Opinion & Analysis
Why Today’s Clubs Are More Affordable Than You Think
If you’ve read my previous ramblings pieces, you’ve probably noticed where I see myself fitting in as a writer on this site. I’ve fantasized about a career in golf, but ultimately I’m just a regular hack with a sincere passion for the game who one day thought to himself, “You know what? I’m going to give this a go. I’m going to follow a passion and see what happens.” Look at me now, riding this whole blogging roller coaster.
With that being said, I now feel like we can all be friends and I can come to you with the following confession: I originally set out to write this piece by pointing my finger at the equipment manufacturers. “Look how much these golf clubs cost!” I thought to myself. “Who do you think you are? People have real concerns like mortgages and college funds!” Then as I sat down to write with literally a blank screen, the engineer in me took over and I thought to myself, “Let’s do this the right way. Let’s collect some data so that we can make an informed, objective decision.” Below is what I found on this journey.
The first place to start was by establishing a benchmark from which to evaluate the prices of today’s golf clubs. That part didn’t take long to figure out. It’s got to be the Ping Eye 2’s. Nearly every golfer from every walk of life (myself included) had a set of Ping Eye 2 irons in the 80’s and 90’s. Heck, tons of people still game a set today. Calling it a successful set of irons would be the understatement of the century. So, I proceeded to call up Ping and make my first official contact in the industry: its internal company historian. Yes, they have one of those.
I called Ping HQ and explained that I was a writer and I was looking for information on the Ping Eye 2’s. The voice on the other end said, “You should probably talk to our company historian. Hang on, I’ll transfer you.” A very polite man picked up the phone. I introduced myself and explained that I was working on a piece for GolfWRX. We exchanged some small talk and I learned this gentleman started working as a photographer for Ping in 1986 and has been the company historian since 2005. I proceeded to ask him if he could tell me what the retail price was for Ping Eye 2’s when they were released. “Hmm,” he said. “No one’s ever really asked me that one before.” That’s when I figured I was on to something.
He rummaged around his office and found some old price books. Some of the highlights I jotted down were that the Ping Eye 2 Plus irons cost $90 per club in 1996. Ping Eye irons were $55 each in September of 1981, and in 1980, a Ping Anser would have set you back $34. He was unable to find a price book from 1982 (the year the Eye 2 was released), but we exchanged some more small talk.
“I have it in my mind that the price of that club was $65 with a steel shaft,” he said. “I feel pretty confident about that.” After some more chit chat, he offered an anecdote: “I remember not long after I started working here, they asked me to come down to the shop floor to take some pictures because they had just gotten to a point where they were making 10,000 irons a day!” This was in 1986, which was probably very close to the peak of popularity for the Eye 2’s. Everything about that conversation told me I’d found my benchmark.
OK, story time is over. WARNING: MATH CONTENT FOLLOWS!
According to the U.S. Census, the median household income in America in 1982 was $20,171. I’ll skip through the boring details (though I do have the calculations if this causes an uproar) and say that household was left with $15,733.38 in their pockets after they paid taxes (assuming they were “married filing jointly”). Now, if said median household contained a golf addict who chose to splurge on a set of Ping Eye 2’s, an eight-club set (standard 3-PW, for example) at $65 each would have cost him or her $520. This would’ve been 3.3 percent of net income at the time. If you’re not a numbers person and all this just whizzes right by your head, just remember 3.3 percent. That’s how much of annual income the average guy (or gal) in America would have had to shell out to get the best golf clubs in the world in 1982.
I feel like I need a quick side note here. Please don’t make this about taxes and/or politics. This website is not the place for that discussion. I included that data only because it’s relevant to the actual topic at hand. Stay focused.
OK, let’s fast forward to today. In 2015 (I’m using the most recent data I could find here), the median household income in the U.S. was $56,516, which came out to $48,961.10 after paying taxes (again, assuming “married filing jointly” status). As previously discussed, the Ping Eye 2 essentially set the benchmark at 3.3 percent of net income 33 years earlier. That same percentage of the median household’s net income in 2015 comes out to $1,618.20.
Kind of surprising, isn’t it? At least that’s higher than what I thought. Ultimately, what this means is that if the “average Joe” in the U.S. spent less than $1,600 on his new set of clubs in 2015 (which I’ll wager the vast majority did), it was a smaller piece of his annual income than what his father presumably spent in 1982. See? Look at me now. I basically just justified your next club purchase for you. You’re welcome. I knew we could be friends.
Most of you already know this, but here’s a quick cross section of some things that are hot today:
- TaylorMade’s new P-790 irons were announced this week. They cost $1,299.99 for an eight piece set with steel shaft.
- The new Mizuno MP-18 range is set to be released to the public next month will cost $150 per club, which comes out to $1,200 for a set.
- Titleist’s 718 iron lineup was just announced this week, and it ranges in price from $999.99 (AP1) to $1299.99 (MB, CB, AP2, AP3) with steel shafts. The company’s premium T-MB irons will cost $250 per club, or $1999.99 per set.
What does that say about the really high priced jobs? Glad you asked!
- Callaway Epic and Epic Pro Irons are priced at $250 each, so an eight-club set comes out to $2,000. This is approximately 4.1 percent of the median household’s annual income in the U.S.
- PXG irons will set you back about $300 each, so an eight-club set would come out to $2,400. This comes out to 4.9 percent of the median household’s annual income in the U.S.
I understand this isn’t completely apples-to-apples because these are 2017 prices evaluated against a 2015 income, but it gives you a pretty good feel for where they stand.
It goes without saying that the market ultimately determines a price for everything… you know, that whole supply and demand thing. Everything from golf clubs to toilet paper is ultimately worth what the customer is willing to pay. Only you can decide if you think it’s worth the premium that Callaway, PXG, Titleist and others are charging. Some companies are definitely aiming at a price point that our market has not previously seen before, but in the end, it’s the wallets of consumers who will decide if they’re off their rockers or not.
As for the vast majority of products on the market today? All things considered, they are incredibly well-priced. The product you’re getting for your money in this day and age absolutely smashes arguably the most ground-breaking set of irons of all time, especially when you factor in the overwhelming amount of custom fitting options available today. It’s a great day to be alive… and playing golf!
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...
BC
Sep 22, 2017 at 8:23 am
Great, fun article.
Something I did to offset the higher prices was purchased custom clubs…but only the longer irons. 5 iron – 9 iron… If purchased at the correct time, the options are more affordable for the “feel” irons like the PW, 50º, SW and 60º… and for the 4 irons, I replaced that with a driving iron… The prices are still insane, but if you can time the purchase of the “feel” irons and get them on sale or at golf shows, you can really cut down the costs. Take a year or two to get the set to where you need it. But, that gives you plenty of time to master each club. Usually takes a good 100-200 solid hits with a club before you really start to call it your own. I agree with many of the comments to not believe the hype. Get the clubs that make you play at your comfort level. Confidence is so much more important that ego. I’m in marketing… I understand what these big name companies try to do each year. 20 MORE YARDS! pbbbbt…….no. More forgiving?… yes.
JR
Sep 21, 2017 at 8:57 am
More to the point is that these new irons that come out every year are obsolete before they’ve even hit the shops. I’ve worked in R&D and I know that truly innovative products do not come along three times a year. All the big manufacturers are doing is tinkering with the tech, throwing some jargon around to explain it and giving the aesthetics a make-over. Foam-injected clubheads, for example – they’re nothing new. I had a set of Taylor Mades in the late 80’s that featured this technology. That’s what makes this tussle with PXG all the more amusing – Taylormade were doing this stuff when Bob Parsons was still dreaming of making his own clubs.
At the end of the day, equipment is only as good as the guy using it but if you can afford this super-expensive kit and that’s what you want to do with your cash then good luck to you. Personally, the best money I’ve ever spent on gear and the only thing I can honestly say has definitely taken shots off my score is my laser range finder. If you haven’t got one you should.
BC
Sep 22, 2017 at 8:25 am
awesome. I agree with the rangefinder! Great call.
Chris
Aug 30, 2017 at 8:15 am
Woods are even “cheaper” than Irons today compared to before. I remember paying more than 700 dollars for a TP driver and around 550 dollars for a Callaway hawk eye Ti 3-wood on SALE.
birdy
Aug 29, 2017 at 1:43 pm
Few things to also consider…
Technology improvements also come with a more efficient manufacturing process and reduced costs. OEM’s can now produce superior equipment at lower costs. Their profits may actually be higher even as the pace of cost of equipment hasn’t kept up with inflation or increased wages. Its not like you look at a flat screen tv and think, it should cost $6k today since wages have increased from the days when a tv used to cost 4k.
Also, there is something call substitution in economics. If costs of golf increase to a point where an alternative activity becomes more more reasonable you may lose golfers. just because clubs are ‘cheaper’ now doesn’t mean that other suitable substitutes for golf have also increased in price.
And what about things that we buy that have outpaced inflation. this factors into our disposable income. for example….cost of kids sports and their equipment, healthcare costs, cost of food, and college tuition.
J Zilla
Aug 28, 2017 at 11:14 pm
I’d be kind of curious to know what percentage of golfers were buying high end clubs like Ping Eye 2’s at the time.
In my completely uninformed opinion it seems like golfers today of all skill levels are buying expensive clubs from the top manufacturers.
I feel like back in the 80s and before, a larger percentage of golfers would be playing cheapo full sets from the local sporting goods store or hand me downs (forget about getting fit back then!) and not typically buying high end sets like the Ping Eye 2.
Nowadays the cheapo set doesn’t really exist. You have to buy a minimum $750 Titleist, TM, etc. (well new at least)
I suppose as things were more hand made and there were less technological jumps or exotic materials being used, there probably wasn’t all that much difference between a premium set and a cheapo set of Spaldings or even clubs that were 20 years old.
Brad
Aug 29, 2017 at 10:46 am
I remember what a golf store owner told me about the new Ping Eye clubs when I asked him the same question in the early 1980s. He said he just sold 4 sets to a Japanese man who ships them back to Japan and sells them at triple the cost. Ping had to ration the clubs internationally while selling to the domestic market in the early days. The world is awash in USD and the Japanese were on top of the world in the 1980s.
Jim
Aug 28, 2017 at 3:46 pm
What dennis said. (Way up top) Don’t ever buy new clubs. Buy good used ones for 1/2 the price or less.
Jiminy
Aug 28, 2017 at 2:12 pm
Who buys these clubs? Idiot gearheads so they can brag how good they feel and how much farther they hit the ball, which is all neurotic lies. And the filthy rich who don’t have to look at the ticket prices on the clubs. Everybody else is saying no or giving up on golf because it’s too expensive and too time consuming. Golf participation is plummeting and the OEMs are just skimming off the last $$$$ from what’s left in the marketplace.
dennis
Aug 28, 2017 at 2:06 pm
I have to laugh every time I hear any type of golf associated person discuss the price of clubs and try to justify it. I worked for a golf shop for 3 years. I became a Callaway VIP and bought a set of Apex clubs for a great price. When I moved I stopped working altogether and after a few years decided it was time for new sticks. I coukd not believe the prices…………average of $900 for a set of 8 steel irons. I sold my Callaways on Craigs List, bought heads, shafts and grip components, and built my own “custom” clubs. I compared them with my old Callaways and the only difference was I hit my custom made clubs a bit longer (loft increase issue I am sure) and straighter. Now, pricing as follows:
Head $15.00
shaft $9.00
grip $6.00
Total cost per club = $30.00 each, or $240.00 for 8.
No way can anyone justify overhead of $660.00.
Ron
Aug 28, 2017 at 4:20 pm
The extra you’re paying for is the ridiculous player contracts
Shanks Happen
Aug 28, 2017 at 12:50 pm
Let’s be honest. They are charging that much for a set of irons or a driver because they can. The guys who demand to get the newest will buy it. The guys who either don’t want to or can’t pay for it now will wait 6-8 months and get it for $50-250 less. All of this is factored in. For all the “new” technology in clubs, the tooling methods and (for the most part) materials remain the same. At this point, the biggest part of the cost of a golf club is marketing and over-padding to make money on the club in 6-8 months when you drop the price or drop a new club on us.
Peter Schmitt
Aug 28, 2017 at 11:24 am
Thanks for the comments, folks. I expected this to gather some of the reactions seen here. I will agree with many of you in that there are many different ways to go about calculating this and tons of factors to consider. However, no one would’ve wanted to read a PhD thesis (myself included). It is interesting food for thought, however, which is why I thought it worth sharing. Cheers!
Tom54
Aug 28, 2017 at 9:22 am
There have always been pricy clubs. I recall paying $750 for some Ping eye 2 beryllium model in the mid-80’s which was a lot. Even in early 90’s I was a huge Nick Faldo fan and had to have a set of Mizuno mp-29’s. Those were $1000. Also the early model of Snake Eye wedges were $200 which is more than a current Vokey wedge which are the best out there. I even recall getting a Taylormade 425 tp driver which retailed for $799. Some models have stayed relatively expensive and some have sort of stayed within reason. It is still exciting to see new clubs coming out Everyone has an idea what they are willing to spend. Look in any bag at your average course and you will truly see it all.
John Krug
Aug 28, 2017 at 8:34 am
Can we have an article on the increasing cost to join a Trump golf club?
Peter Schmitt
Aug 28, 2017 at 11:17 am
I am in no way saying I am the standard by which all others should be measured in this department, but I am a former Marine, and therefore not a complete wimp. Having said that, I’m not touching that one with a 10-foot pole haha!!!!
Steve S
Aug 28, 2017 at 8:18 am
Interesting article. As a fellow ME I appreciate the approach and expected the criticism of that approach. You could have used a much more complicated analysis and probably come up with a similar answer. For me the cost component that is not usually considered the additional cost of doing business today. Advertising and marketing costs are a greater percentage of most businesses today along with human resources costs. These were much lower as a percentage of your business in the 1980’s. I still won’t buy a brand new set of irons because the technology really doesn’t have that big of an effect on my game. 10 year old irons are about the same as current models as far as results with my swing speed. I do see a difference if I go back to a 20 year old set, however.
So if you can have the discipline to buy a new set every 10 years your really only spending the equivalent of 2-3 rounds of golf a year on clubs.
Michael
Aug 28, 2017 at 5:56 pm
I’m a retired professional engineer and I still play a decent game with my green dot, +1″ Ping Zing 2’s, and the only thing I do to them is change the grips. I laugh at my playing buddies struggling with their new clubs and assuring us they have to get used to them.
I know my game and can control my clubs for consistent results. I don’t need an extra phantom 12 yards costing me $2000 and bragging rights with my new play toys. I play and perform; and not showing up with brand new toys to impress and intimidate. Men can revert into childhood with new toys.
Rich Douglas
Aug 27, 2017 at 10:28 pm
Adjusted for inflation, something that cost $520 in 1982 would cost about $1350 today. A set of Ping G irons costs $700 today, and a set of Ping G400s are $900. So, a vastly superior club at a remarkably lower cost. Nice.
Ken Y.
Aug 27, 2017 at 7:38 pm
I don’t think affordability is simply just a % of median income. Although that may be the way manufacturers price their products. You have to consider the costs of necessities. You obviously have your food, water, and shelter, but I doubt mobile phones and internet were common household expenses; which I would argue is a necessity in modern society. And speaking of shelter, how much is the average rent now vs. 80s? Basically, the point I’m trying to make is that people now have greater income, but a smaller discretionary budget. Thus, making golf clubs seem much more expensive even though it may track closely with inflation and median income. The article is a good start, but I think it’s only scratching the surface and too early to say “all things considered.” I don’t know if I’m right, but just my guess.
Mike
Aug 27, 2017 at 12:52 pm
$56,516 median income per household? You must split that number.
Husband’s income = $30,000. Wife’s income = $26,000. Get the picture?
Millennials will not justify buying such expensive sport equipment and then get dinged for another $50+ for one round of golf taking 5 hours (30 minutes playing and 4.5 hours standing around and gossiping and complaining about slow play). Besides, the wife will not permit such a purchase where she and the kids gets nothing from it.
Non-athletic millennials prefer to play video games, watch TV and playing Texas Holdem Poker and sitting on their butts. Get the picture?
Golf is dying from self-inflicted wounds and economic reality.
ooffaa
Aug 28, 2017 at 5:43 pm
you nailed it !!!
AceW7Iron
Aug 27, 2017 at 8:22 am
IMO…The tool itself can only carry so much value to the golfer and over a certain price point for a player to game overly expensive equipment is just to show others you can afford it (much like owning a new Tesla)
Ive been out gunned by partners playing A GGB Warbird driver,irons produced in 1977 and a bullseye putter. My point? Equipment has a set value to each and every player out there and there are not many that see value in a $2000 set of irons when they can play just as well with a $300 set.
One other thing…Everything else has gone up in price since those Ping Zings and some things more than others. Think housing…In 1996 you probably had more expendable income because shelter was more affordable. In todays market you will fork out a greater % of your income on the “necessities” which in reality leaves “less” for golf equipment. Why do you think Dicks,Golf Galaxy and the now defunct Golf Smith are/were struggling to stay afloat?
Rich Douglas
Aug 27, 2017 at 10:30 pm
Actually, the opposite is true. Take food. A few decades ago, the average family spent 25% of its disposable income on food. That is now down to 10%.
ROY
Aug 28, 2017 at 12:44 pm
Dicks,Golf Galaxy and the now defunct Golf Smith – the internet
Mat
Aug 27, 2017 at 6:05 am
Hey Schmittie,
Just a suggestion… stop being so patronising.
Woody
Aug 26, 2017 at 9:48 pm
This article confirms what I’ve been saying for years, golf is an expensive sport. This is from hand crafted wood clubs to what we have now. It always will be, get over it. I don’t have a lot of money, but pinch pennies in a lot of areas in my life to play. thank god I live in America which affords the middle class the ability to play.
birdy
Aug 28, 2017 at 9:32 am
Few things to also consider…
Technology improvements also come with a more efficient manufacturing process and reduced costs. OEM’s can now produce superior equipment at lower costs. Their profits may actually be higher even as the pace of cost of equipment hasn’t kept up with inflation or increased wages. Its not like you look at a flat screen tv and think, it should cost $6k today since wages have increased from the days when a tv used to cost 4k.
Also, there is something call substitution in economics. If costs of golf increase to a point where an alternative activity becomes more more reasonable you may lose golfers. just because clubs are ‘cheaper’ now doesn’t mean that other suitable substitutes for golf have also increased in price.
And what about things that we buy that have outpaced inflation. this factors into our disposable income. for example….cost of kids sports and their equipment, healthcare costs, cost of food, and college tuition.
ADIDAG
Aug 26, 2017 at 8:28 pm
Did you say golf(works) or golf w.r.x.
when you called Ping….
I just gotta know
ADIDAG
Aug 26, 2017 at 8:24 pm
This is some bull schmitt
Peter Schmitt
Aug 26, 2017 at 10:45 pm
Everything I write is a piece of Schmitt 😉
ADIDAG
Aug 27, 2017 at 9:13 am
Well keep em coming!!!!!!!!!
Bert
Aug 26, 2017 at 7:59 pm
Let’s see move manufacturing to China, Taiwan, and assembly in Mexico and you increase your profits. Since it’s so much better to manufacture off shore, perhaps the prices should have actually gone down.
Caroline
Aug 27, 2017 at 12:22 am
Add to that the fact the casting process is much more efficient now, and the specs for clubs are basically in every companies computer..just move the weight a bit, put in different pieces of plastic every year, cut the groves a bit different each year….may as well just give in and come back out with the Eye 2 because irons have NEVER really got any better…if it cost $10 to make an Eye 2 iron the first year they could have that down to $5 dollars now.
Rich Douglas
Aug 27, 2017 at 10:32 pm
Costs do NOT determine prices. Market forces do. Costs determine PROFITS.
Bert
Aug 28, 2017 at 8:29 am
Good Point – as well as greed. Remember the price points for clubs are “fixed” by the manufactures; that’s why retailers cannot compete, they must sell at the price “fixed” by the big boys.
Lim E Cheik
Aug 26, 2017 at 7:43 pm
You can thank the Chinese for the reasonable pricing.
Adam Crawford
Aug 26, 2017 at 5:21 pm
That’s was fun read. Definitely puts a different perspective on the idea that equipment is expensive. Well done, Peter!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Aug 26, 2017 at 9:57 pm
I’m about to buy some 718 AP2’s and was slightly disheartened by the price hike, but I’ll use this article to keep the wifey from getting to upset lol.
Like every article written on here there will be people picking apart every scenario, but I enjoyed it. And for the guys saying moving production over seas, and then complaining price points ect., yes moving club making over seas is cheaper for OEM’s and then us, but if they didn’t i imagine clubs here would be way more expensive. Also it’s all done basically by machines for the most part, so whether they’re cast/forged here or there, the product would be basically the same. Whether you pay someone $20 an hour here, or $5 an hour there the product would basically be the same. OEM’s want to make money, we want to spend the least amount for the best equipment, we can’t have it both ways.
Great article because it was different than the typical articles here. I hope there’s more like it to come.
Shane
Aug 26, 2017 at 4:00 pm
1200-2000 plus for irons is nuts, especially since the ole trusty Eye2s can be had for next to nothing and still perform as good as anything out there. Do not and am not trying to start a debate or argument of any sorts either, too many good deals to be had as long as you know what works for ones self. New is nice but not at today’s prices!!
Rich Douglas
Aug 27, 2017 at 10:39 pm
I used to feel that way, but there have been a few significant improvements since the Eye2.
Perimeter weighting in forged irons is an improvement. So is the use of multiple materials and welding instead of being limited to either casting or forging one metal. Softer metals than 17-4 steel are now used in casting. Perimeter weighting is more radical, increasing MOI. Moving weight ports as the heads change throughout the set improve launch angles. Slots in the top, bottom, and sides to increase COR (for more distance). All this and more for a cheaper (adjusted for inflation) price? Brilliant!
birdy
Aug 28, 2017 at 9:41 am
i lol every time someone says the eye2s perform as well as any of the new stuff on the market.
chris franklin
Aug 26, 2017 at 3:45 pm
An article based on false premises.
The prices quoted for Eye 2’s would have been Ping’s suggested retail price,check back in old golfing magazines and in golf shop adverts ‘ring for quote’ was the norm.
Almost nobody paid suggested retail.
The real nitty-gritty is how ridiculously high prices are asked for clubs that are mass produced in Chinese factories with no craftsmanship and mediocre quality,the EOM get away with it because perceptions of quality have changed enormously over the last few decades and the fact that your clubs look crap after one season is irrelevant because a new model from your favourite maker will soon be on the market.
There are massive profits being made from clubs and associated products like clothing and shoes,polyester shirts are ‘in’ because cotton is now expensive,plastic/nylon shoes are ‘in’ because making proper leather shoes requires an element of skill rather than a cheap sewing machine and a tube of epoxy.
If you want to produce something eye-opening then work out what a current Ping iron head would cost to produce,cost of a shaft and grip and add a bowl of rice and compare with what they want for the finished product.
Mat
Aug 27, 2017 at 6:01 am
Racist much?
Rich Douglas
Aug 27, 2017 at 10:48 pm
A bowl of rice? Really? That’s your take on overseas manufacturing? Your assertions about quality are incredibly baseless as well, but the rice bowl comment is the winner (loser) by far.
As for “massive profits,” the market determines prices which, after deducting costs, determines profits. If people didn’t pay those prices, then golf equipment companies would have to either (a) lower prices to meet demand or (b) go out of business.
Adjusted for inflation, golf clubs are much cheaper than they were in the 1980s. And companies are struggling. Retailers like Golfsmith are disappearing. Nike got out of golf clubs and balls. Later this year, adidas will dump TM. (To a private equity firm, so watch out for TM!) All of this belies your view that fat-cat golf equipment companies are raking it in and abusing the consumer.
I’m sure there is a community college near you that offers Macroeconomics 101. I’m sure you can even buy the textbook used if you’re concerned about publishers gouging you….
Bert
Aug 28, 2017 at 7:10 pm
So why can’t I use my 10% off coupon to purchase Ping, TaylorMade, or Titleist?
Bert
Aug 28, 2017 at 7:52 pm
Try using your 10% off coupon on a set of Pin, TaylorMade or Titleist clubs.
Alfriday
Aug 26, 2017 at 12:59 pm
The relative price of irons may not have changed much since 1984. What has changed?
The Ping Eye 2 clubs were made from 1984 to 1990. They were replaced by the 2+, which were manufactured from 1990 to 1998. If a golfer kept up with the latest and greatest, the player would buy two sets of clubs in 14 years.
Rob L
Aug 26, 2017 at 12:31 pm
My new BFF!
Michael Pasvantis
Aug 26, 2017 at 11:39 am
What’s most interesting when it comes to irons is how few iron shots we actually hit over the course of 18 holes. Ever since I’ve gotten my game golf system I’ve been tracking stats and club performance etc. What I started doing was taking a closer look at what shots I hit throughout the round. In a typical round where I shoot between 80-84 I usually only hit about 10-13 real actual full iron shots (4-Pw) not counting short chips/pitches hit with my PW and many times, depending on course and situations, I will not hit 1 or 2 of my irons at all. Putts were obviously the most coming in at 30-34 per round, 14 shots with my driver, then my irons at 10-13 followed by short chips and pitches and fairway wood/hybrid shots. Seems like a lot of money to drop on a part of your game that statistically doesn’t account for as much as we think.
Jack
Aug 28, 2017 at 3:01 am
I agree with that. People say the driver costs a lot while you don’t hit it often, and I’d say it’s the second most used club you got. Well unless you miss every green and have to chip every time. Then the wedges come in to play a lot. But just because there are so many irons people assume you use it more. But then, you don’t use the irons more than 10-13 times? Are some PAR 3’s really long or some approach shots really long or short?
TigerMom
Aug 26, 2017 at 11:20 am
From an inflationary standpoint, $520 in 1982 would have grown to $1317 in 2017. Seems like not much has changed from that perspective. http://www.in2013dollars.com/1982-dollars-in-2017?amount=520
Mat
Aug 27, 2017 at 6:03 am
That’s finally the number I was looking for. All of this tax business was garbage.
Boo Strongly
Aug 26, 2017 at 10:38 am
This is what happens when someone who doesn’t understand Economic principles tries to write an article about Economics.
Mike
Aug 26, 2017 at 3:51 pm
Totally agree,clueless.
Gdyfbd
Aug 26, 2017 at 9:49 am
Can’t argue with the math, but they seen to have taken a big leap forward in cost recently, drivers also, sure there were expensive drivers 10 years ago but now a base model like an m2 is really expensive
Davewn
Aug 26, 2017 at 11:56 am
The original, “Ruger Titanium” Great Big Bertha retailed for $500 in the mid 90’s and was impossible to keep in stock. Aside from loft, Callaway’s crappy, one size fits some, stock ultralight shaft was the only option. That translates to roughly $800 in today’s money, FWIW.
Melo
Aug 26, 2017 at 9:40 pm
Except that the GBB was an enormous upgrade over any and every driver before it. If you had a driver right now that was clearly head and shoulders above everything else, people would be lining up to buy it at 799.
Shortside
Aug 28, 2017 at 8:59 am
That’s a fact Jack!. Another fact. TM Supersteel Burner irons MSRP in 1999 was $720 for 3-PW w/steel shaft. 2017 M2 is $799.
Mat
Aug 27, 2017 at 6:06 am
They were behind the curve during the Great Recession. Now margins are normal.