TM Twist Face Rumor

1457910
10

Comments

  • Bad9Bad9 Members  4809WRX Points: 647Handicap: 9.2Posts: 4,809 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #182
    I think one could have given Crossfield the benefit of the doubt on objectivity after signing withTitleist. Right up to his rant(and continuing shots) about Taylor Made not sending him clubs. Any benefit of the doubt you could give him flew out the window at that point.
    Posted:
    Ping G410 Plus 10.5°/Alta CB55 r flex
    Ping G400 7w/Alta CB r flex
    Ping G400 4h/Xcaliber r flex
    Ping G400 5h/Xcaliber r flex
    Ping G400 6-U/Xcaliber r flex
    Ping Glide 2.0 ES 58°/Xcaliber r flex
    Mizuno Bettinardi C06
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • anthanth From the Land Down Under Members  2793WRX Points: 212Handicap: 4Posts: 2,793 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #183
    I think some people need to do some research on what it means to have a conflict of interest.



    His actions are seen as questionable when he bags out one OEM for their misleading marketing claims, but remains silent on the other OEM (who he has a financial arrangement with).
    Posted:
    Callaway Rogue 10.5
    Callaway BB Alpha 816 16
    Srixon Z H45 19 Hybrid
    Srixon Z U45 23 Utility
    Srixon Z 765/965 5 - PW
    TaylorMade Milled Grind 50 & 54
    TaylorMade Milled Grind Hi Toe 58
    TaylorMade Spider Tour Red
    TaylorMade TP5
  • pinestreetgolfpinestreetgolf Members  3552WRX Points: 349Handicap: 4Posts: 3,552 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  edited Feb 14, 2018 #184
    anth wrote:
    I think some people need to do some research on what it means to have a conflict of interest.



    His actions are seen as questionable when he bags out one OEM for their misleading marketing claims, but remains silent on the other OEM (who he has a financial arrangement with).




    It’s not a conflict of interest. His sponsorship by titleist is public not private. He isn’t hiding it. If my boss asks me to fabricate a bunch of documents I don’t have a “conflict of interest” because he controls my salary. I have an ethical issue. You can be paid by person X and not follow them blindly. What’s he going to do, recuse himself from equipment reviews?



    The question isn’t one of a conflict. It’s one of ethics. Just because someone pays you doesn’t mean you do everything you can however underhanded to help them. If his titleist sponsorship motivated these TM comments he has acted unethically, he’s not conflicted.



    A conflict of interest would be if he took cash from both TM and Titleist promising each to bash the other. You need two interests to have a conflict. He has one interest (titleist) and an ethical quandary (being fair to non-titleist OEMs). Different people can think different things about his ethics but relax on telling people to research. It’s not a CoI.
    Posted:
    Ping G30 9* driver and 17* hybrid TFC-419 stiff
    Bridgestone j40 dpc 3-LW x100
    Fitted Edel
  • EricWGolfEricWGolf Members  760WRX Points: 444Posts: 760 Golden Tee
    Joined:  #185

    anth wrote:
    I think some people need to do some research on what it means to have a conflict of interest.



    His actions are seen as questionable when he bags out one OEM for their misleading marketing claims, but remains silent on the other OEM (who he has a financial arrangement with).




    It’s not a conflict of interest. His sponsorship by titleist is public not private. He isn’t hiding it. If my boss asks me to fabricate a bunch of documents I don’t have a “conflict of interest” because he controls my salary. I have an ethical issue. You can be paid by person X and not follow them blindly. What’s he going to do, recuse himself from equipment reviews?



    The question isn’t one of a conflict. It’s one of ethics. Just because someone pays you doesn’t mean you do everything you can however underhanded to help them. If his titleist sponsorship motivated these TM comments he has acted unethically, he’s not conflicted.



    A conflict of interest would be if he took cash from both TM and Titleist promising each to bash the other. You need two interests to have a conflict. He has one interest (titleist) and an ethical quandary (being fair to non-titleist OEMs). Different people can think different things about his ethics but relax on telling people to research. It’s not a CoI.




    Your view of Crossfield’s interests is too narrow. And a conflict of interest doesn’t require a monetary interest by both conflicting interests.



    But, in this case, it exists:



    (1) Crossfield is paid by a company to promote their interests.

    (2) Crossfield is paid for his unbiased review of all products (monetized YouTube channel) on behalf of prospective buyers looking for objective reviews.



    Those 2 missions are in conflict.
    Posted:
  • RezzyRezzy Members  18WRX Points: 0Handicap: 11Posts: 18
    Joined:  #186
    In this very short time period, he's already proven that he is biased. He would never have posted about a "rumor" involving Titleist gear. I'm not sure how anyone can deny that. Rick Shiels does great reviews, so watch him instead. He might not have the same production value, but that does not affect the validity of the material.
    Posted:
  • zeke66zeke66 Members  202WRX Points: 76Posts: 202 Fairways
    Joined:  #187
    If there are already a lot of tolerance issues plus or minus a few degrees, different face angles, etc. I’m sure the company could get away with making some small adjustments without having any rules issues. Shoot, Harry Hogge shaved a half inch off Cole’s stock Car and gets away with it. I’ve seen a tour issued head.. seemed like the face sat pretty square. The retail version looks open’ish which is great. I don’t have any other info, but I think the heads can be somewhat different and it probably doesn’t matter.
    Posted:
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • DBillDBill Members  1155WRX Points: 178Posts: 1,155 Platinum Tees
    Joined:  edited Feb 15, 2018 #188
    Crossfield is a cry baby so.....
    Posted:
  • bladehunterbladehunter south carolinaMembers  30917WRX Points: 7,190Handicap: NONEPosts: 30,917 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #189


    I've had multiple tour m1 and m2 heads before from tour department and they 100% had less buldge and roll. In fact I requested a head with as little as possible.




    Serious or sarcasm?
    Posted:
  • vartanickvartanick Members  157WRX Points: 46Handicap: 10Posts: 157 Fairways
    Joined:  #190
    Did he already compare the prov vs the cs? I mean post sponsorship.
    Posted:
  • bladehunterbladehunter south carolinaMembers  30917WRX Points: 7,190Handicap: NONEPosts: 30,917 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  edited Feb 15, 2018 #191
    jll62 wrote:



    I don't totally understand the conforming list. The way I understand the list its fine to play a club that is not on it, so long as you know it will pass (and it so does pass) if inspected. So, its not like they "had" to submit the modified drivers. Not submitting them may be a gamble, but as far as I understand the rules the conforming list a service to pre-check your equipment and anything on it will be presumed valid, but you don't *have* to get something tested to put it in play. You just suffer the consequences if you're wrong.




    This isn't quite accurate. The list of conforming clubs is more accurately referred to as the "List of Conforming Driver Heads" because it only includes drivers. All professional events and most elite level amateur events (e.g., US Amateur, etc) include a Condition of Competition that requires players must only use drivers which are on the List of Conforming Driver Heads. Therefore, a manufacturer MUST submit driver heads to the USGA and R&A for testing, or else they will not appear on the List and therefore cannot be played whenever this specific Condition of Competition is in effect (e.g., any PGA Tour event).



    For all other clubs, and for all drivers put into play when the above Condition of Competition is not in effect, your interpretation above is basically correct. In this situation, it's the player's responsibility to ensure they're playing clubs which are conforming to all equipment rules and guidelines set forth in the Rules.



    The main question people have raised in this thread for which I don't have an answer is what sort of changes to a driver head require retesting. If something as simple as the identifying marks change, that would be a retest. But if the face geometry changes, that's apparently an open question. My personal belief is that it would require a re-test because changing the face geometry could theoretically alter the CT values, but I have no evidence to back up my claim.






    so the driver list is different than all other clubs?



    For irons i know you can play irons not on the list.... I was told by the usga lab that when CoC is in effect you should send your irons not on the list to be tested and they provided me with a certificate to show IF asked to test my irons... Was also told that there was very little chance of being questioned, that the certificate was basically in case someone contested the irons . since theres no onsite testing it would result in DQ if not pretested. I just assumed drivers were the same... As in you could play anything as long as nobody contested it?
    Posted:
  • jll62jll62 MinneapolisClubWRX  2382WRX Points: 631Handicap: +2.2Posts: 2,382 ClubWRX
    Joined:  #192

    jll62 wrote:



    I don't totally understand the conforming list. The way I understand the list its fine to play a club that is not on it, so long as you know it will pass (and it so does pass) if inspected. So, its not like they "had" to submit the modified drivers. Not submitting them may be a gamble, but as far as I understand the rules the conforming list a service to pre-check your equipment and anything on it will be presumed valid, but you don't *have* to get something tested to put it in play. You just suffer the consequences if you're wrong.




    This isn't quite accurate. The list of conforming clubs is more accurately referred to as the "List of Conforming Driver Heads" because it only includes drivers. All professional events and most elite level amateur events (e.g., US Amateur, etc) include a Condition of Competition that requires players must only use drivers which are on the List of Conforming Driver Heads. Therefore, a manufacturer MUST submit driver heads to the USGA and R&A for testing, or else they will not appear on the List and therefore cannot be played whenever this specific Condition of Competition is in effect (e.g., any PGA Tour event).



    For all other clubs, and for all drivers put into play when the above Condition of Competition is not in effect, your interpretation above is basically correct. In this situation, it's the player's responsibility to ensure they're playing clubs which are conforming to all equipment rules and guidelines set forth in the Rules.



    The main question people have raised in this thread for which I don't have an answer is what sort of changes to a driver head require retesting. If something as simple as the identifying marks change, that would be a retest. But if the face geometry changes, that's apparently an open question. My personal belief is that it would require a re-test because changing the face geometry could theoretically alter the CT values, but I have no evidence to back up my claim.






    so the driver list is different than all other clubs?



    For irons i know you can play irons not on the list.... I was told by the usga lab that when CoC is in effect you should send your irons not on the list to be tested and they provided me with a certificate to show IF asked to test my irons... Was also told that there was very little chance of being questioned, that the certificate was basically in case someone contested the irons . since theres no onsite testing it would result in DQ if not pretested. I just assumed drivers were the same... As in you could play anything as long as nobody contested it?




    Yes, the driver list is different. The recommended driver CoC is spelled out in Appx I, Part B, Section 1a: "Any driver the player carries must have a clubhead, identified by model and loft, that is named on the current List of Conforming Driver Heads issued by the USGA."



    For irons and other clubs that fall under the groove and punch mark changes in 2010, that CoC is spelled out in Decision 4-1/1: "The player's clubs must conform to the groove and punch mark specifications in the Rules of Golf that are effective from January 1, 2010."



    Note that only the driver head CoC references a conforming list. If this CoC is in effect, you must play a driver that is on this list (unless the driver head was manufactured prior to 1999, in which case it is exempt from this condition). The other CoC simply says the clubs must conform, meaning it is the responsibility of the player to ensure they are playing conforming clubs.



    Around the time of the groove rule change there used to be a database of irons and wedges that had been tested and deemed conforming or not, but it was never required that your clubs be on that list. Rather, the recommendation was to send them in and have the USGA test them. If they passed, you get a certificate as you mention above.
    Posted:
    TaylorMade M5 8.0, Diamana Kai'li 60S, 44.75"
    TaylorMade M5 Rocket 3, Tensei Blue X, 42.5"
    TaylorMade SIM Max Rescue 19, Fujikura Atmos Blue Tour Spec 8X Hybrid
    TaylorMade P790 3, Nippon Modus 130 stiff
    TaylorMade P750 4-PW, Nippon Modus 130 stiff
    TaylorMade MG2 52, DG S400 Tour Issue
    TaylorMade Hi-Toe 58, DG S400 Tour Issue
    TaylorMade Itsy Bitsy JDay Proto, 34"
    TaylorMade TP5

    jll62's WITB
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • bladehunterbladehunter south carolinaMembers  30917WRX Points: 7,190Handicap: NONEPosts: 30,917 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #193
    jll62 wrote:


    jll62 wrote:



    I don't totally understand the conforming list. The way I understand the list its fine to play a club that is not on it, so long as you know it will pass (and it so does pass) if inspected. So, its not like they "had" to submit the modified drivers. Not submitting them may be a gamble, but as far as I understand the rules the conforming list a service to pre-check your equipment and anything on it will be presumed valid, but you don't *have* to get something tested to put it in play. You just suffer the consequences if you're wrong.




    This isn't quite accurate. The list of conforming clubs is more accurately referred to as the "List of Conforming Driver Heads" because it only includes drivers. All professional events and most elite level amateur events (e.g., US Amateur, etc) include a Condition of Competition that requires players must only use drivers which are on the List of Conforming Driver Heads. Therefore, a manufacturer MUST submit driver heads to the USGA and R&A for testing, or else they will not appear on the List and therefore cannot be played whenever this specific Condition of Competition is in effect (e.g., any PGA Tour event).



    For all other clubs, and for all drivers put into play when the above Condition of Competition is not in effect, your interpretation above is basically correct. In this situation, it's the player's responsibility to ensure they're playing clubs which are conforming to all equipment rules and guidelines set forth in the Rules.



    The main question people have raised in this thread for which I don't have an answer is what sort of changes to a driver head require retesting. If something as simple as the identifying marks change, that would be a retest. But if the face geometry changes, that's apparently an open question. My personal belief is that it would require a re-test because changing the face geometry could theoretically alter the CT values, but I have no evidence to back up my claim.






    so the driver list is different than all other clubs?



    For irons i know you can play irons not on the list.... I was told by the usga lab that when CoC is in effect you should send your irons not on the list to be tested and they provided me with a certificate to show IF asked to test my irons... Was also told that there was very little chance of being questioned, that the certificate was basically in case someone contested the irons . since theres no onsite testing it would result in DQ if not pretested. I just assumed drivers were the same... As in you could play anything as long as nobody contested it?




    Yes, the driver list is different. The recommended driver CoC is spelled out in Appx I, Part B, Section 1a: "Any driver the player carries must have a clubhead, identified by model and loft, that is named on the current List of Conforming Driver Heads issued by the USGA."



    For irons and other clubs that fall under the groove and punch mark changes in 2010, that CoC is spelled out in Decision 4-1/1: "The player's clubs must conform to the groove and punch mark specifications in the Rules of Golf that are effective from January 1, 2010."



    Note that only the driver head CoC references a conforming list. If this CoC is in effect, you must play a driver that is on this list (unless the driver head was manufactured prior to 1999, in which case it is exempt from this condition). The other CoC simply says the clubs must conform, meaning it is the responsibility of the player to ensure they are playing conforming clubs.



    Around the time of the groove rule change there used to be a database of irons and wedges that had been tested and deemed conforming or not, but it was never required that your clubs be on that list. Rather, the recommendation was to send them in and have the USGA test them. If they passed, you get a certificate as you mention above.




    Gotcha. Makes sense. I’d never really thought aboot it on the Driver Side.
    Posted:
  • jll62jll62 MinneapolisClubWRX  2382WRX Points: 631Handicap: +2.2Posts: 2,382 ClubWRX
    Joined:  #194

    anth wrote:
    I think some people need to do some research on what it means to have a conflict of interest.



    His actions are seen as questionable when he bags out one OEM for their misleading marketing claims, but remains silent on the other OEM (who he has a financial arrangement with).




    It’s not a conflict of interest. His sponsorship by titleist is public not private. He isn’t hiding it. If my boss asks me to fabricate a bunch of documents I don’t have a “conflict of interest” because he controls my salary. I have an ethical issue. You can be paid by person X and not follow them blindly. What’s he going to do, recuse himself from equipment reviews?



    The question isn’t one of a conflict. It’s one of ethics. Just because someone pays you doesn’t mean you do everything you can however underhanded to help them. If his titleist sponsorship motivated these TM comments he has acted unethically, he’s not conflicted.



    A conflict of interest would be if he took cash from both TM and Titleist promising each to bash the other. You need two interests to have a conflict. He has one interest (titleist) and an ethical quandary (being fair to non-titleist OEMs). Different people can think different things about his ethics but relax on telling people to research. It’s not a CoI.




    You're absolutely right that it's not a legal conflict of interest, but it is a massive perception and credibility issue that will ultimately hurt his brand. That is what people are really saying.



    Even if Crossfield reviews non-Titleist products with the utmost neutrality and a lack of bias, doing things like tweeting out this "rumor" will be perceived in a completely different light now due to his Titleist sponsorship. His impartiality will immediately be called into question. It doesn't matter if that's right or not; perception is reality. Many people, including myself, attempted to point this out to him weeks ago on Instagram and received nothing more than a flippant response.



    For this specific tweet, based on his past history of dust-ups with TaylorMade, it's very hard to believe there was no malice behind the tweet. Otherwise, why even tweet out some unsubstantiated rumor?
    Posted:
    TaylorMade M5 8.0, Diamana Kai'li 60S, 44.75"
    TaylorMade M5 Rocket 3, Tensei Blue X, 42.5"
    TaylorMade SIM Max Rescue 19, Fujikura Atmos Blue Tour Spec 8X Hybrid
    TaylorMade P790 3, Nippon Modus 130 stiff
    TaylorMade P750 4-PW, Nippon Modus 130 stiff
    TaylorMade MG2 52, DG S400 Tour Issue
    TaylorMade Hi-Toe 58, DG S400 Tour Issue
    TaylorMade Itsy Bitsy JDay Proto, 34"
    TaylorMade TP5

    jll62's WITB
  • pinestreetgolfpinestreetgolf Members  3552WRX Points: 349Handicap: 4Posts: 3,552 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  edited Feb 15, 2018 #195
    EricWGolf wrote:


    Your view of Crossfield’s interests is too narrow. And a conflict of interest doesn’t require a monetary interest by both conflicting interests.



    But, in this case, it exists:



    (1) Crossfield is paid by a company to promote their interests.

    (2) Crossfield is paid for his unbiased review of all products (monetized YouTube channel) on behalf of prospective buyers looking for objective reviews.



    Those 2 missions are in conflict.




    They are not in conflict. He can do both. He can be paid by Titleist, and be objective. In that case, he is ethical. He can also be paid by Titleist and not be objective due to those payments while claiming to be objective. That is unethical. If your boss asked you to fabricate a bunch of stuff, you wouldn't say "hm, he pays me, so this is a conflict of interest...." you'd say "get the **** out of my office".



    Somebody writing someone else a check doesn't mean the person taking the money turns into a lying snake after cashing it. He could take Titleist's cash and continue to provide unbiased reviews, like stock analysts and a ton of other reviewers. Its an ethical issue.



    But those two interests are not in conflict. They can both be done at the same time.


    jll62 wrote:


    You're absolutely right that it's not a legal conflict of interest, but it is a massive perception and credibility issue that will ultimately hurt his brand. That is what people are really saying.



    Even if Crossfield reviews non-Titleist products with the utmost neutrality and a lack of bias, doing things like tweeting out this "rumor" will be perceived in a completely different light now due to his Titleist sponsorship. His impartiality will immediately be called into question. It doesn't matter if that's right or not; perception is reality. Many people, including myself, attempted to point this out to him weeks ago on Instagram and received nothing more than a flippant response.



    For this specific tweet, based on his past history of dust-ups with TaylorMade, it's very hard to believe there was no malice behind the tweet. Otherwise, why even tweet out some unsubstantiated rumor?




    I understand how some could be skeptical of him. However, he is paid to positively promote Titleist products. That doesn't mean he calls all other products garbage.



    Being paid by Titleist only conflicts with unbiased reviews if he is unethical.



    Goldman Sachs hires a research analyst to track a stock. Goldman owns that stock. The research analyst prepares a report bashing the stock. Whether that analyst releases that report or not is an ethical issue, not a conflict of interest issue.



    if his Titleist sponsorship contract was to bash other OEMs and to not objectively review equipment then there would be a conflict.



    The two interests you have listed (Titleist payment, payments for objective reviews) are not in conflict. They are only in conflict if he acts unethically. He can easily do both. Whether or not you think he *is* doing both is another issue, but there is no reason he can't take cash from Titleist and give objective reviews if he is ethical. This is common among reviewers - they all get free stuff from OEMs. The ethical ones don't let it influence them, the unethical ones do let it influence them. But its not an inherent conflict.
    Posted:
    Ping G30 9* driver and 17* hybrid TFC-419 stiff
    Bridgestone j40 dpc 3-LW x100
    Fitted Edel
  • DFS PFDDFS PFD Members  1665WRX Points: 888Handicap: 1.8Posts: 1,665 Platinum Tees
    Joined:  #196

    EricWGolf wrote:


    Your view of Crossfield’s interests is too narrow. And a conflict of interest doesn’t require a monetary interest by both conflicting interests.



    But, in this case, it exists:



    (1) Crossfield is paid by a company to promote their interests.

    (2) Crossfield is paid for his unbiased review of all products (monetized YouTube channel) on behalf of prospective buyers looking for objective reviews.



    Those 2 missions are in conflict.




    They are not in conflict. He can do both. He can be paid by Titleist, and be objective. In that case, he is ethical. He can also be paid by Titleist and not be objective due to those payments while claiming to be objective. That is unethical. If your boss asked you to fabricate a bunch of stuff, you wouldn't say "hm, he pays me, so this is a conflict of interest...." you'd say "get the **** out of my office".



    Somebody writing someone else a check doesn't mean the person taking the money turns into a lying snake after cashing it. He could take Titleist's cash and continue to provide unbiased reviews, like stock analysts and a ton of other reviewers. Its an ethical issue.



    But those two interests are not in conflict. They can both be done at the same time.


    jll62 wrote:


    You're absolutely right that it's not a legal conflict of interest, but it is a massive perception and credibility issue that will ultimately hurt his brand. That is what people are really saying.



    Even if Crossfield reviews non-Titleist products with the utmost neutrality and a lack of bias, doing things like tweeting out this "rumor" will be perceived in a completely different light now due to his Titleist sponsorship. His impartiality will immediately be called into question. It doesn't matter if that's right or not; perception is reality. Many people, including myself, attempted to point this out to him weeks ago on Instagram and received nothing more than a flippant response.



    For this specific tweet, based on his past history of dust-ups with TaylorMade, it's very hard to believe there was no malice behind the tweet. Otherwise, why even tweet out some unsubstantiated rumor?




    I understand how some could be skeptical of him. However, he is paid to positively promote Titleist products. That doesn't mean he calls all other products garbage.



    Being paid by Titleist only conflicts with unbiased reviews if he is unethical.



    Goldman Sachs hires a research analyst to track a stock. Goldman owns that stock. The research analyst prepares a report bashing the stock. Whether that analyst releases that report or not is an ethical issue, not a conflict of interest issue.



    if his Titleist sponsorship contract was to bash other OEMs and to not objectively review equipment then there would be a conflict.



    The two interests you have listed (Titleist payment, payments for objective reviews) are not in conflict. They are only in conflict if he acts unethically. He can easily do both. Whether or not you think he *is* doing both is another issue, but there is no reason he can't take cash from Titleist and give objective reviews if he is ethical. This is common among reviewers - they all get free stuff from OEMs. The ethical ones don't let it influence them, the unethical ones do let it influence them. But its not an inherent conflict.




    He's shown in the past that he's unethical, thank for the HR 101 "Ethics" lesson though.
    Posted:
    SIM 8* Ventus Black 6X
    G410 LST  HZRDUS Smoke Hulk 6.5TX 60g 
    Epic Flash SZ 15* Tensei PW 80TX
    2-PW Ping Blueprint DG X7
    55* SM8 Raw
    61* SM8 Raw
    L.A.B 2.1 

  • pinestreetgolfpinestreetgolf Members  3552WRX Points: 349Handicap: 4Posts: 3,552 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  edited Feb 15, 2018 #197
    DFS PFD wrote:

    EricWGolf wrote:


    Your view of Crossfield’s interests is too narrow. And a conflict of interest doesn’t require a monetary interest by both conflicting interests.



    But, in this case, it exists:



    (1) Crossfield is paid by a company to promote their interests.

    (2) Crossfield is paid for his unbiased review of all products (monetized YouTube channel) on behalf of prospective buyers looking for objective reviews.



    Those 2 missions are in conflict.




    They are not in conflict. He can do both. He can be paid by Titleist, and be objective. In that case, he is ethical. He can also be paid by Titleist and not be objective due to those payments while claiming to be objective. That is unethical. If your boss asked you to fabricate a bunch of stuff, you wouldn't say "hm, he pays me, so this is a conflict of interest...." you'd say "get the **** out of my office".



    Somebody writing someone else a check doesn't mean the person taking the money turns into a lying snake after cashing it. He could take Titleist's cash and continue to provide unbiased reviews, like stock analysts and a ton of other reviewers. Its an ethical issue.



    But those two interests are not in conflict. They can both be done at the same time.


    jll62 wrote:


    You're absolutely right that it's not a legal conflict of interest, but it is a massive perception and credibility issue that will ultimately hurt his brand. That is what people are really saying.



    Even if Crossfield reviews non-Titleist products with the utmost neutrality and a lack of bias, doing things like tweeting out this "rumor" will be perceived in a completely different light now due to his Titleist sponsorship. His impartiality will immediately be called into question. It doesn't matter if that's right or not; perception is reality. Many people, including myself, attempted to point this out to him weeks ago on Instagram and received nothing more than a flippant response.



    For this specific tweet, based on his past history of dust-ups with TaylorMade, it's very hard to believe there was no malice behind the tweet. Otherwise, why even tweet out some unsubstantiated rumor?




    I understand how some could be skeptical of him. However, he is paid to positively promote Titleist products. That doesn't mean he calls all other products garbage.



    Being paid by Titleist only conflicts with unbiased reviews if he is unethical.



    Goldman Sachs hires a research analyst to track a stock. Goldman owns that stock. The research analyst prepares a report bashing the stock. Whether that analyst releases that report or not is an ethical issue, not a conflict of interest issue.



    if his Titleist sponsorship contract was to bash other OEMs and to not objectively review equipment then there would be a conflict.



    The two interests you have listed (Titleist payment, payments for objective reviews) are not in conflict. They are only in conflict if he acts unethically. He can easily do both. Whether or not you think he *is* doing both is another issue, but there is no reason he can't take cash from Titleist and give objective reviews if he is ethical. This is common among reviewers - they all get free stuff from OEMs. The ethical ones don't let it influence them, the unethical ones do let it influence them. But its not an inherent conflict.




    He's shown in the past that he's unethical, thank for the HR 101 "Ethics" lesson though.




    I figured y’all needed one given the other poster’s “go do some research...” nonsense.



    When somebody makes a point and someone else disagrees it’s weird to interject yourself into the discussion as if im talking to you.



    Other Guy (not you): “your dumb. It’s a conflict.”

    Me: “no, it isn’t. Here’s why...”

    You (from out of nowhere): “thanks for the ethics lesson I didn’t need jerkface”
    Posted:
    Ping G30 9* driver and 17* hybrid TFC-419 stiff
    Bridgestone j40 dpc 3-LW x100
    Fitted Edel
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • DFS PFDDFS PFD Members  1665WRX Points: 888Handicap: 1.8Posts: 1,665 Platinum Tees
    Joined:  #198

    DFS PFD wrote:

    EricWGolf wrote:


    Your view of Crossfield’s interests is too narrow. And a conflict of interest doesn’t require a monetary interest by both conflicting interests.



    But, in this case, it exists:



    (1) Crossfield is paid by a company to promote their interests.

    (2) Crossfield is paid for his unbiased review of all products (monetized YouTube channel) on behalf of prospective buyers looking for objective reviews.



    Those 2 missions are in conflict.




    They are not in conflict. He can do both. He can be paid by Titleist, and be objective. In that case, he is ethical. He can also be paid by Titleist and not be objective due to those payments while claiming to be objective. That is unethical. If your boss asked you to fabricate a bunch of stuff, you wouldn't say "hm, he pays me, so this is a conflict of interest...." you'd say "get the **** out of my office".



    Somebody writing someone else a check doesn't mean the person taking the money turns into a lying snake after cashing it. He could take Titleist's cash and continue to provide unbiased reviews, like stock analysts and a ton of other reviewers. Its an ethical issue.



    But those two interests are not in conflict. They can both be done at the same time.


    jll62 wrote:


    You're absolutely right that it's not a legal conflict of interest, but it is a massive perception and credibility issue that will ultimately hurt his brand. That is what people are really saying.



    Even if Crossfield reviews non-Titleist products with the utmost neutrality and a lack of bias, doing things like tweeting out this "rumor" will be perceived in a completely different light now due to his Titleist sponsorship. His impartiality will immediately be called into question. It doesn't matter if that's right or not; perception is reality. Many people, including myself, attempted to point this out to him weeks ago on Instagram and received nothing more than a flippant response.



    For this specific tweet, based on his past history of dust-ups with TaylorMade, it's very hard to believe there was no malice behind the tweet. Otherwise, why even tweet out some unsubstantiated rumor?




    I understand how some could be skeptical of him. However, he is paid to positively promote Titleist products. That doesn't mean he calls all other products garbage.



    Being paid by Titleist only conflicts with unbiased reviews if he is unethical.



    Goldman Sachs hires a research analyst to track a stock. Goldman owns that stock. The research analyst prepares a report bashing the stock. Whether that analyst releases that report or not is an ethical issue, not a conflict of interest issue.



    if his Titleist sponsorship contract was to bash other OEMs and to not objectively review equipment then there would be a conflict.



    The two interests you have listed (Titleist payment, payments for objective reviews) are not in conflict. They are only in conflict if he acts unethically. He can easily do both. Whether or not you think he *is* doing both is another issue, but there is no reason he can't take cash from Titleist and give objective reviews if he is ethical. This is common among reviewers - they all get free stuff from OEMs. The ethical ones don't let it influence them, the unethical ones do let it influence them. But its not an inherent conflict.




    He's shown in the past that he's unethical, thank for the HR 101 "Ethics" lesson though.




    I figured y’all needed one given the other poster’s “go do some research...” nonsense.



    When somebody makes a point and someone else disagrees it’s weird to interject yourself into the discussion as if im talking to you.



    Other Guy (not you): “your dumb. It’s a conflict.”

    Me: “no, it isn’t. Here’s why...”

    You (from out of nowhere): “thanks for the ethics lesson I didn’t need jerkface”



    Yeah, I realize you didn’t need it. That’s why you weren’t quoted.




    Misinterpreted, sorry.
    Posted:
    SIM 8* Ventus Black 6X
    G410 LST  HZRDUS Smoke Hulk 6.5TX 60g 
    Epic Flash SZ 15* Tensei PW 80TX
    2-PW Ping Blueprint DG X7
    55* SM8 Raw
    61* SM8 Raw
    L.A.B 2.1 

  • jll62jll62 MinneapolisClubWRX  2382WRX Points: 631Handicap: +2.2Posts: 2,382 ClubWRX
    Joined:  #199

    EricWGolf wrote:


    Your view of Crossfield’s interests is too narrow. And a conflict of interest doesn’t require a monetary interest by both conflicting interests.



    But, in this case, it exists:



    (1) Crossfield is paid by a company to promote their interests.

    (2) Crossfield is paid for his unbiased review of all products (monetized YouTube channel) on behalf of prospective buyers looking for objective reviews.



    Those 2 missions are in conflict.




    They are not in conflict. He can do both. He can be paid by Titleist, and be objective. In that case, he is ethical. He can also be paid by Titleist and not be objective due to those payments while claiming to be objective. That is unethical. If your boss asked you to fabricate a bunch of stuff, you wouldn't say "hm, he pays me, so this is a conflict of interest...." you'd say "get the **** out of my office".



    Somebody writing someone else a check doesn't mean the person taking the money turns into a lying snake after cashing it. He could take Titleist's cash and continue to provide unbiased reviews, like stock analysts and a ton of other reviewers. Its an ethical issue.



    But those two interests are not in conflict. They can both be done at the same time.


    jll62 wrote:


    You're absolutely right that it's not a legal conflict of interest, but it is a massive perception and credibility issue that will ultimately hurt his brand. That is what people are really saying.



    Even if Crossfield reviews non-Titleist products with the utmost neutrality and a lack of bias, doing things like tweeting out this "rumor" will be perceived in a completely different light now due to his Titleist sponsorship. His impartiality will immediately be called into question. It doesn't matter if that's right or not; perception is reality. Many people, including myself, attempted to point this out to him weeks ago on Instagram and received nothing more than a flippant response.



    For this specific tweet, based on his past history of dust-ups with TaylorMade, it's very hard to believe there was no malice behind the tweet. Otherwise, why even tweet out some unsubstantiated rumor?




    I understand how some could be skeptical of him. However, he is paid to positively promote Titleist products. That doesn't mean he calls all other products garbage.



    Being paid by Titleist only conflicts with unbiased reviews if he is unethical.



    Goldman Sachs hires a research analyst to track a stock. Goldman owns that stock. The research analyst prepares a report bashing the stock. Whether that analyst releases that report or not is an ethical issue, not a conflict of interest issue.



    if his Titleist sponsorship contract was to bash other OEMs and to not objectively review equipment then there would be a conflict.



    The two interests you have listed (Titleist payment, payments for objective reviews) are not in conflict. They are only in conflict if he acts unethically. He can easily do both. Whether or not you think he *is* doing both is another issue, but there is no reason he can't take cash from Titleist and give objective reviews if he is ethical. This is common among reviewers - they all get free stuff from OEMs. The ethical ones don't let it influence them, the unethical ones do let it influence them. But its not an inherent conflict.




    Did you read my post? I never claimed MC had a conflict of interest. What I said is that MC has created a public perception issue around his ability to remain impartial. MC can be wholly ethical in his non-Titleist reviews and there can still be a perception by many that he's slanted towards Titleist. It's this perception issue that is a problem for him, and he's not doing himself any favors when he's tweeting about unsubstantiated rumors about companies, specifically companies with whom he's had disagreements in the past.
    Posted:
    TaylorMade M5 8.0, Diamana Kai'li 60S, 44.75"
    TaylorMade M5 Rocket 3, Tensei Blue X, 42.5"
    TaylorMade SIM Max Rescue 19, Fujikura Atmos Blue Tour Spec 8X Hybrid
    TaylorMade P790 3, Nippon Modus 130 stiff
    TaylorMade P750 4-PW, Nippon Modus 130 stiff
    TaylorMade MG2 52, DG S400 Tour Issue
    TaylorMade Hi-Toe 58, DG S400 Tour Issue
    TaylorMade Itsy Bitsy JDay Proto, 34"
    TaylorMade TP5

    jll62's WITB
  • getitdailygetitdaily Members  3613WRX Points: 621Handicap: +.5Posts: 3,613 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #200
    I'd just like to say that I was, quite possibly, the first person to claim that there will be m3/4 models on tour without twist face.



    When it finally becomes "known" then check post history. I claimed it before the clubs were released.



    Not that it means anything, but I want to be like crossfield and have some limelight...lol
    Posted:
  • QuigleyDUQuigleyDU Members  10334WRX Points: 3,534Handicap: 8Posts: 10,334 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #201
    getitdaily wrote:
    I'd just like to say that I was, quite possibly, the first person to claim that there will be m3/4 models on tour without twist face. When it finally becomes "known" then check post history. I claimed it before the clubs were released. Not that it means anything, but I want to be like crossfield and have some limelight...lol




    where is your proof?? haha.
    Posted:
    Driver: Taylormade SIM 10.5 KBS TD 70TX
    3 iron Cobra King Utility Aldila Rouge 90 X flex
    4-PW Cobra king forged CB KBS $ Taper 130 X flex
    WEDGES; CLEVELAND RTX4: 49 and 64
    WEDGES: Titleist SM7 54 and 60 KBS tour custom matte black shafts.
    PUTTER; Kronos release long neck
    BALL; 2019 ProV1 yellow/Snell MTB-X yellow
  • getitdailygetitdaily Members  3613WRX Points: 621Handicap: +.5Posts: 3,613 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #202
    QuigleyDU wrote:

    getitdaily wrote:
    I'd just like to say that I was, quite possibly, the first person to claim that there will be m3/4 models on tour without twist face. When it finally becomes "known" then check post history. I claimed it before the clubs were released. Not that it means anything, but I want to be like crossfield and have some limelight...lol




    where is your proof?? haha.




    In one of the tour and pre-release m3/4 threads. And it's in hilary's emails!
    Posted:
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • falken19150falken19150 Members  1799WRX Points: 213Handicap: 3Posts: 1,799 Platinum Tees
    Joined:  #203
    Maybe Rory should have the tour truck build him a "twist face" putter.......
    Posted:
  • rymail00rymail00 Members  6705WRX Points: 159Handicap: 6Posts: 6,705 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #204
    I know in Shiels review he did not like the twist face and mentioned he'd like to see a M3/4 without it and maybe there are some on tour without it, or hopefully there will be in the future (or something along that line). So this whole subject has been brought up before in a round about way. I think MC's tweet is the 1st to really make and noise about the idea.
    Posted:
    rymail00 2018 WITB http://www.golfwrx.c...witb-pic-heavy/

    TM M1 430 8.5* Tour Issue w/ Tensei CK Pro White 70s (with high gloss SLDR finish from Continental Golf)
    Titleist 917 F3 15* D+ 80s
    Titleist 915H 21* D+ 90s
    Titleist 915H 24* D+ 90s
    Titleist AP2 718, 5-50* Steelfiber i95s
    Scratch TD DW 54* 58* KBS HiRev
    Odyssey Metal X Milled 330M (current gamer)
    Ping Scottsdale TR B60
    TP Mills Heritage 349g
    Byron Morgan 006 355g
    Byron Morgan Makers Proof #4/5 solid copper
    C&L CL1 368g
    Scotty Cameron Newport Studio Style
  • mahoniemahonie EnglandMembers  2958WRX Points: 574Handicap: 11Posts: 2,958 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #205
    There is a ‘D’ Type M4 on the R&A Approved List. Anyone know what the difference is with the ‘standard’ model?
    Posted:
    Callaway Big Bertha Alpha Fubuki ZT Stiff
    Callaway XR Speed 3W Project X HZRDUS T800 65 Stiff
    Wilson Staff FG Tour M3 21* Hybrid Aldila RIP Stiff
    Cobra King CB/MB Flow 4-6, 7-PW C-Taper Stiff
    Wilson Staff PMP wedges 50/54/58 KBS Hi-Rev 2.0
    Radius Classic 8
  •  SwooshLT SwooshLT Members  7372WRX Points: 422Handicap: 5Posts: 7,372 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #206
    mahonie wrote:


    There is a ‘D’ Type M4 on the R&A Approved List. Anyone know what the difference is with the ‘standard’ model?




    Draw M4.....no weights to move so preset by taylormade....unsure if it sets up closed or just weighted
    Posted:
  • WHC888WHC888 Members  2756WRX Points: 290Handicap: 6.7Posts: 2,756 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #207
    SwooshLT wrote:

    mahonie wrote:


    There is a 'D' Type M4 on the R&A Approved List. Anyone know what the difference is with the 'standard' model?




    Draw M4.....no weights to move so preset by taylormade....unsure if it sets up closed or just weighted


    it's setup closed but using paint scheme so it appear neutral to your eyes.....D-type does not go right no matter how hard I tried during the TM trip
    Posted:
    PING G410 LST 9* w/ Fuji VENTUS
    Taylormade M5 Rocket 3 wood
    Taylormade P790 3 - 4 Irons KBS FLT
    Taylormade P750 5 - 6 Irons KBS C Taper Lite
    Taylormade P730 7 - 9 Irons KBS $ Taper

    NIKE OVEN Engage Wedges 46* Mike Taylor Specials

    ARTISAN GOLF 0318 mallet ws8C8Un.jpg
    ARTISAN GOLF custom grind 49* wedge / KBS $Taper
    ARTISAN GOLF custom grind 53* wedge / KBS $Taper
    ARTISAN GOLF custom grind 58* wedge / KBS $Taper

    Taylormade P7TW on deck







    xG7EixQ.png
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • anthanth From the Land Down Under Members  2793WRX Points: 212Handicap: 4Posts: 2,793 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #208

    DFS PFD wrote:

    EricWGolf wrote:


    Your view of Crossfield’s interests is too narrow. And a conflict of interest doesn’t require a monetary interest by both conflicting interests.



    But, in this case, it exists:



    (1) Crossfield is paid by a company to promote their interests.

    (2) Crossfield is paid for his unbiased review of all products (monetized YouTube channel) on behalf of prospective buyers looking for objective reviews.



    Those 2 missions are in conflict.




    They are not in conflict. He can do both. He can be paid by Titleist, and be objective. In that case, he is ethical. He can also be paid by Titleist and not be objective due to those payments while claiming to be objective. That is unethical. If your boss asked you to fabricate a bunch of stuff, you wouldn't say "hm, he pays me, so this is a conflict of interest...." you'd say "get the **** out of my office".



    Somebody writing someone else a check doesn't mean the person taking the money turns into a lying snake after cashing it. He could take Titleist's cash and continue to provide unbiased reviews, like stock analysts and a ton of other reviewers. Its an ethical issue.



    But those two interests are not in conflict. They can both be done at the same time.


    jll62 wrote:


    You're absolutely right that it's not a legal conflict of interest, but it is a massive perception and credibility issue that will ultimately hurt his brand. That is what people are really saying.



    Even if Crossfield reviews non-Titleist products with the utmost neutrality and a lack of bias, doing things like tweeting out this "rumor" will be perceived in a completely different light now due to his Titleist sponsorship. His impartiality will immediately be called into question. It doesn't matter if that's right or not; perception is reality. Many people, including myself, attempted to point this out to him weeks ago on Instagram and received nothing more than a flippant response.



    For this specific tweet, based on his past history of dust-ups with TaylorMade, it's very hard to believe there was no malice behind the tweet. Otherwise, why even tweet out some unsubstantiated rumor?




    I understand how some could be skeptical of him. However, he is paid to positively promote Titleist products. That doesn't mean he calls all other products garbage.



    Being paid by Titleist only conflicts with unbiased reviews if he is unethical.



    Goldman Sachs hires a research analyst to track a stock. Goldman owns that stock. The research analyst prepares a report bashing the stock. Whether that analyst releases that report or not is an ethical issue, not a conflict of interest issue.



    if his Titleist sponsorship contract was to bash other OEMs and to not objectively review equipment then there would be a conflict.



    The two interests you have listed (Titleist payment, payments for objective reviews) are not in conflict. They are only in conflict if he acts unethically. He can easily do both. Whether or not you think he *is* doing both is another issue, but there is no reason he can't take cash from Titleist and give objective reviews if he is ethical. This is common among reviewers - they all get free stuff from OEMs. The ethical ones don't let it influence them, the unethical ones do let it influence them. But its not an inherent conflict.




    He's shown in the past that he's unethical, thank for the HR 101 "Ethics" lesson though.




    I figured y’all needed one given the other poster’s “go do some research...” nonsense.



    When somebody makes a point and someone else disagrees it’s weird to interject yourself into the discussion as if im talking to you.



    Other Guy (not you): “your dumb. It’s a conflict.”

    Me: “no, it isn’t. Here’s why...”

    You (from out of nowhere): “thanks for the ethics lesson I didn’t need jerkface”


    Firstly, I didn’t call anyone dumb. They’re your words.



    Secondly, read the following passage (granted its from Wiki but still valid) and apply this to MC’s current situation with Titleist:



    A conflict of interest exists if the circumstances are reasonably believed (on the basis of past experience and objective evidence) to create a risk that a decision may be unduly influenced by other, secondary interests, and not on whether a particular individual is actually influenced by a secondary interest.



    A widely used definition is: "A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgement or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest." Primary interest refers to the principal goals of the profession or activity, such as the protection of clients, the health of patients, the integrity of research, and the duties of public officer. Secondary interest includes personal benefit and is not limited to only financial gain but also such motives as the desire for professional advancement, or the wish to do favours for family and friends.
    Posted:
    Callaway Rogue 10.5
    Callaway BB Alpha 816 16
    Srixon Z H45 19 Hybrid
    Srixon Z U45 23 Utility
    Srixon Z 765/965 5 - PW
    TaylorMade Milled Grind 50 & 54
    TaylorMade Milled Grind Hi Toe 58
    TaylorMade Spider Tour Red
    TaylorMade TP5
  • mahoniemahonie EnglandMembers  2958WRX Points: 574Handicap: 11Posts: 2,958 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #209
    WHC888 wrote:

    SwooshLT wrote:

    mahonie wrote:


    There is a 'D' Type M4 on the R&A Approved List. Anyone know what the difference is with the 'standard' model?




    Draw M4.....no weights to move so preset by taylormade....unsure if it sets up closed or just weighted


    it's setup closed but using paint scheme so it appear neutral to your eyes.....D-type does not go right no matter how hard I tried during the TM trip




    Thanks for clearing that up. I hadn’t seen any references to it anywhere.
    Posted:
    Callaway Big Bertha Alpha Fubuki ZT Stiff
    Callaway XR Speed 3W Project X HZRDUS T800 65 Stiff
    Wilson Staff FG Tour M3 21* Hybrid Aldila RIP Stiff
    Cobra King CB/MB Flow 4-6, 7-PW C-Taper Stiff
    Wilson Staff PMP wedges 50/54/58 KBS Hi-Rev 2.0
    Radius Classic 8
  • Nixhex524Nixhex524 ClubWRX  4758WRX Points: 519Handicap: 4Posts: 4,758 ClubWRX
    Joined:  #210
    jll62 wrote:


    anth wrote:
    I think some people need to do some research on what it means to have a conflict of interest.



    His actions are seen as questionable when he bags out one OEM for their misleading marketing claims, but remains silent on the other OEM (who he has a financial arrangement with).




    It’s not a conflict of interest. His sponsorship by titleist is public not private. He isn’t hiding it. If my boss asks me to fabricate a bunch of documents I don’t have a “conflict of interest” because he controls my salary. I have an ethical issue. You can be paid by person X and not follow them blindly. What’s he going to do, recuse himself from equipment reviews?



    The question isn’t one of a conflict. It’s one of ethics. Just because someone pays you doesn’t mean you do everything you can however underhanded to help them. If his titleist sponsorship motivated these TM comments he has acted unethically, he’s not conflicted.



    A conflict of interest would be if he took cash from both TM and Titleist promising each to bash the other. You need two interests to have a conflict. He has one interest (titleist) and an ethical quandary (being fair to non-titleist OEMs). Different people can think different things about his ethics but relax on telling people to research. It’s not a CoI.




    You're absolutely right that it's not a legal conflict of interest, but it is a massive perception and credibility issue that will ultimately hurt his brand. That is what people are really saying.



    Even if Crossfield reviews non-Titleist products with the utmost neutrality and a lack of bias, doing things like tweeting out this "rumor" will be perceived in a completely different light now due to his Titleist sponsorship. His impartiality will immediately be called into question. It doesn't matter if that's right or not; perception is reality. Many people, including myself, attempted to point this out to him weeks ago on Instagram and received nothing more than a flippant response.



    For this specific tweet, based on his past history of dust-ups with TaylorMade, it's very hard to believe there was no malice behind the tweet. Otherwise, why even tweet out some unsubstantiated rumor?





    I'm not going to argue other peoples perceptions, but it has to be said that not everyone perceives things the same way, while you may think he will do damage to his brand, I personally do not. Plenty of people in here hated him before this sponsorship, and I'm sure it didn't help after. It seems like people trying to constantly convince others here how what he is doing is wrong, and it's not that black and white. Of course people are free to believe it but it doesn't make it true. Titleist knew who he was and what he did before signing him, and did so without expecting him to change the way he does things and they both deserve that benefit of the doubt since that is what they are claiming. If people choose not to, well, their choice.



    As, far as the "rumor" goes.... while it may seem like a shot at TM, how do we know this claim is completely false? There have been conflicting answers in this thread stating other possibilities as far as tour heads go, all it really takes is one head to pop up and that changes the game.... I don't think it's all that far fetched, though, watching Tiger drive the ball it seems the rumor would be a lie.... If Mark did hear this somewhere I think it should create some legitimate discussion. It's just easier to bash the guy since there is no way of actually knowing I guess...
    Posted:
    Taylormade M2 '17 10.5*
    Titleist 917f2 16.5* 
    Titleist 915h 21* 
    Bridgestone J15 CB 4-P
    Titleist Vokey SM5 50, SM7 56
    Odyssey Toulon Palm Beach 34"
    Srixon Z85 stand bag
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • RezzyRezzy Members  18WRX Points: 0Handicap: 11Posts: 18
    Joined:  #211
    Nixhex524 wrote:

    jll62 wrote:


    anth wrote:
    I think some people need to do some research on what it means to have a conflict of interest.



    His actions are seen as questionable when he bags out one OEM for their misleading marketing claims, but remains silent on the other OEM (who he has a financial arrangement with).




    It’s not a conflict of interest. His sponsorship by titleist is public not private. He isn’t hiding it. If my boss asks me to fabricate a bunch of documents I don’t have a “conflict of interest” because he controls my salary. I have an ethical issue. You can be paid by person X and not follow them blindly. What’s he going to do, recuse himself from equipment reviews?



    The question isn’t one of a conflict. It’s one of ethics. Just because someone pays you doesn’t mean you do everything you can however underhanded to help them. If his titleist sponsorship motivated these TM comments he has acted unethically, he’s not conflicted.



    A conflict of interest would be if he took cash from both TM and Titleist promising each to bash the other. You need two interests to have a conflict. He has one interest (titleist) and an ethical quandary (being fair to non-titleist OEMs). Different people can think different things about his ethics but relax on telling people to research. It’s not a CoI.




    You're absolutely right that it's not a legal conflict of interest, but it is a massive perception and credibility issue that will ultimately hurt his brand. That is what people are really saying.



    Even if Crossfield reviews non-Titleist products with the utmost neutrality and a lack of bias, doing things like tweeting out this "rumor" will be perceived in a completely different light now due to his Titleist sponsorship. His impartiality will immediately be called into question. It doesn't matter if that's right or not; perception is reality. Many people, including myself, attempted to point this out to him weeks ago on Instagram and received nothing more than a flippant response.



    For this specific tweet, based on his past history of dust-ups with TaylorMade, it's very hard to believe there was no malice behind the tweet. Otherwise, why even tweet out some unsubstantiated rumor?





    I'm not going to argue other peoples perceptions, but it has to be said that not everyone perceives things the same way, while you may think he will do damage to his brand, I personally do not. Plenty of people in here hated him before this sponsorship, and I'm sure it didn't help after. It seems like people trying to constantly convince others here how what he is doing is wrong, and it's not that black and white. Of course people are free to believe it but it doesn't make it true. Titleist knew who he was and what he did before signing him, and did so without expecting him to change the way he does things and they both deserve that benefit of the doubt since that is what they are claiming. If people choose not to, well, their choice.



    As, far as the "rumor" goes.... while it may seem like a shot at TM, how do we know this claim is completely false? There have been conflicting answers in this thread stating other possibilities as far as tour heads go, all it really takes is one head to pop up and that changes the game.... I don't think it's all that far fetched, though, watching Tiger drive the ball it seems the rumor would be a lie.... If Mark did hear this somewhere I think it should create some legitimate discussion. It's just easier to bash the guy since there is no way of actually knowing I guess...




    Can you cite another instance of him discussing a "rumor"?
    Posted:
10

Leave a Comment

Rich Text Editor. To edit a paragraph's style, hit tab to get to the paragraph menu. From there you will be able to pick one style. Nothing defaults to paragraph. An inline formatting menu will show up when you select text. Hit tab to get into that menu. Some elements, such as rich link embeds, images, loading indicators, and error messages may get inserted into the editor. You may navigate to these using the arrow keys inside of the editor and delete them with the delete or backspace key.