Lack of Independent Standardized Testing

[DB Golf]

I’m new to WRX and grateful to have found it. I recently picked the game back up now that my kids are grown. Data-driven golf is new to me since I last played. I’m in the market for new clubs but I’m disappointed by the high cost of the OEM makers and skeptical of the build quality of the relatively new boutique fitter/builder franchises. Honestly, I’m not sure who to trust.
 

I’m wondering why nobody is doing standardized robot swing testing of all clubhead and shaft makes and models—including not just the OEMs but also the DTCs and the component makers like KZG and Maltby. I’m also wondering why honest club builders seem to be aging out of the market.

 

if I’m an honest club maker or builder, I’d be more than willing to put my products up against any OEMs in a fair fight. 

 

It’s often said that, when in doubt, follow the money, but it seems to me that the demand for comprehensive independent testing would make for a viable enterprise.

 

PXG cites a Golf Labs test showing its 0211 outperforms competitors on distance, ball speed, and dispersion. But no record of the test exists on PXG’s or Golf Lab’s websites. Either something funny is going on, or I’m oblivious to the very thing I’m looking for.
 

Grateful for WRX feedback and guidance. 

[MelloYello]

I take it as proof that pretty much everyone is on equal footing these days. 

 

So make your choices based on personal preferences about aesthetics and fitting. 

 

We've evolved to a point where every OEM has a full line-up I would play without hesitation. After all, the OEMs are all catering towards the same markets. So why would we expect significant differences in the various offerings? 

 

.

Edited December 19, 2022 by MelloYello

[ShortGolfer]

12 hours ago, DB Golf said:

I’m new to WRX and grateful to have found it. I recently picked the game back up now that my kids are grown.

[deleted]

I’m also wondering why honest club builders seem to be aging out of the market.

As a kid I built stick and tissue model airplanes.

That sort of hands on skills are much less common in the fifty years since I did that.

I  used the student machine shop which had a Bridgeport milling machine, lathe, and floor punch! 

It was a resource that didn't see much use by the time I got there.

I think the skill set of the younger generation has changed from my generation.

 

I decided that I could use a 52 gap wedge to go between by 48* and 56* wedges.

It took a week to locate a suitable head.  Just two days for it to arrive via UPS.  And one day to put the club together!

I had a spare unused shaft from another build.  I did some online research and decided it would meet my needs.

 

 

Edited December 19, 2022 by ShortGolfer

[MtlJeff]

It's in no ones interest to do this. We talked about things like this here maybe 10 years ago when the "distance wars" were in full effect. 

 

Problem is, OEMs don't want to do this. All of the equipment is very similar , and the risk of your club finishing last (even if only by like 2 yards) would be pretty bad for business if published in a highly trafficked review site. There is also the issue that shafts aren't standardized, so the stock shaft of one club might "suit" the robot better than another. 

 

The influencers with Youtube channels largely get clubs to test for free (and i assume keep) and i would imagine there are some loose rules they need to follow , like for example not doing head to head tests using same shaft etc...if they want to keep getting that

 

I don't think there are many in the industry that really want independant , standard testing. It's hard to do properly and any insider is better off just playing ball with the big OEMs

[ThinkingPlus]

If I ever win a substantial lottery, I will do it.  

[MtlJeff]

48 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

If I ever win a substantial lottery, I will do it.  

 

I did it with balls this year, but even then it's just my swing, and i'm not sure how much people could take from it. But i bought a box of 4 main "non X" balls plus 2 DTC guys and did multiple trackman sessions to compare.

 

Doing it with clubs even with all the money....Man it would take long and be hard!

 

I was hitting 100-150 balls per session on the Trackman to compare the balls with 4 different clubs

[bladehunter]

I don’t see what difference it makes anyway.  The swing is the most important variable.  And you can’t learn the robots swing.  
 

Faster for me won’t be faster for you most times. 

[jvincent]

I think @ThinkingPlus will be up to the task.

 

I'm picturing 3-D plots with CHS, attack angle, and face angle at impact and how they relate to distance. Of course these would be done for impact locations vertically.

 

I wish her good luck in the Powerball. 

[Abh159]

18 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

I don’t see what difference it makes anyway.  The swing is the most important variable.  And you can’t learn the robots swing.  
 

Faster for me won’t be faster for you most times. 

 

This is right on the money.

 

So a robot hits a Taylormade driver 3 yards longer on average than a Cobra driver. How exactly is that data relevant to me and my swing/game?....

[MtlJeff]

9 minutes ago, Abh159 said:

 

This is right on the money.

 

So a robot hits a Taylormade driver 3 yards longer on average than a Cobra driver. How exactly is that data relevant to me and my swing/game?....

 

I'd be interested in knowing , it might not tell the whole story for an individuals game, but a robot swinging say 105mph hitting 2 drivers with the same shaft and one going a few yards longer....it's interesting. I'd be more likely to test the longer driver. 

[Jeff58]

Here is an attempt-

 

 

The test is useful, but also inherently flawed in several ways, to the point of making it “interesting” rather than definitive.

 

If the impact characteristics, displacement distances, club, ball, shaft, or any other variable is changed, the results will also change. If your results are different than mine, and different than the robot (who is just another golfer with lower shot-to-shot variation), which are “optimal”?

 

The answer is that the major manufacturers do know, as golf clubs and balls are not created by humans, rather by computer optimization programs. To a great extent, the best program wins, which is also why individuals have virtually no chance to actually complete unless they use foundry support.

 

IMO a better way of looking at things is that each ball or club model represents a set of compromises, and that a manufacturer produces several models that are more or less biased towards the type of player that values the model. Your job is to identify the best overall solution, and to a great extent you are the only one who can do that.

 

 

 

[MountainKing]

43 minutes ago, MtlJeff said:

 

I'd be interested in knowing , it might not tell the whole story for an individuals game, but a robot swinging say 105mph hitting 2 drivers with the same shaft and one going a few yards longer....it's interesting. I'd be more likely to test the longer driver. 

 

That doesn't tell any store at all tho.  There's manufacture tolerances in the build that would impact the results.  Until you can perfect manufacturing, you can't tell any story with this type of testing.  You could have 20 heads that are the same make/model, and end up with a different end result with each one because of the tolerances. 

[Pepperturbo]

Every OEM equipment and shaft maker uses Iron Byron to test.  So, you can say it's standardized, to a degree.  It will NEVER get to true standardization across the board because design tolerances and chosen materials vary, and they want what they want, plus management has cost targets they must stay within.  I am glad it's that way, too.

[Klubster]

That type testing would only work for the people who swing exactly the same as the robot.  For the rest of us, it is what works best for our swing and our game.  The Maltby head and shaft ratings may give you some idea of what to expect and narrow your search.

[Red4282]

17 hours ago, DB Golf said:

I’m new to WRX and grateful to have found it. I recently picked the game back up now that my kids are grown. Data-driven golf is new to me since I last played. I’m in the market for new clubs but I’m disappointed by the high cost of the OEM makers and skeptical of the build quality of the relatively new boutique fitter/builder franchises. Honestly, I’m not sure who to trust.
 

I’m wondering why nobody is doing standardized robot swing testing of all clubhead and shaft makes and models—including not just the OEMs but also the DTCs and the component makers like KZG and Maltby. I’m also wondering why honest club builders seem to be aging out of the market.

 

if I’m an honest club maker or builder, I’d be more than willing to put my products up against any OEMs in a fair fight. 

 

It’s often said that, when in doubt, follow the money, but it seems to me that the demand for comprehensive independent testing would make for a viable enterprise.

 

PXG cites a Golf Labs test showing its 0211 outperforms competitors on distance, ball speed, and dispersion. But no record of the test exists on PXG’s or Golf Lab’s websites. Either something funny is going on, or I’m oblivious to the very thing I’m looking for.
 

Grateful for WRX feedback and guidance. 

To be honest, there is a reason you dont see it much. The main reason is you would be hard pressed to find a whole lot of tangible information from it. You would find loft is king, tech and forgiveness is massively overrated. The lack of information /data is actually what OEMs want. Keeps things murky for the marketing stories.

[Red4282]

1 hour ago, MtlJeff said:

 

I'd be interested in knowing , it might not tell the whole story for an individuals game, but a robot swinging say 105mph hitting 2 drivers with the same shaft and one going a few yards longer....it's interesting. I'd be more likely to test the longer driver. 

Yea i dont understand that argument of a robot would tell us nothing because we all swing differently. I see it as something similar to Maltby Mpf ratings. The final result or “rating” may be subjective or a small window into overall picture, but there are for sure tidbits of  data that can be obtained and applied for everyone. 

[MtlJeff]

1 hour ago, MountainKing said:

 

That doesn't tell any store at all tho.  There's manufacture tolerances in the build that would impact the results.  Until you can perfect manufacturing, you can't tell any story with this type of testing.  You could have 20 heads that are the same make/model, and end up with a different end result with each one because of the tolerances. 

 

I suppose if only 1 publication was doing it i could see that. I guess if many of them were doing similar tests and results were consistent, then it would tell us something

[Red4282]

1 hour ago, MountainKing said:

 

That doesn't tell any store at all tho.  There's manufacture tolerances in the build that would impact the results.  Until you can perfect manufacturing, you can't tell any story with this type of testing.  You could have 20 heads that are the same make/model, and end up with a different end result with each one because of the tolerances. 

Perhaps, but you would definitely see trends, or a dispersion of data to make reasonable conclusions if done right. I dont like going down that road of well this wasnt the same as that… because honestly we could say that about anything and everything if you really wanted to. No grip weighs exactly the same, yada yada..at some point its the same within reason.

[MountainKing]

58 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

Perhaps, but you would definitely see trends, or a dispersion of data to make reasonable conclusions if done right. I dont like going down that road of well this wasnt the same as that… because honestly we could say that about anything and everything if you really wanted to. No grip weighs exactly the same, yada yada..at some point its the same within reason.

 

I think what you'd find is that most clubs are the market today perform very similar to each other when you take the human element out of the swing.   

[ThinkingPlus]

3 hours ago, MtlJeff said:

 

I did it with balls this year, but even then it's just my swing, and i'm not sure how much people could take from it. But i bought a box of 4 main "non X" balls plus 2 DTC guys and did multiple trackman sessions to compare.

 

Doing it with clubs even with all the money....Man it would take long and be hard!

 

I was hitting 100-150 balls per session on the Trackman to compare the balls with 4 different clubs

You aren't thinking like a wealthy person.  You don't do the testing.  You create the test plans, methodologies, SOW, etc... and pay someone else to do the testing for you.  You also define tests that not only quantifies performance of the clubs, but also specific tests to establish relationships between AOA, CG, swingspeed, etc... to determine exactly how "swing" impacts the testing.

 

The results would not only indicate the best performing clubs in general, but also design features which worked the best for your impact conditions and speed. Assuming any reasonable linearity in performance over the various impact conditions, everybody's swing could be accommodated via interpolation between test points.  Very little subjectivity if any.

[DB Golf]

3 hours ago, Abh159 said:

 

This is right on the money.

 

So a robot hits a Taylormade driver 3 yards longer on average than a Cobra driver. How exactly is that data relevant to me and my swing/game?....

Three yards distance wouldn’t get my attention either. But the Golf Labs dispersion test on PXG’s website sure did. https://www.pxg.com/en-ca/0211-xcor2---chrome-finish/IR-PXG32.html
 

[Red4282]

25 minutes ago, MountainKing said:

 

I think what you'd find is that most clubs are the market today perform very similar to each other when you take the human element out of the swing.   

This would absolutely be very true. I do think you would see small things though, like club “A” most fade biased, club B best in low strikes…

 

Very small differences for sure, but it would be something.

[DB Golf]

29 minutes ago, MountainKing said:

 

I think what you'd find is that most clubs are the market today perform very similar to each other when you take the human element out of the swing.   

PXG would probably disagree. Check out the Golf Labs test they’re using to sell their clubs. https://www.pxg.com/en-ca/0211-xcor2---chrome-finish/IR-PXG32.html

[DB Golf]

5 hours ago, MtlJeff said:

It's in no ones interest to do this. We talked about things like this here maybe 10 years ago when the "distance wars" were in full effect. 

 

Problem is, OEMs don't want to do this. All of the equipment is very similar , and the risk of your club finishing last (even if only by like 2 yards) would be pretty bad for business if published in a highly trafficked review site. There is also the issue that shafts aren't standardized, so the stock shaft of one club might "suit" the robot better than another. 

 

The influencers with Youtube channels largely get clubs to test for free (and i assume keep) and i would imagine there are some loose rules they need to follow , like for example not doing head to head tests using same shaft etc...if they want to keep getting that

 

I don't think there are many in the industry that really want independant , standard testing. It's hard to do properly and any insider is better off just playing ball with the big OEMs

Except that Golf Labs apparently did a test recently. The results certainly got PXG’s attention. https://www.pxg.com/en-ca/0211-xcor2---chrome-finish/IR-PXG32.html

[MtlJeff]

28 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

You aren't thinking like a wealthy person.  You don't do the testing.  You create the test plans, methodologies, SOW, etc... and pay someone else to do the testing for you.  You also define tests that not only quantifies performance of the clubs, but also specific tests to establish relationships between AOA, CG, swingspeed, etc... to determine exactly how "swing" impacts the testing.

 

The results would not only indicate the best performing clubs in general, but also design features which worked the best for your impact conditions and speed. Assuming any reasonable linearity in performance over the various impact conditions, everybody's swing could be accommodated via interpolation between test points.  Very little subjectivity if any.

 

OK i'll hire people but only if i don't have to provide them with healthcare or humane working conditions. 

[MtlJeff]

8 minutes ago, DB Golf said:

Except that Golf Labs apparently did a test recently. The results certainly got PXG’s attention. https://www.pxg.com/en-ca/0211-xcor2---chrome-finish/IR-PXG32.html

 

OP mentions this---Do you have a link to the test?

 

PXG cites a Golf Labs test showing its 0211 outperforms competitors on distance, ball speed, and dispersion. But no record of the test exists on PXG’s or Golf Lab’s websites. Either something funny is going on, or I’m oblivious to the very thing I’m looking for.

[DB Golf]

6 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

This would absolutely be very true. I do think you would see small things though, like club “A” most fade biased, club B best in low strikes…

 

Very small differences for sure, but it would be something.

The dispersion differences in this Golf Labs test weren’t small.

https://www.pxg.com/en-ca/0211-xcor2---chrome-finish/IR-PXG32.html

[DB Golf]

20 minutes ago, MtlJeff said:

 

OP mentions this---Do you have a link to the test?

 

PXG cites a Golf Labs test showing its 0211 outperforms competitors on distance, ball speed, and dispersion. But no record of the test exists on PXG’s or Golf Lab’s websites. Either something funny is going on, or I’m oblivious to the very thing I’m looking for.

I don’t have a link to the original test, and that’s part of my frustration which led to my original post. The only link I have is to PXG’s slick reference to the test. When I first saw it, I was so impressed that I almost booked a PXG fitting on the spot. But then I started digging, and now I’m skeptical. 

[ThinkingPlus]

43 minutes ago, MtlJeff said:

 

OK i'll hire people but only if i don't have to provide them with healthcare or humane working conditions. 

You hire a company.  They provide benefits (or not) and humane working conditions (or not).

[Klubster]

1 hour ago, ThinkingPlus said:

You aren't thinking like a wealthy person.  You don't do the testing.  You create the test plans, methodologies, SOW, etc... and pay someone else to do the testing for you.  You also define tests that not only quantifies performance of the clubs, but also specific tests to establish relationships between AOA, CG, swingspeed, etc... to determine exactly how "swing" impacts the testing.

 

The results would not only indicate the best performing clubs in general, but also design features which worked the best for your impact conditions and speed. Assuming any reasonable linearity in performance over the various impact conditions, everybody's swing could be accommodated via interpolation between test points.  Very little subjectivity if any.

The wealthy person then sells the raw data to the OEMs.  They cherry pick the data and create their ads around it.  Company A is longer, Company B is straighter, Company C has more spin, Company D is more forgiving, etc. etc.  The wealthy person signs a nondisclosure so nobody sees the raw data.  Sounds like were are right back where we started.