Individual Testing Questions?

I think you've already been given a lot of sage advise here. Golf clubs are a very tough thing to review because there is so much variation and we all have our personal preferences. From a demo perspective (which I know is not exactly your question), I think all you can do is test anything you can get your hands on, regardless of your preconcieved thoughts. I know that when I went to the Demo Day at the outings last year, I had several clubs that fit my eye but did not perform like I would want, but conversely, there were several items that had no interest in prior to the demo, that after I saw them perform, I was in love with. So that being said, all you can do is go into it open-minded and make a good attempt with the understanding that just because the club/ball doesn't work for your game, that it may be a great item for the guy next to you. Focus on the positives, but give us what didn't work for you as well.

The other thing I will say is that it may take me several rounds or range sessions with a new club before I can figure out what it needs from me (set-up, tempo, etc.). Therefore, I think the best reviews here are the ones that are done over many sessions over alonger range of time.
 
I've always wondered why they don't let people demo clubs like they do racquets in tennis. You pay a fee per racquet, they make you leave a credit card on file, and then you get to actually play them. Also, the money you spend on demos goes towards your racquet purchase. I think that would be great for golf clubs.

I know man. I have also wondered why most driving ranges don't a lot of clubs to try. I wish Dick's would attach driving ranges to their stores, to help give you a real life demo area.
 
Well being left-handed I haven't hit anything before I bought it in the past several years. I was only able to hit 910 and Mashie due to being at demo day. I try to read reviews or see righty clubs in stores and go from there. I do alot more blind buying than I like but that is only option.

Wait....You are LH? :act-up:
 
Personally I just try to focus on whatever it is I'm working on. Naturally you're going to compare whatever it is you're reviewing to something you've already reviewed or currently have but I think that's human nature. As long as you do a review and not a comaprison. Words are key and I try to use whatever comes to mind first because I'm trying to be real and honest with my thoughts, etc. Sometimes its to my detriment but I can live with that because I can always clarify or explain if someone has questions.
 
When I first see an item, I'm going to make an initial judgement whether I want to or not. That's human nature. First impressions are what we do, and are almost completely visually focused (to some degree feel comes into play as well for golf items when we pick up a new club in our hands). But if you want to truly be open to testing a product, you have to be able to push past that in some objective fashion. So as JB stated earlier in this thread, note your initial impressions but don't let it color how you judge that item's performance.

Even before we see an item, many of us will have prejudices based on our experiences with that same manufacturer in the past. These experiences could be based on anything from customer service to the price we payed, and of course to how successful we were using those other items in the past. Which items our favorite tour players use also often effects what I am interested in too (which is silly when you think about it, what does player XYZ's swing and my swing have in common? Practically nothing in most cases). I think we all have some prejudice and preferences, some people just tend to have much stronger prejudices than others.

So, to truly give a club test a fair shake, I think the tester needs to be able to acknowledge any prejudices or preferences they have up front, and then consciously set them aside and test the club (or other item) based solely on how it performs for them. I think part of that test, if possible should be quantifiable performance (launch monitor statistics, how it affects your scorecard) because sometimes our prejudices can be so strong, we will even interpret the performance incorrectly ( a driver we really want to like is magically 20 yards longer than it really is, and we conveniently forget all the bad shots we hit with it).

I'll give one example from my life. Last fall, I got the chance to play a round of golf on our family vacation. With it being only 1 round, I rented a set from the course. They supplied me with a full bag of clubs from a manufacturer that I admittedly had a fairly strong prejudice against. But, knowing that, I decided I would not let it get to me as I didn't want this fact to ruin my round. In the end, I shot a pretty good score, and found out that the irons I was stuck with were actually pretty darn good. The driver, on the other hand, I could not hit for beans, but at least I gave it a fair shot.

Recently, with starting the testing for the Taylormade MC irons, I admittedly had some trepidation beginning this test as I thought my swing isn't good enough for irons like these. But again, I put the intial prejudice aside and just started playing them to the best of my ability to test their performance. Surprisingly, quantifiable statistics to this point show that they do indeed work for my swing in many instances. If I never gave them a chance, I'd never know, and would be only cheating myself out of improving my golfing experience.
 
I always have my favorites, and I think I have brand loyalty, but I recently had the chance to review the B330-RX. I always played a Srixon ball before, and sometimes played the Bridgestone e6. I was honored to be picked for the review, and that helped me get the mindset that I had to give a fair test. I was shocked how much I liked the RX, so in that aspect I found a new ball to play. I am a big Taylormade fan, because of the clubs I have hit, I really liked them. If I had the chance to review something else I would give it a fair trial. I have hit a club from almost every manufacturer, but not of any of the more recent stuff.
 
Back
Top