Jump to content

TM Twist Face Rumor


JStang

Recommended Posts

People saying Mark can’t be impartial because Titleist sponsors him is due in part to misleading marketing by companies like TaylorMade. 17 yards anyone? 17/1700 anyone?

 

Mark’s sponsorship is an opportunity for Titleist to get their brand in front of his viewers during daily and course vlogs. He will also be able to get access to some of their tour pros and facilities, which again gets their brand in front of his viewers.

 

The Crossfield haters think that because they’d be unable to stop themselves from trashing competitors that Mark must be the same, that because they’d be unable to skew their reviews toward Titleist that Mark must be the same, even though that never happened when he was sponsored by FootJoy and now Under Armour. Projection much?

 

The problem is, if he says another club is crap or doesn't do what the marketing buff says it then it's a Titleist representative saying that X company's driver is crap and their tech doesn't work. How could that be seen as impartial.

 

 

Taylormade Sim 2 Max - 10.5 Ventus Blue 6X
Titleist TSR3 - @15.75 Tensei 1K Black 75X
Titleist TSR3 Hybrid - @20 Tensei 1K Black 85X

Titleist 620 CB  - 4 iron - Dynamic Gold Tour Issue X100

Titleist 620 MB - 5-pw - Dynamic Gold Tour Issue X100

Vokey SM9 - 52.08, 56D & 60M Dynamic Gold Tour Issue S400
Scotty Cameron Studio Stainless Newport 2.5
Titleist - Pro V1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 285
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Callaway Rogue ST Max 10.5°/Xcaliber SL 45 a flex,Callaway Rogue ST Max Heavenwood/Xcaliber FW a flex, Maltby KE4 ST-H 3h/Rapid Taper a flex, Maltby KE4 ST-H 4h/Rapid Taper a flex, Maltby KE4 Tour TC 5h/Rapid Taper a flex, Maltby KE4 Tour+ 6-G/Xcaliber Rapid Taper a flex, Maltby Max Milled 54° & 58°/Xcaliber Wedge 85 r flex, Mizuno Bettinardi C06

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

TaylorMade Qi10 10.5* 
Callaway BB Alpha 816 16*
Srixon Z H45 Hybrid 19* 
Srixon ZX Utility 23*
Srixon ZX5 Mk II 5-AW

Callaway Jaws Raw Black 54 & 58
TaylorMade Spider Tour Black
Bridgestone Tour RX

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

G400 Max 9* Ventus Red 5X, SIM Ventus Red 6X 

Callaway Mavrik 4 (18*) - AW (46*) Project X 5.5

Vokey SM4 50* SM5 56*

Cameron Phantom 5S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Callaway epic max LS 9* GD-M9003 7x 

TM Sim2 max tour  16* GD  ADHD 8x 

srixon zx 19* elements 9F5T 

Cobra king SZ 25.5* KBS TD cat 5 70 

TM p7mc 5-pw Mmt125tx 

Mizuno T22 raw 52-56-60 s400

LAB Mezz Max armlock 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Callaway epic max LS 9* GD-M9003 7x 

TM Sim2 max tour  16* GD  ADHD 8x 

srixon zx 19* elements 9F5T 

Cobra king SZ 25.5* KBS TD cat 5 70 

TM p7mc 5-pw Mmt125tx 

Mizuno T22 raw 52-56-60 s400

LAB Mezz Max armlock 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

TaylorMade Stealth2 Plus 9.0, Ventus Black 6X, 45.5"

TaylorMade Stealth2 Plus 4 (16.5), HZRDUS Smoke Blue RDX 6.5 70g, 42.5"

TaylorMade P790 3 (2021), DG X100 (SSx2)

TaylorMade P7MC Raw 4-PW, DG Mid X100 (SSx1)
TaylorMade MG4 50, 54 - DG S400

Titleist SM9 58T - DG S400
Scotty Cameron Oil Can Newport, 34"
TaylorMade TP5x (2021)

My WITB Post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Callaway epic max LS 9* GD-M9003 7x 

TM Sim2 max tour  16* GD  ADHD 8x 

srixon zx 19* elements 9F5T 

Cobra king SZ 25.5* KBS TD cat 5 70 

TM p7mc 5-pw Mmt125tx 

Mizuno T22 raw 52-56-60 s400

LAB Mezz Max armlock 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

TaylorMade Stealth2 Plus 9.0, Ventus Black 6X, 45.5"

TaylorMade Stealth2 Plus 4 (16.5), HZRDUS Smoke Blue RDX 6.5 70g, 42.5"

TaylorMade P790 3 (2021), DG X100 (SSx2)

TaylorMade P7MC Raw 4-PW, DG Mid X100 (SSx1)
TaylorMade MG4 50, 54 - DG S400

Titleist SM9 58T - DG S400
Scotty Cameron Oil Can Newport, 34"
TaylorMade TP5x (2021)

My WITB Post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 hell 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.

 

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.

G400 Max 9* Ventus Red 5X, SIM Ventus Red 6X 

Callaway Mavrik 4 (18*) - AW (46*) Project X 5.5

Vokey SM4 50* SM5 56*

Cameron Phantom 5S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 hell 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.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 hell 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.

 

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.â€

Me: “no, it isn’t. Here’s why...â€

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

G400 Max 9* Ventus Red 5X, SIM Ventus Red 6X 

Callaway Mavrik 4 (18*) - AW (46*) Project X 5.5

Vokey SM4 50* SM5 56*

Cameron Phantom 5S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 hell 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.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 hell 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.

 

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.

TaylorMade Stealth2 Plus 9.0, Ventus Black 6X, 45.5"

TaylorMade Stealth2 Plus 4 (16.5), HZRDUS Smoke Blue RDX 6.5 70g, 42.5"

TaylorMade P790 3 (2021), DG X100 (SSx2)

TaylorMade P7MC Raw 4-PW, DG Mid X100 (SSx1)
TaylorMade MG4 50, 54 - DG S400

Titleist SM9 58T - DG S400
Scotty Cameron Oil Can Newport, 34"
TaylorMade TP5x (2021)

My WITB Post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Driver: Paradym 3D Ventus black TR 6x

3 wood: Paradym 3d Ventus black TR 7x

19 degree UW: Ventus black TR 8x

Mizuno Pro Fli Hi 4 utility Hazrdus black 90 6.5 X

5 -PW: Callaway Apex MB, KBS $ taper 130X

Wedges - Jaws raw 50, 54, 59 KBS $ taper 130x

Putter- Mutant Wilson Staff 8802 with stroke lab shaft
BALL; Chrome Soft X

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

rymail00 2018 WITB [i][b] [url="http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/1605910-rymail00-2018-witb-pic-heavy/"]http://www.golfwrx.c...witb-pic-heavy/[/url][/b][/i]

[size=3]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) [/size]
[size=3]Ping Scottsdale TR B60[/size]
[size=3]TP Mills Heritage 349g [/size]
[size=3]Byron Morgan 006 355g [/size]
[size=3]Byron Morgan Makers Proof #4/5 solid copper [/size]
[size=3]C&L CL1 368g[/size]
Scotty Cameron Newport Studio Style

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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 or Mizuno MP4 4-PW
Vokey SM8 52/58; MD Golf 56
Radius Classic 8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

COBRA LTDx LS 9* 

Taylormade P790 2 Iron
Taylormade P790 3 - 4 Irons 
Taylormade P750 5 - 6 Irons 
Taylormade P730 7 - 9 Irons
ARTISAN GOLF 0318 mallet

ARTISAN GOLF custom grind 45* wedge 

ARTISAN GOLF custom grind 50* wedge
ARTISAN GOLF custom grind 55* wedge
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 hell 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.

 

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.â€

Me: “no, it isn’t. Here’s why...â€

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

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.

TaylorMade Qi10 10.5* 
Callaway BB Alpha 816 16*
Srixon Z H45 Hybrid 19* 
Srixon ZX Utility 23*
Srixon ZX5 Mk II 5-AW

Callaway Jaws Raw Black 54 & 58
TaylorMade Spider Tour Black
Bridgestone Tour RX

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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 or Mizuno MP4 4-PW
Vokey SM8 52/58; MD Golf 56
Radius Classic 8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Ping G430 10k 9*  Ventus Velocore blue 6x

Ping G430 LST 15* HZRDUS smoke yellow 70s

Ping G430 19* Tour Chrome 2.0 85s

PXG 0211  4i KBS C Taper Lite 115x ss1x

Srixon zx7 mkii 5-7, Z forged ii 8-P KBS C Taper Lite 

Ping s159 50/12s, 54/10h, 58/8b  KBS Tour
Scotty Cameron NP2 Studio Stainless  34"

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Our picks

    • 2024 Valspar Championship WITB Photos (Thanks to bvmagic)- Discussion & Links to Photos
      This weeks WITB Pics are from member bvmagic (Brian). Brian's first event for WRX was in 2008 at Bayhill while in college. Thanks so much bv.
       
      Please put your comments or question on this thread. Links to all the threads are below...
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 31 replies
    • 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #1
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #2
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #3
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Matt (LFG) Every - WITB - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Sahith Theegala - WITB - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Cameron putters (and new "LD" grip) - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      New Bettinardi MB & CB irons - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Custom Bettinardi API putter cover - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Custom Swag API covers - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      New Golf Pride Reverse Taper grips - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 15 replies
    • 2024 Cognizant Classic - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #1
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #2
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #3
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #4
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Brandt Snedeker - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Max Greyserman - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Eric Cole - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Carl Yuan - WITb - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Russell Henley - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Justin Sun - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Alex Noren - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Shane Lowry - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Taylor Montgomery - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Jake Knapp (KnappTime_ltd) - WITB - - 2024 Cognizant Classic
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Super Stoke Pistol Lock 1.0 & 2.0 grips - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      LA Golf new insert putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      New Garsen Quad Tour 15 grip - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      New Swag covers - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Jacob Bridgeman's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Bud Cauley's custom Cameron putters - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Ryo Hisatsune's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Chris Kirk - new black Callaway Apex CB irons and a few Odyssey putters - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Alejandro Tosti's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 2 replies
    • 2024 Genesis Invitational - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Monday #1
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Monday #2
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #1
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #2
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #3
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #4
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Rory McIlroy - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Sepp Straka - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Patrick Rodgers - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Brendon Todd - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Denny McCarthy - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Corey Conners - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Chase Johnson - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tommy Fleetwood - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Matt Fitzpatrick - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Si Woo Kim - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Viktor Hovland - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Wyndham Clark - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Cam Davis - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Nick Taylor - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Ben Baller WITB update (New putter, driver, hybrid and shafts) – 2024 Genesis Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Vortex Golf rangefinder - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      New Fujikura Ventus shaft - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods & TaylorMade "Sun Day Red" apparel launch event, product photos – 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods Sun Day Red golf shoes - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Aretera shafts - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      New Toulon putters - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods' new white "Sun Day Red" golf shoe prototypes – 2024 Genesis Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      • 22 replies
    • 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put and questions or comments here
       
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open - Monday #1
      2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open - Monday #2
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Ben Taylor - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Garrick Higgo - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Billy Horschel - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Justin Lower - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Lanto Griffin - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Bud Cauley - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Corbin Burnes (2021 NL Cy Young) - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Greyson Sigg - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Charley Hoffman - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Nico Echavarria - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Victor Perez - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Sami Valimaki - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Ryo Hisatsune - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
       
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      Jake Knapp's custom Cameron putters - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      New Cameron putters - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Tyler Duncan's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Greyson Sigg's custom Cameron putters - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Sunjae Im's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Ping's Waste Management putter covers - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Vincent Whaley's custom Cameron - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Odyssey Waste Management putter covers - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Super Stroke custom grips - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Cameron putters - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Zac Blair's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Bettinardi Waste Management putter covers - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
       
       
       
       
       
       

       
      • 12 replies

×
×
  • Create New...