Lack of Independent Standardized Testing

[ThinkingPlus]

3 minutes ago, Klubster said:

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.

Why?  You're wealthy.  You don't need the money.  I would throw the OEMs and their marketing monkeys under the bus.  That's the point of wealth.  You get to do what you want. 

[MtlJeff]

27 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

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

 

I was just trying to sound like more of a wealthy person to you!

[Klubster]

2 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Why?  You're wealthy.  You don't need the money.  I would throw the OEMs and their marketing monkeys under the bus.  That's the point of wealth.  You get to do what you want. 

None of the wealthy need the money, it is just their game to accumulate more of if.  

[MtlJeff]

51 minutes ago, DB Golf said:

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. 

 

LOL i didn't realize you were the OP

 

Yeah my concern with stuff that's just posted on PXG's website is that it's highly suspect....Like did PXG commission this test, what were the variables etc? 

 

Callaway and TMAG in the past have posted stuff like this, but again unless an independant company is coming out and verifying it....It's hard to take seriously

[ThinkingPlus]

15 minutes ago, Klubster said:

None of the wealthy need the money, it is just their game to accumulate more of if.  

So do, some don't.   I wouldn't. 

[Klubster]

19 minutes ago, MtlJeff said:

 

 

 

Yeah my concern with stuff that's just posted on PXG's website is that it's highly suspect....Like did PXG commission this test, what were the variables etc? 

 

 

I looked at those results.  One distinct variable is the iron loft.  PXG used a 28 degree 7 iron vs less lofted competitors.

Edited December 19, 2022 by Klubster

[Valtiel]

As mentioned this sort of standardization would show far more similarities and performance parity than manufacturers would want, otherwise it would have already been done.  

The real value IMO is an extension of something like the Maltby data where robot testing shows the "where and how" the performance comes from. Actual sweetspot location/identification and the performance in and around it. 

[OttoVonBizMarkie]

44 minutes ago, Klubster said:

I looked at those results.  One distinct variable is the iron loft.  PXG used a 28 degree 7 iron vs less lofted competitors.

 

It looks like the PXG 7 iron is .5" longer than the Titleist, TM, Cally, and Ping irons they compare it too. So longer shaft and loft would cover ball speed and carry distance

 

If they are .5" longer AND have tighter dispersion, that is really impressive. Would be cool to see the actual testing.

[Red4282]

2 hours ago, DB Golf said:

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

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

The problem with this is there are no details with the test and data. We just see the final “results” which totally could have been manipulated by pxg. 

[ChipNRun]

22 hours ago, DB Golf said:

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.

 

This idea is known as the Iron Byron Fallacy. IB is a mechanical robot that is used to test golf clubs and golf balls. It was named after Byron Nelson, the legendary 1940s golfer whose swing was considered so pure that only a mechanical man could reproduce it.

 

Iron Byron is useful for testing the durability of clubs, and the properties of golf balls.  The drawbacks: Humans don't hit a golf ball with a stiff, rotating single arm. Humans use two hand-arm pairs and rotating hips and torso. If a human finds the ball is repeatedly off vector, a human may make adjustments to grip, stance, etc. to correct the problem. Byron won't change unless the engineer adjusts it.

 

22 hours ago, DB Golf said:

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

 

Are you implying that those who remain are dishonest? 

 

To be less confrontational, I would say the big shakeout of the small shops occurred about the time of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis and the Great Recession (GR) which followed. The shops run by Baby Boomers were starting to struggle by the early 2000s. A contraction in golf participation accompanied the GR: discretionary money was tight, and  some golfers feared that if their companies could do without them on Wednesday afternoon, maybe they weren't need the other four work days either.

 

I got back to St. Louis area in 2002, and I knew of a dozen independent shops in the area, most run by Boomers. As the GR hit, one-by-one they closed down. No one wanted to buy their business, so it was easiest just to retire.

 

The independents also faced competition from the surge in golf specialty chain stores, also known as whiteside (off course) vs. greenside (on course). These include Golf Galaxy, PGA SuperStore, Edwin Watts, and - RIP - Goldsmith. And WalMart and Sports Authority begin carrying golf consumables, such as golf balls, gloves, a few name-brand drivers. One retiring Boomer said pre-2000, people would come by his shop for gloves or balls, and maybe end up getting fitted for irons. These "drop-in" visits became less and less.

 

Among specialty golf retailers you will find shops with excellent clubfitters and clubsmiths. They have been to several general and OEM-specific golf schools, and have certificates to prove it. But, the shops need to pay people enough to keep them.

 

And, you have the high-end fitters such as TXG up in Canada, and Club Champion has dozens of shops in North America alone.

 

An additional problem with finding quality golf fitters and clubsmiths is that younger people are not flocking to the golf industry, or golf in general. One phenomenon squelching the supply is the long ago demise of caddying. In the 1960s and 1970s, Boomers were in high school and many of them caddied at local country clubs. The caddie shack became the portal to the golf industry. Many of us saw the pros and shop professionals working on golf clubs, and showing us the finer points of club-building and smithing on slow days.

 

Well, riding carts decimated the caddie ranks - except at upscale clubs. The decline in caddying meant less people were exposed to the inner elements of golf.

 

This lack of interest meshes in part with the post-2000 slide in persons interested in STEM education: Science, technology engineering and math.  Those who have the STEM skills can do much better than starting at $12 an hour working for a golf specialty retailer.

[Red4282]

19 minutes ago, ChipNRun said:

 

This idea is known as the Iron Byron Fallacy. IB is a mechanical robot that is used to test golf clubs and golf balls. It was named after Byron Nelson, the legendary 1940s golfer whose swing was considered so pure that only a mechanical man could reproduce it.

 

Iron Byron is useful for testing the durability of clubs, and the properties of golf balls.  The drawbacks: Humans don't hit a golf ball with a stiff, rotating single arm. Humans use two hand-arm pairs and rotating hips and torso. If a human finds the ball is repeatedly off vector, a human may make adjustments to grip, stance, etc. to correct the problem. Byron won't change unless the engineer adjusts it.

 

 

Are you implying that those who remain are dishonest? 

 

To be less confrontational, I would say the big shakeout of the small shops occurred about the time of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis and the Great Recession (GR) which followed. The shops run by Baby Boomers were starting to struggle by the early 2000s. A contraction in golf participation accompanied the GR: discretionary money was tight, and  some golfers feared that if their companies could do without them on Wednesday afternoon, maybe they weren't need the other four work days either.

 

I got back to St. Louis area in 2002, and I knew of a dozen independent shops in the area, most run by Boomers. As the GR hit, one-by-one they closed down. No one wanted to buy their business, so it was easiest just to retire.

 

The independents also faced competition from the surge in golf specialty chain stores, also known as whiteside (off course) vs. greenside (on course). These include Golf Galaxy, PGA SuperStore, Edwin Watts, and - RIP - Goldsmith. And WalMart and Sports Authority begin carrying golf consumables, such as golf balls, gloves, a few name-brand drivers. One retiring Boomer said pre-2000, people would come by his shop for gloves or balls, and maybe end up getting fitted for irons. These "drop-in" visits became less and less.

 

Among specialty golf retailers you will find shops with excellent clubfitters and clubsmiths. They have been to several general and OEM-specific golf schools, and have certificates to prove it. But, the shops need to pay people enough to keep them.

 

And, you have the high-end fitters such as TXG up in Canada, and Club Champion has dozens of shops in North America alone.

 

An additional problem with finding quality golf fitters and clubsmiths is that younger people are not flocking to the golf industry, or golf in general. One phenomenon squelching the supply is the long ago demise of caddying. In the 1960s and 1970s, Boomers were in high school and many of them caddied at local country clubs. The caddie shack became the portal to the golf industry. Many of us saw the pros and shop professionals working on golf clubs, and showing us the finer points of club-building and smithing on slow days.

 

Well, riding carts decimated the caddie ranks - except at upscale clubs. The decline in caddying meant less people were exposed to the inner elements of golf.

 

This lack of interest meshes in part with the post-2000 slide in persons interested in STEM education: Science, technology engineering and math.  Those who have the STEM skills can do much better than starting at $12 an hour working for a golf specialty retailer.

Where does this iron byron fallacy theory come from? I cant find anything legit on it. I just dont buy it. The ball cares about one thing. That snapshot of the clubface at impact. How fast, its path, aoa, its loft and strike location. It doesnt care how you got there, whether its a robot arm or a human arm. You can learn an immense amount of information on the relationship on equipment and ball flight. Its how you apply this information to a human, flawed and unique swings that ultimately gets confusing or lost in translation, or even misapplied.

 

Also, not sure what he means by honest clubmakers but Id imagine hes talking about someone not pumping you full of the latest and greatest is what you need. Or puring shafts, etc.
 

Edited December 20, 2022 by Red4282

[5hort5tuff]

Want to know what i think? There is no standardized testing because that wouldn't leave any room for a company to claim their product hits the ball straighter, farther, faster, etc etc. Imo that wouldn't be of any use to anyone except the retail consumers. Even people who do testing, reviews, rankings, etc, most of them just get product for free to post wonderful reviews about. 

 

One example - my father in law (probably a 5 hcap) claims his PXGs are 10 yards further than his 12 year old taylormade Tours.  I try to explain to him that they have stronger lofts, and completely different shafts (PX 6.0 vs KBS Graphite).  He will never understand that it isn't a proper comparison. He doesn't care though  😉 

Edited December 20, 2022 by 5hort5tuff

[bekgolf]

I'd be grateful if they just got together and made rough a standard for shaft flex. 

[J.Bex]

Forget robot testing and manufacturing tolerances and shaft/strike/material/whatever variables.  Give me CAD models for every clubhead, shaft, and ball, and top end simulation software on a fast computer.  Impact deformation, whatever speed and strike location, COR mapping... This is the best we can get to a perfect apples to apples scenario.  I won't even hire anyone or put them in any harm lol.

[Bad9]

12 hours ago, ChipNRun said:

Are you implying that those who remain are dishonest? 

 

And that everyone in the past was honest. Seriously rose coloured glasses there.

[MtlJeff]

13 hours ago, Red4282 said:

The problem with this is there are no details with the test and data. We just see the final “results” which totally could have been manipulated by pxg. 

 

Exactly, or what so many companies or think tanks type places do "just run the tests until one of them shows PXGs are superior" ...Eventually the math will give you one favorable test and you don't have to tell anyone about the 250 tests that didn't show that

[Red4282]

3 minutes ago, MtlJeff said:

 

Exactly, or what so many companies or think tanks type places do "just run the tests until one of them shows PXGs are superior" ...Eventually the math will give you one favorable test and you don't have to tell anyone about the 250 tests that didn't show that

Yep, and Im sure they paid the “independent” tester, what are the chances they came back worse than everything else….not happening.  Reminds me of informercial TV products. 

[MountainKing]

16 hours 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

 

This test doesn't really tell you anything.  The PXG club is 2 degrees stronger than TM, 3 degree's stronger (which is now almost a full club) than Titliest and a half inch longer than both.  I didn't even check Ping or Callaway but I suspect that we'd see the same thing.   Based on that alone I would expect the PXG iron to be 5-10 yards longer, I don't need any testing to tell me a stronger lofted club that's longer is going to produce more club head speed, ball speed and distance.   This is a perfect example of why independant testing doesn't tell you anything, it only works if you're comparing like products.   They really should be putting their 8 iron up against the other 7's for a more accurate test. 

 

Outside of the PXG clubs - the rest are about what I'd expect to see and kind of back up what I said earlier about you seeing clubs that are more similar than different. 

Edited December 20, 2022 by MountainKing

[MountainKing]

14 hours ago, Red4282 said:

The problem with this is there are no details with the test and data. We just see the final “results” which totally could have been manipulated by pxg. 

 

This is the problem by living and dying by data, data can be and often is manipulated to fit a narritave.  With how good clubs are today, I think it's best to assume that like for like they're going to all perform very similar and you just need to find the set that looks and feels good, and works for your game.

[Red4282]

1 hour ago, MountainKing said:

 

This is the problem by living and dying by data, data can be and often is manipulated to fit a narritave.  With how good clubs are today, I think it's best to assume that like for like they're going to all perform very similar and you just need to find the set that looks and feels good, and works for your game.

Well Id argue having data is never a bad thing. Having someone try to interpret that data and then hiding/not showing all the data and how it was obtained can be a bad thing. Just like MPF- The rating is subjective and should be taken with a grain of salt. But moi, cog location are some very good data points to have access to. If we only had a truly independent robot tester… sigh. Count me in if i win the lottery too!

[bladehunter]

18 hours ago, MtlJeff said:

 

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

Anybody smart enough to do those tests is going to be their own boss.  Humane is whatever they want it to be and healthcare is built into your cost.  You won’t have a choice 😂

[MtlJeff]

7 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Anybody smart enough to do those tests is going to be their own boss.  Humane is whatever they want it to be and healthcare is built into your cost.  You won’t have a choice 😂

 

LOL i was just making a joke with ThinkingPlus because she had said in my previous post that i wasn't thinking like a wealthy person

[bladehunter]

1 minute ago, MtlJeff said:

 

LOL i was just making a joke with ThinkingPlus because she had said in my previous post that i wasn't thinking like a wealthy person

Oh I know.  I was just returning fire to your wealthy guy ideal.  You’re not wrong. They see it that way. They just don’t realize that we skilled shepherds out here figure out how to shear them anyway.  
 

it’s always in the wording. Never in the actual number.  I can charge $100 an hour labor for instance , but if I said “$25 “ of this is for healthcare.   Oh boy.  They’d loose their minds.       
 

you have to think like them in order to steer them where you what them to go.  

[MountainKing]

23 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

Well Id argue having data is never a bad thing. Having someone try to interpret that data and then hiding/not showing all the data and how it was obtained can be a bad thing. Just like MPF- The rating is subjective and should be taken with a grain of salt. But moi, cog location are some very good data points to have access to. If we only had a truly independent robot tester… sigh. Count me in if i win the lottery too!

 

Data isn't a bad thing, but it's unfortuantely rarely good by the time it gets to our eyes.   Honestly the most useful part of stuff like this is what the competitors look like against each other.  In this instance I doubt they did much to really manipulate things, the distance thing makes sense based on what they're testing.  Who knows on the dispersion piece, but I really wouldn't put much into that. 

[ChipNRun]

19 hours ago, Red4282 said:

Where does this iron byron fallacy theory come from? I cant find anything legit on it. I just dont buy it. The ball cares about one thing. That snapshot of the clubface at impact. How fast, its path, aoa, its loft and strike location. It doesnt care how you got there, whether its a robot arm or a human arm.

 

Iron Byron got phased out for ball testing circa 1998. Some have modeled the human golf swing using IB.

 

19 hours ago, Red4282 said:

You can learn an immense amount of information on the relationship on equipment and ball flight. Its how you apply this information to a human, flawed and unique swings that ultimately gets confusing or lost in translation, or even misapplied.

 

IB has has always had limitations for actual golf instruction. A better alternative comes in the RoboGolfPro.

 

Quote

At first blush, RoboGolfPro might look a little like Iron Byron, the old robot the U.S. Golf Association used to use to test golf balls. But whereas Iron Byron can only replicate a great swing, RoboGolfPro can teach it.

 

But, our original question dealt with testing of golf clubs, not mechanics of golf instruction. So, what would standardized testing of golf clubs give the average golfer? And, who would be in charge of it?

 

A related issue is how golfers will get to test out new model clubs in the future. A Golf Galaxy rep who is a certified Callaway fitter says the old all-OEM demo days are a thing of the past. The big OEMs have gone to fitting-rep visits to shops and golf clubs. To get a slot, you reserve a time for maybe $50. Then, you get fit for the clubs of interest. (If the hitting area has any width, you can try out other clubs the rep also brings.)

 

Or, you can rent test sets. Bridgestone once had test sets (usually 5i and 9i). These days, Sub70 Golf offers test clubs that you can try out and return for a nominal charge. And, Callaway PreOwned has flexible plans for ordering a set of irons, and returning it for a set charge if they don't work out.

 

Golfers want to know if a given golf clubs will work for them. Not sure how much personal performance info you can get from standardized testing. Either the new 7i goes 10 yards longer than your old club, or it doesn't. And that's for you. It may fly shorter for your playing pal, or waaaay longer for a second pal.

 

Again, what benefit would the average golfer get from standardized testing? Possibly a chance to sue TaylorMade if you get greater 7i dispersion than suggested in the tests?

 

And finally, there's the long-held business principle that the average person should know puffery - bloated advertising claims - when they see them.  If you try to sue the local sports bar for not really having "the coldest beer in town," the local judge will throw out the case and scold your attorney for wasting the court's time. Sorry if your new M?? driver didn't fly 30 yards longer than you're old one.

Edited December 20, 2022 by ChipNRun
Clarify on IB.

[Red4282]

17 minutes ago, ChipNRun said:

 

Iron Byron got phased out for ball testing circa 1998. Some have modeled the human golf swing using IB.

 

 

IB has has always had limitations for actual golf instruction. A better alternative comes in the RoboGolfPro.

 

 

But, our original question dealt with testing of golf clubs, not mechanics of golf instruction. So, what would standardized testing of golf clubs give the average golfer? And, who would be in charge of it?

 

A related issue is how golfers will get to test out new model clubs in the future. A Golf Galaxy rep who is a certified Callaway fitter says the old all-OEM demo days are a thing of the past. The big OEMs have gone to fitting-rep visits to shops and golf clubs. To get a slot, you reserve a time for maybe $50. Then, you get fit for the clubs of interest. (If the hitting area has any width, you can try out other clubs the rep also brings.)

 

Or, you can rent test sets. Bridgestone once had test sets (usually 5i and 9i). These days, Sub70 Golf offers test clubs that you can try out and return for a nominal charge. And, Callaway PreOwned has flexible plans for ordering a set of irons, and returning it for a set charge if they don't work out.

 

Golfers want to know if a given golf clubs will work for them. Not sure how much personal performance info you can get from standardized testing. Either the new 7i goes 10 yards longer than your old club, or it doesn't. And that's for you. It may fly shorter for your playing pal, or waaaay longer for a second pal.

 

Again, what benefit would the average golfer get from standardized testing? Possibly a chance to sue TaylorMade if you get greater 7i dispersion than suggested in the tests?

 

And finally, there's the long-held business principle that the average person should know puffery - bloated advertising claims - when they see them.  If you try to sue the local sports bar for not really having "the coldest beer in town," the local judge will throw out the case and scold your attorney for wasting the court's time. Sorry if your new M?? driver didn't fly 30 yards longer than you're old one.

Still not sure where the “fallacy” comes from, didnt clarify that at all. 
 

Yes, obviously the info from standardized testing would probably only affect a handful of us here on wrx, the masses wont care or wont want to care. It still would be nice because there are 15+ year thread arguments on cavities vs blades, high cor irons and jumpers, etc. Yes it would cut right through all the marketing jazz, but would also help to bust or confirm some all too common myths. I know masses dont care about mpf data, but to a select few, that info is valuable.
 

 

[ThinkingPlus]

41 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

Still not sure where the “fallacy” comes from, didnt clarify that at all. 
 

Yes, obviously the info from standardized testing would probably only affect a handful of us here on wrx, the masses wont care or wont want to care. It still would be nice because there are 15+ year thread arguments on cavities vs blades, high cor irons and jumpers, etc. Yes it would cut right through all the marketing jazz, but would also help to bust or confirm some all too common myths. I know masses dont care about mpf data, but to a select few, that info is valuable.
 

 

It depends somewhat on the data results.  If certain iron designs benefited shallow AOA, low speed swings and a completely different type of iron design benefited a steep, high speed swing, I could see fitters using the data quite a bit. Also, because of the proliferation of LMs, more people, even non-WRXers, know their numbers. It would at least narrow down the choices for lots of folks who pay attention. 

[PuffyC]

On 12/19/2022 at 7:23 PM, 5hort5tuff said:

Want to know what i think? There is no standardized testing because that wouldn't leave any room for a company to claim their product hits the ball straighter, farther, faster, etc etc. Imo that wouldn't be of any use to anyone except the retail consumers. Even people who do testing, reviews, rankings, etc, most of them just get product for free to post wonderful reviews about. 

I 100% agree, but what it would also show is that “tighter dispersion” means tighter by a few inches, or that a club is longer only because of loft\length differences, or that forgiveness is so overrated that in the same class, differences are insignificant. IOW, heads within the same class (target demo) are borderline commodity products. What manufacturer wants any part of that? If you wanted honest testing you’d have to do it similar to Consumer Reports, where you accept no OEM money or ads, and you have the resources to buy everything yourself, establish your own testing protocols etc. There’s no money in that for a product as specialized as a golf club. Point being you don’t see honest testing because no manufacturer wants it and there’s little money to be made by doing it. 

 

[WristySwing]

On 12/20/2022 at 5:15 PM, ThinkingPlus said:

It depends somewhat on the data results.  If certain iron designs benefited shallow AOA, low speed swings and a completely different type of iron design benefited a steep, high speed swing, I could see fitters using the data quite a bit. Also, because of the proliferation of LMs, more people, even non-WRXers, know their numbers. It would at least narrow down the choices for lots of folks who pay attention. 

 

This is exactly what I do in my fittings.  I have a rough idea of where things fit on the MPF scale, bounce, and sole grinds off the top of my head.  I apply these to the swings my clients bring.  It's not 100% but there is a really good chance that they will fit into one of these quite easily.  Then it comes down to personal preference and the player's ability to keep it consistent to make the head perform.

[5hort5tuff]

25 minutes ago, PuffyC said:

I 100% agree, but what it would also show is that “tighter dispersion” means tighter by a few inches, or that a club is longer only because of loft\length differences, or that forgiveness is so overrated that in the same class, differences are insignificant. IOW, heads within the same class (target demo) are borderline commodity products. What manufacturer wants any part of that? If you wanted honest testing you’d have to do it similar to Consumer Reports, where you accept no OEM money or ads, and you have the resources to buy everything yourself, establish your own testing protocols etc. There’s no money in that for a product as specialized as a golf club. Point being you don’t see honest testing because no manufacturer wants it and there’s little money to be made by doing it. 

 

 

Agreed. The only honest testing is by testing at home.  Go get fit...go test at home. That is the only way to see what works imo.