Unbiased Scientific Test Results VS Marketing

You can add splining and puring clubs. I have heard both of these are gimmick and not science.

[quote name='razorbird' date='14 July 2010 - 08:06 AM' timestamp='1279120013' post='2575286']
Have you ever wondered what unbiased equipment test results versus marketing would reveal? Does anybody have any good, unbiased, scientific info on things like:


Grooves on Rife Putters

Grooves on YES Putters

Aerodynamic influences of 460 cc head versus smaller heads on Drivers (specifically club head speed)

Heavier driver versus identical but lighter driver with identical swing speed = x distance variable

Any other interesting comparisons you may find...


Hope this gets some good research out there, and get some realism up against the marketing onslaught!


[/quote]

just some thoughts and opinions...not science! lol

those putters help people with a less than ideal stroke put an ideal roll on the ball. help, not perfect. Most great putters put the same roll that these putters try to impart on the ball.

The driver weight thing is science.

It would be nice to know from an unbiased source.

Grooved vs non grooved putters vs insert.
Mallets vs non mallets.
Ghost color, 2 ball, others improving alignment.
Short driver vs long driver

Short Driver is more accurate and will result in more center of face strikes. No mystery there.

Alignment in putters is feel, no way to = science.

[quote name='#1Ballin' date='14 July 2010 - 01:19 PM' timestamp='1279127974' post='2575611']
Short Driver is more accurate and will result in more center of face strikes. No mystery there.

[/quote]

I've read several articles that have data about shorter drivers vs. longer drivers. Usually the shorter drivers win. The longer drivers (comparing say 46" to 43.5") don't offer enough extra distance to outweigh the accuracy of the shorter drivers.

I like what Golf Digest did with the recent Hot List showing launch angle and spin of a bunch of different golf balls using a wedge. How about doing the same thing with a driver AT different swing speeds.

I got lucky finding out how great the Srixon Trispeed and Trispeed Tour are, especially off the tee. All my rounds in the 60s were shot with a Srixon Trispeed (which I have 0 issue with around the greens).

Tour average driver length is a half inch short.

Have you ever wondered what unbiased equipment test results versus marketing would reveal? Does anybody have any good, unbiased, scientific info on things like:

 

 

Grooves on Rife Putters

 

Grooves on YES Putters

 

Aerodynamic influences of 460 cc head versus smaller heads on Drivers (specifically club head speed)

 

Heavier driver versus identical but lighter driver with identical swing speed = x distance variable

 

Any other interesting comparisons you may find...

 

 

Hope this gets some good research out there, and get some realism up against the marketing onslaught!

 

 

Although I'd love to see it, I doubt good research would do any good. Have you seen the New Ball Flight Rules thread? Good solid data behind that, crystal clear video, and it's still hotly debated (argued). Even got to the point of insults being hurled around until the Mods cleaned the thread up (). People are gonna believe what they want to. Just my opinion.

There is no such thing as scientific, unbiased research. All research is funded by someone, and conducted by someone, that has an interest in the outcome.

[quote name='hef63303' date='14 July 2010 - 02:04 PM' timestamp='1279134246' post='2575823']
There is no such thing as scientific, unbiased research. All research is funded by someone, and conducted by someone, that has an interest in the outcome.
[/quote]
Absolutely true.

For example, even independant companies who conduct Golf Ball & Equipment Tests for numerious companies are required to sign confidentiality papers regarding the data/results.

The primary reason new models (balls, clubs, ect...) are released is simply to generate new sales. Its not always because the product is better.

[i]"There is no such thing as scientific, unbiased research. All research is funded by someone, and conducted by someone, that has an interest in the outcome. "
[/i]
I understand your point, but there's always a possibility that the funding party might just want an answer, not a specific answer...a posibility, however unlikely.


[i]"The primary reason new models (balls, clubs, ect...) are released is simply to generate new sales. Its not always because the product is better."
[/i]
Yes, I know this. It seems like you know this...and there are so many people that should know this! Hell, there are people that know this in their heart, and still try and buy the pipe dream!

The USGA may have their own agenda, but it seems like they would be the most likely source to find the best head to head testing results (i.e. putter with grooves vs smooth face, etc.). Would be cool if somebody had the keys to the vault...