Opinion & Analysis
Case #5589: The campaign for the longest driver in golf
Mark Twain is often given credit for the assertion, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”
Were he still alive today, Twain would no doubt be intrigued by the current state of advertising and the golf industry in particular.
At its core, marketing is about procuring and sustaining customers. Customers create profit and profit is the lifeblood, which fuels all things pertinent to a private enterprise. And profit is gasoline to the engine, oxygen to the body and drama to Lindsay Lohan – it makes everything go.
So when someone or something interferes with your access to profit, you take it quite seriously. Especially when the challenge comes from a rival competitor and is the result of some rather shady statistics and shaky reasoning; or as I like to call it “lying.”
I know that lying and advertising are on some level synonymous, or more correctly that consumers understand on some level that what an ad presents as implicit truth is not an iron-clad promise to deliver the image presented. Advertising exists in the vast grey area between fiction and reality.
I understand that if I drink a certain beer, I won’t end up in a hot tub of busty blondes in some snow-capped rocky mountain retreat with 50 of my closest friends. I’m equally aware that a rugged 4X4 truck won’t increase my testosterone levels, nor will my wife and I ever end up on a beach, holding hands in two separate bathtubs watching the sunset, regardless of which pills I ingest.
But, when a company, in this case Callaway, claims to have “The Longest Driver in Golf,” then consumer should reasonably expect that the driver is in fact the longest.
[youtube id=”ihfRdZgG9CQ” width=”620″ height=”360″]
TaylorMade has dominated the metal woods portion of the golf industry for the last two decades, in much the same fashion as Titleist has owned golf ball usage and John Daly has had a monopoly on bad outfits. So when Callaway claimed to have “The Longest Driver in Golf,” TaylorMade didn’t take it well. When TaylorMade actually looked at how Callaway reached this conclusion, it called hogwash and filed a complaint with the NAD.
The NAD is a third-party wing of the Better Business Bureau that serves to resolve advertising complaints in a manner more expeditious (and significantly cheaper) than legal methods. According to the NAD, “an advertiser is responsible for all reasonable interpretations of its claims, not simply the messages it intended to convey.”
Enter case #5589: The skinny
TaylorMade objected to Callaway’s assertion of producing “The Longest Driver in Golf,” the #LongestDriverInGolf Twitter promotion and the usage of “The Longest Driver in Golf” phrase in eight out of nine advertising videos on the Callaway website.
Where the story really gets interesting is how exactly Callaway landed at this rather bold and audacious declaration. See, when testing the Razr Fit Xtreme driver, Callaway tested the 2013 RFX against five other models (all 2012 models) that represented 54 percent of the driver market according to “dollar market share” based on data from September 2012.
Problem: How can you claim to be the best of anything when you only test 54 percent of potential competitors? What if that 54 percent is inflated and the real number is more like 40 percent as the NAD reasonably suggested?
Also, both the Titleist 910 D2 and D3 were included in the 54 percent “figure,” but the D3 was left out of the player testing. Curious, right?
Callaway didn’t provide any rationale for this, which speaks volumes. Also, dollar market share doesn’t account for drivers that may have been purchased on sale (it was September after all) and creates a false assumption than the most expensive drivers are also the longest. Finally, TaylorMade objected to the use of extrapolating conclusive statements using data from a single month (although TaylorMade has done this exact tactic when it served its advertising needs…pot…kettle…you get the idea).
I don’t know that you need to test all 180-some-odd drivers that have appeared in the Golf Digest Hot List since 2004, but if you’re going to be the longest driver in golf in 2013, wouldn’t you want to test your product against other 2013 offerings?
Callaway also used a variety of test groups to test the five drivers against the Razr Fit Xtreme. The random sampling (one group had 13 testers, another eight and another 12) was indicative of either a group of fourth graders running a school science experiment or a company that never thought it would have to defend the validity of its claims. It gets better (or worse): 11 players tested only one driver, two players tested two drivers, eight players tested three drivers and only three players tested all five.
Problem: TaylorMade stated that it would have been more valid to treat each individual comparison of the RFX to one of the other models as an individual test. However, only 20 of the 58 would have shown the type of results Callaway desired and that’s hardly enough to be the “the longest driver in golf,” and probably not enough to even be the longest driver in your neighborhood.
Finally, Callaway didn’t actually fit the adjustable driver to ANY of the test participants, and it only used the 440 cubic centimeter head (which is only available in lower lofts and geared toward better players), failed to use any women as test participants and did I mention, all testers were CALLAWAY EMPLOYEES!
Problem: When your burden of proof is to test the “broadest range of player abilities possible,” it’s probably best to include both males and females and a wide-range of handicaps in your test pool. Looking at the handicaps of the Callaway employees/test subjects, 88 percent were 0-to-15 handicap and 77 percent were 0-to-10. When the average male handicap hovers in the mid-teens, this just doesn’t pass the smell test.
After considering all of the information presented, the NAD stated that Callaway didn’t provide sufficient evidence to declare the Razr Fit Xtreme “the longest driver in golf.” File that in the “duh” pile.
Callaway was disappointed and disagreed with the NAD decision (enter shocked face smiley emoticon here), but said that the company respected the decision and discontinued “The Longest Driver in Golf” campaign.
Translation: We’re really bummed we got caught, but hey, at least this product cycle is over and we can all move on.
Yet another layer to this smelly onion is case #5584, where Callaway asked the NAD to look into TaylorMade’s claims that “The average golfer picked up about 17 yards with the ROCKETBALLZ 3-Wood.”
It shouldn’t be lost on the reader that Callaway filed this complaint after receiving the complaint from TaylorMade regarding the RFX driver. It could be just interesting timing, and I could also be Hulk Hogan.
The NAD ultimately found no cause to ask TaylorMade to do anything more — TaylorMade had already deleted the content from an interview-style video with its CEO and added necessary qualifiers such as “better player”… compared to Burner ’11 fairway and 150 mph ball speed … total distance.”
What maybe gets lost in all of these qualifications is just how ridiculous it still is. In order to gain the supposed “17 yards,” you have to compare the 2012 RBZ fairway wood to the 2011 Burner fairway. OK, that’s simple enough. But now, you need to generate 150 mph of ball speed with a 3 wood. The average consumer is just going to gloss over that and make the unlikely assumption that 150 mph ball speed with a 3 wood is imminently doable. Let’s break that qualification down:
Looking at some PGA Tour stats, we see an average driver swing speed of 113 mph and a carry of 269 yards. This gives the player approximately 2.38 yards of carry for every mile per hour of swing speed. If we use a smash factor (ball speed/swing speed) of 1.47, we see that the average tour ball speed, with a driver, is approximately 166 mph.
To achieve a ball speed of 150 mph with a 3 wood (again, assuming a smash factor of 1.47, even though many amateur players will be closer to 1.4 or lower), a golfer would need a swing speed of approximately 102 mph, or just a couple miles per hour slower than an average PGA Tour player.
The average male driver swing speed is 80-to-85 mph, or some 30 mph slower than the average Tour player. If a 3 wood swing speed is a good 7 mph less than that, then the average player is generating approximately 110 mph of ball speed, or 40 mph less than the requisite amount to experience the “promised” 17 additional yards. At 2.38 yds carry/mph of swing speed, the average golfer is about 95 yards short of being able to realize the full Rocketballz potential.
Like Penny Lane quipped in Almost Famous: “It’s funny. The truth just sounds different.”
And generally, the truth just doesn’t sell as well. The individual consumer might be able to handle the truth, but I’m not sure the market could bear this reality. I don’t know about you, but if I only purchased items using objective, fact-based decisions, I’d probably have a lot less stuff. And if everyone did this, companies couldn’t survive. I’m hard pressed to come up with a solid list of people I know who will drop a couple hundred bucks for a couple yards, yet that is often the reality when an individual “upgrades” to the latest and greatest golf gear.
So instead, OEM’s propose the possible, the theoretical, and the consumer believes it to be the actual. The critical consumer knows that most PGA Tour players use drivers that are 45 inches or shorter, yet they continue to chase more distance with 45.5-inch and 46-inch drivers because they cranked one up on a launch monitor at some indoor big box store and couldn’t believe how far they hit it.
While Callaway and TaylorMade might be making the most noise (or crying) right now, these are hardly isolated incidents.
Some notable examples:
- The recent thread on GolfWRX documenting the industry practice of mis-stamping driver heads. As stated by Callaway, driver heads could be off by as much as 3 degrees. So your 8.5-degree driver could actually be closer to 11 degrees.
Click here to read the discussion about mis-stamped lofts in the forums.
Certainly, there are manufacturing tolerances in all industries, but essentially the OEM’s don’t trust the consumer to make an informed decision. Knowing that machismo and low-lofted drivers can go hand in hand, the OEM’s get the win-win. They sell a driver that fuels the male ego, yet probably fits the player a bit better. The player believes he is playing an 8.5-degree driver and no one is the wiser – that is until a golfer goes to get fit and can’t understand why he’s getting the best numbers from an 11.5-degree driver that is 2-degrees closed. If only he knew.
And lest we forget, it’s still lying. Boldface lying. My doctor doesn’t tell me the blood pressure he wants me to have, and at the end of my round, I sign for the score I shot, not the one I wanted to shoot. If OEM’s are willing to purposely stamp the wrong loft on a club, what else are they willing to do to “protect” us from our savage egos?
- TaylorMade’s current “My R1” campaign: Based on the commercials, any reasonable person would conclude that the driver played by the pros is the same club you can by at your local retail outlet. I mean, what else would you fathom when Dustin Johnson hands you “his R1?” What they don’t tell you is that NO ONE on Tour plays the version that is sold to the public.
Every OEM engages in advertising and marketing campaigns. Some are simply more aggressive than others. There are no fender-benders on the Autobahn, and when a company like TaylorMade or Callaway gets called out for crossing the line, there’s going to be some flames. But don’t you think the OEM’s know this? Aren’t some of these crashes calculated and already accounted for? Maybe they’re even expected.
Think about the recent case with Callaway. By the time the NAD investigated and rendered a decision, information was already leaking about Callaway’s next driver. So how much did the faulty campaign really cost Callaway? Pennies. It’s not like Callaway had to buy back a bunch of recalled products or really do much of anything, other than perhaps apologize and then focus on selling the living daylights out of whatever the next product is.
There might be a bit of public scrutiny, but likely nothing of lasting significance. The campaign was faulty from the onset and Callaway knew this, but the company leadership isn’t dumb. They knew exactly how shady their math was, but they also knew the odds were in its favor.
Nike just performed a similar act with the Roger Federer shoes at Wimbledon. The All England Club (ruling body for Wimbledon) requested, after a short 69-minute match that Federer no longer wear his white shoes with orange soles. See, Wimbledon has a strict “white apparel only” policy that is as much a part of the tradition as the Royal Family and grass courts. Nike offered these limited-edition shoes to the public for $140 and they sold out well before Federer ever took the court. So who won that match?
Who is to blame for this cluster? OEM’s? Retailers? Consumers? The Mayan Calendar? Just like there have to be buyers and sellers, everyone gets a little egg on their face with this debacle.
OEM’s
Ultimately, they produce the products and they have the final say in what lofts get stamped on clubs, what clubs are sold to the public and which are “tour only.” They create the ads and invest millions in marketing campaigns. Their money, their message, their profit. They can be as honest or dishonest as they feel necessary.
- Blame rating: Four stars
Retailers
As the outlets for the OEM’s, they absolutely have to move product. In fact, retailers probably have more pressure to move product than anyone. For them, it really is all about volume. How many of you have been the victim of a juiced-up launch monitor at a big box outlet? How often do we see threads detailing the latest barrage of bullarky from the $8-per-hour sales person? In this case, the consumer gets precisely the level of service and expertise they’re paying for.
- Blame rating: Three stars
Consumers
Actually, consumers have the most power in this conversation, yet the least information. No one has to buy anything, and the maxim about fools and money is far too often accurate.
- Blame rating: Two stars
The sooner golfers realize that OEM’s don’t care that much about helping golfers play better golf, the better off they will be. At the end of the day, a company’s bottom line is the bottom line. They don’t care who is buying their product, as long as someone is buying their product. They need profit, which means they need consumers who believe that whatever they are selling will fulfill some need they have.
I’m not suggesting that all OEM’s are evil villainous creatures that will stoop to any level just to make a buck, but if you are buying a ball, a club or a shaft only because of what a retailer or OEM is telling you, you’re playing right into their hands.
It’s like my uncle used to tell me. If you’ve been sitting at the poker table for 10 minutes and you can’t find the fool. Guess what? It’s you.
So, how long have you been sitting at the table?
As the editor-in-chief of this website and an observer of the GolfWRX forums and other online golf equipment discourse for over a decade, I’m pretty well attuned to the grunts and grumbles of a significant portion of the golf equipment purchasing spectrum. And before you accuse me of lording above all in some digital ivory tower, I’d like to offer that I worked at golf courses (public and private) for years prior to picking up my pen, so I’m well-versed in the non-degenerate golf equipment consumers out there. I touched (green)grass (retail)!
Complaints about the ills of and related to the OEMs usually follow some version of: Product cycles are too short for real innovation, tour equipment isn’t the same as retail (which is largely not true, by the way), too much is invested in marketing and not enough in R&D, top staffer X hasn’t even put the new driver in play, so it’s obviously not superior to the previous generation, prices are too high, and on and on.
Without digging into the merits of any of these claims, which I believe are mostly red herrings, I’d like to bring into view of our rangefinder what I believe to be the two primary difficulties golf equipment companies face.
One: As Terry Koehler, back when he was the CEO of Ben Hogan, told me at the time of the Ft Worth irons launch, if you can’t regularly hit the golf ball in a coin-sized area in the middle of the face, there’s not a ton that iron technology can do for you. Now, this is less true now with respect to irons than when he said it, and is less and less true by degrees as the clubs get larger (utilities, fairways, hybrids, drivers), but there remains a great deal of golf equipment truth in that statement. Think about it — which is to say, in TL;DR fashion, get lessons from a qualified instructor who will teach you about the fundamentals of repeatable impact and how the golf swing works, not just offer band-aid fixes. If you can’t repeatably deliver the golf club to the golf ball in something resembling the manner it was designed for, how can you expect to be getting the most out of the club — put another way, the maximum value from your investment?
Similarly, game improvement equipment can only improve your game if you game it. In other words, get fit for the clubs you ought to be playing rather than filling the bag with the ones you wish you could hit or used to be able to hit. Of course, don’t do this if you don’t care about performance and just want to hit a forged blade while playing off an 18 handicap. That’s absolutely fine. There were plenty of members in clubs back in the day playing Hogan Apex or Mizuno MP-32 irons who had no business doing so from a ballstriking standpoint, but they enjoyed their look, feel, and complementary qualities to their Gatsby hats and cashmere sweaters. Do what brings you a measure of joy in this maddening game.
Now, the second issue. This is not a plea for non-conforming equipment; rather, it is a statement of fact. USGA/R&A limits on every facet of golf equipment are detrimental to golf equipment manufacturers. Sure, you know this, but do you think about it as it applies to almost every element of equipment? A 500cc driver would be inherently more forgiving than a 460cc, as one with a COR measurement in excess of 0.83. 50-inch shafts. Box grooves. And on and on.
Would fewer regulations be objectively bad for the game? Would this erode its soul? Fortunately, that’s beside the point of this exercise, which is merely to point out the facts. The fact, in this case, is that equipment restrictions and regulations are the slaughterbench of an abundance of innovation in the golf equipment space. Is this for the best? Well, now I’ve asked the question twice and might as well give a partial response, I guess my answer to that would be, “It depends on what type of golf you’re playing and who you’re playing it with.”
For my part, I don’t mind embarrassing myself with vintage blades and persimmons chasing after the quasi-spiritual elevation of a well-struck shot, but that’s just me. Plenty of folks don’t give a damn if their grooves are conforming. Plenty of folks think the folks in Liberty Corner ought to add a prison to the museum for such offences. And those are just a few of the considerations for the amateur game — which doesn’t get inside the gallery ropes of the pro game…
Different strokes in the game of golf, in my humble opinion.
Anyway, I believe equipment company engineers are genuinely trying to build better equipment year over year. The marketing departments are trying to find ways to make this equipment appeal to the broadest segment of the golf market possible. All of this against (1) the backdrop of — at least for now — firm product cycles. And golfers who, with their ~15 average handicap (men), for the most part, are not striping the golf ball like Tiger in his prime and seem to have less and less time year over year to practice and improve. (2) Regulations that massively restrict what they’re able to do…
That’s the landscape as I see it and the real headwinds for golf equipment companies. No doubt, there’s more I haven’t considered, but I think the previous is a better — and better faith — point of departure when formulating any serious commentary on the golf equipment world than some of the more cynical and conspiratorial takes I hear.
Agree? Disagree? Think I’m worthy of an Adam Hadwin-esque security guard tackle? Let me know in the comments.
@golfoncbs The infamous Adam Hadwin tackle ? #golf #fyp #canada #pgatour #adamhadwin ? Ghibli-style nostalgic waltz – MaSssuguMusic
Episode #16 brings us Cliff McKinney. Cliff is the founder of Old Charlie Golf Club, a new club, and concept, to be built in the Florida panhandle. The model is quite interesting and aims to make great, private golf more affordable. We hope you enjoy the show!
Last week, I came across a reel from BBC Sport on Instagram featuring Scottie Scheffler speaking to the media ahead of The Open at Royal Portrush. In it, he shared that he often wonders what the point is of wanting to win tournaments so badly — especially when he knows, deep down, that it doesn’t lead to a truly fulfilling life.
View this post on Instagram
“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf? Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport,” Scheffler said. “To have that kind of sense of accomplishment, I think, is a pretty cool feeling. To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers. I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world, because what’s the point?”
Ironically — or perhaps perfectly — he went on to win the claret jug.
That question — what’s the point of winning? — cuts straight to the heart of the human journey.
As someone who’s spent over two decades in the trenches of professional golf, and in deep study of the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the game, I see Scottie’s inner conflict as a sign of soul evolution in motion.
I came to golf late. I wasn’t a junior standout or college All-American. At 27, I left a steady corporate job to see if I could be on the PGA Tour starting as a 14-handicap, average-length hitter. Over the years, my journey has been defined less by trophies and more by the relentless effort to navigate the deeply inequitable and gated system of professional golf — an effort that ultimately turned inward and helped me evolve as both a golfer and a person.
One perspective that helped me make sense of this inner dissonance around competition and our culture’s tendency to overvalue winning is the idea of soul evolution.
The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has done extensive research on reincarnation, and Netflix’s Surviving Death (Episode 6) explores the topic, too. Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, the idea that we’re on a long arc of growth — from beginner to sage elder — offers a profound perspective.
If you accept the premise literally, then terms like “young soul” and “old soul” start to hold meaning. However, even if we set the word “soul” aside, it’s easy to see that different levels of life experience produce different worldviews.
Newer souls — or people in earlier stages of their development — may be curious and kind but still lack discernment or depth. There is a naivety, and they don’t yet question as deeply, tending to see things in black and white, partly because certainty feels safer than confronting the unknown.
As we gain more experience, we begin to experiment. We test limits. We chase extreme external goals — sometimes at the expense of health, relationships, or inner peace — still operating from hunger, ambition, and the fragility of the ego.
It’s a necessary stage, but often a turbulent and unfulfilling one.
David Duval fell off the map after reaching World No. 1. Bubba Watson had his own “Is this it?” moment with his caddie, Ted Scott, after winning the Masters.
In Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, reflecting on his 2011 Super Bowl win, Rodgers said:
“Now I’ve accomplished the only thing that I really, really wanted to do in my life. Now what? I was like, ‘Did I aim at the wrong thing? Did I spend too much time thinking about stuff that ultimately doesn’t give you true happiness?’”
Jim Carrey once said, “I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it’s not the answer.”
Eventually, though, something shifts.
We begin to see in shades of gray. Winning, dominating, accumulating—these pursuits lose their shine. The rewards feel more fleeting. Living in a constant state of fight-or-flight makes us feel alive, yes, but not happy and joyful.
Compassion begins to replace ambition. Love, presence, and gratitude become more fulfilling than status, profits, or trophies. We crave balance over burnout. Collaboration over competition. Meaning over metrics.
Interestingly, if we zoom out, we can apply this same model to nations and cultures. Countries, like people, have a collective “soul stage” made up of the individuals within them.
Take the United States, for example. I’d place it as a mid-level soul: highly competitive and deeply driven, but still learning emotional maturity. Still uncomfortable with nuance. Still believing that more is always better. Despite its global wins, the U.S. currently ranks just 23rd in happiness (as of 2025). You might liken it to a gifted teenager—bold, eager, and ambitious, but angsty and still figuring out how to live well and in balance. As much as a parent wants to protect their child, sometimes the child has to make their own mistakes to truly grow.
So when Scottie Scheffler wonders what the point of winning is, I don’t see someone losing strength.
I see someone evolving.
He’s beginning to look beyond the leaderboard. Beyond metrics of success that carry a lower vibration. And yet, in a poetic twist, Scheffler did go on to win The Open. But that only reinforces the point: even at the pinnacle, the question remains. And if more of us in the golf and sports world — and in U.S. culture at large — started asking similar questions, we might discover that the more meaningful trophy isn’t about accumulating or beating others at all costs.
It’s about awakening and evolving to something more than winning could ever promise.
‘Why would anybody want to change that swing?’ – Brandel Chamblee says PGA Tour star was wrong to change his swing
‘The stupidest freaking thing I’ve ever heard’ – Billy Horschel slams Open idea suggested by Padraig Harrington
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Golfer proudly posts photo of ball mark on iron, receives immediate roasting
WITB Time Machine: Matthew Wolff’s winning WITB, 2019 3M Open
Oakmont Country Club bans Wyndham Clark over locker incident; Reveals specific conditions to earn reinstatement
Adam Scott puts Callaway blades in the bag at Wyndham Championship
Report: LIV star fires caddie and coach in shock shake up
Rickie Fowler makes equipment change to ‘something that’s a little easier on the body’
The championship formula: How 3 key stats separate winners from the field
Peter Malnati WITB 2025 (August)
Peter Malnati what’s in the bag accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. More photos from the event here. Driver: Titleist...
Cameron Young’s winning WITB: 2025 Wyndham Championship
Driver: Titleist GT2 (9 degrees, A1 SureFit setting) Buy here. Shaft: Mitsubishi Tensei 1K Pro Orange 70 TX 3-wood: Titleist...
Camilo Villegas WITB 2025 (July)
Camilo Villegas WITB accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. Villegas was undecided on a 3-wood when we shot his bag. ...
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Brandt Snedeker fired a final-round 65 at the 2018 Wyndham Championship to outlast Webb Simpson and C.T. Pan. His 5-under...
Bill
Jul 13, 2013 at 2:12 pm
But, but , but….the Razr Fit Xtreme IS the longest driver I’ve ever hit. Stock shaft and all. Tremendously longer than my previous gamer.
Exaggerating in advertising is a time honored tradition in golf. “You’ll play better” doesn’t sound nearly as exciting as “Longest Driver in Golf” to an ad man. So guess what WE get to read?
Common sense here. If you are a good golfer and are considering a club then get to a demo day and hit it alongside your current gamer and then hit the top of the line competition. I read all the web sites and golf mags too. But I take everything in print with a grain of salt.
Clubs that are universally raved about often don’t work for me. Same with balls. We all like tweaking our game a step at a time with better technology. It’s part of the fun. Not every car is the best and most advanced. Not every new bill being voted into passage is what’s best for its constituents. Why would I think golf evaluations would be any different? But I was looking at Scotty Cameron’s top line putters for $3000-$4500 and they MUST be amazing, right?
R
Jul 12, 2013 at 10:38 pm
Fantastic article.
pine
Jul 3, 2013 at 12:06 pm
Then where do I look to for honest recommendations for buying my next club/s???
RCM1301
Jul 3, 2013 at 1:59 pm
GolfWRX. Read user forums, not what Golf Digest or that guy at Dick’s says.
FatRick
Jul 1, 2013 at 10:19 am
I don’t seem how you can blame the consumer less than the OEMs or retailers. Your job as a consumer is to cut through all the BS, which really is not hard to do in golf since you can actually test out the products before you by them. You don’t do that and end up with something that doesn’t fit you, thats on you and only you.
digsnola
Jul 2, 2013 at 11:23 am
While I agree that consumers should try to educate themselves before buying any product, the golf OEMs have for so long purposely perpetuated these lies and aggressive tactics that most of the golfing public take it as truth. Callaway says they’re the longest most forgiving ever nearly every year. TM states yardage gains each year that would have us driving the ball 450 yards compared to our 2000 driver.
While golf is only a game, it was a game that many on this forum were drawn to because of its difficulty and integrity. Questionable advertising and mis-stamping of loft flies in the face of these precepts. This is why I’m bothered. It’s slimey gamesmanship in a game of honor.
To ask the consumer to either look behind the veil and be cool with it, or don’t look in the first place but still fork over 500 bucks or more, is insulting. The golf industry is eating its young.
J C
Jul 1, 2013 at 1:32 am
I HAVE THE LONGEST DRIVER IN GOLF, IT’S SHAFT IS 48 INCHES.
Double Mocha Man
Jun 30, 2013 at 9:38 pm
I have the longest driver in golf.
I read all the hype, didn’t believe it. Tried it twice over the course of two different demo days. Bought it.
Set out to play all my favorite courses from my usual tees. Gained 15 to 20 yards with no swing changes. It’s the only driver I’ve ever bought that was true to its word.
I’ve had it almost 3 years and constantly compare it to other brands at different demo days. This driver is still in my bag.
naflack
Jun 30, 2013 at 7:21 pm
very informative, not very surprising information.
another validation for my mute button usage during the golf coverage commercials.
Jason
Jun 30, 2013 at 10:28 am
Mellow out bro……it’s just golf. I don’t understand why people get worked into a lather about things like this. What I really don’t get is why people care so much about getting tour issue TaylorMade equipment. So your R1 isn’t the same as Dustin Johnson’s…..who cares? 99.9% of the world wouldn’t benefit from his driver. But good news! You can buy tour issue equipment from some dude on the Internet and guess what, he can fit you for a shaft also!!!! All over the phone!!!! For $1500.00 you can have Dustin Johnson’s driver! You obviously only watch golf commercials on tv, but guess what there are many other industries which bend the truth in their commercials.
Chris b
Jun 30, 2013 at 7:26 am
Hands down one of the most informative golf articles I’ve ever written. Neatly and accurately sums up a lot of the informative threads floating around, every golfer should read this. This article is WHAT WRX is about. Hats off to Mr Nickel
Chris b
Jun 30, 2013 at 7:27 am
Should have said “read” not written
Edward Brumby
Jun 30, 2013 at 6:39 am
While your have written an excellent article that makes many good points, if we are going to be assigning blame isn’t it fair to look also to the major golf magazines. Both test a lot of product, but they disguise the results of their testing with vague phrases rather than raw numbers or a more exact ranking. Plus Golf Digest includes expected demand as a criteria for giving out their “Gold” award. This means a better performing club from a small manufacturer may be ranked below a club from a big manufacturer. Isn’t this just a reward for advertising? So I give the golf magazines three stars in the blame game.
chris
Jul 2, 2013 at 9:52 pm
Right on the button edward
downtoo
Jul 3, 2013 at 12:36 pm
Great article, thanks for taking the time to go into such detail. Basic marketing teaches companies to sell the sizzle not the steak. Shame on us as consumers for falling prey to OEMs and their age old ruse.
Ken
Jul 11, 2013 at 5:08 pm
I have been an on and off golfer for 50 years. I have been a fanatical skier for 35 of those 50 years. Both are sports that use equipment where the pro version is radically different than the public version. The way to hold OEM’s feet to the fire is to develop hard core measurement methods and publishing the results. Defined parameters would not be as pretty but they sure would be a lot more informative.
Example: Take golf shafts and measure the deflection and rebound with actual weights. Measure how much the shaft bends and publish the information. Soft shafts will bend more than stiff shafts. Use the swing robot to measure how far the golf club hits the golf ball. Use different golf balls with a single golf club to measure how far golf balls go. Use tests that can be verified over and over again. Will there be unaccountable differences in some cases? Absolutely becuase there are different quality control issues.
Lets get out of the imagination world and get into the reality world.