Btshiloh@yahoo.com

My personal opinion on looks and feel is subjective.   How a person swings a particular club is what is being measured and the persons adaptation to everything about that club is what influences those numbers.  This is why different weighting, shafts, heads, and even how a club looks impacts how a club performs.  Ever said something like “this clubs looks really closed at address but I hit it so well” or “this club looks great, I don’t know why it performs poorly”.  

The thing I have noticed most after watching every video review of the Stealth, not including robot testing as other than Moe Norman, we aren't robots, and every review and data set provided basically show that overall carry and total distance is down with this driver. There may be a reason the C4 was a flop 20 years ago and hasn't been revisited until now. This could be TM's C4 flop or it could be fan boyed in sales but fall off like the SLDR that fits merely a handful of people. Time will tell, but from everyone giving it an honest, real life, non robotic review, it just isn't that impressive. Maybe TM is just prepping for the rolling back of distance from clubs....

That's why I play a 10 year old hybrid (only one that doesn't set up open) - but that's not on me 🙄😂
BTW.  In 15+ years of being an equipment fan boy there is only one marketing claim I can support.  The Ping G400max is the most forgiving driver ever.  I try to replace it every year and always go back to it. 

TaylorMade massively overhyping a product? I don't believe you!!! /s
On a serious note, just my 30-mile view of this situation but MGS comes off quite petty, territorial and butthurt. Not a good look for MGS but that has been the rule rather than the exception of late. Which is why I find myself spending more of my time elsewhere. 

Whoever it was should step up. Staff is usually good about posting under their own handle. Making a comment like that behind a generic screen name is bush league and a huge disappointment. Not what I would have expected out of a site that claims to be all about truth and being transparent.

Obviously, I like the MGS forums. Also, I like Rick. 
The MGS Staffer that made that response was 100% wrong for going after Rick. I don't care if it was Adam, Harry or intern #3. It was low ball and only diminished the MGS brand and reputation. 
 
 
 
 

Maybe Rick didn’t think the driver was special since it really didn’t improve his numbers. He’s not there to kiss TMs rear or any other company. He gave his honest review as he saw it as did MGS. Just because their results are different doesn’t mean one is right and the other is wrong. I’m 

I don't see how you can look at it that way. The MGS rep took an unwarranted shot at Shiels that in no way was necessitated by the comment from the poster.

go after the top dog i suppose. RS is not the only reviewer to be underwhelmed by the stealth and see zero to minimal gains. i don't understand why it got personal and kiddie playground-ish. odd

It really just depends on your definition of "massive", but I think you make a fair point here.

I think that saying the new model doesn't provide much if any improvement over the prior year's model (or even the model from 5 years ago which I have seen him do) is a negative. He has also talked about how some clubs vary greatly on mishits while others do well in this area. He often gives varying opinions on sound and feel, both positive and negative. 

YouTube Channel | Subscribers
Rick Shiels 2,010K MeAndMyGolf 808K Danny Maude 662K Clay Ballard 574K Peter Finch 459K Mark Crossfield 360K Chris Ryan 312K MrShortGame 286K Paige Spiranac 260K Golf Digest 192K James Robinson 185K TXG 176K Seb 134K GolfMonthly 118K Ali Taylor 74K Ales Etches 68K TheAverageGolfer 59K Michael Newton 56K MGS 47K One of the above is included as a joke for those who thrive on picking nits...
Again, MGS was out of line in how "they" went after Shiels IMO, but obviously he knows his lane better than almost anyone on YouTube. It is how he makes his living...it ain't rickshiels.org.

...whoa, they sure stepped in it here. 💩 🤣
not the first time; won't be the last.

I don't understand this. Shiels hit over 120 balls on one day and then more the next. How many do you think he needs to hit to get enough data and experience to give an informed opinion. And I find his reviews aren't all the same. He gives his data and his impressions on feel, sound, accuracy, etc. and they differ for each video.

If this response was from an official MGS representative, then this is a black mark for MGS. The 5-10 shots comment was silly and insulting Shiels seems unwarranted and petty.

(Video Link included for time references - rather than referring to the full podcast video)
 
Ok, I'm a little late to this only just having come across the RS video myself this morning, but I went back to the comment section before watching the whole thing because I knew right away what they were talking about. After reading both the original comment, the MGS reply, and hearing Rick's side of the story here's what I take away.
MGS probably should not have taken a shot at Rick like that (nor should they about any YouTuber), but I can't say I fully blame them. All we know about the majority of these YT reviews is what we see. Very rarely (if ever) does the reviewer go into detail about how they (A) were fit for the club, or (B) how they conduct their testing off camera (i.e. how many shots, what environment/location, etc., etc.).
In the case of Rick Shiels specifically, I myself have called into question his "test" methods because several years ago now (when he and Pete were sharing studio space) Rick was on a journey to beef up his own testing and data collection to the point he even mentioned in at least one video about hiring someone to help with new test protocols to make his reviews better. Unfortunately, I do not know of (and if someone has seen something I have not please share) any follow-up video in which he states that work has been completed and go on to explain what the new test procedure would be. Indeed, what I saw in his videos was a slow degradation in his test methods as he and Pete began to separate a bit and then they both left the studio. Now, that isn't to say his test methods didn't improve or they didn't at least remain the same. However, he never seemed to address that as far as I know and newer videos began to strip those details out almost entirely to the point that now we just hear, "I took X club out to the course, and collected data with GC Quad in the studio" with no specifics about number of balls hit or any adjustments he might have made to achieve the numbers he's getting on the LM.
To Rick's credit, his response to the MGS comment makes it clear he does spend much more time testing equipment than we previously knew or otherwise might have thought. I also applaud him for taking his own GC Quad to Taylormade and for controlling his environment by stepping off the mats and hitting from grass - something every golfer doing a fit should do if it's available.
Where (IMO) he gets it wrong is by (A) not taking his gamer - 5:57, (B) not allowing the fitters to fully fit him - 9:07, and (C) not realizing that when MGS talk about personal best ball speeds they mean with any club/any ball; that's why it's a personal best.
It's also important to take note of what he says at the 12:05 mark because I don't think this point is represented well in his videos. Yes, he almost always suggests everyone should go get fit and try the products he reviews but it's his review. Everything he does during his review videos is geared toward him and how he likes to play, what he likes to see, etc., etc.
Finally, one point he does make during this discussion that I would be curious to learn more about from the MGS staff regards the golf ball. It has been said in at least one, if not several NPG podcasts that you should fit the golf ball to the irons and the driver to the golf ball. I'd be curious what MGS staff play and how Stealth performs with those balls.

"They blamed it on cold balls."  Happens to the best of us.  🤣

My thoughts exactly. Whether it be Shiels, Crossfield, Newton or whoever, what makes him think that they don’t understand any of the data? Many of them do fittings plus I’m sure they understand their own numbers. Like you said, this is their review on how the club performs for them. Rick may tend to be on the negative side, but it’s much better than reinforcing all the company’s hype. 

After a 1 mph average increase and highest overall of 2mph, your takeaway from this is to bash Rick?
Regardless of whether he's your flavor or not, he's a single data source, one of many. You're right, he tends to be a fairly skeptical source. But so are plenty of people. And the majority of reviewers who are public with their results didn't show much increase. As a countering data point, Alex Etches showed significant increases. So you review the sources and take any particular one with a grain of salt.
Rick said that to him there was no difference in ball speeds. His numbers reflect that. And again, many also show no or negligible differences. You yourself state that you think MGS's claims are a tad inflated and that for you the speeds were fairly negligible (I'm assuming you're over 100 mph ball speed and so the 1 to 2mph increase is at most 1 to 2 % increases). So how does all of that that justify the MYGOLFSPY Response and some of the low blow statements. Similarly, how does that justify your comments that his skepticism equates to him not understanding data or science?
 

Not taking side either. Just surprised by the MGS comment that was made a little, and clearly Rick was pithhed. I believe he also said that he went and hit it at Taylormade’s facility with one of their top fitters. I think he also asked why he wasnt seeing higher ball speeds and they blamed it on cold balls. But i may have misinterpreted his podcast. 

If you listened to Rick’s cast, he made it quite clear that he hit well over 100 balls. They only show a few for the videos. I’m not taking sides between the two but he did explain his testing methods. 

Ricks testing numbers, from his personal test of the stealth vs SIM2, are available to see. I sure hope EVERY member of MGS testing group’s numbers will be available for us to see. Showing the “personal best ball speeds”, Or their AVERAGE numbers of their run with the Stealth vs Sim2.

Interesting. I made a comment about TM Sim2 and Stealth regarding a video I saw from a British Pro, and someone jumped all over me about Rick Shiels...but I wasn't Rick Shiels! I don't know if this was a reader or MGS staffer. I've said it once and will say it again...MARKETING. That's all it is. I fit clubs, been to Callaway Performance Center, Titleist Performance Institute, TM The Kingdom, and Karsten Mfg...but was in executive sales and marketing for 35 years. IT'S ALL MARKETING. The name, the red face, the colored shaft, the script, the colorization...it's all marketing to get you to buy the product. Remember, what you buy and what the pro's hit are completely different.

He directly responded to that claim in the video linked at the beginning of this thread. It's simply not true. The shots that get shown on screen aren't the only shots that he hits. Same with Peter Finch or any of the other reviewers/channels. This is a classic case where it doesn't make sense to conflate testing and reviewing. MGS is the best at testing, no doubt. They don't have a monopoly on reviewing, and frankly this comment from their account helps me realize they might not understand the difference between the two.

This one’s gonna end well…