Really TXG?

[Guia]

Oh! I forgot about Pureing shafts.  I bought a set of irons last year that had been pured.  I usually play a Reg shaft that is hard stepped, they shafts were a stiff and played like butter.

 

I highly recommend purging.

[Red4282]

3 hours ago, sniper said:

I thought the same when I heard it was an Accra shaft. I think the issue is they need an unmarked shaft so they can’t tell which is pured and which isn’t. 

Did you watch?

[SylvesterLundgren]

Ye mean mattiboi didn’t leave you with an opinion after he was thinking it was shaft B almost swearing it was pured and then nuttin... honestly I think it can mean something with lesser quality controlled products. 
lol how would you pure a AUTOFLEX since that’s all the lil fan base can come up with for mattiboy 

[Red4282]

1 hour ago, wobgon said:

People on this forum are very touchy about folks criticizing TXG.

I agree, and im one of those that criticize -and mainly the lack of opinion...but charlatan is a bit much 

[Red4282]

12 minutes ago, Guia said:

TXG.  I have watched a number of their video"s.  They are very knowledge.........But.  The same guy is always testing the clubs, the  problem is that he swings a little over 120 mph.  He hits everything over 300 yards.

 

I don't know about you but I glean nothing from TXG reviews.

While i think it becomes a watch matt drive the ball 340 over and over, and can get old, you can still learn valuable information, if you listen, and look for the right things.

[Rapidcat]

I enjoy their content and have learned much from viewing.

 

Good to see them explore equipment aspects and challenge some old fashioned and outdated views on some subjects.

 

Not everyone wishes that golf was time frozen in the 1920's with us wearing plus 4's and playing hickory shafts. Equipment can be a contributory factor to better performance.

 

Also think Matt does an excellent 'Iron Byron' and his swing consistency is an important element. Much rather have him than some guy with very inconsistent contact or an unstable swing. Matt does some testing where he throttles back his swing speed to better replicate the speed of a more typical golfer anyway.

 

TXG get a thumbs up from me and and their content helped me get through 120 days of covid lockdown. 

[jah7838]

5 hours ago, Rapidcat said:

I enjoy their content and have learned much from viewing.

 

Good to see them explore equipment aspects and challenge some old fashioned and outdated views on some subjects.

 

Not everyone wishes that golf was time frozen in the 1920's with us wearing plus 4's and playing hickory shafts. Equipment can be a contributory factor to better performance.

 

Also think Matt does an excellent 'Iron Byron' and his swing consistency is an important element. Much rather have him than some guy with very inconsistent contact or an unstable swing. Matt does some testing where he throttles back his swing speed to better replicate the speed of a more typical golfer anyway.

 

TXG get a thumbs up from me and and their content helped me get through 120 days of covid lockdown. 

I was thinking the same thing when those mentioned Matt's swing speed.  The videos where he throttles back his speed are just as good as the other videos.  

 

I enjoyed this video on the SSTPured shaft vs non-pured shaft.  I've had shafts pured in the past when I was a much worse golfer than I am now, and I couldn't tell much of a difference because of how inconsistent my swing was.  If I got a shaft that was pured, I'd play it, but I don't think I'm going to spend money on getting one pured.  

[BostonWRX]

No idea if they juice the monitors etc. Best golf videos on the internet IMO

[theboypinoy]

9 hours ago, Guia said:

TXG.  I have watched a number of their video"s.  They are very knowledge.........But.  The same guy is always testing the clubs, the  problem is that he swings a little over 120 mph.  He hits everything over 300 yards.

 

I don't know about you but I glean nothing from TXG reviews.

 

There are videos where he swings opposite handed to give more of a perspective for slower swing speeds. They realize not everyone has Matt's speed.

[MattM97]

They said said in the video that puring will work on some shafts and not others, the fact that they chose Accra kinda defeats the purpose since their quality is much higher. Then again say they did 'Brand Y' don't want to put anyone on blast and if there was a major difference and people did it on a higher end shaft and saw no difference they could complain. Maybe they just wanted to see if it does make a difference on higher end shafts but most likely not. Maybe they'll suggest it on some lower end shafts to get the most out of them, it all depends on the customer.

 

As for TXG "juicing" their simulators I get fit there and haven't seen insane numbers with clubs they fit me with to upsell, they've never upsold me and even offered cheaper alternatives if I mention a price is too high for a shaft for me. Now if they do a bit on Matty's videos for entertainment purpose that's fine but no one should be buying a club/shaft based on the videos of 1 guy. 

[Red4282]

6 hours ago, MattM97 said:

They said said in the video that puring will work on some shafts and not others, the fact that they chose Accra kinda defeats the purpose since their quality is much higher. Then again say they did 'Brand Y' don't want to put anyone on blast and if there was a major difference and people did it on a higher end shaft and saw no difference they could complain. Maybe they just wanted to see if it does make a difference on higher end shafts but most likely not. Maybe they'll suggest it on some lower end shafts to get the most out of them, it all depends on the customer.

 

As for TXG "juicing" their simulators I get fit there and haven't seen insane numbers with clubs they fit me with to upsell, they've never upsold me and even offered cheaper alternatives if I mention a price is too high for a shaft for me. Now if they do a bit on Matty's videos for entertainment purpose that's fine but no one should be buying a club/shaft based on the videos of 1 guy. 

How about them show us a test where it made a a difference instead of just speculating? Leave that door open...

[MattM97]

Just now, Red4282 said:

How about them show us a test where it made a a difference instead of just speculating? Leave that door open...

 

Maybe if enough people request it again with a lower end shaft they might do it and see if it does make a difference. 

[14mh]

18 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

 

The guy in the video introduced himself and proclaimed he had bought 6 sets of irons during the past 4 years. The proper thing for Ian and Matt to do would have been to advise him to get technique instruction and practice same. But no, they sold him a $1,200 set of irons.

 

Anyone who has bought 6 sets of irons in 4 years didn't get "sold" anything. They wanted to buy new irons.

[MPAndreassi]

1 hour ago, Red4282 said:

How about them show us a test where it made a a difference instead of just speculating? Leave that door open...

The whole purpose of the video was that it was blind and to show whether it would do something or not on that specific shaft. In the beginning of the video they do talk about it working on some shafts and not others. This, in my eyes, was more of a “you get what you pay for” type video. Where spending money on a premium product you get more consistent manufacturing than something cheaper where things may be misaligned. As someone else pointed out it would have to be done with blank shafts. Having the shaft graphics at wherever the spine is would be a dead give away. I also don’t think the shafts that would be “exposed” by this type of testing would really be lining up to get tested. 

[Red4282]

42 minutes ago, MPAndreassi said:

The whole purpose of the video was that it was blind and to show whether it would do something or not on that specific shaft. In the beginning of the video they do talk about it working on some shafts and not others. This, in my eyes, was more of a “you get what you pay for” type video. Where spending money on a premium product you get more consistent manufacturing than something cheaper where things may be misaligned. As someone else pointed out it would have to be done with blank shafts. Having the shaft graphics at wherever the spine is would be a dead give away. I also don’t think the shafts that would be “exposed” by this type of testing would really be lining up to get tested. 

I dont disagree with anything you said. What I have an issue with is the conclusion that “it could have an effect”. They didn't show us anything to give us that conclusion... I mean imagine if thats how we did it with other things- “well in this test the vaccine was completely ineffective in stopping covid but it could be in other people”... and then never showing that. I hope they do follow up. 

[kiwii]

Graphite shafts like Accra are made with many layers that are clocked so that the seams do not overlap one another. They are also made with flags of graphite that vary in direction, weave pattern, composition, size, etc. this is done by most of the current graphite shaft manufacturers on their higher end shafts. It eliminates the spine effect. Steel shafts however are made from a single rolled sheet. Therefore there is a seam/spine. 

[Adam C]

1 hour ago, kiwii said:

Graphite shafts like Accra are made with many layers that are clocked so that the seams do not overlap one another. They are also made with flags of graphite that vary in direction, weave pattern, composition, size, etc. this is done by most of the current graphite shaft manufacturers on their higher end shafts. It eliminates the spine effect. Steel shafts however are made from a single rolled sheet. Therefore there is a seam/spine. 

You should go check out Russ Ryden's site. He measures exactly how close to round every shaft (most every at least) is. You will see that most higher end graphite comes in above 98.5% consistent. Most every steel shaft comes in over 99%, ie no spine influence.

[biffstix]

21 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Go have a look at the video, it was posted approximately 1,5 years ago.

Ian and Matt stopped the fitting, held this guys hand for 30 minutes until they could get his 6-iron shots from 135 yard carry and 20 yard dispersion to 142 yard carry with 15 yard dispersion, resumed the video proclaiming "the fitting was successful" , and then they sold him a set of irons.

This is somehow misleading or unethical? The guy went to a high end shop to buy a set of sticks and was served pretty well. How much more could they do?

[Fairway14]

3 minutes ago, biffstix said:

This is somehow misleading or unethical? The guy went to a high end shop to buy a set of sticks and was served pretty well. How much more could they do?

You ask a fair question.  I believe the concept of "fitting to sell clubs" is misleading. For example, the Club Champion advertising or TXG's videos implying that "getting fit" will lead to better shot making or lower scoring is misleading naive consumers. For TXG's "fitting of a hacker" video Ian and Matt stop the fitting , pause the video, give the customer a 30 minute technique instruction lesson, and then resume the video when the guy is making a little bit better pass at the ball so the QC Quad shot result numbers will reveal a bit of improvement. My point is they are selling the concept of fitting clubs but their own video proves fitting itself does nothing, that swing technique is what matters.

[KMo23]

I wish they would’ve used an average golfer and not a robot! That dude could hit anything good!

[biffstix]

13 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

You ask a fair question.  I believe the concept of "fitting to sell clubs" is misleading. For example, the Club Champion advertising or TXG's videos implying that "getting fit" will lead to better shot making or lower scoring is misleading naive consumers. For TXG's "fitting of a hacker" video Ian and Matt stop the fitting , pause the video, give the customer a 30 minute technique instruction lesson, and then resume the video when the guy is making a little bit better pass at the ball so the QC Quad shot result numbers will reveal a bit of improvement. My point is they are selling the concept of fitting clubs but their own video proves fitting itself does nothing, that swing technique is what matters.

Technique is king for sure. If this guy was willing to pay for the Ian up charge vs an associate fitting I’m guessing his bank account wasn’t dented too hard

[PostandGhost]

60% of the time, PUREing works every time.

[CAT GOLFER]

9 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

You ask a fair question.  I believe the concept of "fitting to sell clubs" is misleading. For example, the Club Champion advertising or TXG's videos implying that "getting fit" will lead to better shot making or lower scoring is misleading naive consumers. For TXG's "fitting of a hacker" video Ian and Matt stop the fitting , pause the video, give the customer a 30 minute technique instruction lesson, and then resume the video when the guy is making a little bit better pass at the ball so the QC Quad shot result numbers will reveal a bit of improvement. My point is they are selling the concept of fitting clubs but their own video proves fitting itself does nothing, that swing technique is what matters.

While I do agree with your assertion that “fitting to sell” is bad practice, I don’t agree with your assessment that TXG is rank in file with the likes of CC.  I think their continued videos with Ronny, highlight the benefits of a golfer that does practice, has some instruction, and also does benefit from the fitting experience( Xxio video).

 

I have some complaints about their videos, but the reality is they are making entertainment on the YT platform. I don’t think I have ever heard them say you should buy anything, let alone from them.  Or that fitting is the be all end all, rather I think they do a good job of highlighting the fact that you do need to practice and work on technique.  And that indoor simulator numbers need to be tempered with actual on course play.  Now, maybe I read more into what people say, but things I have heard are get fit for the swing you have now(not the one you want), if you work towards the swing you want(adjust your equipment accordingly), you can make simple changes to your equipment that will benefit your game, and the like.  
 

At the end of the day, they are a business that is selling an experience that people are willing to pay for.  I guess I am just pointing out that the message I see/hear is not the same one you see/hear😁

[pinhigh27]

On 12/15/2020 at 8:10 PM, aleph said:

 

Love to see this test showing the difference between pured and unpured; apparently UST shafts aren't the most consistent around.

Yet some of the most tried and true shafts in recent years, funny how that works. lot of people that swear by V2s

[pinhigh27]

the main things that frustrate me about txg are

a) people think matt is a robot because they edit out bad shots. He's a good golfer, around scratch apparently, but there are loads of better ball strikers in the world. Again, yes he's good but all of us posted our highlight tapes online, we'd look pretty good

b) the foresight distance algorithm is severely jacked for low spin shots and causes falsely elevated yardages. Matt would be 50 yards shorter in real life than he gets on the quad in the videos. He will never carry a ball 360 with 180ish ball speed. It just doesn't happen. You would think this would be important for a fitter to point out, as one could easily be fit into a driver that is way too low spin for them that looks good on a GC2/quad but sucks in real life and falls out of the sky/ is terrible on mishits. 

[MPAndreassi]

27 minutes ago, pinhigh27 said:

the main things that frustrate me about txg are

a) people think matt is a robot because they edit out bad shots. He's a good golfer, around scratch apparently, but there are loads of better ball strikers in the world. Again, yes he's good but all of us posted our highlight tapes online, we'd look pretty good

b) the foresight distance algorithm is severely jacked for low spin shots and causes falsely elevated yardages. Matt would be 50 yards shorter in real life than he gets on the quad in the videos. He will never carry a ball 360 with 180ish ball speed. It just doesn't happen. You would think this would be important for a fitter to point out, as one could easily be fit into a driver that is way too low spin for them that looks good on a GC2/quad but sucks in real life and falls out of the sky/ is terrible on mishits. 

 

At the risk of sounding like I’m defending them they don’t seem to be trying to fit “playing” drivers at crazy low spin and high launch. Using the fittings for Matt as an example they’re looking for 12ish launch and 2200 spin which on a golf course isn’t the longest but very playable for his speed. The ones we’re you see the real low spin and exaggerated distances are always prefaced as such. More often than not it seems like they’re trying to get Matt into higher spin windows than he typically gets. I think this seems to be they’re general principle for their brand as well. I think there are a lot of places out there that chase launch conditions that are more or less unplayable outside like you mentioned. 

Edited December 17, 2020 by MPAndreassi

[pinhigh27]

21 minutes ago, MPAndreassi said:

 

At the risk of sounding like I’m defending them they don’t seem to be trying to fit “playing” drivers at crazy low spin and high launch. Using the fittings for Matt as an example they’re looking for 12ish launch and 2200 spin which on a golf course isn’t the longest but very playable for his speed. The ones we’re you see the real low spin and exaggerated distances are always prefaced as such. More often than not it seems like they’re trying to get Matt into higher spin windows than he typically gets. I think this seems to be they’re general principle for their brand as well. I think there are a lot of places out there that chase launch conditions that are more or less unplayable outside like you mentioned. 

Yet they have clickbait youtube titles like " 370 yards with the new autoflex shaft" 

 

12 launch 2200 spin is plenty long and if anything on the lower spin side of things for vast majority of people

 

I personally have never seen them disclaim a yardage in their videos and say "this is falsely elevated" if anything I've seen them hype it and act like it's real when it's clearly not. 

 

If you tell people X numbers get you Y result, when Y is clearly a juiced number, it's going to lead to confusion when people with similar speed and numbers as him don't understand why they are getting literally 50 yards less off the tee than he does in the videos. 

 

I've also never heard them explain how the way quad measures swing speed is different than basically all other launch monitors, so the swing speeds are falsely elevated which depresses the smash factors. To me these are important pieces of information that viewers need to know. 

Edited December 17, 2020 by pinhigh27

[Fairway14]

51 minutes ago, CAT GOLFER said:

 And that indoor simulator numbers need to be tempered with actual on course play.  

 

I called them out about that subject, suggesting that Matt's sway off the ball and Ian's arms- powered swing could not on the golf course produce the numbers (for distance or accuracy) that  their juiced up GC Quad video screen shots reveal.  To their credit they did actually post an on course video, but for that one there were apparently "technical difficulties" which resulted in showing only half of the round's shot results. 

All factors considered, my best guess is that at a sea level location 6,800 yard par 72 golf course they would both average about 260 yards off the tee boxes, hit between 9 and 11 greens for the round, and shoot somewhere between 78 and 84 for the day.

[Red4282]

22 minutes ago, pinhigh27 said:

Yet they have clickbait youtube titles like " 370 yards with the new autoflex shaft" 

 

12 launch 2200 spin is plenty long and if anything on the lower spin side of things for vast majority of people

 

I personally have never seen them disclaim a yardage in their videos and say "this is falsely elevated" if anything I've seen them hype it and act like it's real when it's clearly not. 

 

If you tell people X numbers get you Y result, when Y is clearly a juiced number, it's going to lead to confusion when people with similar speed and numbers as him don't understand why they are getting literally 50 yards less off the tee than he does in the videos. 

 

I've also never heard them explain how the way quad measures swing speed is different than basically all other launch monitors, so the swing speeds are falsely elevated which depresses the smash factors. To me these are important pieces of information that viewers need to know. 

I rewatched a video from a few years ago and matt was low 160s ball speed and flying 275. I was like whoa what happened lol

[Rapidcat]

31 minutes ago, pinhigh27 said:

I've also never heard them explain how the way quad measures swing speed is different than basically all other launch monitors, so the swing speeds are falsely elevated which depresses the smash factors. To me these are important pieces of information that viewers need to know. 

I watched one of their videos where early in the content (it was a driver test of some sort from what I remember) they explained the difference between how GC Quad measures stuff vs Trakman and why they use Quad. They stated that Quad gives higher speed numbers and they believe in its methodology.