mooremikea

So this is a really embarrassing story but it always makes me smile - even if the smile is while I'm hiding my red face! I have had the opportunity to attend several tour events, especially practice rounds for the PGA Championship, the now defunct NEC Championship, as well as others, and during those events I've had some really great conversations with players like Phil Mickelson, Padraig Harrington, Sergio García and others. These interactions are typically only a few minutes but I have found these players gracious and I have never been star struck although certainly excited. I'm sure many of you have had similar experiences while attending tour events; my experience is not unique nor am I special in that regard. But for whatever reason, when I met Paul Azinger, I completely fell apart and here's the story - enjoy
 
I had been living in Palmetto, FL for several years working as an associate pastor of a church there when I accepted a position in Ohio. It was literally my last day in Florida and I was having lunch with my father at a really great little restaurant by the name of "Peaches" in Bradenton, FL. Peaches was always busy with a long line forming for seating every day during the lunch rush. We had just gotten our food when I noticed Paul Azinger waiting in line to be seated. Paul had always been a favorite of mine. His unique swing, his passionate play in Ryder Cups, the way he spoke his mind and his friendship with Payne Stewart. Payne Stewart is from Springfield, MO and that's where I was first on my own in college, it's where I met my wife and I really learned my game at Payne Stewart Golf Course in Springfield. So Springfield and Payne are important figures in my development.
 
I was moving to Ohio in January of 1999 and Paul was back playing after beating his cancer diagnosis in 1993. 1993 was a big year for Paul: he held off Payne to win the Memorial and Greg Norman to win the PGA Championship and in December he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in his right shoulder. But by 1999 he was back and playing well again and would even win again in 2000 at the Sony Open. I share all of this to simply say that I KNEW a lot about Paul and could have said any number of things to him when I met him but it wasn't to be. When I saw him standing in line I somehow was transformed into a child seeing a hero for the first time and I proceeded to make an idiot out of myself.
 
I tell my dad, "Oh my gosh! That's Paul Azinger! I've got to go say hello." So I get up and as I'm walking towards him I'm thinking of all the things I could say to him (think Chris Farley interviewing Paul McCartney on SNL): "Remember that time you beat Payne Stewart at the Memorial by holing out from the bunker? That was awesome. Remember that time when Payne smashed bananas in your loafers when you beat him at the Memorial? Remember when you beat Greg Norman at Inverness for your first major? That was awesome." All these thoughts were rushing through my head as I walked closer and closer to him. Suddenly I'm in front of him! He's looking expectingly at me and I'm staring awkwardly at him for what seems like minutes and I'm screaming to myself, "SAY SOMETHING!" And I blurt out:"Your Paul Azinger!" To which he replies,"Yep." This is not going well. He's looking around for some escape and I'm still standing right in front of him, sweating now, in full blown panic. I tell myself, "Come on, you can do better! You have all those facts to share - remember?" Suddenly, my mind is completely blank - I got nothing. Sensing my moment is passing, feeling my desperation and dread growing I declare with all the confidence I can muster, "I love golf!" With a look of compassion for the humiliated man in front of him, Paul smiled and said, "Yeah me too." I had the wherewithal to grab a take out menu in order to procure his autograph (which he graciously signed) and managed to slink back to my seat and finish my lunch. He was as kind and gracious as anyone could possibly be in that situation. I was humiliated and yet elated. I knew it was a moment I would never forget.
 
In October of 1999, Payne Stewart tragically died in a plane crash and when I heard the news I cried and thought of Paul. In the days that followed Paul was in the news a lot because of his close friendship to Payne and how he handled himself made think all the more highly of him. He is a class act!
 
This story is one my family enjoys so much because dad who is most always calm and collected and in control, was a total super fan one day in Bradenton, FL. I still have that take out menu signed by Paul Azinger and every time Paul is on the TV commentating my kids yell, "I love golf!"
 
I sure do :)
 
 
 
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

... I made a mistake I just never make when it comes to equipment. Regardless of what you read, hear or see ... NEVER buy equipment without hitting it first. I picked up a set of P760's that came with Nippon 950GH R Flex shafts. I normally play S Flex and although these worked out much better than I would have thought, they did launch a little higher than I like. I have played graphite in my irons for so long I had never considered steel but I was very pleased with the 950GH's. So instead of ordering 950GH in stiff, I found a deal on some Modus 105's in stiff flex and installed those in my P760's. With the first swing I immediately realized I might be in trouble and the rest of the round confirmed it.

... I hit my 9 iron 145yds and can dial up a little more or less when needed. I had 143 to a front pin on a par 3 and came up 10 yds short of the pin. After a few more holes I doubled back and decided to hit several iron shots to each hole starting with the par 3. I hit 4 more balls and everyone of them was short of the green and even more perplexing was when I swung faster, I hit it in the same spot just higher?!? And speaking of higher, the 105's produced a higher trajectory than the 950's. This is not supposed to be the case but it certainly was for me. I can attribute ths to the fact that the 105 felt quite a bit heavier and much stiffer tipped than the 950's and I have little doubt I adjusted my swing to try and find the feel I am used to in my iron shaft losing my lag and adding loft at impact. 

... On paper and according to much of what I read the 105's and 950's should at least be similar in performance as well as feel and both get the typical "smooth" description form those that played them. So even though these 2 shafts should have been very similar, for my swing they were not, and by a wide margin. Had I hit some 105's even in a net at a golf store or better yet a range,  I would have recognized this right away. But since I have not played steel in over 20 years I made the mistake of relying on specs and reviews after seeing a deal too good to pass up... sigh. I re-lerned a lesson I learned many years ago: NEVER buy equipment without hitting it first. 

Broke 80 please.  

Broke 80 please.  

... I love the Rogue shaft series. Just awesome shafts that can be bought for much less than when they were introduced. I have a Rogue Black Tour 110 shaft that retailed for $799 and while it is a little smoother than the $299 original priced retail version, performance is very similar, it just has a smoother feel and higher QC. One of the absolute steals is the Rogue Silver Tour 125 that was stock in Wilson Trident driver that sold for $99. I had a friend that bought one and gave away the head. 

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2510209.m570.l1311.R1.TR10.TRC0.A0.H0.XWilson+Tr.TRS0&_nkw=wilson+triton+driver&_sacat=0

Well we had a tough day today. Hit her 92 times, 2 trees and a cart path but we made it. 108 holes and counting. She really needs to be retired but at this point we are charging on to see how long she lasts.

 
 
Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy
 

I wrapped up my 90th hole with the same ball today. I’m usually one round and done with any ball but after 18 this ball was in good shape so I kept it in play.
 

 
The back up ball has been on the sidelines for 5 rounds.
 
I’m playing 18 tomorrow and will play the Z Star again although it looks like maybe the seam is starting to show but might be hard to see.
 

 
What’s that longest you’ve had the same ball in play?
 
 
Sent from my iPad using MyGolfSpy
 

Thanks for the kind words, we are always happy to do stuff like that. We all have been on that end and it's always a bummer to miss a sale by a day or 2 so we are happy to honor that sale price.
 
We are offering up to $40 off our NX7 series of rangefinders through Fathers Day. 

I've used the Precision Pro quite a bit and love it. Great product and superior customer service.


Sent from my iPad using MyGolfSpy

Thanks for the reply.  I ended up sending the MG rangfinder back and getting a Percision NX7 Slope.  I have not had time to play golf using the new one but hope it is better.  

I think that might be a common issue with any range finder. I have Pinned ‘The Pearl’ range finder. I typically shoot it three times and take the number that was given to me twice. Sometimes it will give you one that is a bit off from the two consistent ones.

Perhaps that is just par for the course.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

I know people are saying this is paralysis by analysis but I find this interesting and sort of fun. Sry long post ahead:
 
I used a FlightScope optimizer to try and at least confirm some of the MGS numbers concerning the CSX and MTBX since those seem to be the two really 'controversial' balls right now.
https://flightscope.com/products/trajectory-optimizer/
With the exact average numbers from the table (high speed driver), at sea level you get 277 carry for CSX and 282 for the MTB-X. So honestly, I'm much more questioning the MTB-X longer distance than I am the CSX shorter distance. It makes me think that either A) the aerodynamics packages of the Snell is much better than the CSX and thus GCQ wouldn't show that large difference or B) wind or other factors were at play (which I think is much more likely).
The reason I think B) is more likely is because the peak heights and descent angles between the two balls are pretty different on the MGS table. You've got the CSX flying on average 17 feet lower, despite almost identical launch and spin conditions. The FlightScope sim showed the CSX peak height to be 115 vs the MTBX to be 120.
So just based on these FlightScope calcs there are 2 things really sticking out: 1) the MTB-X should not be carrying 289 on average unless other factors are at play, and 2) the CSX flew about 10% lower in the MGS data than it should have but the overall carry distance is in line with predicted values.
Lastly, I couldn't replicate the offline numbers MGS was showing inside this simulator. I set the side launch to 2 degrees to the right (due to my assumption of them setting up for slight draws) with a spin axis of 2.4 & 2.7 degrees L (from the MGS table). The balls both finished to the right of the target line by a few yards. According to the MGS data table, both balls finished on average 8 or so yards LEFT of target. Since the confidence interval is 85% and from above it seems they hit at least 20 (different) balls for each make, I really am starting to think wind was a factor here. I'm really hesitant to think that on average, both balls were basically introducing 10+ extra yards of draw off high speed driver purely from QC issues. If that does happen to be the case, wow that is not awesome... both balls had standard devs over 15 yards.
In conclusion, either wind or some environmental factors would seem to be at play and this MGS testing isn't really ideal, and thus no 'major' conclusions should be drawn in regards to the actual distance and dispersion numbers. Compression measurements still valid, so is ball speed I'd say, too. However, if wind wasn't a factor... I think we have a much bigger issue on our hands in regards to quality control of the balls not used on Tour released from some OEMs (not all, but a select few).
If anybody thinks I'm way off base, please let me know. If you made it through that novel of a post, congrats.

... I could be wrong, but I think most better players that have a reasonably repeatable swing and ball flight have done their own testing. I had tried some of the original Bridgestone RX but the rep came on another forum and was really touting the newest version so I gave them another try. I pretty quickly knew it wasn't for me. Got a dozen Duo Urethane balls at the Show and pretty much same results. Of course I wanted to see what all the hype was about with the Chrome Soft and while it's green side performance was better than Duo and Rx, it was still lacking in spin on aggressive chips and pitches. And as stated a little shorter off the tee. 

... On the other end of the spectrum, at 100mph I just don't compress the Srixon XV enough and it felt very hard and clicky to me. There is little doubt that someone swinging 115, 100 and 85 will find any given ball can feel very different. I played with a guy with around a 120 swing speed and he plays the XV because the Z Star feels like mush to him. Yet someone swinging 85 may think the Z Star feels a lot firmer than the Chrome Soft. But feel is just a tie breaker and the last factor I look at in a golf ball. Obviously if the XV and TP5x perform very similar I will choose the one that feels better. So while I found this test interesting, I already know which balls work for my game and the test only confirmed that. Because I am curious, I'll try some MTB-X and B-X balls but I have quite a few balls that I know work well for my game that I need to get through first. 

* I wil add that when I was on staff with Titleist it was like pulling teeth to get ProV1's. They sent me 1 dozen with a full staff bag of clubs. I asked several times for more but never received them. To be fair this is when they first came out and were very hot but a Maxfli rep I talked to after giving a lesson sent me 5 dozen HT-100's even though I was on staff with Titleist. I have avoided Titleist balls ever since but have little doubt they would be equal to the balls I play. The fact that they are more expensive also makes me want to support the little guy which explains Snell and Maxfli, although Taylor Made isn't exactly selling balls at farmers markets. 

... Thanks for the heads up. These guys are just so classy. Interesting that their difference is much closer to my experience. At 100mph driver swing speed (-18 from Matt) the Chrome Soft, Duo Urethane and Rx were around 3-5 yds shorter. In and of itself not enough to discount it as a ball I would play, but performance around the green was also lacking spin so I gave up on soft golf balls. 

TXG has released their video. The results aren't surprising. Their commentary is extremely fair - they're wondering what other factors led to the 18 yards. They said it has to be something regarding aerodynamics if there are no other variables at play 

Yep. Soft is talked about, dimples are not. With some of the balls having near identical launch angles and spin numbers, I have to assume that aero plays some roll. But again, I guess it has never really been tested and at this point dimple patterns are all hype.... oh please let there be a dimple pattern ball test in the future.
 
Also, I think TXG does great work. They have shown over and over that shafts do behave different, and there is a "best" option for each person, but that every swing needs to be fit. High launch shafts might be the opposite for some players, they are well thought out and they try not to talk in absolutes. I have no issue at all with them testing different balls, I'm curious what they will find. My previous comment was more about what was said, CG Quad over 20' has to do some cool math. And I get that it does that math very very well, I was just curious if that 20' calculation will be as accurate as a trackman on a range with full flight tracking radar.  If I was putting one in my garage, I would go CG Quad, but on a open range....  I was just asking the question.  I am sure the guy who built those units is probably on this forum and will tell me why it doesn't matter, I'm good with that. 
Based on the Video they did, they mention that spin axis was off immediately on some of the balls that had crazy flyers. And if it is off from the first moment, I'd guess CG quad handles that just fine. 
 
I'm am now more curious about dimple patterns hype/reality. Please MGS, bring in Adam Savage and  Jamie Hyneman for a  golfball dimple myth testing. This needs to happen. 
 
-corrected some of my less than amazing typing skills-

Gcquad uses an algorithm based on the data and pictures captured as the ball passes the monitor. In some reading the algorithm on the gcquad seems to be the most accurate of the monitors out there (prior to recent upgrades from trackman)
trackman uses cameras, data, radar info to place into their algorithm so even though it tracks the entire ball flight outdoors there’s still some “guesswork” from the algorithm. 
Flightscope is similar to trackman but in readings ive seen is the least accurate of the three.

Good point.  I posted something earlier in the thread where pointing out that the ball speed, launch and spin numbers of the MTBx and the TP5x where very close but the MTBx had a few yards extra carry off the driver at 115 + 85.  There is  no way the launch monitor will pick that up.  If there are any launch monitor experts out there, please explain if this is not the case.   Wonder how the LM results will compare to MGS test.  
BTW I am a huge fan of TXG so in no way am I trying to be negative about their efforts.   TXG has some of the best golf content on YouTube.  
 

Good point.  I posted something earlier in the thread where pointing out that the ball speed, launch and spin numbers of the MTBx and the TP5x where very close but the MTBx had a few yards extra carry off the driver at 115 + 85.  There is  no way the launch monitor will pick that up.  If there are any launch monitor experts out there, please explain if this is not the case.   Wonder how the LM results will compare to MGS test.  
BTW I am a huge fan of TXG so in no way am I trying to be negative about their efforts.   TXG has some of the best golf content on YouTube.  
 

Here we go.....😊

I want to clear some things up from my point, I think some have taken it that I am disappointed with the results and that I am defending Callaway because I don’t like the results of the test. I am not defending Callaway for their statement. What I am trying to point it is that it doesn’t and shouldn’t matter what they said, they are going to try to defend their ball, just as any large ball OEM would do if they were perceived as a poor performing ball. 
I have said this a few times, because this is the important part to take away. We have been saying for years, that everyone should try different golf balls to find something that works for their game. This ball test did not change that. What it did was point us in a direction so we have data to look at when determining what to try. 
TXgolfjunkie made a spreadsheet that has broken down the data and you can input the information according to what you want in a ball, and it will give you some options to try. That’s a great tool to use. 
The ball that I have been pretty comfortable playing is the Chrome soft, and Chrome soft x, that ball does what I need it to do. Due to the cost I have changed and I am giving The MTBx a good look. 
What I don’t like is when guys say something like “I just purchased 2 dozen of x ball, and now that the test shows it didn’t perform perfectly, I am getting rid of them”. That ridiculous. Why?
the data that is given should help point is to a ball that will work for what we need in a ball, I for one am not going to discredit a ball based on a comment by the manufacturer of the ball. 
I don’t care who says what about what ball, I am going to check into any ball that fits my categories. There exceptions, I do not like Titleist, I never have, so I don’t buy Titleist anything. Their equipment just doesn’t work me. Outside of that, I will try anything that I feel will work. 
Find a ball that works for you, it shouldn’t matter who makes it. We all have companies we don’t like, but their are many other companies that we can try. We should use the Data provided and make a decision based on our own needs. 

I wish the TP5x had some better aerodynamics like the Bridge Tour B X. I find the TP5x balloons a little too much with my driver (125+ mph) compared to the B X even though the launch conditions and spin are identical. TP5x does go lower in spin with the irons and wedes, but with the driver, i feel like the B X would be better suited in windy conditions as well.

This is exactly why I chose the TP5x for my gamer this year.  Low spin off the driver, mid spinning of most of the irons and high spin off wedges and around the greens.  Would love to see the "black" longer off the tee, and spin a little more on full wedges and around the greens.  

OK, I had to do it...
 
 

This is exactly why I chose the TP5x for my gamer this year.  Low spin off the driver, mid spinning of most of the irons and high spin off wedges and around the greens.  Would love to see the "black" longer off the tee, and spin a little more on full wedges and around the greens.