MyGolfSpy Responds – Be Careful What You Wish For!

Be Careful What You Wish For!

(Written By: GolfSpy T) Filed under be careful what you wish for, as part of our MyGolfSpy Tour Staff Contest, we asked you, the reader, to “tell us why we suck”, or provide us with some clever ideas for improving the site. Much to our surprise, only one of you violated the no robot rule (DISQUALIFIED), and more surprisingly still, not a single one of you (at least as of last Friday) mentioned our complete inability to get through a single post without a misspelling, or without using “they’re” when we mean “their”, or “there” or possibly even “the hair”. I don’t know…we make a lot of mistakes – it’s hard to keep track.

Anyway, thanks for not noticing, thanks for not saying anything, or you’re all a bunch of oblivious idiots. Whichever is the reality.

We did, of course, receive an abundance of suggestions. Some are outstanding, some simply reflect a lack of understanding of what goes on behind the scenes here, and some well…for some there may not be words.

We’ve decided to use this as an opportunity to respond to a few of the more compelling, or at least repetitive responses we received, along with some of our favorites, and of course, some of the ones we couldn’t make sense out of. In the true spirit of MyGolfSpy, we didn’t bother to correct anybody’s grammar or spelling.

Reviews

:: On Wedge Reviews

Couldn’t agree more. We’ve always said that there was a lot more we’d like to do with wedge reviews. And now that we have some interesting options, we’ll see what we can come up with.

:: On Review Frequency

Reviews…at least club reviews have been a little light lately. The biggest reasons for that are the gear up for a head to head fairway test, and the transition from aboutGolf to FlightScope launch monitors. We have to account for differences in data, find ways to incorporate the new and interesting data points that FlightScope gives us, and we have to figure out what the best way to display data collected under the new system is. It has taken more time than we thought (not to mention one of our testers is recovering from an extended hospital stay – we hope to have him back soon). We’ll be back to business as usual shortly.

All of that said, we’ll never be a club review a day type of site. Never. Our average club review involves 5-6 testers, and takes place over several days. While we believe we have the most robust and informative review system going, it doesn’t lend itself well to an assembly line approach.

:: On the Scoring System

We know that golf companies like high scores and readers like low scores. Sure…pick your favorite golf company…they’d love us to give them 100/100. I can say with almost certainty it will never happen. It’s theoretically possible, but it’s highly, I’m talking a gazillion-to-1, Steven Seagal-is-more-likely-to-win-the-best-actor-Oscar, improbable that it will ever happen.

Conversely, a 60-something, which we know some of you would love to see, will likely never happen either. Even 70-somethings are unlikely. Why? The absolute indisputable reality is that there is very little difference between one club and the next. The reason why most clubs score in the mid to high 80s is that the overwhelming majority of clubs perform very similarly – similarly well, I might add. Does this really surprise anyone?

We said from the outset that we wanted to develop a scoring system that accurately represented the true performance of golf clubs – not a system that would give low grades simply for the purpose of giving low grades. We started with the idea of what perfect would look like and worked backwards from there. With reasonable point deductions for differences in distance and accuracy, most clubs end up in the high 80s. The only way to lower scores to the level some of you want to see would be to over penalize slight differences in performance, and thereby artificially draw distinctions that don’t actually exist between clubs. We think doing it that way would be less than valid.

Scores were lower in the early revisions because we weighted subjective scoring more highly. After seeing one too many above average clubs get dinged over the subjective stuff, we decided to focus more heavily on performance, and as I said; where actual performance is concerned, there is little distinction, few standouts, and even fewer failures. Whether or not you think the scoring system should reflect that aside, that is the reality.

:: On the changes we’ve made over the last few years…

This is true…and it’s the bane of GolfSpy X’s very existence. So you’re right. And we’re likely going to tweak things again.  In the original release we made a lot of guesses. Some things we got right, other things needed improving. We continue to learn with each and every review we do (and that’s without regard for changes in launch monitor tools, accessibility to fittings, etc.). Our options are to leave the system alone (and ignore what we continue to learn along the way), or to continually improve as much as our knowledge and tools allow for.

Absolutely there is something to be said for consistency, and in a perfect world we’d have done things 100% perfectly on day 1, and our tools would have been 100% perfect on day 1, but we’re not perfect.

Change is inevitable, and we will continue to embrace it where it makes sense.  Wouldn’t you prefer it that way?

:: Other Thoughts on the Review Process…

We do provide averages with and without the shortest hitter removed. However; for scoring purposes it’s not necessarily the shortest hitter that’s removed. We actually remove the tester who most under-performs compared to his known capabilities. We drop one tester so that a guy having a bad day doesn’t skew the averages. If we reach the point where we have 10-20 testers (my dream), then we’ll keep everything. But with an admittedly limited testing pool, it’s not really fair to let one guy having a bad day drag down the overall numbers.

No promises, but we’re discussing ways to add some better context around things like launch angle and spin rates. Whether spin is good or bad certainly depends on the golfer, but knowing, for example, whether a driver produces significantly more or less spin than another would be beneficial across the board.

High Handicap Golfers

The majority of our testers qualify as mid-handicappers (12-18). We don’t want to alienate anyone, but my god…have you ever watched a 20-something handicap try and hit balls with any consistency? It’s like trying to commit suicide with a stick pin. It’s slow and painful, and ultimately you don’t accomplish anything. We actually tried it (high handicap testing…not the suicide by seamstress thing)…it didn’t work. ZERO usable data (fat shots, shanks, worm burners). 20 minutes in I snapped my 9-iron and tried to stab myself with the jagged shaft. That didn’t work either.

I know the industry promises clubs that anybody can hit, but if that was real, everyone would be a single-digit handicap golfer.

After a tough day at work, some of us will go home and have a beer. After an hour of watching a 24 handicap hit everything but the meaty part of the golf ball, I wanted to go home and drink a gallon of bleach.

We’re not going to abandon you guys…we absolutely will be doing features on Game-Improvement and Super Game-Improvement clubs, and we are going to do a better job testing with the intended audience in mind, but man…getting meaningful data from high-handicap golfers works about as well as I.K Kim’s putter from inside 2 feet.

Video

One word for you: YOUTUBE… Have you bastards never heard it? Seriously? Aren’t there enough bad golf equipment videos out there already?

Actually seriously…video is something we’ve been talking about for a while, but like everything else, we want to do it our way. There’s a certain way golf equipment videos are being done…and there’s nothing wrong with that, but at the same time, we’re not going to contribute to the status quo. We’re on it, but it might take a little while still.

Components and OEMs

:: On the lack of reviews of certain OEMs…

A Cleveland review would be nice, wouldn’t it? You want reviews of Cleveland equipment, take it up with Cleveland. They’ve repeatedly turned us down (which is also why you won’t see any Srixon ball reviews here either). For the most part we can only work with companies who choose to work with us. Cleveland has a very cozy relationship with a couple of other media outlets, and they milk those for all they’re worth. As long as they are able to maintain those relationships, while continuing to use the publication of spy pics as justification for not sending us equipment, then they don’t have to worry about facing any actual scrutiny from our review process.

As for TaylorMade…there is a certain way they like to operate, and honestly, we’ve made some outstanding progress, and have found them more willing to work with us on some things than they have been in the past, but sending us drivers for testing isn’t something they’ve done yet. We’ll keep asking.

:: On Component Reviews…

While I won’t tell you that we’ve reached out to every component brand listed here, we have reached out to several of them. We make the same requests of them as we make of the big OEMs. Our game is not to give component companies an advantage, but we will do what we can to level the playing field for them. Simply put, component companies are always welcome to participate in our review process, but we expect them to do so in exactly the same capacity as a bigger OEM. We wouldn’t alter our review process to make it more convenient for TaylorMade or Callaway, and we won’t do it for KZG or Dynacraft either. Getting equipment in for review is a two-way street. Component companies are no different than larger OEMs insomuch as they don’t always send us what we ask for.

We are currently in the early stages of discussing reviews with a couple of component products I think many of you will be very interested in. Hopefully we’ll be able to move forward with those.

Women (‘s Equipment)

Ladies…listen up. This may be painful for you to hear, but I’m going to give it to you straight. While I’m sure the occasional exception exists, women golfers basically fall into three categories.

The first consists of women who play recreationaly in the most extreme sense of the word. Maybe they play once a week, maybe once a month…maybe even once a year. Many don’t know what’s in their bag. They call their driver “the big one” and their wedge “that lobby thing”. They wear those gloves that let their fingernails through. They weren’t fit for their clubs (their husbands probably bought them), and most importantly, they’ve never heard of  MyGolfSpy.

The second consists of more serious golfers. They compete in leagues, and tournaments. They have a group of friends, all of whom are pretty damn serious about the game. These are women who will demo drivers, irons, and everything else. They’ll work hard to find the club that best fits their game. Of course, when all is said and done, they’ll almost certainly end up playing men’s clubs. A few might play senior flex, but many will end up in regular and occasionally stiff flex. Women’s clubs simply aren’t designed for them. In fact, women’s clubs aren’t really built for a lot of women. There aren’t many lady’s clubs being played by the ladies on the Symetra and LPGA Tour.

The third group is the faux serious golfer. She plays frequently. She actually might think she’s pretty good (she’s not). But really, the game is little more than an opportunity and excuse to accessorize. These lovely women look the part. They’ll wear the short skirts, and the cute little sleeveless tops. They love a good demo day as much as anybody. They’ll spend hours hitting the latest and greatest from every manufacturer. They’ll make sure the see and hit it all. They’ll have serious discussions about performance with the fitter. When it comes time to give serious consideration to what goes in the bag, these women will spend countless hours mulling it over, weighing pros and cons, distance vs. accuracy, etc.  My god…I LOVE these women, but when the decision is finally made, invariably, the faux serious golfer never fails to choose the purple one.

I know…I’m a sexist pig. Whatever, I’m good with that, but there’s some real truth in what I’ve just said…at least where the equipment itself is concerned. Of course, I do think our wonderful female readers are right when they suggest we’re missing the boat by ignoring women’s gear entirely. Whether we focus entirely on apparel and accessories, or open up our coverage to the equipment side of things, we are leaning heavily towards starting up a women’s section (we’ve actually reached out to a prospective writer to fill the void). Nothing is set in stone, but we’ll almost certainly do something to better service the ladies who support MyGolfSpy…and we might even do it soon.

Site Design

Ouch… On the issue of site design, we got pounded harder than a Paris Hilton impersonator at a low light video convention. These are just two of what felt like countless examples from your feedback. Do I come to your house and make fun of your curtains? Damn, you guys are harsh.

When you’ve done things a certain way for a while it becomes comfortable, but it has been 2 years since the update. We’ve grown and evolved, and you guys are right…it’s past time we gave things a face lift. It’s definitely not priority #1, but an upgrade is on the short list.

Ads

Reality check…the ads are important. Without ads there’s no site. Period. Are there a lot of them? Yup. No doubt if we took advertising from big golf companies we’d have fewer ads, (and more restrictions). But I’m a reasonable guy. You want the ads gone? Let’s do it. Here’s a donate button (full-disclosure, it’s a $5,000 donation). For every full donation we receive, we’ll drop and ad. Let’s go guys…you can do this.

[donation-can goal_id=’get-rid-of-the-ads’ style_id=’mgs’ show_progress=false show_description=false show_donations=false show_title=false title=”]

Outings

What the hell kind of spy shows his face at some damn recreational golf outing? Do you not know what the word Spy actually means? We’d have to be the worst spies ever.

Rant aside…this is one of those things we’ve talked about, but quite frankly given the lackluster performance of our donation drive, we just aren’t sure what the real interest level is in doing something like this. There are logistical issues to sort out (like what part of the country to have it in), but obviously others have made these things work, so I suppose it can be done. Let’s see if we have a quorum on this. If enough of you want to do it…we’ll do it.

Miscellaneous

Somebody go vote for this guy.

Great idea…of course, we actually thought of it ourselves at the very beginning of this thing, but unfortunately the guy who currently owns golfspy.com thought of it first. Rat bastard.

This is best idea yet. Especially if we’re talking about those South American bikinis that don’t even have a top part. Screw it…we’re taking applications now. Interested club models should submit a photo to me (golfspyt AT mygolfspy DOT com).

Swing Machine = Robot = Epic Fail. You’re disqualified.

Which is it…did you capture or kill the Yeti? I’m confused.

Here’s a tip…learn to swing right-handed. You’ll love how much more equipment is available to you. Seriously though…apart from limited equipment options, there’s nothing magical about being left handed. What’s true for right-handed golfers, where tips and whatnot are concerned, are true for lefties. The laws that govern a ball’s flight don’t change just because someone happens to be standing on the other side of it.

This must be some weird word substitution application (like when GolfWRX replaces MyGolfSpy with “Removed for Spam”, or when that other site uses “******”).  Woof?

Definitely don’t vote for that guy. While I’m certainly insulted, the Blair O’Neal thing has my attention. It’s similar to how I’ve always thought that the packaging on men’s underwear was all wrong. Instead of some ripped dude with a banana stuffed in his britches, I always felt like more effective packaging would be a topless chick holding the underwear in front of her lady lumps. Just a thought.