The Power-ti-Pod sells unusually high for an old titanium driver ($50+ before shipping at eBay), which has baffled me as of why. I use the original red face Powerpod sometimes. With an intentional, wild, power slice, it shoots the ball straight and unusually far. An external 1080 Ti can quadruple a MacBook Pro's graphics power. Surprisingly great result with the latest Nvidia drivers, a GTX 1080 Ti. Of the new Mac drivers that Nvidia just.
“ The spin numbers produced with the PowerPod II are the lowest we’ve seen this season. “ TigerShark PowerPod II Review Every now and then I come across a golf club that offers something a little bit different from everything else in the industry. Last year we took a look at less mainstream products like the, the,. While those clubs aren’t standard fare in the average golf bag, as far as oddities are concerned, they’ve got nothing, and I mean nothing, on the new PowerPod II from TigerShark. One look at the PowerPod II, and one almost can’t help but think it’s a gimmick that belongs in the same class as “The Hammer”. Assuming you can get past the looks to dig a little bit deeper, you’ll find that completely oddball appearance aside, there’s a serious golf pedigree behind what quickly became known as simply “The Pod” in our test shop. Sometimes called the Thomas Edision of Golf, Jim Flood, who founded Aldila and Odyssey Golf (and invented the White Hot insert), as it turns out, is also the inventor of the PowerPod II.
That in an of itself was plenty to pique my curiosity. The Marketing Angle So why would one want to consider trying a PowerPod II?
According to TigerShark, there are nearly a dozen reasons. The quick summary reads not unlike what we’ve heard from just about every other manufacturer: PowerShelf Technology (optimum center of gravity), Anti-Dispersion design (it goes straight), Reduced Toe & Heel Weighting (concentrates the mass behind the hot spot – in fact 99% of the total weight is located directly behind the impact zone), lower spin rates, and increased smash factor. As I said, these aren’t ground breaking claims. We hear similar nearly every day in one form or another from nearly every OEM in the marketplace today.
Of course, what’s a bit more interesting are TigerSharks’s claims that independent testing has shown the PowerPod II to be 5.5 yards longer than Callaway’s Diablo Ocatane, and nearly 4 yards longer than TaylorMade’s R9 SuperTri. As noted above, TigerShark also claim the PowerPod II produces less spin, and higher smash factors when compared to the Callaway and TaylorMade drivers. You may have noticed that we don’t take anybody at their word, so when TigerShark offered to send us a few PowerPod IIs to test, we gladly accepted, and quickly began putting these unique looking drivers in our tester’s hands. It almost goes without saying that we find the fact that only a single loft (10.5°) is currently available extremely dissapointing. How We Tested The 6 golfers for whom we collected detailed performance data were asked to hit a series of shots on our 3Track Equipped simulators from. As usual, testing was done at, a state of the art indoor golf facility located in Saratoga Springs, NY.
Detailed data for each and every shot for which we collected data is now viewable in the. This data serves as the foundation for our final performance score. As a supplement to our 6 performance testers, a subset of additional golfers were given the opportunity to test the TigerShark PowerPod II Driver and provide feedback in our subjective categories (looks, feel, sound, perceived distance, perceived accuracy, perceived forgiveness, and likelihood of purchase).
This information, which we also collected from our performance testers, is used as the foundation for our total subjective score. Testing was done with a selection of 10.5° models in both stiff and regular flex. PERFORMANCE SCORING Distance Shot for shot the PowerPod II proved to be as long, though not meaningfully longer, than just about anything else on the market. A closer look at the numbers shows that both Dan and myself were close to where I’d expect us to be (as far as adjusted averages are concerned). Mark was probably a bit longer than he is with some of the drivers we’ve tested, while Nick with a few yards shorter. Both Jeff and Rob told us they were shorter than they usually are.
All things considered, while not filthy long, the TigerShark PowerPod II proved to us that, from a distance perspective, it needs to be taken seriously. MGS Distance Score: 92.71 Accuracy To fully comprehend what happened as far as accuracy goes, you really need to take a long look at the interactive portion of this review (which includes graphical representations of each and every shot our testers took). For some of our testers, the PowerPod failed to totally eliminate significant slices (although it likely did reduce the overall count), while for others, it may have contributed to some of the most massive hooks we’ve seen during testing.
Out of 72 total test shots, 10 missed left by more than 50 yards. While only 3 missed by similar margins to the right, it’s painfully clear that our testers found it difficult to keep shots as close to the center line as they have with other drivers we’ve tested. Clearly this club isn’t going to work for somebody who already has a tendency to hook the ball, and it’s also not going to prevent 100% of slices.
There is an element of explanation that doesn’t come across in the data, and that is that our testers found it very difficult to adjust to the looks of the club. The PowerPod II sits very much upright (or at a minimum looks like it does). A few of our testers found themselves trying all sorts of weird things (mostly raising their arms) to try and adjust how the club looks at address. I can’t prove it, but this may have contributed to the less than stellar (the lowest we’ve seen in 2011) accuracy results. MGS Accuracy Score: 81.79 Consistency Despite a general lack of accuracy, our testers did achieve fairly consistent results from swing to swing. In fact, show that a high percentage of our testers shots ended up reasonably close to one another. What this suggests to me is that if users are able to overcome the urge to manipulate the club at address, and more or less play it as it lies, there’s the potential to achieve success.
Overall consistency numbers are strong. In fact, the TigerShark PowerPod II put up the highest consistency score of any driver we’ve tested in 2011. MGS Consistency Score: 94.26 Overall Performance I’ll be brutally honest, when I finished testing the TigerShark PowerPod II, I would have sworn that the numbers weren’t that good. I see that kind of thinking from my testers all the time, but I thought I was mostly immune to it. As it turns out, when I pulled the data off the simulator several days after the test, the results were far better than I expected, and much, much better than I remembered. I have a feeling most of the testers would say the same thing.
Brother Printer Drivers For Mac
To that end, it shouldn’t come as any surprise that the comment we heard most often from our testers was, “It’s better than you would think”. MGS OVERALL PERFORMANCE SCORE: 87.95 SUBJECTIVE SCORING At this year’s PGA Show Demo Day, we talked to the guys at TigerShark. What I took away from that conversation is that they really believe they have a revolutionary product on their hands. In fact, they believe that their product is so good that more than a few golfers aren’t going to care what the club looks like once they find out what a game changer it is. Of course, for our part of the conversation we wished them all the luck in the world, while at the same time explaining that in our opinion, the design of the club is going to make it a very, very tough sell.
Judging by the results of our subjective surveys, I’m afraid we might be right. Looks I can’t remember ever testing a club that incited so many comical responses from our testers.
As you can imagine, there were a few Hammer references, plenty of “what the hell is this thing” questions, and my personal favorite, “It’s the Rocky Dennis of drivers”. We hate to beat up on the TigerShark guys too much. They’re trying something very different and that’s to be applauded.
The shape is what it is, and the Power Shelf, strange as it looks, is hidden at address. Where they went wrong in my opinion is the red crown that steps down as it transitions to black. Paint it white, paint it glossy black, either would have been fine.
The two-tone (especially where red is involved), goes further than it needs to, even for such a radical design. When the final scores were tallied, the numbers were almost as ugly as our testers told the club is.
Wacom Drivers For Mac
MGS Looks Score: 23.29 Feel About all our testers could say about the feel of the PowerPod II is that feels better than it looks. Whether it was “can’t feel the sweet spot”, or “can’t feel where it’s going”, or simply “I’ve got no feel for this”, our testers were near universally displeased with the PowerPod II. One tester, Mark, rated it an 8, however; not a single other tester rated it above a 5. Once again, I suspect there are design elements at play (all that mass behind the sweet spot), and my guess is things like feel (and sound), may have been afterthoughts. While that might help to explain it, it does nothing to change the way our testers felt about it. MGS Feel Score: 37.63 Sound Sound and feel are closely linked, no doubt.
Some would even go so far as to tell you they’re basically the same thing. With that in mind, it’s no surprise that the final sound score was very close to the feel score. We got there a bit differently (lower high ratings, higher low ratings), but not one of our testers was the least bit enamored with the dull thud at impact. MGS Sound Score: 39.42 Perceived Distance Here’s where perception and reality diverge drastically. Despite putting up distance scores right in line with nearly everything else we’ve tested this season, our testers rated the club much lower than those other drivers. While Mark gave it a 9 (based on my knowledge of how he’s hit everything else this season, he should have rated it a 10).
I personally gave it an 8. Our other testers, however, must have thought about the big hooks and mis-hits. None of this really surprises me.
Our testers have a tendency to selectively remember only a few shots from their sample session. If they really like the driver, they’ll remember the longest. If they don’t like it, they’ll remember the shortest of the results. In this case, the majority chose to remember the shortest of their test shots.
Tester Perceived Distance Score: 53.75 Perceived Accuracy Similar to the way things often breakdown with distance, our testers are often willing to forget a couple of 50 yard banana hooks if they put one or two balls just a few feet from the centerline. Of course, 3 or 4 big misses, and they’ll complete forget about anything near the center of the fairway. Given how far off line some of our test shots flew, it’s not surprising that most rated the PowerPod II low for accuracy.
Mark rated it an 9. I personally rated it an 8, while none of our other testers were willing to score it better than a 6. Tester Perceived Accuracy Score: 55.54 Perceived Forgiveness This almost doesn’t need to be its own category. Once you know what people think about distance and accuracy, it’s very easy to surmise what they’ll have to say about forgiveness. If they don’t think it’s long, and they don’t think it’s straight, they’re not about to start writing down 9s and 10s for forgiveness. While our numbers don’t gel with our tester’s perceptions, we more or less get where they’re coming from. Tester Perceived Forgiveness Score: 53.75 Likelihood of Purchase There’s something I observe in nearly every test, which I can’t quantify numerically, but I can tell you it’s the best indicator of what the LOP score will be.
In every test session there are clubs that guys want to keep hitting, and hitting, and hitting. When our testers like a club, they don’t ask how many more shots they have to hit. I almost always have to tell them to stop. Of course, the opposite is true as well. If I guy has to ask me 2 or 3 times how many more shots he has to hit, I know with virtual certainty that the LOP score is going to be low.
When the love the club, they don’t ask. It’s that simple. With the PowerPod II, every one of my testers asked me how many more shots they had to hit at least once. Most telling, self-confessed gear junkie, Nick, actually yelled at me, “dude, get me out of this club”. It almost goes without saying that none of our testers were itching to bag the PowerPod II. Tester Likelihood of Purchase: 28.67 I’m not going to sugar coat things in the least.
These are the lowest subjective totals we’ve seen for any club test I’ve been apart of. TigerShark took a shot with something dramatically different than anything on the market today. Our testers clearly weren’t receptive.
That said, some of these guys have been in on every one of our driver tests, and I’ve got all the data. I know what they’ve done with every club they’ve tested for me. While the PowerPod II is most certainly not for everyone, one tester, Mark, based on the data we’ve collected, should bag this club, and do it now.
He’s never hit a driver better. TOTAL SUBJECTIVE SCORE: 46.63 CONCLUSION I’ll admit it – this was a tough one for me to write up. The performance numbers are solid, but our subjective results tell us that TigerShark has a long road ahead of them as far as convincing golfers that they need a PowerPod II in their bag. The reality is that TigerShark probably knows this club isn’t going to have universal appeal. I don’t think that’s the point anyway. If you’ve got a more conventionally shaped driver, and you’re hitting a decent number of fairways, and leaving yourself reasonable distance to the green, there’s very little reason to consider swapping your current gamer for the PowerPod II.
If, however; you’re a high handicap golfer, who struggles with a big slice, the TigerShark PowerPod II offers a glimmer of hope for less than the cost of every other new driver on the market today ($250). It’s also worth noting that, although our tests results don’t support TigerShark’s claims of more distance, the backspin number produced with the PowerPod II are the lowest we’ve seen this season. The PowerPod II also offers hope for guys who struggle to keep their backspin numbers under control. While it’s safe to assume it won’t be in my bag this season, if you’re either a slicer or a spinner, or just a bit of a non-conformist, the TigerShark PowerPod II may be worth a look. MGS TOTAL SCORE: 83.68 If you found this review and others useful, please consider making a cash donation to help support MyGolfSpy or a contribution to our.
We accept credit cards through PayPal. A PayPal account is not required in order to donate. Tony is the Editor of MyGolfSpy where his job is to bring fresh and innovative content to the site. In addition to his editorial responsibilities, he was instrumental in developing MyGolfSpy's data-driven testing methodologies and continues to sift through our data to find the insights that can help improve your game. Tony believes that golfers deserve to know what's real and what's not, and that means MyGolfSpy's equipment coverage must extend beyond the so-called facts as dictated by the same companies that created them. Most of all Tony believes in performance over hype and #PowerToThePlayer.
I seriously don’t understand why all you snobs are complaining about the looks of this driver, i mean i honestly was originally drawn to it specifically because of its looks. I thought it was a bit different looking yes, but it still very much resembles a normal over sized driver.
It has the same basic shape as every other driver on the market so i don’t know why everyone is saying it looks like such an odd ball? Oh look its two tone and has a shelf in the back lets all laugh at it now because some guy was daring enough to step out of the realm of the normal. The hammer looked like a cheap piece of shit and resembled a putter that you would buy from Walmart. This actually looks well put together and just as nice looking as many well known expensive drivers. What I personally think is that if this driver would of had a well known name written on it like Callaway or Ping your entire “test squad” would of had a much more serious outlook on the club.
I guess its jus hard for stuck up retards to realize at one point in time Callaway and Ping were a new brand too. But there’s no changing you people Just like there’s no changing the fact that i wont wear a collared shirt when i play golf. If i wanted to wear a collard shirt id go to church on Sunday instead of getting drunk and shooting better than everyone i play. You all need to stop smelling your own farts. Oh and btw your mom looks like Rocky Denis. I had a full set of Orizaba’s weird woods I actually had 2 Power-Pods, a red-faced(10.5deg loft) and then a white(8deg) The faces were slightly closed, but I’d bet nothing like the 8 degrees quoted elsewhere.
They felt solid and went v straight, and were usually a delight to hit, unless you got one on the ‘inside edge’ when it would go nearly 90 degrees left! I tried one with the whippy shaft (impossible to control) but settled for a composite.
The others in the set were “The Howitzer” very much like a modern hybrid, and with about a 2 Wood loft, and the 3 & 5 wood equivalents which were delightfully called “Ball Bust’rs”!! They had very small faces, and tiny heads with virtually ALL of the weight behind the sweet spot area. They were great off tight lies, but it was easy, on thicker grass to hit completely under the ball, and it just popped-up a few feet and landed back much where it had previously been! They were great fun, provided one could take all the funny remarks, and I was sad when they were stolen. They were probably the straightest-hitting woods I’ve owned. I am not sure about the putter, but the original red or white face Powerpods don’t go for much. The Power-ti-Pod sells unusually high for an old titanium driver ($50+ before shipping at eBay), which has baffled me as of why.
I use the original red face Powerpod sometimes. With an intentional, wild, power slice, it shoots the ball straight and unusually far. With a swing that normally produces good drives, the pod sends the ball on a duck hook that really ends with the ball rolling 90 degrees left of the target. The face on the Powerpod really is close to eight degrees closed like Frank R stated. I have measured it with professional tools. Some original Powerpods had early composite shafts.
Mine has a steel shaft. I have never noticed the shaft to be too whippy myself. I believe the original Powerpods were made specificly with stronomic (like some putter inserts) for the face and back. This makes impact with the ball feel dead, but solid. The original Powerpods are not waterproof.
Water can get stuck inside the head by going in where the hosel meets the face. Regarding the new Powerpod II, I have never tested it, but it looks awesome to me. It is the kind of club I would find myself wishing that it hits well. I love odd things! The first PowerPod Drivers I recall seeing were in the late 1970’s. You would always see 1 or 2 guys using this driver at any of the golf courses in the San Francisco Bay Area. I believe the original name was PowerPod by ORIZABA.
Goggle it and you find some photos and there is always a few on sale at eBay. The current new version of the PowerPod Driver looks very conventional when compared to the original.
The original had a round body and face, the front was red with some very deep grooves. There was a chrome metal band that went around the middle of the body and the hosel was cast as part of this band. This was pre graphite shaft days, but there was a non metal shaft that was almost like a buggy whip that most of the guys used.I am not exaggerating above the shaft is was almost like a carbon whippy fishing rod. Talk about hitting with a lag, a strong swinger would have the shaft in a C shape. The head of the club would be shoulder high and their hands were already past the ball. They did hit the ball very far, but direction was the problem. It was made for the big slicer, the face was closed 8 degrees.
But if you didn’t have a slice problem good luck, it was like a 90 degree hook four fairways to the side. The link below is to a photo of the original. I thank you for your review, it was very good.
I’m a very high handicaper, but i like to play the scramble & schamble tournaments with friends. I had a power pod in the 1980’s and hit longer and straighter than anything before or after. One time I was on the “T” and I heard a guy tell a friend watch this big guy hit that funny club. They made fun of the looks but after i hit it, all had to try it. When the guys with low handicaps or the ones that could usually hit the fairways hit.
It was a disaster. One handed it back and said how do you hit this thing. I said, they didn’t make it for someone who can hit the ball straight. The club head broke apart one day and i’f missed it since. My LOP was pretty high but after your review it jumped to 100. This big guy wants to hit that funny club again.
@Pure Image – I can understand the comparison, but PowerPod II is definitely not the Hammer. Having hit both I would sum up the differences like this: The PowerPod II is a uniquely shaped club which esthetics, and occasional big hook aside performs as well as nearly anything else we’ve tested this year. The Hammer is an unmitigated piece of garbage.
By every measure it’s vastly inferior to the PowerPod II, and that’s before we enter distance into the equation. As far as comparable distance is concerned, I hit the PowerPod II almost as long as my current driver. I hit The Hammer almost as long as my current 21 degree hybrid, and that sadly is not an exaggeration. This is, to a large extent, this is exactly why we publish out of 100 scores for every category. As you can see, the actual performance numbers were on par with most everything else we’ve tested. The subjective stuff (looks, feel, etc.), wellit didn’t go well. Some of that is probably inherent to the design, some of it comes from TigerShark, in my opinion anyway, taking things a bit too far with the design.
Realistically, the PowerPod II isn’t going to have the type of broad market appeal that most of the other drivers we test will, and good bit of that does stem from the bizarre looks (and not the best feel). I’ve hit the club and quite liked it. I didn’t think it looked any worse than those hideous white drivers, and I thought the feel was comparable to any modern driver, and better than some. I’m a 10 handicap who read about it, tested it, got good numbers off the sim, and after purchase took them successfully to the course. I know, to each his own, but here it’s clear (and admitted) that the testers decided how the club would perform before they ever took a swing, based on its unusual look and the manufacturer’s place in the market.
Not surprisingly, they experienced poor results. People privileged enough to get to test new, innovative golf equipment for free ought to at least attempt the courtesy of giving products a chance before they condemn them.
I just don’t understand this kind of snobbery among golfers. I imagine the pros would play with a coke bottle taped to a yardstick if they thought it would save them a stroke per round. Probably if it saved a stroke every four rounds, but for amateurs if it doesn’t have “Titleist” stamped on the back it must be a piece of crap. A disappointing display of prejudice. And I think that most of Tigershark’s lack of “broad market appeal” will come from the sort of golf snobbery that informed this review.
Robert – It is possible that one or two of our testers made up their minds before hitting the PowerPod II, but I also know that several of the guys are open to almost anything, and certainly gave the PowerPod II a fair shake. Most were actually extremely curious about the club, and really wanted to get their swings inat least initially.
If I had my druthers, all of the clubs we test would come to us with no identifying characteristics whatsoever (no logos – nothing), as I believe it would be the only way to completely eliminate bias, and pre-conceived notions from our testing process. Having said that, I don’t believe any preconceptions had anything to do with the low subjective rankings in this case. In most cases, my observations have been that predeterminations more often than not lead to higher rankings (and no single company benefits more than TaylorMade in that regard). I’m not saying it doesn’t happen the other way, but mostly scores go up, not down.
One point of clarification I would make here is that not a single tester told us they thought the PowerPod was “crap”. Many said it was comparatively ugly (and I think rightfully so), and most didn’t care for the sound or feel. Speaking as a guy who tests a lot of clubs, I believe it’s fair to say that, at least as far as feel is concerned, the PowerPod II is substantially outclassed by some of the other drivers we’ve tested this (Titleist 910, Callaway RAZR Hawk), but my honest assessment is that it’s only marginally worse than some of the others I’ve hit recently. Most, as you can see from the review, perceived distance differently than our numbers indicate. That fact, however, is not unique to the PowerPod II.
If a tester really likes a driver, they almost always tell us that they believe it provides above average distance. If they don’t like the driver, the perceive it as being shorter than other clubs they’ve tested.
The same phenomenon occurs with respect to accuracy as well. I’ve observed this with nearly every club we’ve tested to date. One of these days I’ll probably dedicate an entire post to the psychology of the testing process. What I’ve observed over the last year has yielded insights that are as fascinating as they are disappointing, but those observations have convinced me beyond certainty that club reviews without supporting data; although they might be entertaining, or make for a good read, are nearly useless for gaining insight into actual golf club performance. The lack of mainstream appeal for the PowerPod II has little if anything to do with the TigerShark name. This is absolutely a design that simply won’t appeal to most golfers.
Even if if you restamped the sole plate “TaylorMade”, it might sell a bit better, but it’s not, by any stretch of the imagination, a design that will have broad market appeal, and it’s most definitely not going to revolutionize the industry. As we said in the review, the PowerPod II is a solid, though not extraordinary performer, whose design is clearly going to limit its market impact.
If your disease is a slice, this club is the cure! If the numers on your card matter more than raw distance, this club is for you. I originally ordered the 10. model but found it over- corrected, so they sent me the 8.
model. The ball goes where I aim and, by altering tee-height, I can hit a high floater or a low wind-cheater. I have longer hitting drivers in my collection, but what good is an extra 20-30 yards if you can't see your target or have a funky lie? It does generate lots of humor and funny looks, for about the first 4 holes. If you play for money (I don't), you can probably make your costs back in a month or so. Also, bears a strange and wonderful resemblance to a an old Scotch club called a 'Kelly & McKardle'. If your disease is a slice, this club is the cure!
If the numers on your card matter more than raw distance, this club is for you. I originally ordered the 10. model but found it over- corrected, so they sent me the 8. model.
The ball goes where I aim and, by altering tee-height, I can hit a high floater or a low wind-cheater. I have longer hitting drivers in my collection, but what good is an extra 20-30 yards if you can't see your target or have a funky lie? It does generate lots of humor and funny looks, for about the first 4 holes.
If you play for money (I don't), you can probably make your costs back in a month or so. Also, bears a strange and wonderful resemblance to a an old Scotch club called a 'Kelly & McKardle'. I picked up a Power Ti Pod after hearing a golf buddy rave about his original pod, which cracked on him.
While I haven't used it yet in a round, my experience on the range has been very positive. Distance isn't any better and may be slightly shorter than my 12. BBB, but the drives I've hit on the range have gone where I've aimed. My natural fade has disappeared; the ball goes straight. If you're fighting the big banana, and don't mind having your buds make fun of this weird looking stick, then by all means, give it a try.
I picked up a Power Ti Pod after hearing a golf buddy rave about his original pod, which cracked on him. While I haven't used it yet in a round, my experience on the range has been very positive. Distance isn't any better and may be slightly shorter than my 12. BBB, but the drives I've hit on the range have gone where I've aimed.
My natural fade has disappeared; the ball goes straight. If you're fighting the big banana, and don't mind having your buds make fun of this weird looking stick, then by all means, give it a try. I hit around 40 balls with this stick at my local range and was not too impressed.
From my limited experience, it does seem to correct a fade slightly but you have to hit a few before you 'figure it out' on this club. Doesn't go longer than my normal Driver and It sounds like tin can filled with rocks when you strike the ball. Seriously, I had people looking my way after several drives asking 'What is that?' ' Like most drivers its no better and no worse than the majority of X's; purely a matter of personal taste. I hit around 40 balls with this stick at my local range and was not too impressed.
From my limited experience, it does seem to correct a fade slightly but you have to hit a few before you 'figure it out' on this club. Doesn't go longer than my normal Driver and It sounds like tin can filled with rocks when you strike the ball.
Seriously, I had people looking my way after several drives asking 'What is that?' ' Like most drivers its no better and no worse than the majority of X's; purely a matter of personal taste.