Ridiculous Golf Magazine-Odyssey-Callaway claims. Anyone see this?

[RoyalMustang]

I'm a consultant and used to hearing a lot of hyperbole and ridiculousness. Either data-light/data-free claims, or data purposely taken out of context. I once had a client push back against my price reduction recommendations because "we've raised prices by 30% in 2021 and are still stocked out". They conveniently ignored that all of their competitors were coming back online after supply chain snarls, making commoditized products priced 30-40% lower than my client's offerings. Guess who lost big-time market share over the next 18 months, all because it didn't fit the CEOs preferred narrative of constant margin growth in a competitive market? 

 

That being said, the new Golf magazine/Callaway/Odyssey "advertisement/article" is peak ridiculousness. 

 

1) "As Jon Rahm noticed during a meeting with Odyssey brass last year, his make probability decreased the further he was outside 3 feet." Wow, I can't believe one of the top players in the world had no idea that he'd rather be standing over a 3 footer than a 6 footer; I'm so glad that Odyssey's brass was around to tell him this. Rahm should hang out on WRX a bit more and learn something about the game. What's next: Callaway reminding him that overhauling his bag with persimmon woods and wood shafts may not be the best idea?  

 

2) "Average proximity to hole from a variety of distances (including mishits): Prevoius Odyssey Model vs Odyssey AI-one: 21% closer!  What the heck does this even mean? Is it directional; is it speed? You could say that off the center of the face it's more forgiving (and loses less speed). They didn't say this. If you have a mishit directionally, the ball won't be any closer. Offline is offline. There is something to sweet spot mishits and lost speed; 21% sounds like an awful lot, especially as they've been running computer simulations for putters for I bet a good 10+ years now. The AI face doesn't magically turn the ball toward the hole.  And if this is true, every single player on tour would be PAYING to use this putter.

 

Golfers, by and large, are more successful that the average cohort of "people off the street" and hopefully can more easily recognize misleading and incomplete information. For me, this crap really destroys credibility of the brand. I'm not stupid and yet...Callaway's assuming that I am. 

 

 

 

[Kmagnuss]

Lol my mind works the same way.

[Frank Newport]

36 minutes ago, RoyalMustang said:

I'm a consultant and used to hearing a lot of hyperbole and ridiculousness. Either data-light/data-free claims, or data purposely taken out of context. I once had a client push back against my price reduction recommendations because "we've raised prices by 30% in 2021 and are still stocked out". They conveniently ignored that all of their competitors were coming back online after supply chain snarls, making commoditized products priced 30-40% lower than my client's offerings. Guess who lost big-time market share over the next 18 months, all because it didn't fit the CEOs preferred narrative of constant margin growth in a competitive market? 

 

That being said, the new Golf magazine/Callaway/Odyssey "advertisement/article" is peak ridiculousness. 

 

1) "As Jon Rahm noticed during a meeting with Odyssey brass last year, his make probability decreased the further he was outside 3 feet." Wow, I can't believe one of the top players in the world had no idea that he'd rather be standing over a 3 footer than a 6 footer; I'm so glad that Odyssey's brass was around to tell him this. Rahm should hang out on WRX a bit more and learn something about the game. What's next: Callaway reminding him that overhauling his bag with persimmon woods and wood shafts may not be the best idea?  

 

2) "Average proximity to hole from a variety of distances (including mishits): Prevoius Odyssey Model vs Odyssey AI-one: 21% closer!  What the heck does this even mean? Is it directional; is it speed? You could say that off the center of the face it's more forgiving (and loses less speed). They didn't say this. If you have a mishit directionally, the ball won't be any closer. Offline is offline. There is something to sweet spot mishits and lost speed; 21% sounds like an awful lot, especially as they've been running computer simulations for putters for I bet a good 10+ years now. The AI face doesn't magically turn the ball toward the hole.  And if this is true, every single player on tour would be PAYING to use this putter.

 

Golfers, by and large, are more successful that the average cohort of "people off the street" and hopefully can more easily recognize misleading and incomplete information. For me, this crap really destroys credibility of the brand. I'm not stupid and yet...Callaway's assuming that I am. 

 

 

 

 

In all fairness to Callaway, they probably used a consultant on this.

[j.b.newton]

I dont disagree with you at all and actually share your viewpoint....   I dont know why, but the Don Cheadle's House of Lies show popped in to my head (I liked the first few seasons)

[jaffabell]

It reminds me of the AI smoke advert, where they had a picture of the clubface and how much distance you would gain at various points over the clubface. It meant absolutely nothing. No idea how they get away with it! 

[goalie]

It's almost like they have a robot that tests distance loss on off center hits or something........

[leftycabe]

While I understand what you are saying, this is the norm in commerce. One thing I learned in stats class is that the owner of the data/stats gets to tell the story (marketing). Not only does every club company do this but I would go as far as saying almost every good sold in the U.S. does this. I’m not saying it’s right but it’s unfortunately the norm. 

[Lobby]

Bless your heart, child.   

I suppose you've never read a Golf Digest / Golf Magazine rag from the 1960's.  

"They all do it," can be restated as "they've always done it."

[Jeff58]

Pro tip - the next club line from Callaway will be called Mirrors.

[third-times-a-charm]

Yes.

[CaddyMomNC]

1 hour ago, jaffabell said:

It reminds me of the AI smoke advert, where they had a picture of the clubface and how much distance you would gain at various points over the clubface. It meant absolutely nothing. No idea how they get away with it! 

My 14-year old was talking to his club fitter last month about that ad and made this comment. "Seems pretty crazy that they can do all of that to the driver but the golf ball is the problem and is what "must" be changed." 

 

Which led them down an even deeper rabbit hole. 
 

But yes, it's a completely ridiculous ad. 

[CROUSE99]

51 minutes ago, Jeff58 said:

Pro tip - the next club line from Callaway will be called Mirrors.

I see what you did there. 

[Golfinfloridaafter40]

1 hour ago, j.b.newton said:

I dont disagree with you at all and actually share your viewpoint....   I dont know why, but the Don Cheadle's House of Lies show popped in to my head (I liked the first few seasons)

Show is so dang good!

Edited March 27 by Golfinfloridaafter40

[RoyalMustang]

1 hour ago, Frank Newport said:

 

In all fairness to Callaway, they probably used a consultant on this.

 

My friends who work at MBB firms were taught on day one that consultants are LCDs (liars, cheats, douchebags). I work for myself and be as honest as I can with my clients; time will tell if that's actually what clients want though! 

[PJE]

Well this is true but golf retailers release new products every 1-2 years. They need to say something about the new item to make people want it other than “ it looks different but performs the same as our older products”. 
I think most people are aware golf OEMs’ advertising is largely or wholly puffery. 

[caniac6]

No company is going to release a new product, and say it’s pretty good.

[RoyalMustang]

Just now, PJE said:

Well this is true but golf retailers release new products every 1-2 years. They need to say something about the new item to make people want it other than “ it looks different but performs the same as our older products”. 
I think most people are aware golf OEMs’ advertising is largely or wholly puffery. 

 

The cycling industry did this for years as well. "This new aerodynamic frame will save you 7 watts at 20mph", "these aerodynamic wheels will save you 12 watts at 23mph in a 30 degree crosswind", "this handlebar is good for a 3.5 watt savings". By the time you read this stuff, you'll think that the bike basically pedals itself. 

 

Then a guy would show up on a group hammer ride kitted out on a $20,000 bike with every single item tied to a ridiculous claim. Based on "wattage saved", we all expected him to roll off the front solo at 29mph. Nope, he still got dropped 14 miles in with the group only doing 26. Same as the week before when he was on his old bike. 

[goalie]

AI-one thread

 

Seems like a decent amount of people are on the bandwagon with the "less loss of distance on off center strikes" thing......

[RoyalMustang]

Just now, caniac6 said:

No company is going to release a new product, and say it’s pretty good.

 

Sure-it should be the best they've ever offered, otherwise why release it? Porsche redesigns the 911 every 3 to 4 years. Each iteration is quicker: typically it will be 5-7 seconds faster at the Nurburgring vs the previous model. Due to the Ring's quirks, you can argue if that's a fair test, but it's quantifiable and done by both a factory driver and an independent magazine pro driver who's put down 100s of laps at the ring. Porsche doens't come out and say it's 21% faster (which is ridiculous: that would be faster than the Porsche 919 LeMans car) and then never back it up. They'd be laughed out of the room.  

 

21% though for a putter; that's ridiculous and obviously not verified. 3% would be reasonable and honestly, a reason to celebrate. 3% closer on each put through 100 rounds: that's 3000 putts. I bet you could cut those 3000 putts to 2985 putts with a 3% increase in accuracy.  

[goalie]

43 minutes ago, RoyalMustang said:

 

21% though for a putter; that's ridiculous and obviously not verified. 3% would be reasonable and honestly, a reason to celebrate. 3% closer on each put through 100 rounds: that's 3000 putts. I bet you could cut those 3000 putts to 2985 putts with a 3% increase in accuracy.  

Considering that you have no idea what raw data they are referring to, the 3% you pulled out of thin air is rather funny.  If the face is the same speed for a significantly larger "sweet spot" then 21% is definitely on the table, especially if your comparing the AI insert to a milled face putter.  It doesn't mean you'll see a 21% improvement, and it doesn't mean you'll suddenly not suck at putting if you can't start on your line anyhow, but it'll roll the same distance off line as it would have had you hit the sweet spot. 

 

Now, whether one actually mishits putts far enough off center with enough frequency for the bigger distance control sweet spot to even matter is another discussion...... 

[KGolfCT]

Able to test drive one of the AI Jailbird at the golf store today. Was only getting about 17% closer to the hole on mishits...not sure if it's enough for me to change sticks. 

 

 

[RoyalMustang]

33 minutes ago, goalie said:

Considering that you have no idea what raw data they are referring to, the 3% you pulled out of thin air is rather funny.  If the face is the same speed for a significantly larger "sweet spot" then 21% is definitely on the table, especially if your comparing the AI insert to a milled face putter.  It doesn't mean you'll see a 21% improvement, and it doesn't mean you'll suddenly not suck at putting if you can't start on your line anyhow, but it'll roll the same distance off line as it would have had you hit the sweet spot. 

 

Now, whether one actually mishits putts far enough off center with enough frequency for the bigger distance control sweet spot to even matter is another discussion...... 

 

I get your point regarding me pulling a number out of thin air, but 21% over the putter they just redesigned last year, with similar software, seems implausable. Against an early 90's 1st gen mallet? Sure; I would totally be on board. Or even against a putter from 10 years ago. 

 

That's almost like saying Chevy has now cracked the code and their new Silverado doesn't need gas: it hovers! All due to AI. Or that my car just went from 25 MPG to 30.2 MPG because AI "discovered" how to -make the cylinders more efficient. Engine efficiency is already highly refined, as is data analysis. AI will do it more quickly and make predictions-data visualisations that were previously the province of data scientists, but these processes already existed.  

 

AI doesn't find silver bullets: it learns patterns and refines them. Patterns that were already well established in Odyssey's previous computer sims of putters and then putter prototypes. I've got to think that they make hundreds of prototypes each and every year.  

 

I suppose that's why I'd like to actually see verifiable data in this space. For you oncologists out there: AI software is likely being used to refine radiation treatments. Are you seeing a 21% increase in effectiveness? If not, how much? 

Edited March 27 by RoyalMustang

[pak]

I tried out the new Odyssey putters and was hitting them 10-15 yards longer than last year's models.

 

AI really works. 🤩

[goalie]

14 minutes ago, RoyalMustang said:

 

 

 

I suppose that's why I'd like to actually see verifiable data in this space. For you oncologists out there: AI software is likely being used to refine radiation treatments. Are you seeing a 21% increase in effectiveness? If not, how much? 

You are focused so much on the 21% that you're not looking at what the 21% might be referring to.  It could be 21% better when they are using the robot to hit 2 inches towards the toe or heel for all we know, in which case I'd believe it from what I have seen of that AI-One face.  But, whatever they're specifically referring to, they're definitely NOT saying you'll make 21% more putts.....  

[KGolfCT]

Yeah, IDK, quite honestly the marketing for golf clubs is and has always been over the top.

 

With the accessibility of quality launch monitors and fitting shops these days, I think consumers will have a much easier time finding a club that fits their swing and bag gapping so much easier and more accurately than even 10 years ago. More than likely they can go into a fitting with a brand agnostic mindset or with a specific manufacturer in mind, likely get the same outcome with the proper shaft. I personally don't see a huge difference in any of the drivers in the current market, just go by sound and looks. They're all advancing at the same rate with forgiveness and distance. Except I do worry about the durability of the carbon face stuff. 

 

Putters however, I think there are some interesting products out that are making a big difference for some people, LAB, Evnroll, and yeah, the new Odysseys are making some interesting claims. I've always liked the quality of Callaway products I've had, some of their stuff is sadly underrated, like their bags, and their customer service is second to none. I'm not currently gaming any of their stuff, but would have no hesitation buying one of their clubs again.

 

 

[Chunkitgood]

Of all the puffery in all the world, you had to go ballistic on this piece?

 

I read it, it is quite logical and believable, even to the idea that it was Rahm himself who noticed the degree to which his three putts increased (presumably exponentially) outside three feet, although of course it is probable they presented the data to him in terms of misses of three feet or more so the data from outside that distance would stick out like a sore thumb and Rahm would have to be blind to miss it.

 

The question is whether Rahm goes to bed at night worrying about percentages and “data” in general like some people on this forum seem to.  I doubt it.  Does Rahm spend all day saying “It’s outside of three feet, my make ratio is going down”?  To the contrary, it is more likely he “knows” he is going to make anything within 8 feet.

 

As to the 21 % better, from their easily findable website:

 

“*Ai-ONE Urethane delivers putts up to 21% closer to the hole from 32’ and Ai-ONE Milled up to 7% closer compared to a Scotty Cameron® Super Select Newport 2.  Based on robot testing with a 15 point face map.”

 

Personally I would ban any club not made of steel or wood or a combination of the two.  But if they are going to make a club and test it against something else, they can tell people about it.

[aenemated]

3 hours ago, RoyalMustang said:

My friends who work at MBB firms were taught on day one that consultants are LCDs (liars, cheats, douchebags).

 

[Cliffy2020]

Ahhhhh the ol’ “Up to X% closer” scam.  Your mileage may vary kinda thing.  
 

So on one of their test shots, the Scotty was 2.8” short of the hole and the AI putter was only 2.2” short - cool, got it.

[Anser3]

Phil Mickelson cited the putting stats on Secrets of the Short Game .  Professionals (PGA/LIV) make 97% of all putts with 3 feet.  At 4 feet, it drops off.  At 6 feet, it is barely over half.  These are not new, groundbreaking statistics.  However, I understand why the ad uses them.  There is no money to be made in "Our club isn't any better than competitor A" marketing.  The ad doesn't bother me at all. It is far less offensive than the driver distance gain claims  on driver ads 15 years ago.  Of course to make these claims, there has to be truth somewhere (legally or they cannot make the ad). Just take it with some salt.  Of course, that "truth" only takes one test subject to meet the claim for it to be valid for marketing purposes. Just like the driver claims likely took somebody that was hitting a club completely built to the wrong specs for them (way off on the loft, shaft flex, club length, etc) vs putting the person in the perfect setup to see a 35 yard distance gain. 

 

It doesn't matter how much more stable a putter is, how much better a putter "feels" (all subjective), or how forgiving a putter is.  If you line up incorrectly or get the speed wrong, you will miss. 

[Anser3]

So, maybe they have made this putter...