Is the latest and greatest needed?

[RussUK]

Just a quick question. Everytime i open my monthly golf mag i seem to be bombarded with reviews of new clubs and how this new version of the club that was released the other month is the best ever and you just need to buy it.

Now, i play on a budget. If i buy new stuff its normally non OEM stuff (big Acer fan at the mo) or used gear. Lets take drivers for example. I currently use a Ping G5, 10.5deg with a stiff shaft. I got this hardly used for £35. Complare this to my brother in law. He bought a Taylormade R1 for £200 or so and has only ever moved the weights once and not touched the loft. I can play a draw or a fade with mine while he struggles so much he now leaves it at home.

So is the latest gear really needed for most us golfers and do any of you still game the older gear?

[iacas]

I guarantee that there are real, actual differences between Acer stuff and TaylorMade stuff.

Beyond that, I really don't like these threads, because everyone values things differently. Are there differences between a G5 and an R1? Yeah. Does that mean the R1 is always better for any one particular golfer? No. But it's more likely to be a better fit, given that technology advances (however slowly, you likely cannot debate that it does advance). Worth the cost to stay on the cutting edge? Almost nobody says yes to that one, unless they're wealthy or misguided.

Does that about cover everything?

[RussUK]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

I guarantee that there are real, actual differences between Acer stuff and TaylorMade stuff.

Beyond that, I really don't like these threads, because everyone values things differently. Are there differences between a G5 and an R1? Yeah. Does that mean the R1 is always better for any one particular golfer? No. But it's more likely to be a better fit, given that technology advances (however slowly, you likely cannot debate that it does advance). Worth the cost to stay on the cutting edge? Almost nobody says yes to that one, unless they're wealthy or misguided.

Does that about cover everything?

As straight to the point as always, been one of those days? . 

The advances in tech always amaze me in what they can do given the limits set by the rules. Yes, of course there differenced between Acer and Taylormade. One is a comparatively small company and the other is a huge company with enormous R&D budgets. However, speaking from a the average recreational golfers point view im not sure those differnces in performance will be that noticable to the majority. 

Sure guys like yourself will be able to notice them as, lets face it, you probably hit more balls with different types/makes of clubs in a year than i will in my whole life.

I just wonder how many people use the older stuff and why (other than its cheaper than buying more gear)

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, RussUK said:

However, speaking from a the average recreational golfers point view im not sure those differnces in performance will be that noticable to the majority. 

Right, but then you're just getting into however different people value different things (including money, the performance of their golf clubs, the looks of the golf clubs, the value of a name brand, etc.).

People have different values. For something like this, there's rarely any agreement on those, nor is there any "right" or "wrong" answers.

4 minutes ago, RussUK said:

I just wonder how many people use the older stuff and why (other than its cheaper than buying more gear)

I use a set of muscle backs that could just as easily be from the 1950s as now. The tech on those isn't really improving much (though the shafts are undoubtedly much better).

[phillyk]

Every year, something is changed in a club design.  The real differences are minimal, assuming your current clubs are from within the last 10 or so years (just throwing out a random number).

However, I just got upgraded to the Ping G driver from the Ping G30, and the big change I noticed is the face of the driver has a bit more friction on the G (at least as I understand it).  What it seems to do is reduce side spin, while retaining normal-ish back spin (I use the low-spin tec version).  When I miss-hit a drive with my old driver vs the newer one, I see noticeably less slice or hook with the newer version.
 

When I go through those articles, I mostly read through the reviews of them.  It gives a better idea of what might be better.

[RussUK]

16 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

I use a set of muscle backs that could just as easily be from the 1950s as now. The tech on those isn't really improving much (though the shafts are undoubtedly much better).

Have you ever been tempted to go new tech cavities over the MB's?

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, RussUK said:

Have you ever been tempted to go new tech cavities over the MB's?

No. Not really. Thicker top lines, more forgiveness, less vertical work-ability…

[Kalnoky]

My .02, I think technology in golf mostly accentuates the things you already do well. For example, if you strike the ball well, technology can help you hit it farther. Or, if you are able to shape shots, technology can give you better shot shaping ability.

I'm not aware of any technology that fixes swing problems.. if there is, I would love to know. If there is I would buy it.

In the beginning I bought nice clubs (used) because I wasn't sure I'd stick it out, and I figured I could easily resell a name brand set vs. a generic set. I don't think they provide any real advantage to me, because I'm simply not consistent enough. 

 

[DaveP043]

I'm one who doesn't believe that the incremental changes in clubs make enough difference to justify the cost of buying new equipment with any frequency.  I routinely play a set of irons for 6 or 8 years, only looking for replacement when the clubface and grooving are showing significant wear.  My current driver is about 6 years old, and I have no intention of replacing it.  

That doesn't mean you can't gain a little by getting "better" clubs, or clubs that fit your body and swing better.  I just don't think that the year-to-year changes in club models make enough difference to justify continually replacing "last year's model."

[Jeremie Boop]

Scary thing I've found after buying a set of older forged Mizuono irons for cheap this year is that I really like playing them more than the Ping I irons I just bought.... $40 vs $700+... I don't play better with the new ones over the old ones either and the distance loss actually makes the gapping down in the lower part of the bag much better too. However, I never would have bought a set of $40 used clubs expecting to use them as my main set, I did it more as a lark to play with "tougher" to play irons every now and then. That said, I really just got lucky that they were decently fit for me on a blind purchase. Having clubs that are properly fit, irons especially, are good for a long time. I think a proper fit is much more important than make/model/year of a club.

[newtogolf]

I believe the technology in new clubs benefits the 8 - 24 handicapper the most.  Higher handicap players have such an inconsistent swing their problem isn't likely the clubs.  As you get below an 8 your swing is probably consistent enough that you could play with any clubs and have decent results.  

[WUTiger]

I volunteered at the U.S. Senior Amateur last week in St. Louis.

I had the 6 AM to 11 AM practice range shift on Monday, the first day of match play (round of 64).

I got a good look at about 25 bags, and took some notes. Only one player had a set of irons from the 2016 year - TM PSi Tour. But, most of the irons were 2-5 years old.

Most of the 2016 stuff was in the drivers - lots of TM M1 and M2, and some Callaway XR family stuff. Some of the drivers  were a couple of years old. (Several Ping and Titleist drivers too).

Fairway woods and hybrids were all over the place - some new and some several years old. One guy carried a Callaway Steelhead III 3W and 5W.

For wedges, mostly current-year or a couple of years old (new grooves).

And, a lot of variety within the bags. Can't remember one bag where the clubs were all one brand. The elder statesmen of golf go with what works.

[70sSanO]

There is no denying that there have been significant improvements through advancements in club technology.  Those improvements, however, may not translate into more enjoyment on the course.

Like everything else, there are those who build and play vintage bags exclusively.  While they are definitely in the minority, when people dedicate time to track down a particular MacGregor persimmon driver it is really a commentary on just how great this game of golf really is (probably a little sentimental Arnie in that statement).

John

Edited September 28, 2016 by 70sSanO

[Hardspoon]

Most of my equipment is pretty old, compared to the friends I play with.  Irons are from 2011, driver 2010.

I recently went to try brand-new drivers, and none of them were any better than my 6-year-old Cobra S2:

The only thing I do wonder about is using "old" wedges, because of the worn grooves, but I doubt that even that makes a difference for someone at my skill level.

[IndianaDundee]

There is one reason to have the latest greatest equipment.  If you love having no money in your bank account and can't afford to play golf anymore, then the newest clubs are a must have.  Don't get me wrong if I have a club in my bag that is not working I will replace it.  But I will buy last years model from a second hand seller, and still have way better equipment than Sam Snead or Bobby Jones ever played with.

[Joey G]

My irons are from 1978, driver and woods from 2004 (same G5 as you)....at my current playing level, I don't feel like my clubs are holding my scores back. I will be updating my wedges to something designed this century in the near future but I'll probably regrip and keep playing my grandfather's old Eye irons a couple more years.

There's something to be said about being familiar with your equipment too. The control you talk about with your driver comes from hitting a lot of balls with it and getting to know how it responds to different things. That's tough to give up considering that it could take weeks to develop that relationship with a new driver...at least that helps me cure the new toy bug and keep the wallet closed. :)

[Patch]

My newest clubs are pretty old. Maybe 2006? I don't really remember. The other day, just for the heck of it,  I played using my old Bazooka Iron Woods. (2i-LW) Shot my normal score. Those Ironwoods are probably 15-16 years old.

I don't think at this stage of my life, that a new set would make that much difference. 

[Pretzel]

I would say it depends on what club you're talking about.

For drivers I would say that the best performing drivers of all time have been made within the last five years. Aerodynamics, material science, and the proliferation of launch monitors and data driven design have resulted in improvements across the board in distance and forgiveness as of late. I know that I personally saw a decent improvement on my G10 when I switched to a G30, in that I gained between 10 and 15 yards without sacrificing accuracy. This is on the high end of what aerodynamics can provide though, simply because higher swing speeds receive a greater benefit from decreased drag. Depending on the individual you may not see much difference so long as the driver itself was made within the last ten years or so.

For irons I would be inclined to say that the main difference in the irons of yesteryear and the irons of today is forgiveness. The irons made today are much easier to hit than previous irons, simply because they aren't as drastically punishing on mis-hits as the old blades. The PING Eye2 irons seemed to be the first "widespread" GI iron that sparked the trend towards irons that were easier for the layman to hit. That being said, I found my s55 irons (their "blade" from several years ago) to be more forgiving than the Eye2's. Based on that and observations from other clubs I have hit I would say the average golfer would be best suited by irons made within the last 10 to 15 years that are in good condition with sharp grooves. If you play muscleback irons though, there's pretty much zero difference between modern "true" musclebacks and those of yore, though the current muscle-cavity irons (like the iBlade and MP-15) will likely be at least a bit easier to hit than the older blades while maintaining a similar style. 

Wedges are the only thing that I would argue the "latest and greatest" provides a tangible benefit for. The reasoning for this is entirely different however, in that it's based solely off the condition of the grooves in older wedges. As wedges grow old, and get used, the grooves wear to the point that there becomes a noticeable performance difference - especially when playing out of the rough. For this reason alone do I say that the average golfer (assuming they golf at least once a week during the golfing season) is best suited by wedges no older than two or three years old. 

Putters are the odd man out here. I don't think it matters in the slightest when your putter was manufactured, so long as you keep a reasonable grip on it so that it doesn't slip out of your hands. I personally am a fan of the newer milled putters for the feel they provide, but it doesn't mean I couldn't probably putt nearly as well with an original Anser putter in the same style. I think the average golfer is best suited by whatever putter style and features allow them to consistently roll the ball along their target line, with no age requirement.

In summary, considering the advancement of technology, I would feel comfortable putting these "maximum age caps" on equipment for the average weekend golfer to get the most out of his/her game:

Drivers: ~10 years old or newer

Irons: ~15 years old or newer

Wedges: ~3 years old or newer

Putter: Whatever works best for you

That being said, you may still enjoy the game with any kind of equipment out there. I just think that equipment that follows these guidelines will let the average weekend golfer get about as much as they can out of their game without necessarily breaking the bank. Like @iacas said, you may find incremental improvements by purchasing the R1 over an old G5 but the question then becomes whether or not this improvement is worth the price difference. This question can only be answered by the person buying the club. It can't be denied, however, that a driver from the 1960's will be severely outclassed by the G5 and the R1, making either of them a much better choice than the 1960's driver.

On 9/27/2016 at 11:27 AM, RussUK said:

Have you ever been tempted to go new tech cavities over the MB's?

Interestingly enough, I have had the desire to go the opposite way for a while now. I bought the s55's my last go around, and I'm thinking that my next set of irons will be a more "traditional" muscleback iron (since the s55 is mostly a CB), along the likes of the MP-4 irons by Mizuno. I hit the ball consistently enough that I don't care about the lack of forgiveness, and I believe that the wonderful look and feel of those irons, along with the little bit of extra vertical control (can thin it slightly to make punch shots even easier) would offset whatever I lose in forgiveness.

I know that I would most certainly never go to an iron like the AP2, the G, or the M2. The chunky look of the club (along with the offset) gets into my head nowadays and makes me feel uncomfortable standing over the ball in a manner similar to how I used to be intimidated by the look of blades at address. I would gain forgiveness, but at the price of distance and trajectory control - an unacceptable trade for me considering I value distance and trajectory control much more highly than forgiveness.