24 replies to this topic

[2ball]

Before all the haters get on me about TaylorMade, I have owned 4 TM drivers and have the Superfast 1.0 driver and 3 wood in play right now. I like the product. I don't agree however, with their claims on increased distance. If you were keeping score and if the distance gains were cumulative, the RBZ driver would be roughly 41 yards longer than the R580 series.  I know some advertising claimed 10 yard gains compared to earlier models (Burner series)....
The R580 XD claimed to be (+6 yrds) longer than the R580.
R7 (+6 longer than the R580XD)
R9 (+6)
R11 (+6)
RBZ (+17)

Does anyone else roll their eyes at their marketing speak?

[MJP22]

To be fair, I think the RBZ claim is for 3 woods, not drivers.

[Shipwreck]

Their claims are 'accurate' (to an extent) but highly misleading. By all accounts longer drivers do equal more distance. But what people don't realize is that just because you can swing faster to equate to more yards, you also lose accuracy. It's an unfortunate trade off in the golf world, you either have great distance or great accuracy (or in some cases neither :P).

I have swung damn near every new driver in the past 5 years and I have yet to see HUGE improvements in any of them. I personally feel that the shaft is what makes the driver great, not the head.

[heisagoalie]

Probably they mean a big increase between someone's Kmart driver and the new driver

[jsherm45]

+6 yards longer on the Robot.

Robot =/= Human

Human = Golfer

Golfer will not realize the advertised gains on the course even if said gains demonstrated with the Robot are proven accurate.

[JPower24]

Shipwreck, on 31 January 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

Their claims are 'accurate' (to an extent) but highly misleading. By all accounts longer drivers do equal more distance. But what people don't realize is that just because you can swing faster to equate to more yards, you also lose accuracy. It's an unfortunate trade off in the golf world, you either have great distance or great accuracy (or in some cases neither :P).

I have swung damn near every new driver in the past 5 years and I have yet to see HUGE improvements in any of them. I personally feel that the shaft is what makes the driver great, not the head.

Unfortunately you you would have to try pretty hard to actually be more wrong.

Golf clubs have a little thing they have to adhere to in the US, something about the USGA and COR limits which effectively limit how much a ball can bounce of the face of the driver.

Golf clubs have done nothing but lose yards since the R5 series.

Yea your R5 series is now non-conforming to COR limits and actually goes farther than any R7 / R9 / R11 with the same shaft.  


Get fitted for a proper shaft and you'll gain all the possible distance, there is nothing to gain from a new club head aside from adjustability and something fresh for the eyes.


I still buy new clubs but it's hard to fathom just how much golf marketing irks me, you would have to be an absolute loon to buy into their claims because there is science to prove they're blatantly lying.

[Shipwreck]

JPower24, on 31 January 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

Shipwreck, on 31 January 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

Their claims are 'accurate' (to an extent) but highly misleading. By all accounts longer drivers do equal more distance. But what people don't realize is that just because you can swing faster to equate to more yards, you also lose accuracy. It's an unfortunate trade off in the golf world, you either have great distance or great accuracy (or in some cases neither :P).

I have swung damn near every new driver in the past 5 years and I have yet to see HUGE improvements in any of them. I personally feel that the shaft is what makes the driver great, not the head.

Unfortunately you you would have to try pretty hard to actually be more wrong.

Golf clubs have a little thing they have to adhere to in the US, something about the USGA and COR limits which effectively limit how much a ball can bounce of the face of the driver.

Golf clubs have done nothing but lose yards since the R5 series.

Yea your R5 series is now non-conforming to COR limits and actually goes farther than any R7 / R9 / R11 with the same shaft.  


Get fitted for a proper shaft and you'll gain all the possible distance, there is nothing to gain from a new club head aside from adjustability and something fresh for the eyes.


I still buy new clubs but it's hard to fathom just how much golf marketing irks me, you would have to be an absolute loon to buy into their claims because there is science to prove they're blatantly lying.

Unfortunately you didn't disprove anything.

Yes companies have to adhere to COR limits, but you do realize that the COR limits have been raised don't you? Adams had the speed slot channel ala F11 for over 5 years but when they first introduced it the USGA didn't allow it because the COR was too high. Low and behold 2011 comes along and we have the F11.

If your LW was 2 inches longer would you hit it the same distance or would it go further? It would go further because you are able to generate more power/lag which equals more distance.

Would you mind trying again and explaining yourself better?

[Medic]

Shipwreck, on 31 January 2012 - 10:48 PM, said:

JPower24, on 31 January 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

Shipwreck, on 31 January 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

Their claims are 'accurate' (to an extent) but highly misleading. By all accounts longer drivers do equal more distance. But what people don't realize is that just because you can swing faster to equate to more yards, you also lose accuracy. It's an unfortunate trade off in the golf world, you either have great distance or great accuracy (or in some cases neither :P).

I have swung damn near every new driver in the past 5 years and I have yet to see HUGE improvements in any of them. I personally feel that the shaft is what makes the driver great, not the head.

Unfortunately you you would have to try pretty hard to actually be more wrong.

Golf clubs have a little thing they have to adhere to in the US, something about the USGA and COR limits which effectively limit how much a ball can bounce of the face of the driver.

Golf clubs have done nothing but lose yards since the R5 series.

Yea your R5 series is now non-conforming to COR limits and actually goes farther than any R7 / R9 / R11 with the same shaft.  


Get fitted for a proper shaft and you'll gain all the possible distance, there is nothing to gain from a new club head aside from adjustability and something fresh for the eyes.


I still buy new clubs but it's hard to fathom just how much golf marketing irks me, you would have to be an absolute loon to buy into their claims because there is science to prove they're blatantly lying.

Unfortunately you didn't disprove anything.

Yes companies have to adhere to COR limits, but you do realize that the COR limits have been raised don't you? Adams had the speed slot channel ala F11 for over 5 years but when they first introduced it the USGA didn't allow it because the COR was too high. Low and behold 2011 comes along and we have the F11.

If your LW was 2 inches longer would you hit it the same distance or would it go further? It would go further because you are able to generate more power/lag which equals more distance.

Would you mind trying again and explaining yourself better?

I used to have an R-5 that I played for about three years. I loved it. Until I tried the FT-9 Tour a couple of years ago. The Cally was longer and I lost no accuracy.

In looking at my measurements the Cally is 1/2 inch longer but has the same loft and virtually the same shaft. I gained about 15 yards consistently with it. In talking to a friend of mine who used to be a pro he explained something about the MOI, how the face reacts at contact, the materials the club is constructed out of, the weight and its distribution, and the length.

While I agree that the marketing is misleading I also believe that the manufacturers have managed to increase distance without breaking any of the rules. You cannot spend as much money as they do on research and development and not end up with some advances.

Consider other high tech areas with large investments into R and D.

Aircraft
Entertainment
Home PCs
Automotive

All of the above constantly seem to reach their potential peak and then somehow manage to improve.

When jet aircraft came into being they were fast. The newest ones are much faster.
Color television was sharp, clear, and amazing. But High Def blows it away.
My Dell back in 2003 was fast. Online and off. But my new laptop is faster in literally every possible way.
Every year a car advertises the "smoothest ride ever". Having ridden in my mother-in-law's 2010 Accord versus my 2005 I believe it.

And finally there is the incredible spin and distance I, even as an amateur, can attain with a modern Pro-V 1. Makes me wonder just how incredibly Bobby Jones might have played if he had been playing such advanced equipment.

To say that a 2005 driver is definitely as long and strong as a 2012 is, in my measure, not plausible. Let iron byron swing away at my old R-5 and my newer FT-9 and I would wager that the Cally will be longer is his "hands" too. And, while I don't for a moment believe that I would gain 10% in yardage by purchasing a FIT, I would bet that I would gain 4 or 5 yards on it.

[Shipwreck]

The advances in todays heads vice yesterdays heads is actually quite impressive. They have been able to move weight around in the smallest ways that makes the head a lower spinning head. My good friend was playing a 910 D3 with an RIP X-Flex in there and couldn't get his spin below 3200. He then hit a Callaway Razr Hawk Tour with a stock RIP shaft and his spin was around 2500. He reinstalled his RIP X into it and it's still around the 2400-2600 RPM range. All heads are not created equally unfortunately. Sure loft does affect it but the head design affects it as well. Even a 9.5* K15 (if such a thing exists) would still be a higher spinning head (accuracy) than a 9.5* Superfast 2.0 TP.

As for my accuracy/distance case I mean in the extreme cases. I generally hit the ball (carry wise) around 280-290 (SS around 107) and I'm pretty accurate (usually around +/- 200 rpms side spin). When you see the super long hitters and I mean like 330+ carry their accuracy is very low because they generate so much side spin on their mis-hits. Gaining 10-15 yards is nothing. You can gain a lot of yards just by dropping your spin rates. The way it works is actually quite simple. Side spin affects accuracy, back spin affects distance. If you have low side spin (for distance) your chances of having high side spin increase. The ball can only rotate on a certain axis so something is going to be affected, which is why it's easier to work a 6 iron vice a LW.

[baseballfrk8998]

I'm almost positive you can't carry the ball 280-290 swinging 107. I think that's more in the 260-270 range? I could see it rolling out to 280 or so, however.

[asong77]

2ball, on 31 January 2012 - 12:19 PM, said:

Before all the haters get on me about TaylorMade, I have owned 4 TM drivers and have the Superfast 1.0 driver and 3 wood in play right now. I like the product. I don't agree however, with their claims on increased distance. If you were keeping score and if the distance gains were cumulative, the RBZ driver would be roughly 41 yards longer than the R580 series.  I know some advertising claimed 10 yard gains compared to earlier models (Burner series)....
The R580 XD claimed to be (+6 yrds) longer than the R580.
R7 (+6 longer than the R580XD)
R9 (+6)
R11 (+6)
RBZ (+17)

Does anyone else roll their eyes at their marketing speak?

Yes, I roll my eyes at all the marketing speak...just like Wilson can claim that they've won more majors that any other manufacturer. But what else can they claim when they try to market a new driver every six months?

It's sort of how we used to prepare Powerpoint presentations at work when pitching to a client..."we are the number X firm by market share and we are the yada yada yada*...and then the asterik points to tiny fine-print that states "*when using the following criteria: compared to all other firms in A market, located in B, with C market cap, and D revenues, that has exactly 450-452 employees, and has a practitioning devil worshipper on staff, etc etc etc, LOL!

[dlamb83]

I find it is all marketing at its finest. However,I spoke with the local Cleveland,and Nike reps,and they said the RBz fairway is just as described. They thought it was awesome(both demod it at the PGA show this past week). I only find this info true,as I would not think any rep of another company,would say someone else product was better than theirs. Specially as cut throat as the business is these days. Either that,or they have just given into the fact Taylormade cannot be outsold.

[Shipwreck]

baseballfrk8998, on 01 February 2012 - 12:43 AM, said:

I'm almost positive you can't carry the ball 280-290 swinging 107. I think that's more in the 260-270 range? I could see it rolling out to 280 or so, however.

I am going off a rough estimated based off of our launch monitor. We have the Foresight Sports GC2 which is highly accurately to measure ball speed but it does not measure swing speed. My average numbers are as follows according to the machine:

Swing speed - 103-105 (we figure you have to add around 5 mph to get true SS)
Ball speed - 150-155
Launch angle - 12.6-12.9
Backspin - 1800-2000

Plus I live in Tucson AZ so I am above sea level.

Edited by Shipwreck, 01 February 2012 - 08:13 AM.

[Shipwreck]

dlamb83, on 01 February 2012 - 02:50 AM, said:

I find it is all marketing at its finest. However,I spoke with the local Cleveland,and Nike reps,and they said the RBz fairway is just as described. They thought it was awesome(both demod it at the PGA show this past week). I only find this info true,as I would not think any rep of another company,would say someone else product was better than theirs. Specially as cut throat as the business is these days. Either that,or they have just given into the fact Taylormade cannot be outsold.

Even if the RBZ is 100% true, the practical application for it is stupid. So now you have a 300 yard 3 wood. What about your driver? You now hope that your driver will go around 330ish to make up for it right? So what about that HUGE gap in between your 3 wood and your next club? Do you now get an RBZ 5 wood to hopefully hit it 280? Then an RBZ 7 wood for that 260 range? Then the RBZ 9 wood for the 240 shots?

The RBZ goes further because it is super low spin which for drives is great, going for greens in 2? Not so much.

[JPower24]

Shipwreck, on 31 January 2012 - 10:48 PM, said:

JPower24, on 31 January 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

Shipwreck, on 31 January 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

Their claims are 'accurate' (to an extent) but highly misleading. By all accounts longer drivers do equal more distance. But what people don't realize is that just because you can swing faster to equate to more yards, you also lose accuracy. It's an unfortunate trade off in the golf world, you either have great distance or great accuracy (or in some cases neither :P).

I have swung damn near every new driver in the past 5 years and I have yet to see HUGE improvements in any of them. I personally feel that the shaft is what makes the driver great, not the head.

Unfortunately you you would have to try pretty hard to actually be more wrong.

Golf clubs have a little thing they have to adhere to in the US, something about the USGA and COR limits which effectively limit how much a ball can bounce of the face of the driver.

Golf clubs have done nothing but lose yards since the R5 series.

Yea your R5 series is now non-conforming to COR limits and actually goes farther than any R7 / R9 / R11 with the same shaft.  


Get fitted for a proper shaft and you'll gain all the possible distance, there is nothing to gain from a new club head aside from adjustability and something fresh for the eyes.


I still buy new clubs but it's hard to fathom just how much golf marketing irks me, you would have to be an absolute loon to buy into their claims because there is science to prove they're blatantly lying.

Unfortunately you didn't disprove anything.

Yes companies have to adhere to COR limits, but you do realize that the COR limits have been raised don't you? Adams had the speed slot channel ala F11 for over 5 years but when they first introduced it the USGA didn't allow it because the COR was too high. Low and behold 2011 comes along and we have the F11.

If your LW was 2 inches longer would you hit it the same distance or would it go further? It would go further because you are able to generate more power/lag which equals more distance.

Would you mind trying again and explaining yourself better?

Cor limits have been lowered not raised.

Look at a list of non-conforming USGA clubs and find the r5 series.   Beside every r5 driver you will find 'non-conforming - cor limits'

If cor limits went up as you suggest, then surely a driver from years ago would meet todays standards, perhaps you ought to give USGA a call and have them redo their tests.


Think about where you can gain distance from a club and you will see there's no way for these BS claims to be true.


Need less spin? - New shaft
Lower launch? - New shaft
Mess with the CoG - Hot Melt
More clubhead speed? Add shaft length

MOI effects nothing but mishits.

If the rate the ball bounces of the face is limited you can only gain distance in 4 ways, less spin, lower launch, optimizing center of gravity and adding club head speed.  Aerodynamics are not improved enough to gain 7-10mph clubhead speed that you would need for the extra 16 yards or whatever they claim this year.  So aside from that, anyone considering buying a 'Rocketballz' LOL, would be better off spending money and getting fit for a shaft. Or if you really think about TM's avg customer, lessons.

Honestly, what's the point in sending more hackers out to the course? Lets get golfers informed and have them start making better decisions so our rounds stop being 6+ hours.

[Shipwreck]

JPower24, on 01 February 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

Shipwreck, on 31 January 2012 - 10:48 PM, said:

JPower24, on 31 January 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

Shipwreck, on 31 January 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

Their claims are 'accurate' (to an extent) but highly misleading. By all accounts longer drivers do equal more distance. But what people don't realize is that just because you can swing faster to equate to more yards, you also lose accuracy. It's an unfortunate trade off in the golf world, you either have great distance or great accuracy (or in some cases neither :P).

I have swung damn near every new driver in the past 5 years and I have yet to see HUGE improvements in any of them. I personally feel that the shaft is what makes the driver great, not the head.

Unfortunately you you would have to try pretty hard to actually be more wrong.

Golf clubs have a little thing they have to adhere to in the US, something about the USGA and COR limits which effectively limit how much a ball can bounce of the face of the driver.

Golf clubs have done nothing but lose yards since the R5 series.

Yea your R5 series is now non-conforming to COR limits and actually goes farther than any R7 / R9 / R11 with the same shaft.  


Get fitted for a proper shaft and you'll gain all the possible distance, there is nothing to gain from a new club head aside from adjustability and something fresh for the eyes.


I still buy new clubs but it's hard to fathom just how much golf marketing irks me, you would have to be an absolute loon to buy into their claims because there is science to prove they're blatantly lying.

Unfortunately you didn't disprove anything.

Yes companies have to adhere to COR limits, but you do realize that the COR limits have been raised don't you? Adams had the speed slot channel ala F11 for over 5 years but when they first introduced it the USGA didn't allow it because the COR was too high. Low and behold 2011 comes along and we have the F11.

If your LW was 2 inches longer would you hit it the same distance or would it go further? It would go further because you are able to generate more power/lag which equals more distance.

Would you mind trying again and explaining yourself better?

Cor limits have been lowered not raised.

Look at a list of non-conforming USGA clubs and find the r5 series.   Beside every r5 driver you will find 'non-conforming - cor limits'

If cor limits went up as you suggest, then surely a driver from years ago would meet todays standards, perhaps you ought to give USGA a call and have them redo their tests.


Think about where you can gain distance from a club and you will see there's no way for these BS claims to be true.


Need less spin? - New shaft
Lower launch? - New shaft
Mess with the CoG - Hot Melt
More clubhead speed? Add shaft length

MOI effects nothing but mishits.

If the rate the ball bounces of the face is limited you can only gain distance in 4 ways, less spin, lower launch, optimizing center of gravity and adding club head speed.  Aerodynamics are not improved enough to gain 7-10mph clubhead speed that you would need for the extra 16 yards or whatever they claim this year.  So aside from that, anyone considering buying a 'Rocketballz' LOL, would be better off spending money and getting fit for a shaft. Or if you really think about TM's avg customer, lessons.

Honestly, what's the point in sending more hackers out to the course? Lets get golfers informed and have them start making better decisions so our rounds stop being 6+ hours.

My mistake. I misspoke when saying that COR limits have been raised, but meant that instead companies have found ways to push the COR limits to the max. Actually, the USGA went away from COR testing and instead have gone to the 'characteristic time' effect of the ball on the club face. The current limit is 239 microseconds +/- 18 microseconds.

[dlamb83]

Shipwreck, on 01 February 2012 - 08:13 AM, said:

dlamb83, on 01 February 2012 - 02:50 AM, said:

I find it is all marketing at its finest. However,I spoke with the local Cleveland,and Nike reps,and they said the RBz fairway is just as described. They thought it was awesome(both demod it at the PGA show this past week). I only find this info true,as I would not think any rep of another company,would say someone else product was better than theirs. Specially as cut throat as the business is these days. Either that,or they have just given into the fact Taylormade cannot be outsold.

Even if the RBZ is 100% true, the practical application for it is stupid. So now you have a 300 yard 3 wood. What about your driver? You now hope that your driver will go around 330ish to make up for it right? So what about that HUGE gap in between your 3 wood and your next club? Do you now get an RBZ 5 wood to hopefully hit it 280? Then an RBZ 7 wood for that 260 range? Then the RBZ 9 wood for the 240 shots?

The RBZ goes further because it is super low spin which for drives is great, going for greens in 2? Not so much.

I agree 100% what you say. A 300 yard 3 wood is a dumb concept. Specially if you have 2 new drivers also being sold at the same time. If people were to buy a fairway,and hit it just as long,or longer than their current driver,they would not buy a new R11s or RBZ driver. It will interesting to see the threads in a couple days with people saying they hit the new RBZ  fairway longer than their diver,and say they will no longer carry a driver.

[tembolo1284]

silly wabbit...you know this is all just marketing.  BSing the public into buying the club.

Would be nice to just be 1/3 of that longer.

[JPower24]

[quote name='Shipwreck' timestamp='1328127302' post='4192707']
[quote name='JPower24' timestamp='1328122390' post='4192263']
[quote name='Shipwreck' timestamp='1328068122' post='4189393']
[quote name='JPower24' timestamp='1328056819' post='4187981']
[quote name='Shipwreck' timestamp='1328033866' post='4185501']
Their claims are 'accurate' (to an extent) but highly misleading. By all accounts longer drivers do equal more distance. But what people don't realize is that just because you can swing faster to equate to more yards, you also lose accuracy. It's an unfortunate trade off in the golf world, you either have great distance or great accuracy (or in some cases neither :P).

I have swung damn near every new driver in the past 5 years and I have yet to see HUGE improvements in any of them. I personally feel that the shaft is what makes the driver great, not the head.
[/quote]

Unfortunately you you would have to try pretty hard to actually be more wrong.

Golf clubs have a little thing they have to adhere to in the US, something about the USGA and COR limits which effectively limit how much a ball can bounce of the face of the driver.

Golf clubs have done nothing but lose yards since the R5 series.

Yea your R5 series is now non-conforming to COR limits and actually goes farther than any R7 / R9 / R11 with the same shaft.  


Get fitted for a proper shaft and you'll gain all the possible distance, there is nothing to gain from a new club head aside from adjustability and something fresh for the eyes.


I still buy new clubs but it's hard to fathom just how much golf marketing irks me, you would have to be an absolute loon to buy into their claims because there is science to prove they're blatantly lying.
[/quote]

Unfortunately you didn't disprove anything.

Yes companies have to adhere to COR limits, but you do realize that the COR limits have been raised don't you? Adams had the speed slot channel ala F11 for over 5 years but when they first introduced it the USGA didn't allow it because the COR was too high. Low and behold 2011 comes along and we have the F11.

If your LW was 2 inches longer would you hit it the same distance or would it go further? It would go further because you are able to generate more power/lag which equals more distance.

Would you mind trying again and explaining yourself better?
[/quote]

Cor limits have been lowered not raised.

Look at a list of non-conforming USGA clubs and find the r5 series.   Beside every r5 driver you will find 'non-conforming - cor limits'

If cor limits went up as you suggest, then surely a driver from years ago would meet todays standards, perhaps you ought to give USGA a call and have them redo their tests.


Think about where you can gain distance from a club and you will see there's no way for these BS claims to be true.


Need less spin? - New shaft
Lower launch? - New shaft
Mess with the CoG - Hot Melt
More clubhead speed? Add shaft length

MOI effects nothing but mishits.

If the rate the ball bounces of the face is limited you can only gain distance in 4 ways, less spin, lower launch, optimizing center of gravity and adding club head speed.  Aerodynamics are not improved enough to gain 7-10mph clubhead speed that you would need for the extra 16 yards or whatever they claim this year.  So aside from that, anyone considering buying a 'Rocketballz' LOL, would be better off spending money and getting fit for a shaft. Or if you really think about TM's avg customer, lessons.

Honestly, what's the point in sending more hackers out to the course? Lets get golfers informed and have them start making better decisions so our rounds stop being 6+ hours.
[/quote]

My mistake. I misspoke when saying that COR limits have been raised, but meant that instead companies have found ways to push the COR limits to the max. Actually, the USGA went away from COR testing and instead have gone to the 'characteristic time' effect of the ball on the club face. The current limit is 239 microseconds +/- 18 microseconds.
[/quote]

Characteristic time (CT) is not entirely irrelevant in all scenarios but it is here. COR and CT both measure the energy transfer from clubhead to ball. CT has been in use by the USGA since 2004 (right around when those r5's turned out to be non-conforming). It's nothing new companies are suddenly starting to maximize and neither is COR.

The r5 transfers energy to the ball more efficiently than the rbz/r11/r9/r7 hence why the others are conforming and the r5 not.  

So with that out of the way, will companies take another route for marketing?

[Shipwreck]

JPower24, on 01 February 2012 - 08:18 PM, said:

Characteristic time (CT) is not entirely irrelevant in all scenarios but it is here. COR and CT both measure the energy transfer from clubhead to ball. CT has been in use by the USGA since 2004 (right around when those r5's turned out to be non-conforming). It's nothing new companies are suddenly starting to maximize and neither is COR.

The r5 transfers energy to the ball more efficiently than the rbz/r11/r9/r7 hence why the others are conforming and the r5 not.  

So with that out of the way, will companies take another route for marketing?

Isn't it funny that a few years ago the driver length was 44 inches, following in the traditional 1 inch increment between woods. Then came the 45 inch driver and not many people cared. Now they are 46.5 inches with the Long Tom measuring at 48 inches. Instant yards.....and loss of accuracy.

[PixlPutterman]

Maybe they mean they made the shaft longer

[JustTheTips]

If they are hitting the RBZ 3 Wood as far as driver wouldn't then the question be are they more or less accurate? Who cares what the name/number on the club reads. It should all be about how far you can hit it and how accurately.

dlamb83, on 01 February 2012 - 03:29 PM, said:

I agree 100% what you say. A 300 yard 3 wood is a dumb concept. Specially if you have 2 new drivers also being sold at the same time. If people were to buy a fairway,and hit it just as long,or longer than their current driver,they would not buy a new R11s or RBZ driver. It will interesting to see the threads in a couple days with people saying they hit the new RBZ  fairway longer than their diver,and say they will no longer carry a driver.

[PockyStick]

JustTheTips, on 02 February 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

If they are hitting the RBZ 3 Wood as far as driver wouldn't then the question be are they more or less accurate? Who cares what the name/number on the club reads. It should all be about how far you can hit it and how accurately.

Might as well just put draw a 3 on your driver

[bobfoster]

Good grief. I've been marketed to for 40 years ... maybe I'm as little cyncical? But ... folks ... it is (mostly) the Indian, not the arrow. 5 yards? Yeah, maybe (especially if the shaft is optimized). 20 or 30 yards? ... I mean, c'mon ...

Edited by bobfoster, 06 February 2012 - 07:37 PM.

[makaveli]

Medic, on 31 January 2012 - 11:09 PM, said:

Every year a car advertises the "smoothest ride ever". Having ridden in my mother-in-law's 2010 Accord versus my 2005 I believe it.

Hey now, buy AMERICAN!  

I had no idea the r5 was non-conforming.  Can I tell a guy in my league that his driver is "illegal" ?  Are their any r5 drivers or woods that are conforming? Sorry I'm too lazy to check the USGA site.