WalterS

So that was the Z Star not Z Star XV? And you thought it was a little too firm. If it was the XV I could understand that but if it's the Z Star then it should feel softer than the XS and spin less according to the data. What, Tiger is allowing them to change his ball. I'm guessing he must have a lot of input into the changes.

And what ball was that?

I see MGS is looking for testers for the Z Star and Z Star XV, each tester is given 1dz of each to test. Only for USA I'm in Canada so I don't qualify, damn. I talked with a Srixon rep in their USA head office and he assured me the retail balls (Z Star and Z Star XV) are the exact same as the Tour Pros use. So no Callaway tricks here with Srixon.

interesting.

Yes the Z Star 7i does show it's very consistent, just offline. And true about the Z StarXV, but it doesn't seem to add up when you look at all 3 speeds, fast is -12.5, mid is -5.2 and slow is +2.

Yeah you can't beat that price. I suppose one way to tell the performance quality of a ball is to see how many Pro Tour players around the globe are playing it. Of course with the exception of Callaway who lies about the tour players playing the same balls as we can buy. Obviously Titleist is #1, but from what I've read and from my own experience the ProV1/x scuff up easily, who's #2-not Callaway, Srixon has a lot Pro Tour players around the globe playing both the Zstar and the zstar XV, Bridgestone only has a handful of players that's it, TM from what I see is only a handful or two, of course a lot of them are in the top 10 ranking for the PGA. Did I forget anyone worth mentioning?

Sounds like most are more or less happy with the MTBX. Like you say if you never lose a ball maybe you should play the ProV1x, although I've read comments before about them getting scuffed very easily. How much is a dz MTBX in the USA. To me distance is great but not at the expense of dispersion(offline data/shot area), fairways not so much, shots into the green very much so. To that end I think the ZStar XV is one of the better ones. They sure have a lot of tour players around the globe playing both the ZStar and the ZStar XV.

That's great that you support your club, providing they're not adding a huge mark-up on their balls. All clubs up here add a huge mark-up on balls. Good to hear that you don't see any irregularities on the MTBX. I have a question on the ZStar data, MGS rated it excellent, but how is that possible with it having the "worst 7i" (for all speeds) offline data of any ball, yet the ZStar XV only a has wayward fast driver offline data and it got rated VG?

I hear ya, can't buy and test every ball. But I'd assume the ZStars aren't that much more money over the Snell(by the dz) in the USA. Up here(Canada) I can buy a dz ZStars cheaper(reg price) than I can buy a dz(or 2) MTBX online(and I told Snell that but they didn't comment on that). To get a break I'd need to buy 3 dz Snell. It would be nice if you could buy a sleeve of MTBX to try out first before I buy 3dz.. Not to mention your guys can buy 3dz ZStars and get 1 dz free, not up here, why who knows. Or was it buy2 get 1 free?

Yeah that's few balls to go through, ha-ha. Who knows maybe next years versions of the ZStars will be more improved(and less expensive even though they are already) and rate higher on the 2020 ball test results.

Thanks for the further explanation. You never mentioned testing either of the ZStar balls, is it you just don't like them from previous play. Apparently they have changed(improved) them in the past couple years.

Interesting to say the least. Keep us updated on the ventures with the new MTBX and also on the Prov1X and Tour BX when you get around to playing them. Or did you say you played the other balls already, what's your take on them, do they match up to the test results? Are you aware of the test data on the MTBX while you're playing the ball? Does any of it fit, of course maybe it's too early to judge it just yet. The extra length seems to be holding true at least. Can't wait to hear what Dean Snell has to say, apparently(after talking with Snell) he's waiting for the real raw data from MGS so he can get an idea of what was happening to his balls.

Exactly the reason why I don't really trust some of the data from GC Quad type launch monitors. Trackman seems better suited to this type of testing.

Right, already found it, after I posted I thought you might have been referring to MGS, thanks. Interesting comments by the Bridgestone Rep.

Which blog would you be referring to?

I just asked Tony C. that question over in the ball test writeup, we'll see if he answers.

Okay, thanks for the explanation on the why of your comment. Were you testing the new 2019 Srixon balls, I heard they made them feel softer than last years, according to Srixon they also lowered the comp. for the XV from 105 to 102, the zstar remained at 90.

I'm curious why you say you can't compress the XV enough. Point #4 in the ball test writeup MGS stated; 4. Don’t Worry About Compressing The Golf Ball Let’s tackle one of the most common golf ball myths. Forget what you might have heard, you swing fast enough to compress the core of the golf ball. Our testing showed that golf balls do not perform differently at different swing speeds – at least not to any significant degree. Balls that are fast at 115 MPH are fast at 85 MPH. You play the TP5X (104) which is only 7 points lower than the XV (111) and you feel your 100mph SS isn't enough for the XV. I'm not about to question your doubts as I do recall you mentioning you spent a lot of time on the mini tours so no doubt you know how a ball feels and what you want in a feel. Does 7 points make that much difference, I ask because I've never really given it any thought.

You make some good points but, like you say with our imperfect swings, which most have lots of variables, we don't need to be adding more variables into the equation. So it would make perfect sense( to me or in my opinion) to pick a ball with the best data, particularly offline dev/ carry dev(dispersion or shot area) so as to lessen the extra variables.

Let the battle begin as to who's correct. Let's not forget that unless I'm mistaken the MGS were hitting balls out into the outdoors and also observing them and maybe they even had guys out where the balls were landing too to double check offline and distances.

Nice job. I did mine about a year ago but I used 1" brass rod and just milled them to get the proper weights required for each colour. For the shafts I got 3 pulled Ping driver shafts, which I got for free from the local GolfTown. They work just fine, although I think they are a touch shorter than the real sticks because of the shafts being pulls, but I don't care too much about that.

hmmm, well that's not good, seems from the responses that it may be a problem. Most expensive ball and they scuffing problems.

I'm going to guess you play a TP5(but the old ones), only because most of your clubs are (old)TM, haha. As for people analysing the data, everyone has their own interpretations of data regardless of the field from which the data came from. And not everyone has the same ideas of what performance parameters are important to them. I find it interesting to listen to others and what they find important in the data.

Good to hear they held the line better. Interesting to see you've played what you have, do you prefer the MTBX over the others. I've played the TP5/ProV's/ Srixon but not the MTBX. I was a little put off by some of the test results and not just the driver data. Just going by the data I'd pick the ProV1X or Srixon Zstar/XV -Tour BX. But does it really matter which of these top performers an amateur plays, I doubt it but who knows. I question some of the robot's numbers, not because I know any better, just because some of them don't make sense when looking at the trends.

Interesting, what's your driver swing speed. That's a considerable distance difference between the two considering the distances.