Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

46 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

385 profile views
  1. Bump.... also interested. I may end up in a SIM UDI and I'm currently for better or worse, building an all black iron head bag. Would be interested in his service for this club if it becomes a permanent addition.
  2. 1. NJ USA 2. Sun mountain sync, sun mountain 4.5LS 3. Full length dividers, solid construction, stands up on its own with all clubs in it, has a waterproof pouch, cart pass thru, aethetically pleasing, solid zippers, putter well
  3. Ian now seems to recommend the Directed Force putter which by design is center shafted. The results seemed pretty good but man... so ugly. Is it so good simply because lie angle balance? And are all center shafted putters lie angle balanced? If so... it would seem like it simply comes down to MOI because the DF putter does twist quite a bit on miss hits, but the ball still travels very close to target line.
  4. I have. Cradle doesn't give you as much info as SAM or Quintic. Generally my results were validated using Ping app after having done 3 putter fits now. My issue is I generally putt much better in a fitting than I do on course. I was fit into a Newport style head but I also got told if I wanted a mallet, what I should look for. I am currently looking at getting back in to a mallet for the added forgiveness.
  5. Just my .02 but the Atmos reallllyyy minds me of the old Motore Speeders. So much so, that I'm about 95% convinced that Atmos is just a painted Motore, with maybe tiny material change here or there. Profile feels identical (to me).
  6. Well after seeing the high speed data come out today, I'm firmly convinced that the F9 is a real winner. Almost identical numbers to M5, but for much less $$. Subjectively, the F9 feels/sounds so much better to me... The M5 was rather firm and hard feeling, especially on a miss hit. The F9 was extremely pleasing to strike, almost having some kind of 'softness' to it which I enjoyed. Lastly... there's just something really cool and edgy about the F9 that M5/M6 doesn't have. I think it's that the design of the M series is getting a little bit old. Cobra is keeping it pretty fresh. F
  7. My coach swears by the hi toe, but he's also on staff with Taylormade. I could see how good it would be if you played tons of knockdowns and partial shots off tight lies.... but the club that I get lessons at is not like the Muni's that I normally play which are soft as heck. I could see myself keeping the hi toe to play very specific courses but for me those situation are few and far between. I don't really have too many issues using my 10* glide 2.0 lob wedge to nip shots off regular turf. It's also many times better than the hi toe from the rough... that higher bounce is much f
  8. Interesting... It almost looks like a mix between ProV and Chrome Soft dimples. One thing though... don't proV have varying dimples every so often? These look all very similar in size except I notice every so often there's a small bit of random space between a cluster of them.
  9. Yeah $48 a dozen isn't bad IF the ball can last 20 holes. I never now how long mine last because I just play a ball until it's lost or the cover is so beat up looking it's embarassing to see somebody let you tee that up...
  10. How's durability been? I tend to not lose balls but with the MGS guys saying even minor cuts and whatnot can affect performance, I'll probably start using 2 or even 3 balls per round before they end up in the shag bag (which is already now about 40 balls deep). Anything more than 2 balls or so being used per round and that starts getting a little cost prohibitive for me to start gaming ProV1x at $48 a box. The low price of the Snell is very appealing if thee things aren't wildly flying offline like testing was showing.
  11. I'm interested in what he says. I doubt he'd reveal it but I wonder how they do QC. Do they inspect each ball and reference a certain set of specs and pass/fail every single one, or might they inspect by "lot" sampling. That is, they produce say 10,000 balls in a "lot" (batch) and randomly select X% (say 2% for example) and check each one. If all of them pass with respect to some sort of reference ball or set of specs, ALL 10,000 in that lot pass. Depending on their manufacturing scales, I'd assume the latter is done to save on time/cost. However, that could potentially lead to somebody l
  12. I see, thanks. That would lead to me to believe then the MTB-X has some kind of superior aero. package. Would you be so kind as to maybe post a close up view of the dimples, and it would be really cool to see that right next to a ProV1X and also a CSX if possible. Lastly, have you found the ball to be inaccurate? Having a wedge into a 430 par 4 means your speed must be at least in the 110 range, unless that hole was very down wind/down hill. I'd imagine after enough shots, this whole 21 yard std deviation on dispersion would have reared it's head a little bit by now? I do real
  13. I don't mind a firm ball. I feel like it helps with feedback on strike across all clubs. One thing I didn't consider - Did MGS do their testing well above see level? The numbers I got off FlightScope were at an elevation of 0 feet. Maybe if they were around 2000+ft elevation, I can see the MTB-X going further than predicted. It would also probably exacerbate any offline stuff, too. But then that means the CSX was much shorter than it should be... which then flips the question about aerodynamics. The Snell would be "normal" and the CSX's would be poor.
  14. I'm curious what about the MTB-X package for aerodynamics is much different than everything else? According to my FlightScope data back last page, physics/calculations says the ball shouldn't haven't flown as far as it did on average. All the balls have to conform to the rules of golf, so what did Mr. Snell figure out that a huge company like Titleist, Bridgestone, etc haven't to make the ball get like an extra 5-7 yards in the air than predicted?
  15. 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
  • Create New...