Iron Reviews Dilemma

[haplesshacker]

As with any sensitive 'evaluation' where advertising earnings have to be considered, we the readers have to learn to read between the lines, especially as begineers to the sport and do not know what we might be looking at.

'These clubs represent excellent value' compared to other clubs here, they're cheap.

'Quality components used'. But may not have been put together very well.

'For the more decerning player'. Bloody expensive, or for the completely vain.

'These clubs meet the same standards as the other clubs in their range'. Excellant or shite!

'Has a thick top line'. Better players amongest you won't like them as they're clunky.

All said and done if we know the basics of what we should be looking for, (ability, budget etc), then using mag reviews should only be a guide as to what to look at. Personally I ignore most if not all of the adverts and read the reviews with a bit of common sense.

No the mags aren't going to bite the hand that feeds them, but the manufactuers need the mags as much as the mags need them. Simple reason being that if their product isn't reviewed it's unlikely to get short-listed by the readership!

 

[MVP]

How do you compare a budget club to a big name brand , Are the Orka irons for example a budget club becase they cost 80 to make and 120 profit, or are they budget becasue the taylormade clubs cost 80 to make and 420 profit???

 

[GB72]

Agreed MVP. I always see the 'top budget option' often awarded as being a cop out. Either the clubs in question are as good as or better than the higher price clubs or they are not. As such(and I apologise for mentioning it) this months TG says that Orka are the best budget irons. OK, but how do they compare to the gold, silver and bronze winners or, indeed, any other higher priced irons? Are they the option to go for if you cannot afford any of the more expensive clubs or are they as good or better?