyperBurner 25 yards less than everything else, you know where not to look.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I think Todays Golfer showed a clear bias to certain main brands in the past and it always seemed that Cally, Nike, Ping, TM or Mizuno would win every test. I have to say I think that situation is improving and that their reports are a lot less biased these days.

I can only speak from feedback on here from GM testing days and those lucky enough to be invited have all come back (full of it usually the lucky so and so's) and all have a slightly different take. As with most things, it depends a lot on ability and perception. The GM tests are usually pretty evenly spread out amongst the whole handicap range, but what suits one person may not be suitable for another. Even something like a ball will normally elicit a range of views (too soft, too hard, not enough/too mcuh spin)

GM are lucky in that they have very good equipment staff who are good golfers themselves. I know it may seem that every report is favourble and to some degree there has to be a certain acknowledgement to the manufacturer (GM had first exclusive rights to the R9 driver etc) but the reports do tend to indicate which handicap bracket the team thinks a certain make will suit so there is a degree of context put into each piece.

Similarly there are some constraints put on them by the manufacturer. I seem to remember Titleist inviting some players down for a fitting/testing session but one of the stipulations they put on GM was that players must have a 15 or less handicap as that is the maximum Titleist felt would benefit or be able to use the drivers.

I'm sure Mike and Jezz have commented on this matter in the past but it would be interesting to get a current take. At the end of the day though its only a guide and the real answer is to try and piece of kit before you buy. You wouldn't fork out on a brand new car without test driving it so why do the same on a new driver or set of irons.

 

[GB72]

I tend to use reviews to narrow the field a little before I go out testing. Certainly helps having a mix of handicaps testing as I can start by trying those clubs that were a hit with golfers of a similar standard

 

[drawboy]

In my opinion as technology has become easier to use and share bad golf clubs and balls are now a thing of the past. Everyone makes at least a good club with only the top manufacturers making stand out models. The gap between the Howson Hippo's and Taylormade Tp's of this world isn't really that great anymore is it? I am sure if most handicap golfers took both of these models out in a blind test it would be difficult to tell them apart in performance.If truth be told.

 

[USER1999]

The interesting thing to me recently was TGs ball review. How can you review premium golf balls and ignore the ProV1? I can only assume Titleist wouldn't give them any, which shows what Titleist think of TG, but what stopped them from buying a couple of sleeves and putting them in anyway?

 

[Faldo_Fan]

Would an equipment comparrison between 10 guys who play off the same handicap not be better?
Surely you'll get a clear winner albeit for that particular handicap.
If you had 10 guys all off for example 14 handicap (i just picked 14 as it's bang in the middle) trying half a dozen drivers blind (no company logos showing) would that not be more definitive?

 

[Faldo_Fan]

Would an equipment comparrison between 10 guys who play off the same handicap not be better?
Surely you'll get a clear winner albeit for that particular handicap.
If you had 10 guys all off for example 14 handicap (i just picked 14 as it's bang in the middle) trying half a dozen drivers blind (no company logos showing) would that not be more definitive?

You could even ask the manufacturers to provide the model/set-up that they beleive best for that ability range??

 

[freddielong]

I don't really think there is any point to reviews you have to test them yourself - one mans treasure is another mans rubbish.

 

[Sneds]

The blind ball test was obviously done by this months Today's Golfer. I think it's impossible to have bias when it's readers and real golfers doing the tests. TG have very little imput in the results, which is fantastic.

One thing that did stand out in the test, was that some balls will genuinely go further than other. I thought the putting test was a little pointless, as scoring a ball by the number of putts sinked is a little silly, although the testers did comment on feel off the putter face x

 

[haplesshacker]

although the testers did comment on feel off the putter face x

I've not seen the articule (sp), but were we told what type of putter they were using? I only ask as the feel from a milled putter is very different to a soft insert putter. So the balls will feel different depending on the putter.

 

[USER1999]

No, and I also thought it a bit pointless that some of their testers only hit a driver 150 yards. There can't be that many out there doing this. My Dad is 78 and hits it 200. There didn't seem to be a sensible spread of ages. Yes, the h/caps were different, but clearly their ability to hit a ball was the same, short. Bar the one younger bloke, who hit it miles. Where was the average guy who carries 200? Nowhere.

You can't measure a ball performance by putts sunk.

The odd thing with golf balls is peoples perception of hard / soft. We get it on here too. One guy will think the Call IX is a rock (it is) and the next will say a Wilson DX2 is a rock (it is a marsh mallow).

The whole ball review was junk. A waste of trees.

GM usually does this sort of thing better.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I have already said that I think TG have a poor track history with their product testing and to be honest the ball thing didn't really change anything. The putts sunk to decide how good a ball was seemed strange and as others have said there is always a huge discrepancy of opinion about numerous brands whenever the venerable and discerning forum members discuss golf balls

I do think GM have produced more balanced product reviews although it is true that no publication ever seems to come out and say x performed badly. I had a product for the GM test panel and I hated it and said as much and promptly returned it. It has since be re-issued and the guy testing it now isn't bowled over with it. I doubt my disappointing review will see light of day.

I understand that no publication is ever going to give a product they've been given to test a totally negative write-up as that is plainly economic suicide. However I would like to see a little more discerning journalism rather than the more general it'll suit 7-21 handicappers or it will do this or that. Be specific. Is it really aimed at a higher/lower end of the market? I accept that there will be 24+ handicappers capable of using it with aplomb but if its a bladed iron per se, have the balls to say its a better player club and not really for joe average. Similarly if its a cavity game improver be honest and say a single figure guy will balloon it way to high.

What I'd really love to see (maybe this is a idea with potential) would be a golfing version of Which and could maybe publish on a quarterly basis and give absolutely accurate and honest product reviews without any impartiality. Surely it would do the manufacturers some good to have their products stringently tested maybe under both lab and playing conditions and compare product data with advertising spin

 

[David_L]

Personally I think reviews are generally a good thing before splashing the hard earned. There are two types; the professional writers and the amateur players. I like the latter as you feel closer to them especially if their h/cap is close to your own and you know that it is their personal opinion and hence can take with a pinch of salt etc.

However, it is the professionals that I am a lot more sceptical about and for me it comes down to how you view the magazine, it's editorial team and the writers. If you feel you can 'trust' them then you're more likely to give credence to the reviews so again it comes down to personal choice.

As Homer says GM would seem to be the best of the bunch and open / honest but that's (again) my personal opinion reading GW and TG (one in the same stable) as well when I have long train journeys.

 

[haplesshacker]

As others have said though. No-one makes a really bad club that isn't suited to somebody's game, eye or budget.

Horses for courses, I guess.

It's a bit like cars now-a-days. None are truely awful, but we have our preferences and predjudices.

Reviewing clubs is a bit like reviewing anything. You can look for all the negatives you like, but everything has something positive about it. And that is what the mags work on.

 

[USER1999]

Yep, some clubs would make very good scrap metal. That's a positive.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Its also difficult for a magazine to be subjective to all the makes and models currently on the market. I know GM do a fine job in producing an equipment review which in years gone by had almost all the manufacturers, contact details/website and their whole product range listed. I wasn't as keen on this years more "catalogue" version.

At least that way if you wanted something by Nickent, Hippo etc who to be fair only get passing lip service over a year there was sound starting point where the products were listed.

On a month by month basis it will always be hard for new kids on the block or smaller firms to get attention unless they are like MD and Benross and able to produce excellent kit for great prices and therefore let the quality do the talking. Personally I never got overly excited about equipment reviews especially in some of the other mags as the result would always seems a foregone conclusion and that every new product was guaranteed to be straighter and longer.

As others have said they at least give you an idead what is around, what new gear is going to look like and to some degree a bit of detail about specs and RRP. After that my advice is to do your own research and make sure you are happy before parting with your hard earned.