The Value Of A Review

[mozart]

a serious discussion

A serious question which,hopefully,doesn't start a war.Of what value is a review by a person who admits to a 17 handicap?
Elsewhere,I began reading a driver/shaft review until I got to the part where the reviewer stated that he played to a 17.I have no interest in this becoming an opportunity for people to rag on other sites.I'm interested in finding out who would be swayed by the imprimatur of an admitted chop.What on Earth could be gained from this person's experience?I am truly pleased that he is interested in the game.Further,all of us were chops in the beginning(Tiger,excepted).However,being a 17 means that you don't know very much about the way a club should/shouldn't perform.Being a 17 means the only consistency you have is inconsistent.A 17 doesn't really need to opine to anyone,except maybe to 18's.
I will understand if the Mods lock this topic given the possibility of where the discussion might lead.I am hopeful that those who do respond will try to take the high road.

[DemolitionMan]

I suppose the bigger question is what value is knowing the value of a review to another person? You made your stance clear. Are you asking this question to see if the population at large can convince you to reconsider? Are you open minded enough to consider a review from a 17 hcpr?

 

The point is while you have clearly qualified a review by a 17 hcpr is of no value to you, it may be of value to someone else who considers other factors. It's really about a complete picture, not just a number.

 

Maybe the player has a iron game, maybe he can't putt well at all and pitch shots are terrible. I just played with a guy who can crush the ball off the tee. Par 5, 625 yards he went driver down the middle, 3 wood a little left into the a bunker 35 short of the pin. That's 590 yards in two shots. I hit two great shots and I was still 100 yards from the flag. He bogeyed the hole because his short game was very weak. He bogeyed lots of par 4's where he crushed driver to within 80 yards of the green, but his long power could not be converted to good touch. It looked pretty consistent to me. I put him around a 14-15 hcp.

 

Now if he was the same size and had the same type of swing tempo, I would be interested in any driver/shaft he was playing that I had not tried. I would ask him what he thought and ask more specific questions.

 

There are other examples of this.

 

Personally, I am glad that someone took the time to do a review and was courteous enough to include his index to put things in perspective. For this website to be successful that review does not have to appeal to you. If one person (probably another 17) appreciates the effort, then this site is doing well.

 

Since you asked for a serious discussion, I redirect you back to my first question. Just what exactly are you hoping to accomplish with this for yourself? What are your issues?

[dinkoh]

I agree with previous posters. There is A LOT to be gained. Experience or opinion from a mid HCP will be most useful to other players in the same range.

 

If one only reads reviews from scratch golfers, you may be mislead into believing a club great for a pro will have the same result for yourself.

 

Reviews are just that: One's persons thought. Never ever fact. But, it adds weight to the equipment. Therefore, when you read overwhelming positive reviews, than it's somewhat safer to say the equipment is a winner.

[taylormadefan]

Reviews are just that: One's persons thought. Never ever fact. But, it adds weight to the equipment. Therefore, when you read overwhelming positive reviews, than it's somewhat safer to say the equipment is a winner.

 

That's just a great summary of how I use online reviews as well.

 

To me they're just a starting point. I'll never buy equipment without demoing, my money's far too tight to loose cash on a bad purchase.

 

However, there are some clubs that I'd never have considered had I not read online reviews which really piqued my interest and got me to go out and demo the club only to find out I liked it as well. The Nickent hybrid was one of those cases for me.

 

Yes, there's plenty of merit to a 17 handicappers review for me as well.

[dpwrx]

What on Earth could be gained from this person's experience?I am truly pleased that he is interested in the game.Further,all of us were chops in the beginning(Tiger,excepted).However,being a 17 means that you don't know very much about the way a club should/shouldn't perform.Being a 17 means the only consistency you have is inconsistent.A 17 doesn't really need to opine to anyone,except maybe to 18's.

 

 

My first reaction is that this is an inaccurate generalization. There are plenty of low-index players who can provide very little insight on the nuances of equipment other than "great club", "good feel", or "seems to spin a lot."

 

By the same token, if a 17 handicapper, or any golfer really, has taken the time to study the game and its tools, there is insight to be provided. If a high handicapper can take 100 swings, distinguish the 20 or 30 that were truly comparable and consistent with one another, and then group results by the quality of swing (i.e. comparing apples to apples as far as ballstriking), they've done just as reliable an analysis as a scratch golfer who takes 20 or 30 swings in succession and reviews based on that. Even a high handicapper can comprehend swing mechanics and feel, and factor these in to their review. It's all in how they do it

 

I agree that one should always take a review with a grain of salt, and the more background one gives, the easier it is to judge that person's results relative to one's own game. But, to simply classify high handicappers out of the world of cogent and useful reviews is a step too far.

[Xt1ncT]

A serious question which,hopefully,doesn't start a war.Of what value is a review by a person who admits to a 17 handicap?

Elsewhere,I began reading a driver/shaft review until I got to the part where the reviewer stated that he played to a 17.I have no interest in this becoming an opportunity for people to rag on other sites.I'm interested in finding out who would be swayed by the imprimatur of an admitted chop.What on Earth could be gained from this person's experience?I am truly pleased that he is interested in the game.Further,all of us were chops in the beginning(Tiger,excepted).However,being a 17 means that you don't know very much about the way a club should/shouldn't perform.Being a 17 means the only consistency you have is inconsistent.A 17 doesn't really need to opine to anyone,except maybe to 18's.

I will understand if the Mods lock this topic given the possibility of where the discussion might lead.I am hopeful that those who do respond will try to take the high road.

Hmmm, isn't the average handicap around the 18 mark? So that would mean that a 17 handicapper reviewing a club would benefit more people than a "gun golfer" would.

 

In saying that what does it matter how good the player reviewing the club is? When reading reviews surely you take form it what you need to take from it.

 

How did the club look from address?

How easy to allign?

 

Those things are of value to all golfers.

 

I suppose what you need to do is not read any reviews other than those in Golf Magazines where you can see the reviewers index beforehand :drinks:

[TheBUNKY]

I don't care if the reviewer is a 2 or a 30, I am going to read it if it is a product I am interested in. I am smart enough to know that just because someone's a 17 that doesn't always mean his entire game is bad.

 

My gripe with reviews, and I am as guilty as anyone, is when someone gets their new clubs or balls then immediately goes out and proclaims to the World that they are the best ever. I wish there were a way to hold back everyone before they review something online until after they have put the new product in play. And not just on the range.

[Bobcat43]

A serious question which,hopefully,doesn't start a war.Of what value is a review by a person who admits to a 17 handicap?

Elsewhere,I began reading a driver/shaft review until I got to the part where the reviewer stated that he played to a 17.I have no interest in this becoming an opportunity for people to rag on other sites.I'm interested in finding out who would be swayed by the imprimatur of an admitted chop.What on Earth could be gained from this person's experience?I am truly pleased that he is interested in the game.Further,all of us were chops in the beginning(Tiger,excepted).However,being a 17 means that you don't know very much about the way a club should/shouldn't perform.Being a 17 means the only consistency you have is inconsistent.A 17 doesn't really need to opine to anyone,except maybe to 18's.

I will understand if the Mods lock this topic given the possibility of where the discussion might lead.I am hopeful that those who do respond will try to take the high road.

 

 

I guess to answer your question with another question.

 

What value is your review to a 17 handicap golfer?

 

It's your opinion and you are entitled to it. But honestly I play to a 6 (not great but not bad). But based on my game the guys who claim 120+ clubhead speed they might as well post reviews of tennis rackets for all I care. So those reviews have no value to me. But I don't flame them.

 

I tried to take the high road here. And I hope you see that just because his review doesn't help you there maybe many that can benefit from it. That's why this forum is here. Not just for the plus golfers.

 

Good luck to you.

[handz98]

As a person with a 16.7 index it is good to see that the majority of people on this board would not discredit my knowledge or opinion just because I lack physical ability. Just another reason that GolfWRX is the best board around.

[Simp]

I can see where he's coming from. But like Bobcat43 said, unless the people that are giving the review swing exactly like me then it's not going to matter if they're a tour pro or a 40 handicap. I can honestly say that I've thrown out 98% of all the reviews that I've read on this, and other boards. Just look at some. It doesn't matter what review board you go on either. If you have 50 people review a (for example) 905R, you'll have probably 15 of them claiming it's the next "Holy Grail" of drivers and the next 15 of them will say they'll never hit it again. With the other 20 saying it was an average driver. If I do happen to take some information from a review for something I'm interested in I'll take only enough information to get a "baseline" and then go from there on my own.

[swanry30]

a review is only as good as you want it to be. if it verifies something you already thought or wanted to hear - then it's music to your ears... personally, i read every bit of information i can!

[mozart]

I framed the question pejoratively and shouldn't have.That said,I'm not swayed as to the usefulness of these reviews.Anyone who reviews a golf club has little frame of reference besides his own game.Put another way,a tour pro will most accurately speak to the performance of the club because,given the consistency of his swing,the club itself will be about the only variable.

 

I think I would disagree with the idea that a higher handicap's 20 best swings of 100 would be of much value.I've never met a higher handicap who was able to translate "why" a shot did what it did or "how" different pieces of equipment effect results in the context of transferrable knowledge other than very simplistic stuff.Again,I have never met such a person and so would take anonymous opinions with several large grains of salt.

 

Again,my problem is with the usefulness of the review of the equipment itself.No disrespect intended,but I still believe that someone incapable of making the equipment perform correctly can opine on the equipment valuably.A poor analogy:If Michael Schumacher tells me that car A performs better than car B,I value his review because Schumacher knows how a car should perform,in absolute terms.A high handicap only knows performance in terms relative to his own ability.

[Bobcat43]

 

Again,my problem is with the usefulness of the review of the equipment itself.No disrespect intended,but I still believe that someone incapable of making the equipment perform correctly can opine on the equipment valuably.A poor analogy:If Michael Schumacher tells me that car A performs better than car B,I value his review because Schumacher knows how a car should perform,in absolute terms.A high handicap only knows performance in terms relative to his own ability.

 

First off I'm not trying to convince you of their relevance. I'm just making sure that everyone's opinion is welcome in this forum. Even yours.

 

Michael Schumacher may go into obscene detail as to why one car is better then the other. If I don't speak that language on that level his review of a car may still be worthless to me. His opinion would not be discounted in my mind, but the substance maybe lost. Sometimes it's easier to speak to someone when you are walking/driving in their shoes.

 

I've been around this forum for about a year and I enjoy reading reviews from everyone. I don't read them all but but I'm sure all are read by someone. One thing that's nice to see is members developing their game and adding value to this forum. A 17 handicapper has a lot more upside then me.

 

Again, if you don't want to read a review it's a free country...don't. But please I don't want to give the impression to those members who are 17 'cappers or higher that their opinions aren't welcome. I for one welcome all... even yours.

 

I hope the moderators don't close this thread. Because I think more members will chime in on this subject.

 

Play well.

[Gxgolfer]

Some of the best lessons I've taken are from teachers who are not plus or scratch golfers. Ability and imparting knowledge probably are not good metric correlations. I doubt Tom Stites is a scratch or plus golfer too.

 

The fun part is reading, listening, and interpreting all the information you can and then jive it to your personal experience. That makes your overall knowledge better. And hopefully the game more fun.

 

I'm not quite sure why people would be concerned about this being closed. Every website has their "favorites." Some sites, like BSG, are backed by the sales of said equipment. So there are actually multiple questions but still up to the reader to filter the good or the bad no matter what the site or subject is. Has anyone read some of the CNET reveiws???

[rony]

This Topic and the replys, call to mind; the famous quip by George Gobel. "Did you ever get the feeling that the whole world is a Tuxedo........And you're a pair of Brown Shoes?" :drinks:

[Seve424]

I think the key is to find several reviews of the same club and see if you can find a theme.

 

Last year I bought a Hi-Bore simply because everybody said they were hitting it too high, I was looking for a higher ball flight.

 

You've got to either find reviews that all say the same thing, or from a player that has the same swing as you. It's hard to go on handicap. I know good ball strikers who are 12 handicaps because they can't putt.

[phillypete]

Some of the best lessons I've taken are from teachers who are not plus or scratch golfers. Ability and imparting knowledge probably are not good metric correlations. I doubt Tom Stites is a scratch or plus golfer too.

 

"Those who can't 'do' teach" or something like that.

 

 

In the nature of full disclosure, i currently play to a 15... have been as low as 11. My handicap went up because I took a couple of months off because of a relocation. Before that I only really got to play once a week.

 

I took offense to the initial post and reiteration thereafter. I realize it wasn't intentional, but I do fall into the above mentioned handicap category and I have been offering my opinion on clubs and golf related equipment on these forums for years. I feel that in any of my reviews there is something that any handicap can take away.

 

"mozart" addressed my flaw correctly. I'm inconsistent. I consider myself a a decent ball striker most of the time. I can work the ball in both direction. I have a very educated swing, when I playing I took all sorts lessons. My strokes come from the short game and mental errors. With only playing once a week, it is difficult to get a feel for my wedges and my putting can be great or terrible, it just depends if I know the speed of the greens. By mental errors I mean I'll miss club or I'll feel uncomfortable over a ball and still swing. I also take a lot of unnecessary risks on the course, because I find that fun.

 

so whats my point. none of the flaws in my game take away from my ability to accurately review a club.

 

When I review a club I'm not going to say,"This driver is terrible it made me take a divot off the first tee because I standing too far away." That could very well have happened but that is not what I will report on. I know that result was operator error. I also know when I make a good swing and also when I make a marginal swing. I know when I hit it towards the toe or near the heal. These are the results I'll report on.

 

What I consider more than a persons handicap when reading their review is what are they comparing it too. You can imagine that some who just made the switch from persimmon to metal would think any modern driver is amazing. Meanwhile a person who has hit every new driver on the market will be able to describe subtle details.

[threeputter]

I guess it depends. I am an 11 handicap and as other have mentioned have my strengths and weaknesses. I have a quick swing. I hit on average over 280 off the tee. I am consitent with irons and it's not uncommon for me to hit 12 or more GIR's. However, I have averaged over 37 putts per round for many years. Funny years ago I putted better but my irons were poor. Now I am good with woods, irons an even wedges. I can get out of sand, but can't consitently putt to save me. So take that as you will.

[rony]

[

"Those who can't 'do' teach" or something like that.

 

 

 

"Those who can.......Do. Those who can't.......Teach."

[3puttbogey]

It would seem to me that a scratch golfer should be able to hit any club well ( within reason). My guess is when Tiger is reviewing a club, his observations would have much less value than a 17 handicap ( I'm around a 20). I have a pretty decent long game but from 150 yards in I leave many shots on the course. I play maybe 1-2 times a month, when the kids are still sleeping early Sunday morning. If a 17 handicap reviews a driver I'm thinking of buying to increase my enjoyment of a round, because its more forgiving, I think that review has value. When Phil says his driver is 10 yards longer and more forgiving I'm a bit more skeptical.

[TheHomez]

I guess it depends. I am an 11 handicap and as other have mentioned have my strengths and weaknesses. I have a quick swing. I hit on average over 280 off the tee. I am consitent with irons and it's not uncommon for me to hit 12 or more GIR's. However, I have averaged over 37 putts per round for many years. Funny years ago I putted better but my irons were poor. Now I am good with woods, irons an even wedges. I can get out of sand, but can't consitently putt to save me. So take that as you will.

 

 

Guess your name says it all huh... :drinks: j/k

 

I'm actually the exact same way. I've had rounds where I hit 14 GIR's but still end up 10/12 over par because I just can't bang home the money putts.

 

 

And just to add to the discussion, what if the '17 handicapper' that we're referring to is an elderly guy who used to be near scratch and was a great player back in the day but is now old and just plays for fun? Wouldn't he have the knowledge of the scratch player whose review you are looking to read? Or is he too old for you to take his review seriously, because now his review doesn't count because he's outside your age range?

 

 

Also, I find that reading reviews by people who are higher handicaps than me is helpful because if they find a club to be 'easy to hit' and 'forgiving' that must mean that it probably is easy to hit...

[8thehardway]

Where to start? Perhaps with the paradox that the average male golfer shoots 96 and drives the ball 200 yards yet you read reviews expecting descriptions in absolute terms. Do you ignore Consumer Reports test drives because Schumacher isn't one of their testers, or pass over a report on kitchen knives because Daniel Bouloud isn't wielding one?

 

'Absolute' is not the way most people play; that's why major magazines assemble a cross section of club testers. Someone must have figured out that only using plus 1s to evaluate Big Bertha's and G5s might not be ideal.

 

Pursuit of the absolute, taken to the limit, get's you a computer printout of Iron Byron's efforts.

[DemolitionMan]

I framed the question pejoratively and shouldn't have.That said,I'm not swayed as to the usefulness of these reviews.Anyone who reviews a golf club has little frame of reference besides his own game.Put another way,a tour pro will most accurately speak to the performance of the club because,given the consistency of his swing,the club itself will be about the only variable.

 

I think I would disagree with the idea that a higher handicap's 20 best swings of 100 would be of much value.I've never met a higher handicap who was able to translate "why" a shot did what it did or "how" different pieces of equipment effect results in the context of transferrable knowledge other than very simplistic stuff.Again,I have never met such a person and so would take anonymous opinions with several large grains of salt.

 

Again,my problem is with the usefulness of the review of the equipment itself.No disrespect intended,but I still believe that someone incapable of making the equipment perform correctly can opine on the equipment valuably.A poor analogy:If Michael Schumacher tells me that car A performs better than car B,I value his review because Schumacher knows how a car should perform,in absolute terms.A high handicap only knows performance in terms relative to his own ability.

 

You don't like reviews from 17 hcprs and after several good replies in this thread you are not swayed. So what's your point again? You just need attention? You thought this would be a good way to rally high hcprs?

 

A majority of golfers totally overestimate their average driving and iron distance; many of those have vanity handicaps. So on the web, if I don't know the person, I would sooner trust the mid index review than the so called scratch golfer or the "2". Maybe it's just me but there are a ton of "2"s around. It's like the favorite number of someone who wants to sound close to scratch (2 sounds so good), but really they are not. I see "2" I think "6". I seen 5, it's closer to 10; 10 is 15 and so on. But once it gets up to 18, I tend to believe the person because who goes through the trouble of maintaining such a high index other than someone meticulous or a major sandbagger. Anyways, there is a good chance you favor reviews from low indexers who really aren't that low.

 

And as someone who was involved in F1 from a technical point of view, you are right, the Schumacher analogy was poor. If a list was made of what made MS one of the best in history, technical knowledge is probably not in the top 5. What's he going to tell us if he reviewed the new R8? Uh, when I took that last corner home from the grocery store, the brakes locked too long????

 

:drinks:

[oregongolf]

And as someone who was involved in F1 from a technical point of view, you are right, the Schumacher analogy was poor. If a list was made of what made MS one of the best in history, technical knowledge is probably not in the top 5. What's he going to tell us if he reviewed the new R8? Uh, when I took that last corner home from the grocery store, the brakes locked too long????

 

:drinks:

 

:ok:

 

This thread has almost gotten out of hand.

 

I guess if you can't place any validity into someone's review, visit golfclubdemo.com and find the answer yourself. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the vast majority of people here welcome any and all reviews. Most would gather that in respect to equipment reviews -- more is always better.

 

Out of curiousity, what's your index Mozart? Maybe you should be writing all the reviews ;)

[Golf31]

Personally, I understand what the original poster is trying to say. I do not believe that this post has anything to do with being a snob. It was well phrased in nature and those that feel the same way as Mozart will understand the post. I am quite sure Mozart does not discriminate on the first tee. If I was the one that started this post here is how I would have stated it:

 

Have you ever been excited about a new club that hit the market and couldn't find a review from a user with the same swing characteristics and skill level as yourself?

 

I understand why this post was started. I was all excited the other night about the new Hi-Bore XL Tour so I stared reading reviews from as many sites as possible. I noticed one that was so long and detailed and read it from start to finish. The reviewer never gave is handicap or other relevant info until another asked for them. It ended up he was a 20+. I was very disappointed because it wasn't relevant to me. The reviewer stated the club was junk and to stay away from it.

 

I enjoy playing with all types of golfers except those that can't get the ball off the ground. They slow my round down and I am unable to get in a rhythm. Those are also the golfers that feel offend when you ask to play through them. I enjoy playing with people similar if not better then myself. I find a number of high handicap players feel the need to defend their poor play. They seem to throw out reasons such as no time to practice, physical limitations, a couple bad areas in their game, you name it. I was not blessed with God give talent like Fred Couples and John Daly, I have worked for every dropped stroke on the course. Please note I stated "worked". If my short game isn't where it should be then I need to "work" on that part of my game, not use it as an excuse.

 

To sum this all up, I feel it best if everyone from all levels of the game write more reviews...just please state your numbers first so I don't waste my practice time reading reviews that are not relevant to me.

[oregongolf]

Personally, I understand what the original poster is trying to say. I do not believe that this post has anything to do with being a snob. It was well phrased in nature and those that feel the same way as Mozart will understand the post. I am quite sure Mozart does not discriminate on the first tee. If I was the one that started this post here is how I would have stated it:

 

Have you ever been excited about a new club that hit the market and couldn't find a review from a user with the same swing characteristics and skill level as yourself?

 

I understand why this post was started. I was all excited the other night about the new Hi-Bore XL Tour so I stared reading reviews from as many sites as possible. I noticed one that was so long and detailed and read it from start to finish. The reviewer never gave is handicap or other relevant info until another asked for them. It ended up he was a 20+. I was very disappointed because it wasn't relevant to me. The reviewer stated the club was junk and to stay away from it.

 

I enjoy playing with all types of golfers except those that can't get the ball off the ground. They slow my round down and I am unable to get in a rhythm. Those are also the golfers that feel offend when you ask to play through them. I enjoy playing with people similar if not better then myself. I find a number of high handicap players feel the need to defend their poor play. They seem to throw out reasons such as no time to practice, physical limitations, a couple bad areas in their game, you name it. I was not blessed with God give talent like Fred Couples and John Daly, I have worked for every dropped stroke on the course. Please note I stated "worked". If my short game isn't where it should be then I need to "work" on that part of my game, not use it as an excuse.

 

To sum this all up, I feel it best if everyone from all levels of the game write more reviews...just please state your numbers first so I don't waste my practice time reading reviews that are not relevant to me.

 

I guess I understand your points, I just can't seem to fathom why you'd hold one review as an end-all.

 

It's been said before in this thread and it's pretty much common sense to use each review as a baseline. Why not gather as many reviews as you can, both good and bad, and then evaluate them as a whole?

 

When you see professional golfers playing, endorsing, or reviewing a club, do you discount it because you don't have the same game they do? Most likely, you buy it. I just find it silly that anyone would say a review is relevant because of the reviewers handicap. I would go so far to say that if you can't find something positive in a review that stokes any interest (good or bad) you might just be illiterate.

 

I know some 15 handicaps who would probably be more qualified to review irons or putters than I would.

[iCollector]

A review is just an opinion, everyone has one and is entitled to one.... and if rviews are asked for, well, you'll get them.

 

Forums are nothing if not a place to voice one's opinions on a shared topic of interest. I know golfers of both higher and lower skills than my own who wouldn't be great at writing a 'review' of a product. I actually never considered the handicap index of anyone when I read a review. I take what is said and compare it to what others say and try to find a consensus that is consistent.

 

I think we are all aware that the best review we can get is our own - by trying a product before we buy it.

 

Reviews can help us when we can't demo an item for one reason or another, or common availability. That's when these forums really help. I'd like to think that anyone who would post a review, would do so only if they understood the product enough to render an accurate assessment. One doesn't need to be a single digit handicapper to say whether one putter allows them better feel or not, or whether one set of irons hit better than another.... these things will be different for everyone, I do think that any good review should contain information on what kind of game/swing characteristics the reviewer has. My SS for a driver is between 100-115 tops, so if someone is blessing a regular shaft vs. a stiff one, their SS is important to know, as well as their tempo, how they swing....

 

We just need to remember - everyone has an opinion. And yes, sometimes one may not be helpful to us specifically, but may be to someone else.

[Golf31]

I wanted to follow up on my post.

 

First, let me say how great it is to be able to voice my opinion with fellow golfers on this site.

 

Second, I once wrote that each golf swing is like a snow flake...not one the same. I agree that one review should not make a difference but it does put that negative seed in your head. I stopped reading about the club once I made the decision but decided to see how close the reviews were compared to what I experienced a couple of months later. What I found was very interesting. I agreed with 50% of what was stated about the club. 25% were people that had been brain washed by a certain brand of club so they bashed anything other then that brand. The other 25% were neutral. Moral of the story is DEMO before you buy.

 

To stay on subject, those that really want to improve their game look for similar qualified players to help with input. I doubt that a 20+ handicapper knows what I mean when I say I need a shaft that transitions on the load side of the the release that creates a low to high fade with minimal spin. I'm not trying to make the high handicapper feel stupid. I just want to point out that the level of my game is in a different place. On the other hand, my Father needs club suggestions from a 20+ handicap and the first place I tell him to go for a review is this site. The more people we get on this site, the better it is for everyone.

 

One last thing, there has only been one club that has received a perfect review for all levels. I purchased the club with full trust in a 20+ to a +3 and it was as stated if not better. That makes it a great club...not a great review.

[chip]

it would be nice if as a prerequisite for reviewing a club one had to post a vid of themselves hitting said club.

 

i agree with the OP that other things being equal, I would rather read a review from a better player than a worse one. I guess some people here will split hairs and point out that there exist players with crappy handicaps that are better swingers than lower cappers than themselves. ---but as I said, other things being equal...

 

Say you were choosing between two doctors to consult with regarding a medical procedure you were considering. One you knew had a history of consistently botching that operation, while the other you knew was a pretty solid performer all around. Absent some additonal special facts (Dr. botcher is actually a medical professor), wouldn't you regard solid performer's opinion to be the more valuable one in this case? wouldnt you think that dr. botcher has a few things to figure out about this operation before he offers advice?

[8thehardway]

The more apt analogy would be that you, a surgeon with an upcoming operation, reading reviews from Drs. Botcher and Kutzemstraight on which mgf makes the best instruments, might ignore Botcher's suggestion to opt for the gyroscopically enhanced hacksaw while others with diminished capacity would appreciate an alternative to Kutzemstraight's unforgiving micro-laser.