New gear - a con?

[birdieman]

Have read quite a bit of stuff in posts recently relating to how wonderful the new Titleist 910 driver is.
Reading GM mag the other day I was interested to see on the Soren Hansen feature that he still plays the 905r driver from 2006 or whenever.
Surely that is proof that the newer models offer nothing more in terms of performance if a high ranked tour pro sees no benefit to using them?
Can golf clubs be improved on? When you line up a range of irons, from the back they all look different but look at the faces (the part that actually strikes the ball) and they all look exactly the same and have done for years.

Is new gear all a big con?
Discuss.

 

[Fyldewhite]

Just like new cars. Nice and shiny and for those who have money to throw away.... I'm sure they love them. As for value for money? 6 months later it's a second hand club/car worth 70% of the new price if you are lucky. So yes, on the whole an absolute con. The step change in design/performance is never worth it.

 

[chris661]

Just like new cars. Nice and shiny and for those who have money to throw away.... I'm sure they love them. As for value for money? 6 months later it's a second hand club/car worth 70% of the new price if you are lucky. So yes, on the whole an absolute con. The step change in design/performance is never worth it.

Do you honestly believe there is no gain in performance and technology? Why not just go back to using old shity persimmon woods and hickory shafted clubs then. As long as they fit in your model t ford that is.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Do you honestly believe there is no gain in performance and technology? Why not just go back to using old shity persimmon woods and hickory shafted clubs then. As long as they fit in your model t ford that is.

A tad harsh I feel. When I started back in the 70's it was all blade with the exception really of Ping (eye 2). However things like the original TM Burners, Cally Big Bertha etc suddenly made the game a lot easier for a lot of golfers as metal woods had done. Since then we've seen improvements in standard shafts plus a myriad of custom options and much better iron and driver designs to maximise performance. I agree that within the current confines of rules there isn't much more that can be done in terms of design bar the shaft and that to really get anyting new out of clubs c/f would seem to be the way.

It isn't just those. Look at balls and putters which have moved on arguably the most since the balata and Anser. If you have the budget and like to have shiny sticks then it's your disposable income and you're free to do what you like. If your clubs are a few years old, then new clubs would certainly bring you up to date (KBS etc as standard on some makes etc) and may give you a quick fix

Is it a con. Not really. Buy it if you can as we all like a new anything (TV, car, etc) but if not wait and this years clubs will soon come down in price for new when they are superceded.

 

[AuburnWarrior]

Just like new cars. Nice and shiny and for those who have money to throw away.... I'm sure they love them. As for value for money? 6 months later it's a second hand club/car worth 70% of the new price if you are lucky. So yes, on the whole an absolute con. The step change in design/performance is never worth it.

Do you honestly believe there is no gain in performance and technology? Why not just go back to using old shity persimmon woods and hickory shafted clubs then. As long as they fit in your model t ford that is.

But what would you say if a pro or scratch player knocked it round in level par using those very same persimmon woods/hickory shafted irons???

For the record, the best woods I ever owned were Persimmon headed. Absolutely beautiful they were.

If you can hit one of them, you can hit anything - end of.

At the end of the day, if it works for you then it's the best club in the world - be it 5 minutes old or 5 years old.

My driver is 7 years old - the day it breaks is the day that I'm more than gutted.

 

[chris661]

Just like new cars. Nice and shiny and for those who have money to throw away.... I'm sure they love them. As for value for money? 6 months later it's a second hand club/car worth 70% of the new price if you are lucky. So yes, on the whole an absolute con. The step change in design/performance is never worth it.

Do you honestly believe there is no gain in performance and technology? Why not just go back to using old shity persimmon woods and hickory shafted clubs then. As long as they fit in your model t ford that is.

But what would you say if a pro or scratch player knocked it round in level par using those very same persimmon woods/hickory shafted irons???

For the record, the best woods I ever owned were Persimmon headed. Absolutely beautiful they were.

If you can hit one of them, you can hit anything - end of.

At the end of the day, if it works for you then it's the best club in the world - be it 5 minutes old or 5 years old.

My driver is 7 years old - the day it breaks is the day that I'm more than gutted.

Just because a pro got it round in level par using old clubs does not mean there have been no improvements in technology or performance otherwise they would all still be using them would they not?

 

[Imurg]

All that shows is that Soren Hansen is happy and gets the performance he wants from the 905. Poults uses a 906F2 fairway, not the 909 or 910 - why? Because it gives the performance he wants and trusts.
I'm sure, when the 911 (or whatever the next generation from Titleist is called) comes out, if the driver offers Hansen better performance he'll use it.
Callaway Original Steelhead fairways were in use on Tour up until very recently - very old tech but still mighty effective.
And anyway, isn't all the new tech really aimed at us? High MOI, the right shaft, etc etc to help us hit it straighter and longer?

 

[AuburnWarrior]

Just like new cars. Nice and shiny and for those who have money to throw away.... I'm sure they love them. As for value for money? 6 months later it's a second hand club/car worth 70% of the new price if you are lucky. So yes, on the whole an absolute con. The step change in design/performance is never worth it.

Do you honestly believe there is no gain in performance and technology? Why not just go back to using old shity persimmon woods and hickory shafted clubs then. As long as they fit in your model t ford that is.

But what would you say if a pro or scratch player knocked it round in level par using those very same persimmon woods/hickory shafted irons???

For the record, the best woods I ever owned were Persimmon headed. Absolutely beautiful they were.

If you can hit one of them, you can hit anything - end of.

At the end of the day, if it works for you then it's the best club in the world - be it 5 minutes old or 5 years old.

My driver is 7 years old - the day it breaks is the day that I'm more than gutted.

Just because a pro got it round in level par using old clubs does not mean there have been no improvements in technology or performance otherwise they would all still be using them would they not?

OK, there's been advancements in technology - graphite shafts, etc but can you honestly say that if I gave you a 2005 driver from any of the main golf manufacturers and asked you to compare against a 2011 driver from the same manufacturer - would you be able to tell me the exact differences???

I'm a fairly decent player and I bet I couldn't.

 

[brendy]

Another way to look at it, imagine you had 5 year old clubs that were due for changing for whatever reason. Would you go for this years model with all it's promises of more forgiveness and extra distance or buy another brand that only releases clubs biannually and were on the middle of their cycle. it is fed to you that newer is better.
Don't get me wrong, when the biggest big Bertha came along it was a revolutionary club, same as the twoball or the milled face wedge. These clubs only come along every so many years. The trick is knowing when the clubs meet their hype.

 

[Fyldewhite]

Just like new cars. Nice and shiny and for those who have money to throw away.... I'm sure they love them. As for value for money? 6 months later it's a second hand club/car worth 70% of the new price if you are lucky. So yes, on the whole an absolute con. The step change in design/performance is never worth it.

Do you honestly believe there is no gain in performance and technology? Why not just go back to using old shity persimmon woods and hickory shafted clubs then. As long as they fit in your model t ford that is.

But what would you say if a pro or scratch player knocked it round in level par using those very same persimmon woods/hickory shafted irons???

For the record, the best woods I ever owned were Persimmon headed. Absolutely beautiful they were.

If you can hit one of them, you can hit anything - end of.

At the end of the day, if it works for you then it's the best club in the world - be it 5 minutes old or 5 years old.

My driver is 7 years old - the day it breaks is the day that I'm more than gutted.

Just because a pro got it round in level par using old clubs does not mean there have been no improvements in technology or performance otherwise they would all still be using them would they not?

I don't believe that I said there was no improvement in performance and technology. The point I was making is that these changes are very small and their effect on the performance of an average handicap golfer is almost undetectable from one years equipment to the next years model.... and consequestly does not represent value for money over a carefully chosen and sourced 6/12 month old model. Of course over time these small changes add up to massive improvement but to pay top dollar for each individual step is IMO generally a waste of money. Say a bit like buying a brand new car every 2 years.

 

[ScienceBoy]

New gear is essential, boundries need to be pushed and its up to the rule makes to set limits.

I have no problem with people changing drivers or whatever every season if that is how they work or changing when they feel a real need of change.

Personally I purchase new equipment when it is a step forward for me. That is how I work, I feel I could get any club I like to work somehow, it is more the shaft, loft and lie that I need to be changed.

If people did not buy new equipment then it would not get made and neither would progress!

It is only a con if you are falling for every marketing gimmick going and spending money when you cannot afford or buying ill suited equipment.

 

[birdieman]

If you are sponsoring someone to use your brand surely you would want them to use the latest bit of kit? You sponsor a top player in golf to advertise your brand and therefore sell it to the masses.
From a marketing perspective when I saw Hansen's bag my immediate thought was well the 905r must be just as good as the 910.
That's not what Titleist would want me to think when reading a golf mag I don't think. I know it wasn't a Titleist ad per se but it is still a marketing mistake imo. They could even disguise Hansen's 905 as a 910 couldn't they?

 

[Iaing]

The average handicap hasn't dropped by much ( if at all ) over the past 20 years.
I still wouldn't call it a con, unless it's people conning themselves...after all the manufacturers are businesses out to make money. They'd sell you new clubs every week.

The £299 R11 driver will be £149 next year. 'Nuff said.

 

[Deleted member 3432]

Most new gear releases are just marketing hype otherwise we would all be hitting it about 700 yards arrow straight. I think the biggest single factor in longer/straighter hitting is the golf ball. People old enough to have played with the old balata covered balls with remember just how much spin you could get them, far in excess of a pro v1 or similar. Unlike modern balls the old balata spun just as much off the driver.I hit it miles further at 45 years old than I did at 25 and the stats off my last couple of driver fittings have not seen any significant distance gain, maybe slightly tighter dispersion.
Maybe the pro game may see a small performance gain with each new gear release but I reckon forumers like us are not good enough to ball strikers notice any worthwile performace difference.

 

[Smiffy]

I have never purchased a set of irons that have made me play better. I have purchased sets that have made me feel good at the time and that I've preferred hitting to my previous set, but I can honestly say that if I went out and played with a set of clubs that I owned during the 90's I wouldn't score any better or worse.
Drivers are a bit different. I think there have been more advances in woods than anything else. A lot more forgiving and I would hate to have to hit some of the crap again that I have owned over the years.
But irons? Nope.

 

[ScienceBoy]

I have never purchased a set of irons that have made me play better.

Got this spot on, the irons do not make you play better but moving to something that fits better, breeds confidence in you more, has a big improvement in technology over another set will help you reach your golfing potential better

I was never going to reach my potential with my 10 year old set of cheap cast beginners clubs. I have a better chance with my new irons as they offer massive advances in all areas, head design to shaft condition.

 

[Smiffy]

During the 90's I was playing my best golf. Handicap came down quite rapidly from 23 to 11. Things had just finally "clicked" and I was hitting the ball really well.
At that time I was playing a set of Tommy Armour 845 Silver Scot irons. They were great, and why I ever got rid of them I'll never know. Oh yes I remember. It was the lure of the "shinies".
My handicap didn't go up at all when I changed them, it remained fairly constant for the following few years. I was happy with my game and ticking along nicely.
I think the reason I like my i15's so much is that they are the first set of clubs I have owned since then that remind me of the Tommy Armours. So I feel "confident" with them.
I don't mean the stuff on the back of the club, I can't see that at address. But the feel of them and the looks, colour etc.

 

[madandra]

In my opinion the best Pingdriver was the G2. I had one and it went like a bomb.I have said for years that the technlogy improvements on woods is coming from the shafts being manufactured. Think about it ...


what is going to make you hit a bit of titanium off a ball and make it go further?

The power comes from the shaft. I would say if you put a RIP shaft from a 910 into a 907r it would perform so similarly that a club golfer wouldn't know.

 

[MashieNiblick]

Another interesting debate. This forum is great.

I agree the technology in woods has brought real benefits over the last 10 years but I wonder if that has plateaued. The new trend seems to be for composite materials and adjustability but I wonder if they will deliver any significant improvements over what we have seen with large titanium heads which did make a step change. Hardly ever see anyone struggle off the tee with driver like in the old days of wooden clubs and often see the most awful swings produce a decent shot to the fairway.

As for irons, I think there have been advances over the last 10 years in things like u grooves, precision forging to allow more precise forged cavities, advanced construction - pocket cavities, and damping materials and more elaborate head shapes - to move the MOI and centre of gravity around, which no doubt have produced clubs which in theory are better and perform better when hit by robots.

There do seem to be more and better shaft options now. Once it was just DGs - R or S, then Rifles came out and now we have KBS and Nippon too, all different characteristics. Not to mention seemingly endless choice in graphite.

Does all this translate to better scores for the likes of us? I'm not totally convinced. The clubs might feel a bit better, the ball flight might be a bit better, the ball might spin a bit more but all the improvements are fairly marginal and despite all the advances I don't think if I ditched my 1997 or 2003 Mizunos for the latest irons I'd necessarily shoot lower. Of course I could be wrong but I don't have £600 spare to find out.

Of course ball technology has also advanced and a lot of changes in club design are the result of changing golf ball characteristices. Today's clubs are designed to hit today's balls.

As for putters, I've seen people miss shockers with the latest thing that looks like a prop from Star Wars and putt like a god with a battered 30 year old blade.

If improvements in clubs were really that significant scores would be better. I reckon most courses haven't changed much over the past decade but how many course records are over 10 years old? Quite a few I'd guess. If new technology was delivering significant improvements wouldn't we expect them all to be recent and much lower than the 65's and 66's people shot with the old gear.

 

[thecraw]

Have read quite a bit of stuff in posts recently relating to how wonderful the new Titleist 910 driver is.
Reading GM mag the other day I was interested to see on the Soren Hansen feature that he still plays the 905r driver from 2006 or whenever.
Surely that is proof that the newer models offer nothing more in terms of performance if a high ranked tour pro sees no benefit to using them?
Can golf clubs be improved on? When you line up a range of irons, from the back they all look different but look at the faces (the part that actually strikes the ball) and they all look exactly the same and have done for years.

Is new gear all a big con?
Discuss.

Its mainly down to shaft technology. Heads are only "tweaked" here and there.

Also for what its worth I also happen to think the 905R was a better driver than the 909 range and the 907. The 910 though is awesome!