Golf technologies, even the promising ones, often stumble for a few common reasons.
Firstly, the concept might just not be solid from the get-go—it could be written off as a mere gimmick. Then there’s the possibility that the actual product doesn’t live up to expectations, failing either in aesthetics or sound. Lastly, it could be a case of creating a solution that no one really needs; sometimes the market just isn’t interested or ready for what’s being offered. In many cases, these unsuccessful technologies fall into one or more of these categories.
Let’s delve into some golf tech that didn’t hit the mark.
### Square Drivers
Before the era of $10K drivers, major brands like Callaway and Nike introduced square drivers. The goal was to maximize forgiveness by pushing the moment of inertia (MOI) to its limits. While these drivers were indeed stable and consistent, they lagged in speed and distance, which are crucial for golfers. Besides the lackluster performance, they were far from visually appealing, and the feedback on feel wasn’t great either.
### Cavity-Back Drivers
Cavity-back drivers initially seemed promising because golfers associate cavity-back irons with increased forgiveness due to perimeter weighting. However, NIKE’s Covert line of cavity-back drivers turned out to be poorly designed. By pushing part of the sole into the crown, the center of gravity was raised excessively, resulting in low launch, too much spin, and less than optimal ball speeds. This design flaw was a significant factor in NIKE’s exit from the equipment market. Even other attempts, like Mac Burrows’ Powersphere, didn’t fare any better.
### Sloped-Crown Drivers (OG Cleveland HiBore)
Cleveland’s original HiBore adopted an approach opposite to the Covert, lowering the center of gravity and improving MOI for its time. However, its unconventional shape didn’t score points in aesthetics or sound. Today, its aerodynamic shortcomings would be a major issue, which is probably why Cleveland’s re-release of the HiBore leaned towards a triangular shape instead of the original’s radical design.
### Adjustable Wedges
We saw two different takes on adjustable wedges, both unsuccessful. Bruce Sizemore’s MORE wedges are modular, allowing golfers to switch out worn faces and adjust bounce with separate components. But, at $350, they didn’t deliver on performance, with low spin and generally poor feel. They were offering more features than golfers needed without mastering the basics.
Then there’s TaylorMade’s xFT wedges, which featured replaceable faces. This idea makes more sense for Tour players who want to keep a custom grind without buying a new wedge. Yet, the demand didn’t justify the complexity of the design, and adding components like screws impacted the feel, which is crucial for wedges.
### Harrison Shotmaker
The Shotmaker, a shaft insert designed to stabilize dispersion, had some positive reviews but never gained traction. Achieving the right match between golfer and insert seemed more like guesswork than a science. Despite potential benefits, it was never widely adopted.
### Magnesium Drivers
Magnesium drivers were attractive for their lightweight properties. However, they failed to match the performance of titanium and carbon composites. Magnesium didn’t prove durable enough for repeated use, was prone to denting, and oxidized easily. Its sound and feel didn’t resonate with golfers either, leading to its downfall.
### True Aim Alignment Stickers
These stickers were meant to enhance accuracy and dispersion when placed on a driver’s crown. Despite garnering some interest and even OEM consideration, they never took off. However, the concept seemed to hold potential for improving golfers’ drives.
### COBRA CARBONTRAC
The F6+ driver from COBRA tried to solve the weight issue in adjustable clubs with carbon fiber. Despite the innovative material choice, the resulting sound and feel were not well-received. Consequently, despite the soundness of the underlying technology, CARBONTRAC was discontinued before the next model arrived.
### What Else?
Can you think of any other golf technologies that didn’t make it big? Were they simply ahead of their time, or was there something fundamentally flawed from the start?
