We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Why are golf apparel sizes so inconsistent? (And a Rhoback question)

ccjimmy2001

ccjimmy2001

2022 GOAT Cup Co-Champ (Team Tudor)
Albatross 2024 Club
Joined
Sep 8, 2020
Messages
470
Reaction score
1,307
Location
Dirty Jerz
Handicap
Too high
Anyone else ever notice how wildly inconsistent golf apparel sizing is? I bought a Footjoy polo in XL and it’s baggy on me; a Peter Millar XXL was a tad snug. Why can’t they all just use the same damn sizing and make it easier on us consumers?! A perfect segue…

I received a gift card for Rhoback but have never tried on any of their gear. Anyone know how the tops run, in terms of size? I’m usually on the cusp between XL and XXL so fit is my determining factor. (And, more generally… how are their quarter-zips? Comfy? Stretchy?)
 
Rhoback is very comfy. I own multiple q zips, polos, and hoodies. I’m a L in Peter Millar classic fit polos. I wear XL in Rhoback.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Rhoback quality is great, for me I think they run a little on the smaller size compared to other brands.
 
No matter what they are different, golf or not.

Which is strange because you would think a 40" is a 40" and it's not. We all know that it's way different in ladies clothes. I know one particular lady who wears anything from a 6 to a 14 depending on brand and style, imagine trying to figure that out any given day.

Different companies also have different cuts they use. Athletic, slim, full etc.

It's frustrating, but it is what it is. I try everything on if I can and if it's not something I can try on I want to make sure that I have free returns if they don't fit.
 
It's so frustrating, I feel I need to try everything on before I buy something!!

My one Rhoback is a L and is little smaller than my other large shirts.
 
It is just silly. What gets me even more is the sizing variations within the same brand of the exact same style and perhaps a different color. You would think they would strive for better quality control with the % of orders that are now being done online without the ability to trying it before buying.
 
Sox_Fan said:
It is just silly. What gets me even more is the sizing variations within the same brand of the exact same style and perhaps a different color. You would think they would strive for better quality control with the % of orders that are now being done online without the ability to trying it before buying.
Click to expand...
Exactly! I’m glad I’m not taking crazy pills, and not the only one seeing this
 
ccjimmy2001 said:
Anyone else ever notice how wildly inconsistent golf apparel sizing is? I bought a Footjoy polo in XL and it’s baggy on me; a Peter Millar XXL was a tad snug. Why can’t they all just use the same damn sizing and make it easier on us consumers?! A perfect segue…

I received a gift card for Rhoback but have never tried on any of their gear. Anyone know how the tops run, in terms of size? I’m usually on the cusp between XL and XXL so fit is my determining factor. (And, more generally… how are their quarter-zips? Comfy? Stretchy?)
Click to expand...
Rhoback is the same as Puma, Matte, and others. True to size imo, where Millar and FJ (not athletic fit which fixes the issue) run big. I’m a L in Rhoback, but have to wear a M in FJ.
 
Rhoback quarter zips are excellent and very warm
 
It is frustrating. I agree with @Jman on the sizing. You picked the two big outliers as terms of their sizes. FJ have great quality just big sizes. As for Rhoback, I like them a lot. I have several polo's and a qzip from them. They're good quality and on your first order there's usually a 20% off coupon you can find.
 
Saywhat4412 said:
It is frustrating. I agree with @Jman on the sizing. You picked the two big outliers as terms of their sizes. FJ have great quality just big sizes. As for Rhoback, I like them a lot. I have several polo's and a qzip from them. They're good quality and on your first order there's usually a 20% off coupon you can find.
Click to expand...
The 1/4’s are amazeballs.
 
Daluteh said:
No matter what they are different, golf or not.

Which is strange because you would think a 40" is a 40" and it's not. We all know that it's way different in ladies clothes. I know one particular lady who wears anything from a 6 to a 14 depending on brand and style, imagine trying to figure that out any given day.

Different companies also have different cuts they use. Athletic, slim, full etc.

It's frustrating, but it is what it is. I try everything on if I can and if it's not something I can try on I want to make sure that I have free returns if they don't fit.
Click to expand...
The issue is even worse for women. They can take 5 pair of pants. All from the same brand. All the same size. All the same color. And all 5 will fit differently.:rolleyes:

It's frustrating for them because there's apparently NO consistency at all.

Whereas, normally it was a guy can grab his stuff off the rack and know a 32x34 in pants is a 32x34 in pants is 32x34 in pants... across brands, colors, fabrics...

Now though... the same inconsistency that women face in their clothing choices is creeping into men's clothing I'm finding.

But at least we have pockets!:D:D
 
Space Bandito said:
All apparel sizing differs from brand to brand. Better to know your measurements, and use the brands sizing chart.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is true. But I agree with the OP there should be standardization. Many would think that’s the whole point of Small, Medium, Large, etc..
 
That post said:
Yeah, this is true. But I agree with the OP there should be standardization. Many would think that’s the whole point of Small, Medium, Large, etc..
Click to expand...
I learned this not too long ago: S, M, L were created during the American civil war, as so many soldiers needed to be outfitted quickly. There was no time for measuring and making uniforms to order - so they were mass produced in a 3 sizes fit all sort of way. To this day, however, high end clothes are still measured to size.

I'm not bothered by one brand's medium being different than another's, but I don't like when I find inconsistency in the same label. That is pretty rare, and most common in pants/jeans as when the material is stack-cut it tapers off toward the bottom end causing the legs to be longer on the already measured pants. Helps to have a wife who was a retail buyer for a big fashion house in her 20s.
 
Space Bandito said:
I learned this not too long ago: S, M, L were created during the American civil war, as so many soldiers needed to be outfitted quickly. There was no time for measuring and making uniforms to order - so they were mass produced in a 3 sizes fit all sort of way. To this day, however, high end clothes are still measured to size.

I'm not bothered by one brand's medium being different than another's, but I don't like when I find inconsistency in the same label. That is pretty rare, and most common in pants/jeans as when the material is stack-cut it tapers off toward the bottom end causing the legs to be longer on the already measured pants. Helps to have a wife who was a retail buyer for a big fashion house in her 20s.
Click to expand...
That’s really interesting. Thanks for the knowledge. I didn’t know that.
 
Scorpion12 said:
Whereas, normally it was a guy can grab his stuff off the rack and know a 32x34 in pants is a 32x34 in pants is 32x34 in pants... across brands, colors, fabrics...
Click to expand...

Most of the time anyway. I thought I’d found the jackpot once on some pants from Old Navy and ordered 4 pairs. Every one was different. Of course we’re talking Old Navy though.

I do have a custom dress shirt that I absolutely love though. Every man deserves at least one.
 
to try and help, I am 6'2" about 218, I wear Rhoback in size L fit for me (as an old guy) is perfect. I have a number of other brands that I need to size up or down with, and yea, it can be maddening, particularly when I used to wear 2XL and 3XL shirts back in my bigger days.
 
Bosco... said:
I do have a custom dress shirt that I absolutely love though. Every man deserves at least one.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I have a few made to measure suits and shirts, and there's nothing quite like something that's been measured to your exact size.

As far as golf pants go, I have no issue with paying the $8-10 for a hem at the dry cleaners to make sure they fit me how I like.
 
Sometimes even the same brand has different sizes based on products. I have some L Nike 1/4s (and also some M) but wear M in their polos. Puma I wear medium in their 1/4s and they are perfect but their shirts I am tempted to try a small since their polos run big (at least the seven or eight that I've gotten, have)
 
Don’t get me started on golf fashion let alone the sizing. I’m always ordering multiple sizes and then returning.
 
Generally there are two types of fits. Relaxed fit and an athletic fit. I dont mind either but they fit very different. My main concern is a shirt that doesnt come untucked during my round. I find a lot of athletic fits tend to want to. I have found two keys to help… 1) wear some pants shorts with that elastic/rubber stuff on the inside of the waistband. 2) The four way stretch material really seems to make a difference. It will stretch instead of pull when you swing.
 
Feel your pain - I float XL and XXL in tops - blame the broad shoulders... athletic fit is toit on the shoulders perfect in the belly... cannot win! FJs are usually too big and have the falling off look.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top