Lack of Independent Standardized Testing

[DB Golf]

On 12/19/2022 at 5:41 PM, 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?

UPDATE: I heard back from Golf Labs. The test was commissioned by PXG and can’t be released without PXG’s consent. I recommended to Golf Labs that they consider a Consumer Reports model, as another WRXer also suggested. For as much as I spend on golf each year, I’d happily pay a reasonable annual fee for access to truly independent testing to help me narrow down choices not only of products, but of which fitters carry which products. 

 

No disrespect to Golf Labs, but I’m going to ignore PXG’s claims that its 0211 is better than the TM P790. If I really care to know, I’ll find a cheap way to test them myself. 

[McGolf]

To get to the original question. 

1) the equipment used in testing is expensive. There is no foreseeable ROI unless you were to show each OEM in a favorable light.

2) the equipment is divided into categories: such as draw bias, low spin, high launch, super game improvement, players distance etc.  the list is very substantial and can water down some results. If the OEM is not shown in the favorable light then you are paying more for lawyers than testing. 

3) Finally it does no manufacturer big, small or in-between to allow it. This is for marketing, If I improve your distance 1 yard over the others then I can say "the longest"  or "the straightest"  etc, how will the golfing public take it. 

4) even if the testing were to be a precise as possible you will always have the what-ifer's going on about, that's great but the swing changes each time so how it help? If that is your line of thinking then what about temperature,  humidity, wind, elevation see the rabbit hole. 

 

Golf is about adaptation to the condition whether it be personal, environmental or equipment related. That's what makes it so great !!!!

 

Now you can narrow done the selection of gear by getting tested (popular phase lately) or fitted. That way you know your personal tendencies and what category of gear works best for you. you can either choose to have someone build it for you, take up the hobby and build it yourself or buy off the rack.  Again that's what makes it so great.

 

Just as you have done, ask the question get the info and make the best decision for you.

 

[Red4282]

22 minutes ago, DB Golf said:

UPDATE: I heard back from Golf Labs. The test was commissioned by PXG and can’t be released without PXG’s consent. I recommended to Golf Labs that they consider a Consumer Reports model, as another WRXer also suggested. For as much as I spend on golf each year, I’d happily pay a reasonable annual fee for access to truly independent testing to help me narrow down choices not only of products, but of which fitters carry which products. 

 

No disrespect to Golf Labs, but I’m going to ignore PXG’s claims that its 0211 is better than the TM P790. If I really care to know, I’ll find a cheap way to test them myself. 

Awesome, thanks for an update. If you put that on TV, its straight from an infomercial…”an independent test determined that ours is _______ better!” If an OEM is claiming something, they better be very transparent and thorough on everything. Otherwise its just fluff.

[DB Golf]

Sincere thanks to all the WRXers who took the time to read and/or weigh in. The game seemed much simpler when I put it down 20 years ago. Now that I've spent far too much time getting up to speed and trying to make sense of all that's available to golfers today, I think I'll go back to keeping it simple. I'll also spend less time researching and more time practicing...

[MtlJeff]

43 minutes ago, DB Golf said:

UPDATE: I heard back from Golf Labs. The test was commissioned by PXG and can’t be released without PXG’s consent. I recommended to Golf Labs that they consider a Consumer Reports model, as another WRXer also suggested. For as much as I spend on golf each year, I’d happily pay a reasonable annual fee for access to truly independent testing to help me narrow down choices not only of products, but of which fitters carry which products. 

 

No disrespect to Golf Labs, but I’m going to ignore PXG’s claims that its 0211 is better than the TM P790. If I really care to know, I’ll find a cheap way to test them myself. 

 

That's cool that you reached out and they responded

 

Kind of as we suspected too....I mean i use PXG and they make good clubs but i'd be very hesitant to believe that study, as i imagine it was rigged in their favor in some way

 

[Ger21]

On 12/19/2022 at 4:56 PM, 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. 

 

The ballspeed and distance gains in this "test" are most likely due to the PXG's stronger lofts, 2.5° stronger than the P790.

I wouldn't put any stock in their dispersion tests. Dispersion is going to vary a great deal from person to person, and the shaft can play a huge role here. An iron has a flat face. If it's pointing at the target, the ball is going to go start out towards the target. Dispersion is going to be greatly influenced by face and path angles.

[ChipNRun]

3 hours ago, DB Golf said:

Sincere thanks to all the WRXers who took the time to read and/or weigh in. The game seemed much simpler when I put it down 20 years ago. Now that I've spent far too much time getting up to speed and trying to make sense of all that's available to golfers today, I think I'll go back to keeping it simple. I'll also spend less time researching and more time practicing...

 

You started a good discussion, and brought together some topics (Iron Byron, club fitting, club testing) often addressed in isolation.

 

I have started a supporting thread just on Iron Byron, with 2011 comments from Tom Wishon on limited usefulness of IB data for individual golfers.

And DB, welcome back to golfdom! 👍

[JCAG]

Some 15 years back there was a court battle between two large OEM's concerning "robot testing". Company A ads were claiming their driver was more accurate then Company B's driver was. Well it turned out that A was correct "under certain' circumstances" and if I recall it was the degree of face angle. That at a specific face angle, A was more accurate. B took them to court saying the test was "rigged" for that face angle. A agreed to drop the ads.

 

Ball Company X was was claiming their ball went further then the ball from Company Y. Well it all boiled down if you selected the right group of golfers meaning swing speed angle of attack, etc., they were right. You just had to pick the right type golfers. Might not be true for all other golfers, but for that group it was right. I believe Y took X to court and X agreed to drop claim.

 

No names mentioned as my mind is foggy on them. While I think I remember who, best not said.

[Klubster]

As my professor told me when I took statistics.  "Give me the data, and I will give you the results you want"

[Red4282]

3 hours ago, JCAG said:

Some 15 years back there was a court battle between two large OEM's concerning "robot testing". Company A ads were claiming their driver was more accurate then Company B's driver was. Well it turned out that A was correct "under certain' circumstances" and if I recall it was the degree of face angle. That at a specific face angle, A was more accurate. B took them to court saying the test was "rigged" for that face angle. A agreed to drop the ads.

 

Ball Company X was was claiming their ball went further then the ball from Company Y. Well it all boiled down if you selected the right group of golfers meaning swing speed angle of attack, etc., they were right. You just had to pick the right type golfers. Might not be true for all other golfers, but for that group it was right. I believe Y took X to court and X agreed to drop claim.

 

No names mentioned as my mind is foggy on them. While I think I remember who, best not said.

And this is exactly why it wont happen. Too much at stake for sales. Sad part is those specific results, could be very beneficial to some golfers who fit in that group, and now could be playing something thats worse for them and dont even know it. If robot testing happens it wont be from OEMs and it will be someone independent who dont give a rip about OEMs… so places like MGS, are even somewhat compromised. They certainly dont want to p*ss off OEMS.

[SE Gamer]

Testing is one thing. Real world data is another. And real world data would indicate that no one company has the "secret sauce". If one did, they'd be the only one consumers would purchase from.

Simple reality is, from DTC to big names, there really isn't much difference outside of lofts. And if you were to make that equal, it'd be splitting hairs.

 

Frankly, the Maltby MPF data is about the best you can hope for. Gives some tangible data as a starting point. But it'll ultimately require each person to do some testing of their own to find a club/shaft that works for their swing.

 

It's best to just ignore the marketing, hype, and "claims". Each year manufacturers have one goal; to sell equipment. And golfers are historically very easy to separate from their money with the promise of longer, straighter, etc.

 

 

[bekgolf]

I don't see what would be so difficult, maybe I'm missing something. 

 

Company A says: "In lab testing our 9* driver with a xxxx shaft carried a xxx golf ball xxx yards with a 95mph club head velocity, square face upon impact, and xx angle of attack.  This was x yards longer than our old driver with the same setup and climate conditions".  Then give dispersion data.

 

Ok now I see, it would never happen because a companies newest driver isn't always better than the last one.

[Red4282]

2 hours ago, bekgolf said:

I don't see what would be so difficult, maybe I'm missing something. 

 

Company A says: "In lab testing our 9* driver with a xxxx shaft carried a xxx golf ball xxx yards with a 95mph club head velocity, square face upon impact, and xx angle of attack.  This was x yards longer than our old driver with the same setup and climate conditions".  Then give dispersion data.

 

Ok now I see, it would never happen because a companies newest driver isn't always better than the last one.

Well that and why would they want to pigeon hole themselves into just a piece of the market. Its better to make blanket statements that’s literally impossible to prove/disprove and be in a much larger market pool.

[bluedot]

1. Far, far, too many variables to make sense of.  There are countless variations of combinations of club heads, shafts, swing speeds, and golf balls, with new products being released constantly.  Today’s testing, even if it could be done and was comprehensive, is obsolete next week.

 

2. Huge expense, with no way to monetize the data.

 

3. No real need, since the consumer has the ability to find a club fitter with a Trackman setup and test WITH HIS OWN SWING.