Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 7093 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted
I saw a long thread in another subforum entitled: "Equipment Obsession"

I read through it and found it interesting - mostly because I'm one of those who suffer from equipment obsession with everything I do. In the case of golf however, I opted for an inexpensive start. It's probably because of my other obsessions (musical gear, astronomy gear, home workshop gear) that I decided to go the inexpensive route with golf until I've proven that I'm worthy of more expensive equipment.

My wife and I decided to do this golf thing together, so we talked with some local pros and decided on both a primary golf course (nice driving range, inexpensive fees, friendly old-timer employees) and an instructor. Our instructor also fits clubs and since we're tall (I'm 6'5" and my wife 5'11"), he made us a set with longer shafts, appropriate for our reaches. He used Trident club heads and an assortment of other parts for shafts and grips. The whole shebang wasn't super cheap, but I'm happy overall with what we have in our bags. He also guaranteed them for life and all adjustments are free.

Anyway, for us, not knowing the difference between an expensive set of golf clubs and a baseball bat, this is working out very well. Someday in the future, if we seem to be getting better at this, we can look at upgrading (or not - depends).

How many of you play with relatively inexpensive clubs? I see signature lines with clubs listed, but it seems that there's a tendency to list clubs if they're better-known brands, but not otherwise.

Cheers,
Mark

Posted
I played with component clubs from reputable compamies for years. I believe in avoiding direct copies of name brand clubs on principle,. If you are fit properly and use decent shafts I don't feel the difference is great. On better clubs the shaft is often the most expensive part anyway. Gas Can amd Everado seem to really know this type of club. Maybe when you are to the point where you can really feel the difference in shaft and clubhead combinations or you are playing at least once a week.

1W Cleveland LauncherComp 10.5, 3W Touredge Exotics 15 deg.,FY Wilson 19.5 degree
4 and 5H, 6I-GW Callaway Razr, SW, LW Cleveland Cg-14, Putter Taylor Made Suzuka, Ball, Srixon XV Yellow


  • Administrator
Posted
Note "cheap" and "inexpensive" have different connotations. Nobody wants to use "cheap" equipment, but bargain hunters often prefer "inexpensive" equipment.

We'll be reviewing some equipment from Pine Meadows golf soon on The Sand Trap, FYI.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
Note "cheap" and "inexpensive" have different connotations. Nobody wants to use "cheap" equipment, but bargain hunters often prefer "inexpensive" equipment.

That is false. There are two distinct definitions of thw word "cheap". One would be low in cost, or inexpensive. The other would be poor quality. Using the word "cheap" to express "inexpensive" is in no way wrong.


  • Administrator
Posted
That is false. There are two distinct definitions of thw word "cheap". One would be low in cost, or inexpensive. The other would be poor quality. Using the word "cheap" to express "inexpensive" is in no way wrong.

I said

connotation . I did not say definition. If you're going to correct someone, at least be right. I write for a living (or at least part of it) - I typically choose my words carefully. This case was no exception.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
Yeah.....well.....My dad can beat up your dad!

ok first of all, thats the dumbest thing ive ever seen on this forum.

stupidity aside, to the original poster of this thread: im not sure what the quality is of the clubs your pro made for you, but you can definitely find inexpensive high quality name brand clubs. a lot of stores sell older new/used clubs for greatly reduced prices. and a lot of the time used clubs are still in great condition. personally i started with a set of ladies x-14's so ive never really played with "cheap equipment" but like you say, when you start you dont really know the difference. even now that ive been playing for a few years, i tend to use whatever feels best, not whats popular or new or most expensive or has the "best technology". the only thing i really know about golf are the types of clubheads you can use. i know nothing of shafts and grips.. most everything for me is feel.

905R 9.5* Fujikura Speeder
200 steel 3 wood
200 steel 5 wood
690.CB 3-PW
56* 14 Pro Platinum Newport 2 Pro V1 B330-S


Note: This thread is 7093 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • Nah, man. People have been testing clubs like this for decades at this point. Even 35 years. @M2R, are you AskGolfNut? If you're not, you seem to have fully bought into the cult or something. So many links to so many videos… Here's an issue, too: - A drop of 0.06 is a drop with a 90 MPH 7I having a ball speed of 117 and dropping it to 111.6, which is going to be nearly 15 yards, which is far more than what a "3% distance loss" indicates (and is even more than a 4.6% distance loss). - You're okay using a percentage with small numbers and saying "they're close" and "1.3 to 1.24 is only 4.6%," but then you excuse the massive 53% difference that going from 3% to 4.6% represents. That's a hell of an error! - That guy in the Elite video is swinging his 7I at 70 MPH. C'mon. My 5' tall daughter swings hers faster than that.
    • Yea but that is sort of my quandary, I sometimes see posts where people causally say this club is more forgiving, a little more forgiving, less forgiving, ad nauseum. But what the heck are they really quantifying? The proclamation of something as fact is not authoritative, even less so as I don't know what the basis for that statement is. For my entire golfing experience, I thought of forgiveness as how much distance front to back is lost hitting the face in non-optimal locations. Anything right or left is on me and delivery issues. But I also have to clarify that my experience is only with irons, I never got to the point of having any confidence or consistency with anything longer. I feel that is rather the point, as much as possible, to quantify the losses by trying to eliminate all the variables except the one you want to investigate. Or, I feel like we agree. Compared to the variables introduced by a golfer's delivery and the variables introduced by lie conditions, the losses from missing the optimal strike location might be so small as to almost be noise over a larger area than a pea.  In which case it seems that your objection is that the 0-3% area is being depicted as too large. Which I will address below. For statements that is absurd and true 100% sweet spot is tiny for all clubs. You will need to provide some objective data to back that up and also define what true 100% sweet spot is. If you mean the area where there are 0 losses, then yes. While true, I do not feel like a not practical or useful definition for what I would like to know. For strikes on irons away from the optimal location "in measurable and quantifiable results how many yards, or feet, does that translate into?"   In my opinion it ok to be dubious but I feel like we need people attempting this sort of data driven investigation. Even if they are wrong in some things at least they are moving the discussion forward. And he has been changing the maps and the way data is interpreted along the way. So, he admits to some of the ideas he started with as being wrong. It is not like we all have not been in that situation 😄 And in any case to proceed forward I feel will require supporting or refuting data. To which as I stated above, I do not have any experience in drivers so I cannot comment on that. But I would like to comment on irons as far as these heat maps. In a video by Elite Performance Golf Studios - The TRUTH About Forgiveness! Game Improvement vs Blade vs Players Distance SLOW SWING SPEED! and going back to ~12:50 will show the reference data for the Pro 241. I can use that to check AskGolfNut's heat map for the Pro 241: a 16mm heel, 5mm low produced a loss of efficiency from 1.3 down to 1.24 or ~4.6%. Looking at AskGolfNut's heatmap it predicts a loss of 3%. Is that good or bad? I do not know but given the possible variations I am going to say it is ok. That location is very close to where the head map goes to 4%, these are very small numbers, and rounding could be playing some part. But for sure I am going to say it is not absurd. Looking at one data point is absurd, but I am not going to spend time on more because IME people who are interested will do their own research and those not interested cannot be persuaded by any amount of data. However, the overall conclusion that I got from that video was that between the three clubs there is a difference in distance forgiveness, but it is not very much. Without some robot testing or something similar the human element in the testing makes it difficult to say is it 1 yard, or 2, or 3?  
    • Wordle 1,668 3/6 🟨🟨🟩⬜⬜ ⬜🟨⬜⬜🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • Wordle 1,668 3/6 🟨🟩🟨🟨⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 Should have got it in two, but I have music on my brain.
    • Wordle 1,668 2/6* 🟨🟨🟩⬛⬛ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.