Top Commentators

  • Chad (2)
  • Martin (1)
  • Pablo (1)
  • Tim (1)
  • ar (1)
30 comments

CONSUMER REPORTS FOR GOLF! – “New Ultimate Equipment Review System”

Posted March 12, 2010 by GolfSpy T

mygolfspy ultimate review system

NEW! – The Most Complete, Comprehensive and Detailed Golf Gear Reviews PERIOD!

Ever since I started the MGS network of sites my goal has been the same for all of them.  To do my best to make something better then what was already out there or to fill a need the that the industry had not already met for the consumer.  Which brings us to our article today…and it is about product reviews.  Typically before golfers are ready to pull the trigger on a driver or iron set purchase a large majority of them look to the internet to research their future purchase.

This usually includes a trip to Google and searching for a phrase something similar to this “Taylormade R9 Driver Review” or maybe “Titleist Vokey Wedge Review”.  Well both of those you would think would give you the answer you are looking for…right…actually it will result in hundreds of thousands of results for you to sift through.  Or if you are an avid golf gear head internet guru then you already know 4 or 5 sites that have some of the better reviews of golf products out there.  Which is great…but the majority of the time you have to piece the info from all of them together to get the EXACT information YOU are looking for…which can take hours sometimes even days.

(Consumer Reports For Golf) by: MyGolfSpy

So we decided that we needed to try and fix this.  We wanted to have the ULTIMATE GOLF EQUIPMENT REVIEWS on the web for golf equipment…so what does this exactly mean…this means that we feel our new review system will be so thorough that this will be the LAST site you need to search for to get your answers to help you make a better informed decision. Kind of like the Consumer Reports For Golf.

So it is now our stated goal here at MGS to provide the most complete, comprehensive, and detailed golf club reviews you will find anywhere. Of course, it’s also important to us that our readers know exactly what we test and how we test it. We’ll always include the full club specifications in all of our reviews, but we also think it’s important that we’re upfront, open and honest about all of our testing methodologies. Any deviation from these, our standard testing protocols, will be disclosed in the review itself. We may be spies, but we don’t believe in keeping secrets about the equipment we review.

What We Test

The evidence suggests that the majority of golfers still buy their equipment “off the rack”. In many cases, even so-called “custom fitting” options involve little more than guessing at what the most appropriate shaft flex might be.  With that in mind, when MGS requests equipment for testing, we ask the manufacturer to send us the loft and shaft combination (from the list of available “stock” options) that best fits our pool of primary testers.   Because our new SpecCheck system is based on each manufacturer’s stated specifications, we ask for all clubs to be “standard” for length, loft, and lie.

From time to time we might find a compelling reason to request a club with a non-standard configuration, however; we fully expect these instances will be rare, and any change from stock will be fully disclosed. The overwhelming majority of our tests will be conducted on stock equipment; the same stuff you’d buy off the rack at your local sporting goods store.

How We Test

All testing for MyGolfSpy Ultimate Reviews are done using PGA TOUR Simulators, powered by 3Trac, from aboutGolf. Testing takes place at Tark’s Indoor Golf Club; a state-of-the-art golf training, club fitting and repair facility located in Saratoga Springs, NY.

Total Scores and awards are calculated based on feedback and scores in the following areas:

* SpecCheck (25%)

SpecCheck is something brand new at MyGolfSpy and something we felt other internet and magazine golf equipment review sites were missing.  While we certainly don’t think it’s our place to tell you (or the manufacturers), what the proper specifications of a golf club should be (although we will point it out when published specifications fall outside of industry norms), we do think that it’s important that the product each and every manufacturer delivers matches their own stated specifications for a given club or set of clubs.  The goal of SpecCheck is to find out if the clubs you buy are the clubs you get.

The overall SpecCheck score will be calculated based on the results of the following tests:

  • Lie/Loft (irons only) - Each and every club within a set of irons is measured for loft and lie on a STEELCLUB® Plus Angle Machine from Mitchell Golf.. For each iron that measures outside of MyGolfSpy’s acceptable tolerances (.5° for both lie and loft), points are deducted on a sliding scale.
  • LengthAll clubs we receive will be measured for length. We’ve seen far too many off the rack clubs measure ½” or more shorter (or longer) than the manufacturer’s stated specifications. Our acceptable tolerance for club length is a fairly liberal 1/8″. Points will be deducted for any club measured 1/8″ or more longer or shorter than the stated length.
  • Frequency (Flex) – While there is no industry standard for shaft flex, there are widely accepted ranges. MyGolfSpy uses a DigiFlex Frequency Meter from Mitchell golf to measure shaft frequency. For any shaft that falls more than 4 CPM outside of our frequency range for the specified flex (in most cases “stiff”), points will be deducted.

* In Depth Look – For iron sets, we will graph the frequency of each iron. Ideally each iron in a set should be 4 CPM (Cycles Per Minute) from the next.

** Super Detailed Look – Although there is no direct impact on the score, we will also make note of oscillation patterns, especially in those cases where a club (or set) performs particularly well, or particularly poorly.

  • SwingWeight – Each club we test will be placed on a swingweight scale to measure the actual swingweight as compared to the published specifications. MyGolfSpy’s stated tolerance is 1 swing weight +/- the stated specs. For any club for which the actual swing weight falls outside our tolerances, points are deducted on a sliding scale.

A Word About Tolerances

MyGolfSpy understands that in most cases industry-wide and individual manufacturer tolerances are less strict than our own.  With this consideration in mind; for each spec we measure, points are deducted on a sliding scale.  As an example, a club that is 1.5° out of spec is penalized more heavily then one 1° (the industry standard) out of spec.  In this respect, even though our own tolerances are tighter, the standard is applied equally.  Indeed, our tolerances are strict, but believe that for a club to receive a perfect SpecCheck score, it should be perfect.

We think that those manufacturers who deliver their products within stricter tolerances, and as 100% as specified, should be rewarded for their higher standards and commitment to quality.

It is our belief that each and every club we test should receive 100% of the points available through SpecCheck.  Achieving a perfect score is as simple as giving the consumer exactly what you say you are giving them.

Sample SpecCheck Chart

specCheck_sample

SpecCheck Frequency Analysis

sample_cpm

SpecCheck accounts for 25% of the total score.

* Subjective Feedback (25%)

Users will be asked to rate the club(s) in each of the following categories:

Looks - Testers will be asked to rate the aesthetics of the clubs on a scale of 1-5 (with 1 being hideously ugly, and 5 representing an exceptionally beautiful club).

Feel - Users are asked to rate the feel of the club on a scale of 1-5 (poor-excellent).

Sound – (woods and hybrids only)

Although sound and feel are closely related, we feel it’s important to separate them as much as possible. When we can, an audio sample of impact will be included in the review.

To ensure that our results are as balanced as possible, subjective testing is conducted using Bridgestone B330-RX golf balls with ball flight tracking disabled (users have no indication of how long, or how straight their shots are flying).  By using the Bridgestone B330-RX we’re able to provide sound and feel testing consistent with what the golfer would likely experience on the golf course.

Additionally, testers are not informed of the results of our SpecCheck.  We believe by isolating subjective testing from SpecCheck, as well as from our distance and accuracy testing, we can prevent other factors from influencing the outcome of our subjective ratings.

To further separate the subjective from the performance driven, MyGolfSpy uses a two survey method to collect data. Rather than wait until performance testing has been completed, golfers are required to complete an initial subjective analysis survey prior to start of performance testing.

After performance testing has been completed, users are asked to complete a second survey, which in additional to illicing more detailed thoughts and comments for inclusion in our review, asks the golfer to provide an overall value rating; based on performance as it relates to cost.

Subjective Testing accounts for 25% of the total score.

* Performance Data (50%)

While we think our subjective testing and SpecCheck are important, it’s performance that matters most when you decide what to put in your bag. For this reason,

Performance testing accounts for 50% of the overall score.

How We Test Performance

First, we think it’s important to acknowledge that no ball flight analysis system is perfect. Radar and other outdoor testing systems can be influenced by wind, temperature, humidity, and even distance above sea level.  Indoor systems are not without their quirks as well.   While we’d love to provide perfect, irrefutable data, we don’t believe that system exists today.  What we can provide is consistency.

MyGolfSpy has partnered with Tarks Indoor Golf in Saratoga Springs, NY.   All performance data collection (as well as SpecCheck) will take place at Tark’s on their state-of-the-art PGA TOUR 3Trak equipped simulators from aboutGolf.   We believe aboutGolf provides the most advanced, and accurate simulator technology available on the market today – and we’ve talked to hundreds of golfers who share this opinion.

Most importantly, the aboutGolf PGA Simulators at Tark’s Indoor Golf provide us the ability to test year round in a consistent and controlled environment, which is especially beneficial when providing the detailed “apples to apples” comparisons you’ll come to expect from our future reviews.

Simulator Configuration - During our tests, the following simulator options are configured:

  • Windspeed: calm
  • Fairways: dry.

Testing Procedures - Our procedures vary slightly depending on the type of review we’re doing. In each case a small number of golfers representing low, mid, and high handicap golfers is selected from our general pool of testers and asked to participate in more detailed peformance testing.  When possible we try and find golfers who generate a wide range of ball speeds.

For individual club reviews, testers are asked to hit a series of shots with both their current club(s), as well as the club we’re reviewing.  The results are compared side by side.  Scores are based largely on whether the test club(s) meets, under, or outperforms the users current club(s).

For head to head competitions, users are asked to hit a series of shots with each of the clubs being tested.  Data is collected for side by side comparisons and points are awarded accordingly.

To make the tests as fair and reliable as possible (and to account for the occasional simulator mis-reads) a shot will ocassionally be removed from the dataset.  These shots include:

Obvious mis-reads

  • Shots with missing data
  • Shots with negative spin rates (indicative of a mis-read)
  • Well struck balls where the result exceeds the realistic capabilities of our golfer
    • For example: a well struck shot 30 yards longer/shorter than any other

Grossly mis-hit balls

  • Anything hit off the crown (sky balls)
  • Balls struck with the extreme bottom of the clubface
  • Severe slices or hooks that land in the wooded areas of the virtual driving range

Although not included specifically in the ratings, forgiveness at either end of the spectrum will be discussed in the review.

All valid shots will be included on a per-golfer basis to calculate averages for:

  • Carry Distance
  • Total Distance
  • Ball Speed
  • Launch Angle
  • Spin Rate
  • Deviation from the target line

For every review the results will be posted in table form.

Performance Table for MGS SuperComp5 Driver (*example)

sampled_datachart

Finally, each review will include a summary detailing what we liked, didn’t like, as well as our overall thoughts on the club(s), including. For individual club reviews a final score will be awarded. For head to head reviews, we’ll include ranking information from our surveys and Gold, Silver, and Bronze medals will be awarded. Unlike some other publications, advertising dollars will have no impact on our rankings, and we promise that, failing an absolute tie in the overall score, only one gold medal will be awarded.

FREE Updates!

Did you like this article? Want more top-secret golf news?
Award Winning, controversial, creative...the "Holy-Grail of Golf Sites". Subscribe today!


· Subscribe to RSS Feed
· Subscribe for Email Updates


PrintStumble This Post

If you enjoyed this post, then you can choose from the following:


(30) Comments posted in Featured, Product Reviews

RSS feed | Trackback URI

30 comments »

Comment by Curt

March 13th, 2010 at 6:26 am

Sounds great, but there’s no link to the ‘reports’ and no indication of how to access them….

 
Comment by Andy Greenwald

March 13th, 2010 at 7:27 am

This is a wonderful idea. I am sure there are lots of us MGS viewers who are chomping at the bits on this idea.

If you ever get the inclination. I would love to see the same driver head hit with various different shafts by a wide range of players to compare shafts in an apples to apples manner. It’s the most important piece of the Golf Club and yet nobody really has produced a great comparison of whether the $300 shafts are that much better than the $50 shafts.

Comment by mygolfspy

March 13th, 2010 at 12:05 pm

I think that is a great idea for a review we will do Andy. We have one that we are working on even more in depth but I think this would be a great one to do with even just one driver. To show the huge difference there really is from shaft to shaft. Can make a DRAMATIC change in results.

Comment by Steve Martini

July 13th, 2010 at 12:10 am

I would be very interested to see that information, because I do believe shaft is very important, however I firmly believe head design and loft are more critical to trajectory and back spin for the majority of golfers. If a player has a very consistant swing and can repeat his/her path and attack angle then I think certain charecteristics of a shaft can fine tune trajectory, however in most driver fittings I perform the player is too inconsistant to gain much benefit from one of the higher end shafts on the market.
Of course every player is different, but most amateurs tend to hit down on the ball with the driver causing spin no shaft can overcome. They also tend to use drivers which are too long for them. With that said….even though shaft technology has improved leaps and bounds the majority of drivers off the rack are designed for the average golfer who thinks they swing faster than they actually do and is looking for more distance so I would be surprised if your frequency machine finds many drivers that measure to what they say….with the exception of a few. Any player who swings faster than 103 mph definitely needs to test some of the exotic shafts available.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Justin

April 11th, 2010 at 9:55 pm

That, Andy, is an incredible idea!

 
 
Comment by Robby Subscribed to comments via email

March 13th, 2010 at 8:23 am

When can we expect the new review format on the current equipment on the market?

Comment by mygolfspy

March 13th, 2010 at 12:06 pm

There will be some one-offs coming in the next couple weeks…about one per week and the BIG REVIEWS will done once a month.

 
 
Comment by John

March 13th, 2010 at 9:28 am

I’m with Andy, I’d love to see the same head hit with different shafts.

Comment by mygolfspy

March 13th, 2010 at 12:06 pm

We have it marked down for you John ;)

 
 
Comment by Brad Smith Subscribed to comments via email

March 13th, 2010 at 10:18 am

I absolutely LOVE the detailed spec testing that you plan on doing. This has clearly been a large hole in the world of golf reporting. For your spec testing of frequency, will you be measuring and reporting on the clubs gripped or ungripped? And what is the clamp length in the Digiflex from Mitchell.
This will be very valuable info for clubmakers and the technically inclined. I’m also guessing it will show the low level of technical spec quality control from many, if not most OEM’s.

Just one thing,,,,,if you are testing eqpt supplied by the OEM’s, watch out for them blueprinting the clubs prior to sending them to you. Would be best if you could arrange to get loaner or demo sets from retail outlets for the spec measurements you are going to do.

Keep it up!!!!

Comment by GolfSpy T

March 13th, 2010 at 12:19 pm

For testing purposes we use a 5 inch clamp gripped at butt of the shaft (at the point where the grip begins to dome). Obviously this means we’re measuring gripped clubs (which is what the consumer buys). We realize it’s not the absolute best way to measure flex/frequency. That said we do have additional capabilities (deflection boards, etc.), but at this point we want to keep things simple enough for the average golfer to follow without getting bogged down in numbers. The other consideration is that we’re not consumer reports (at least not yet), so disassembling clubs isn’t really a viable option for (again…not yet).

We are aware that the day may come (and it may come quickly) where the OEMs may send us not-really-off-the-rack clubs. When/If that happens we’ll do what we can do adjust our testing without sacrifcing the quality and integrity of the process.

 
 
Comment by doug

March 13th, 2010 at 10:35 am

I worked for a now retired clib maker he regularly at least 3 sets a month from nationwide players he would frequency match swing weight and lie and loft check for the players. Most pro played D3 weight with 7 gram difference between clubs., S400 or Rifle 6.5 4 degrees loftbetween clubs. The closet stock clubs were off by atleast 2 variables, some sets had to have a 7 or 8 iron shaft or head replaced to fit specs. The cost was 45 per club. i hope you are not disappointed by the cut and glue of OEM equipment. It is true that pros playh with different equipment than the rest of us and lefties like me have it even worse. Thanks for the CRfG Conumer Reports for Golfers.

Comment by mygolfspy

March 13th, 2010 at 12:08 pm

You are very welcome Doug…we really hope everyone enjoys these.

 
 
Comment by oldplayer Subscribed to comments via email

March 13th, 2010 at 10:45 am

This sort of comprehensive testing is a great step forward and looks to be in sharp contrast to current consumer review services like Golf Digest for example. The importance of tight specs from a manufactuer can not be underrated and it is great to see this area given scrutiny. MGS is once again leading the way in information for the gear head as well as for the average buyer. This is highly commendable and fantastic to see that MGS is on top of their game.

Comment by mygolfspy

March 13th, 2010 at 12:09 pm

We agree 100% it is much needed and something not being done to the consumers needs and standards at this point. We really appreciate the comments.

 
 
Comment by David Subscribed to comments via email

March 13th, 2010 at 11:28 am

Great idea. It’s an idea whose time has come……. actually should have come over 10 yrs ago. Glad you’re taking the time to complete this arduious task.

Thanks!!

Comment by mygolfspy

March 13th, 2010 at 12:09 pm

You are absolutely right…THE TIME HAS COME! Your are more then welcome David.

 
 
Comment by Curt

March 13th, 2010 at 3:41 pm

What about the same kind of unbiased testing on golf balls? Nobody seems to be doing that…

 
Comment by mainuh

March 13th, 2010 at 4:16 pm

I welcome the multi tester sampling of data however I would like to see the individuals swing speed in addition.
You have to remember that for every person here who claims a 120+ s/s, you have a fair number of us who hit in the 80’s/90’s.
Bomb may be the younger guys forte but some of us have learned how master that 5 wood and chip to empty a wallet or two. ;-)

rob

 
Comment by Torre Subscribed to comments via email

March 13th, 2010 at 4:25 pm

When is the start-up?

 
Comment by Michael Subscribed to comments via email

March 14th, 2010 at 1:32 pm

Thank you MGS for being so proactive. The most important thing you could have said was in the last paragraph of your announcement

“Unlike some other publications, advertising dollars will have no impact on our rankings

Very impressive and I can’t wait. I do wish you would consider at least measuring loft on the Drivers, I understand they can be off by a measurable amount.

Also, probably not on your radar (and maybe not practical, Iam in Indiana) but I would love to be one of your testers.

Kudos to you……..keep up the great innovation.

Comment by mygolfspy

April 12th, 2010 at 8:50 am

Thanks Michael – problem with the SpecCheck is that the majority of OEM’s now know this and will most likely send us clubs that are perfectly spec’ed.

Comment by oldplayer Subscribed to comments via email

April 12th, 2010 at 1:08 pm

Because this is a very likely scenario you may have to act like a bona-fide “golfspy” and buy or obtain a random set of clubs from a retailer.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 

March 15th, 2010 at 7:01 pm

[...] Adams Driver was part of our New! Ultimate Review System … from here on out at MGS you can expect to have the most thorough reviews in golf.  No need [...]

 

May 10th, 2010 at 10:30 am

[...] Srixon Z-TX Driver was part of our New! Ultimate Review System … from here on out at MGS you can expect to have the most thorough reviews in golf. No need [...]

 
Comment by cheymike

May 13th, 2010 at 9:20 am

AWESOME idea MGS. This is what I’ve been wanting to see done at another site I frequent. Give us the data!!

 
Comment by mainuh

May 20th, 2010 at 6:12 am

MGS – This could be a very good resource for the golfing community.
While reading through your post several times I noticed that you have not indicated a player hcp protocol in your testing.
Now while there are certainly those who hit the 300 yard drive, the 200 yard five iron, there are even more who drive it 220 and five it 160.
To make this truly relevant I think you need to isolate 3 defined hcp groups for the info to be of value to all players of our sport.
If Saratoga Springs was not so damn far from my house I would be waving my hand wildly to be recognized as a participant. I do have a friend who lives in the general area who I think would be a great participant in this testing. He’s done some testing with Optimal Flight who I think is in the same area and having played with him would, he would give you good data.
rob

 

August 11th, 2010 at 9:10 am

[...] For full details of MyGolfSpy’s testing methodology, see our testing details page. [...]

 
Comment by Chad Subscribed to comments via email

September 2nd, 2010 at 11:36 am

When doing the performance testing will the clubs that are out of spec be configured to manufacturer specs?

 
Comment by Chad Subscribed to comments via email

September 2nd, 2010 at 11:38 am

Will you be bringing all clubs tested to manufacturer specs if required for performance testing?

 

What do you think? Join the discussion...

Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
Website
Subscribe to comments via email
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)