Jump to content

Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at GolfWRX such as viewing all the images, interacting with members, access to all forums and eligiblility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

- - - - -

TM Twist Face Rumor


285 replies to this topic

#181 Bye

Bye

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,157 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 295315
  • Joined: 02/05/2014
  • Location:England
  • Handicap:1.3
GolfWRX Likes : 591

Posted 14 February 2018 - 04:30 PM

View PostYellow Jacket, on 14 February 2018 - 04:06 PM, said:

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 2017 M1 10.5 - Aldila Rogue Silver 70X - 44.5 inches
Callaway Rogue 3 Wood - Aldila Rogue Silver 70X
Titleist 718 T-MB 2 Iron - X100
Titleist 716CB 4-9 - X100
Vokey 46.08, 50.08 - X100
Vokey 56S, 60M - S300
Scotty Cameron Select Fastback
Titleist Pro V1

Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


1

#182 Bad9

Bad9

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,706 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 94897
  • Joined: 09/21/2009
  • Location:Canada
  • Handicap:9.2
GolfWRX Likes : 1871

Posted 14 February 2018 - 05:06 PM

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.
Ping G SFT 12°/Phenom 50 r flex
Maltby Logic Tech 5w/Xcaliber FW r flex
Maltby Logic Tech 7w/Xcaliber FW r flex
Maltby KE4 Tour 25°/Xcaliber HY r flex
Ping G 5-U/Xcaliber r flex
Maltby Tricept 54°/Xcaliber r flex
Maltby Tricept 58°/Xcaliber r flex
Mizuno Bettinardi C06

2

#183 anth

anth

    From the Land Down Under

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,496 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 22863
  • Joined: 12/18/2006
  • Handicap:4
GolfWRX Likes : 1139

Posted 14 February 2018 - 07:48 PM

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).
Callaway GBB Epic 10.5
Callaway BB Alpha 816 16
Srixon Z H45 19 Hybrid
Srixon Z U45 23 Utility
Srixon Z 545 5 - AW
Cleveland 588 RTX 2.0 54 & 60
Odyssey Metal X Milled #7
TaylorMade TP5

3

#184 pinestreetgolf

pinestreetgolf

    Major Winner

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 3,014 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 435010
  • Joined: 08/02/2016
  • Location:Louisiana
  • Handicap:1.2
  • Ebay ID:butlerj_dickinson
GolfWRX Likes : 1842

Posted 14 February 2018 - 08:22 PM

View Postanth, on 14 February 2018 - 07:48 PM, said:

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.

Edited by pinestreetgolf, 14 February 2018 - 08:24 PM.

Two Drivers: 910D2 9.5* +.5", Nike Lucky 13* -2" Pro Launch Red x
Wood: Adams Tight Lies 2 16* Aldila DVS 60x

Driving Iron: Apex CF16 3 Iron 21* s300
Irons: Bridgestone j40 DPC 4-PW s300

Wedges: Vokey SM6 50.08 F Grind & 55.09 M Grind s300
Putter: Nike Method B1|07

4

#185 EricWGolf

EricWGolf

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 397 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 414766
  • Joined: 03/07/2016
GolfWRX Likes : 520

Posted 14 February 2018 - 08:49 PM

View Postpinestreetgolf, on 14 February 2018 - 08:22 PM, said:

View Postanth, on 14 February 2018 - 07:48 PM, said:

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.

TaylorMade M4 - Oban Devotion 6
TaylorMade M4 3 Wood - KuroKage 70
TaylorMade M4 3 Hybrid - KuroKage 80
TaylorMade P790 4-PW - Nippon Modus 120
TaylorMade Milled Grind 51/56 - Nippon Modus 120
TaylorMade HiToe 60 - Nippon Modus 120

TaylorMade Spider Tour Black

Posted Image

5

#186 Rezzy

Rezzy

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 492092
  • Joined: 01/28/2018
  • Handicap:11
GolfWRX Likes : 11

Posted 14 February 2018 - 08:57 PM

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.

6

#187 zeke66

zeke66

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 27991
  • Joined: 04/17/2007
GolfWRX Likes : 54

Posted 14 February 2018 - 11:05 PM

If there are already a lot of tolerance issues plus or minus a few degrees, different face angles, etc. Im sure the company could get away with making some small adjustments without having any rules issues. Shoot, Harry Hogge shaved a half inch off Coles stock Car and gets away with it. Ive seen a tour issued head.. seemed like the face sat pretty square. The retail version looks openish which is great. I dont have any other info, but I think the heads can be somewhat different and it probably doesnt matter.

7

#188 DBill

DBill

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 731 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 426712
  • Joined: 05/26/2016
  • Location:Gilbert AZ
GolfWRX Likes : 771

Posted 15 February 2018 - 01:39 AM

Crossfield is a cry baby so.....

Edited by DBill, 15 February 2018 - 01:40 AM.


8

#189 bladehunter

bladehunter

    I have a great profile! Especially from the side !

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,281 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 291449
  • Joined: 01/12/2014
  • Location:south carolina
  • Handicap:NONE
GolfWRX Likes : 16742

Posted 15 February 2018 - 07:58 AM

View Post300_yard_drives, on 13 February 2018 - 01:02 AM, said:

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 Rogue 9.8 Tour issue Rogue Black 80TX  playing at 43 1/4
17 M1 14.5  Tour issue Graphite Design   AD DI 8X
Titleist 816H2 21 Graphite Design AD DI 105X
Titleist 716 T-MB 4 iron Steelfiber i125X
Titleist 716 Tour Proto Ap2 5-9 Steelfiber i125X
Vokey sm7 46 sm6 50   sm6 55 300 series 59 Steelfiber i125s
TM Red TI Slant neck Spider ..34"  full sight line

9

#190 vartanick

vartanick

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 106 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 401672
  • Joined: 11/03/2015
  • Location:chile
  • Handicap:10
GolfWRX Likes : 33

Posted 15 February 2018 - 08:03 AM

Did he already compare the prov vs the cs? I mean post sponsorship.


Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


10

#191 bladehunter

bladehunter

    I have a great profile! Especially from the side !

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,281 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 291449
  • Joined: 01/12/2014
  • Location:south carolina
  • Handicap:NONE
GolfWRX Likes : 16742

Posted 15 February 2018 - 08:14 AM

View Postjll62, on 14 February 2018 - 01:49 PM, said:

View Postpinestreetgolf, on 13 February 2018 - 08:40 AM, said:

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?

Edited by bladehunter, 15 February 2018 - 08:15 AM.

Callaway Rogue 9.8 Tour issue Rogue Black 80TX  playing at 43 1/4
17 M1 14.5  Tour issue Graphite Design   AD DI 8X
Titleist 816H2 21 Graphite Design AD DI 105X
Titleist 716 T-MB 4 iron Steelfiber i125X
Titleist 716 Tour Proto Ap2 5-9 Steelfiber i125X
Vokey sm7 46 sm6 50   sm6 55 300 series 59 Steelfiber i125s
TM Red TI Slant neck Spider ..34"  full sight line

11

#192 jll62

jll62

    Major Winner

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 1,469 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 9627
  • Joined: 01/10/2006
  • Location:Minneapolis
  • Handicap:+4.5
GolfWRX Likes : 1066

Posted 15 February 2018 - 08:59 AM

View Postbladehunter, on 15 February 2018 - 08:14 AM, said:

View Postjll62, on 14 February 2018 - 01:49 PM, said:

View Postpinestreetgolf, on 13 February 2018 - 08:40 AM, said:

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 M2 9.5 (2017), Graphite Design Tour AD-GP 6s
TaylorMade V-Steel 13, Graphite Design Purple Ice 85X
TaylorMade UDI 2, KBS C-Taper Lite 115 X
TaylorMade P-770 3-4, KBS C-Taper 120 S
TaylorMade RSi TP 5-PW, KBS C-Taper 125 S+
TaylorMade Milled Grind 52 Raw, DG S400
TaylorMade Hi-Toe 60 (58), DG S400
TaylorMade DJ Itsy Bitsy Proto, 34"
TaylorMade TP5x

jll62's WITB

jll62 on Instagram

12

#193 bladehunter

bladehunter

    I have a great profile! Especially from the side !

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,281 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 291449
  • Joined: 01/12/2014
  • Location:south carolina
  • Handicap:NONE
GolfWRX Likes : 16742

Posted 15 February 2018 - 09:05 AM

View Postjll62, on 15 February 2018 - 08:59 AM, said:

View Postbladehunter, on 15 February 2018 - 08:14 AM, said:

View Postjll62, on 14 February 2018 - 01:49 PM, said:

View Postpinestreetgolf, on 13 February 2018 - 08:40 AM, said:

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.  Id never really thought aboot it on the Driver Side.
Callaway Rogue 9.8 Tour issue Rogue Black 80TX  playing at 43 1/4
17 M1 14.5  Tour issue Graphite Design   AD DI 8X
Titleist 816H2 21 Graphite Design AD DI 105X
Titleist 716 T-MB 4 iron Steelfiber i125X
Titleist 716 Tour Proto Ap2 5-9 Steelfiber i125X
Vokey sm7 46 sm6 50   sm6 55 300 series 59 Steelfiber i125s
TM Red TI Slant neck Spider ..34"  full sight line

13

#194 jll62

jll62

    Major Winner

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 1,469 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 9627
  • Joined: 01/10/2006
  • Location:Minneapolis
  • Handicap:+4.5
GolfWRX Likes : 1066

Posted 15 February 2018 - 10:37 AM

View Postpinestreetgolf, on 14 February 2018 - 08:22 PM, said:

View Postanth, on 14 February 2018 - 07:48 PM, said:

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 M2 9.5 (2017), Graphite Design Tour AD-GP 6s
TaylorMade V-Steel 13, Graphite Design Purple Ice 85X
TaylorMade UDI 2, KBS C-Taper Lite 115 X
TaylorMade P-770 3-4, KBS C-Taper 120 S
TaylorMade RSi TP 5-PW, KBS C-Taper 125 S+
TaylorMade Milled Grind 52 Raw, DG S400
TaylorMade Hi-Toe 60 (58), DG S400
TaylorMade DJ Itsy Bitsy Proto, 34"
TaylorMade TP5x

jll62's WITB

jll62 on Instagram

14

#195 pinestreetgolf

pinestreetgolf

    Major Winner

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 3,014 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 435010
  • Joined: 08/02/2016
  • Location:Louisiana
  • Handicap:1.2
  • Ebay ID:butlerj_dickinson
GolfWRX Likes : 1842

Posted 15 February 2018 - 10:44 AM

View PostEricWGolf, on 14 February 2018 - 08:49 PM, said:

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.

View Postjll62, on 15 February 2018 - 10:37 AM, said:

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.

Edited by pinestreetgolf, 15 February 2018 - 10:45 AM.

Two Drivers: 910D2 9.5* +.5", Nike Lucky 13* -2" Pro Launch Red x
Wood: Adams Tight Lies 2 16* Aldila DVS 60x

Driving Iron: Apex CF16 3 Iron 21* s300
Irons: Bridgestone j40 DPC 4-PW s300

Wedges: Vokey SM6 50.08 F Grind & 55.09 M Grind s300
Putter: Nike Method B1|07

15

#196 DFS PFD

DFS PFD

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 515 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 485676
  • Joined: 10/30/2017
  • Handicap:1.8
GolfWRX Likes : 359

Posted 15 February 2018 - 10:47 AM

View Postpinestreetgolf, on 15 February 2018 - 10:44 AM, said:

View PostEricWGolf, on 14 February 2018 - 08:49 PM, said:

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.

View Postjll62, on 15 February 2018 - 10:37 AM, said:

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.
F8+ Kuro Kage DC 70 TX
M2 Tour 15* Kuro Kage DC 70TX
790 UDI Tensei Pro White 100TX
4-PW JPX 900 Tour Project X 6.5
50* MD4 Raw Tour issue S400
55* MD4 Raw Tour issue S400
60* Hi-Toe Tour Issue S400
009

16

#197 pinestreetgolf

pinestreetgolf

    Major Winner

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 3,014 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 435010
  • Joined: 08/02/2016
  • Location:Louisiana
  • Handicap:1.2
  • Ebay ID:butlerj_dickinson
GolfWRX Likes : 1842

Posted 15 February 2018 - 10:59 AM

View PostDFS PFD, on 15 February 2018 - 10:47 AM, said:

View Postpinestreetgolf, on 15 February 2018 - 10:44 AM, said:

View PostEricWGolf, on 14 February 2018 - 08:49 PM, said:

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.

View Postjll62, on 15 February 2018 - 10:37 AM, said:

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”

Edited by pinestreetgolf, 15 February 2018 - 11:16 AM.

Two Drivers: 910D2 9.5* +.5", Nike Lucky 13* -2" Pro Launch Red x
Wood: Adams Tight Lies 2 16* Aldila DVS 60x

Driving Iron: Apex CF16 3 Iron 21* s300
Irons: Bridgestone j40 DPC 4-PW s300

Wedges: Vokey SM6 50.08 F Grind & 55.09 M Grind s300
Putter: Nike Method B1|07

17

#198 DFS PFD

DFS PFD

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 515 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 485676
  • Joined: 10/30/2017
  • Handicap:1.8
GolfWRX Likes : 359

Posted 15 February 2018 - 11:03 AM

View Postpinestreetgolf, on 15 February 2018 - 10:59 AM, said:

View PostDFS PFD, on 15 February 2018 - 10:47 AM, said:

View Postpinestreetgolf, on 15 February 2018 - 10:44 AM, said:

View PostEricWGolf, on 14 February 2018 - 08:49 PM, said:

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.

View Postjll62, on 15 February 2018 - 10:37 AM, said:

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.
F8+ Kuro Kage DC 70 TX
M2 Tour 15* Kuro Kage DC 70TX
790 UDI Tensei Pro White 100TX
4-PW JPX 900 Tour Project X 6.5
50* MD4 Raw Tour issue S400
55* MD4 Raw Tour issue S400
60* Hi-Toe Tour Issue S400
009

18

#199 jll62

jll62

    Major Winner

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 1,469 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 9627
  • Joined: 01/10/2006
  • Location:Minneapolis
  • Handicap:+4.5
GolfWRX Likes : 1066

Posted 15 February 2018 - 11:28 AM

View Postpinestreetgolf, on 15 February 2018 - 10:44 AM, said:

View PostEricWGolf, on 14 February 2018 - 08:49 PM, said:

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.

View Postjll62, on 15 February 2018 - 10:37 AM, said:

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 M2 9.5 (2017), Graphite Design Tour AD-GP 6s
TaylorMade V-Steel 13, Graphite Design Purple Ice 85X
TaylorMade UDI 2, KBS C-Taper Lite 115 X
TaylorMade P-770 3-4, KBS C-Taper 120 S
TaylorMade RSi TP 5-PW, KBS C-Taper 125 S+
TaylorMade Milled Grind 52 Raw, DG S400
TaylorMade Hi-Toe 60 (58), DG S400
TaylorMade DJ Itsy Bitsy Proto, 34"
TaylorMade TP5x

jll62's WITB

jll62 on Instagram

19

#200 getitdaily

getitdaily

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,308 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 479556
  • Joined: 08/19/2017
  • Location:FL
  • Handicap:2
GolfWRX Likes : 415

Posted 15 February 2018 - 11:41 AM

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


Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


Wanna get rid of this ugly yellow box? And remove other annoying "stuff" in between posts? Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

20

#201 QuigleyDU

QuigleyDU

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,358 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 62095
  • Joined: 08/01/2008
  • Location:reno nv
  • Ebay ID:reederc2
GolfWRX Likes : 1499

Posted 15 February 2018 - 11:48 AM

View Postgetitdaily, on 15 February 2018 - 11:41 AM, said:

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: SRIXON Z745
fairway: NIKE VAPOR 13*
3-4 IRON: MIZZY MP H5 GD AMT X100.
5-PW IRONS: MP5 DG AMT X100
WEDGES; CLEVELAND rtx 3.0 RAW
PUTTER; PING SIGMA G SHEA H
BALL; various, ask me that day.

21

#202 getitdaily

getitdaily

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,308 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 479556
  • Joined: 08/19/2017
  • Location:FL
  • Handicap:2
GolfWRX Likes : 415

Posted 15 February 2018 - 11:53 AM

View PostQuigleyDU, on 15 February 2018 - 11:48 AM, said:

View Postgetitdaily, on 15 February 2018 - 11:41 AM, said:

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!

22

#203 falken19150

falken19150

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,632 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 72546
  • Joined: 01/12/2009
  • Location:San Francisco, CA
  • Handicap:3
GolfWRX Likes : 493

Posted 15 February 2018 - 12:50 PM

Maybe Rory should have the tour truck build him a "twist face" putter.......

23

#204 rymail00

rymail00

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,040 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 50849
  • Joined: 03/07/2008
  • Location:Plattsburgh, Upstate NY
  • Handicap:6
  • Ebay ID:rymail00
GolfWRX Likes : 841

Posted 15 February 2018 - 02:23 PM

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   http://www.golfwrx.c...witb-pic-heavy/

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 7s (current gamer)  - Ping Scottsdale TR B60 - TP Mills Heritage 349g - Byron Morgan DH11 360g - Byron Morgan 006 355g - C&L 368g

24

#205 mahonie

mahonie

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,304 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 80712
  • Joined: 04/20/2009
  • Location:England
  • Handicap:10
GolfWRX Likes : 1746

Posted 15 February 2018 - 04:22 PM

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
MD Golf Superstrong 3-wood UST Proforce 65 Stiff
Wilson Staff FG Tour M3 21* Hybrid Aldila RIP Stiff
Mizuno MP4 4-PW DG S300
Wilson Staff PMP wedges 50/54/58 KBS Hi-Rev 2.0
Radius Classic 8

25

#206 SwooshLT

SwooshLT

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,178 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 5901
  • Joined: 09/09/2005
  • Location:Loxahatchee,FL
  • Handicap:5
GolfWRX Likes : 1281

Posted 15 February 2018 - 04:27 PM

View Postmahonie, on 15 February 2018 - 04:22 PM, said:

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

26

#207 WHC888

WHC888

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,355 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 107191
  • Joined: 04/30/2010
  • Location:Houston & Tulsa
  • Handicap:7.9
GolfWRX Likes : 2671

Posted 15 February 2018 - 04:34 PM

View PostSwooshLT, on 15 February 2018 - 04:27 PM, said:

View Postmahonie, on 15 February 2018 - 04:22 PM, said:

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
Taylormade M3 440 9* w/  Tour AD TP 6s (-3/4")
Taylormade M4 Tour 3 Wood 15* w/ Tour AD IZ 6s
Taylormade P790 3 - 4 Irons KBS FLT
Taylormade P750 5 - 6 Irons KBS C Taper Lite
Taylormade P730 7 - 9 Irons KBS $ Taper

NIKE OVEN  Engage Wedges 46*/51*/55* Mike Taylor Specials
NIKE OVEN  Prototype 1/1 Long Slant Neck 006  
NIKE OVEN  Long Slant Neck Origin B2-05

Callaway Rogue SZ 9* w/  Tour AD TP 6s (-3/4")







Posted Image

27

#208 anth

anth

    From the Land Down Under

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,496 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 22863
  • Joined: 12/18/2006
  • Handicap:4
GolfWRX Likes : 1139

Posted 15 February 2018 - 06:00 PM

View Postpinestreetgolf, on 15 February 2018 - 10:59 AM, said:

View PostDFS PFD, on 15 February 2018 - 10:47 AM, said:

View Postpinestreetgolf, on 15 February 2018 - 10:44 AM, said:

View PostEricWGolf, on 14 February 2018 - 08:49 PM, said:

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.

View Postjll62, on 15 February 2018 - 10:37 AM, said:

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”
Firstly, I didnt call anyone dumb.  Theyre your words.

Secondly, read the following passage (granted its from Wiki but still valid) and apply this to MCs 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.
Callaway GBB Epic 10.5
Callaway BB Alpha 816 16
Srixon Z H45 19 Hybrid
Srixon Z U45 23 Utility
Srixon Z 545 5 - AW
Cleveland 588 RTX 2.0 54 & 60
Odyssey Metal X Milled #7
TaylorMade TP5

28

#209 mahonie

mahonie

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,304 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 80712
  • Joined: 04/20/2009
  • Location:England
  • Handicap:10
GolfWRX Likes : 1746

Posted 15 February 2018 - 06:41 PM

View PostWHC888, on 15 February 2018 - 04:34 PM, said:

View PostSwooshLT, on 15 February 2018 - 04:27 PM, said:

View Postmahonie, on 15 February 2018 - 04:22 PM, said:

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
MD Golf Superstrong 3-wood UST Proforce 65 Stiff
Wilson Staff FG Tour M3 21* Hybrid Aldila RIP Stiff
Mizuno MP4 4-PW DG S300
Wilson Staff PMP wedges 50/54/58 KBS Hi-Rev 2.0
Radius Classic 8

29

#210 Nixhex524

Nixhex524

    Major Winner

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 2,814 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 305437
  • Joined: 04/03/2014
  • Ebay ID:Nixhex524
GolfWRX Likes : 1253

Posted 15 February 2018 - 08:01 PM

View Postjll62, on 15 February 2018 - 10:37 AM, said:

View Postpinestreetgolf, on 14 February 2018 - 08:22 PM, said:

View Postanth, on 14 February 2018 - 07:48 PM, said:

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...

Titleist 913 D3 9.5*
Titleist 913 fd 15*
Titleist 913h 21*
Titleist 716 CB 4-P
Titleist SM6 52*/58*
Byron Morgan DH89

Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


Wanna get rid of this ugly yellow box? And remove other annoying "stuff" in between posts? Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

30



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

GolfWRX Sponsors