WalterS
-
Posts
84 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
FAQ
Tests
Classifieds
Store
Group Buys
Posts posted by WalterS
-
-
3 hours ago, Kor.A.Door said:
I played the recommended ball from the spreadsheet today, and It seems to be pretty good. it’s a bit softer feeling off the driver, but for irons, short game, and putting it has very good feel to it. I’ll play it for a while and see if that 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.
-
45 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:
Everyone under contract to Tm for full bag plays the TP5/x, until Rickie’s current contract they didn’t offer any ball contracts to players do their pool is going to be small.
I don’t know about Srixon and what they have on conforming list but most of the ball companies have balls that are not at retail for their tour players and in some cases players use an older version of a ball. Stacy Lewis played the 2009 prov until about 4 years ago when titleist told her they weren’t going to produce it anymore. She then switched to Bridgestone
interesting.
-
7 minutes ago, txgolfjunkie said:
Hard to have those shots into the green when the tee shot goes wayward. The Z Star was a little offline but it had one of the smallest shot areas and offline standard deviations off the driver and 7 iron...meaning it's consistent. The XV on the other hand... was not nearly as consistent, especially off the driver and that's what leads you back to my first sentence...
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.
-
35 minutes ago, sixcat said:
I agree completely, the distance gain is great but not at the expense of accuracy. But I haven't experienced anything resembling inaccuracy so far.
MTB-X is $32.99 for a single dozen but the price drops if you buy in bulk up to 5 dozen. Five dozen are $27.99 per.
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?
-
38 minutes ago, sixcat said:
I have played 3 balls since last Thursday. I play almost everyday with yesterday being the only day I haven't played in that time. I lost one in some "ground under repair" where we have some flooding issues. I had used it for 20 holes and it was still in great shape. The other two are also in great shape. I scuffed one with a nicely clipped bunker shot on #3. It came out kind-of low, skidded once and stopped dead. The scuff isn't anything I would be concerned about but I took it out of play anyway. To be honest, I'm not sure why I did. I don't even keep score these days.
That brings up another point about the distance I'm seeing with the MTB-X. The area where I live experienced record shattering rainfall from February 2018 through March 2019. The whole area has severe flood damage, including parts of the course. It's wet.....very wet! So there is no roll-out to speak of. In most cases, I find the ball either a few inches behind or ahead of it's pitch mark in the fairways. It's a Gene Hamm design so virtually every green is elevated. As a result, the staff has been able to keep the greens nice and firm. But the fairways are squishy and very soft.
As I type this realizing how many holes I get wit ha single ball, paying $48 a dozen for Pro V1's isn't really that big a deal!
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.
-
1 minute ago, sixcat said:
Srixon balls are $40 a dozen almost everywhere in the US. Again, it may be shortsighted on my part but I buy virtually everything golf related through the shop at my club. I haven't stepped foot inside a Dick's, Golf Galaxy or PGA Superstore in a very long time. So, I don't know about a "buy 3 get 1 free" deal from Srixon. Titleist does that every spring because my club participates.
Ordering the MTB-X's in bulk (5 dozen) the per-unit price comes down to $28 per dozen. If I don't see anything in terms of wild ball flights or irregularities, I will most likely order 5 dozen at that price.
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?
-
8 minutes ago, sixcat said:
Nothing nefarious. My club doesn't sell Srixon balls so I didn't order any like I did the Snell balls.
May be a bit lacking on my part but I will order balls to save $20 a dozen. If I'm going to pay full price, I will support the shop at my club.
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?
-
1 minute ago, chisag said:
... I really do wish I had hit the 2019 XV as I have always loved Srixon Z Stars. Unfortunately I have 10 dozen balls in my basement (6 dozen TP5x, 2 original Kirkland 4 piece and Maxfli Tours) and doubt I will get thru half of them this season so the new XV is gonna have to wait til next season.
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.
-
46 minutes ago, sixcat said:
I played the Pro V1x and Tour B X for a couple weeks as the MGS report was coming out. They are comparable to the MTB-X but I will nitpick since you asked. I have found the MTB-X to be a club longer with the driver but a yard or 2 shorter with irons. The MTB-X is firmer with the firmness getting more pronounced the closer I get to the green (shorter the club). It's nothing I would consider bad. Just a more "full" feeling that I can't really explain but definitely more "clicky" with my SeeMore Brass Blade putter from 1999.
I can't distinguish between the three around the greens other than the firmness of the Snell somewhat stands out. I could easily play any of the three and be very happy. But given I can't distinguish between them, why pay $20 a box more? That's where I'm leaning at the moment unless I get one of the outliers the MGS testing found.
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.
-
1 hour ago, sixcat said:
There wasn't a breath of wind and the second at my club couldn't be more flat. My swing speed is right on the 110 mph range. I haven't been playing the Pro V1x, Bridgestone Tour B X and MTB-X side by side. I don't like doing that for a number of reasons. I bought a sleeve each of the Tour B X and Pro V1x about two weeks, playing one every other day. I got a dozen of the MTB-X balls last Thursday and haven't played anything else since.
After nearly a week, I haven't noticed anything out of the ordinary. I have had a couple of iron shots end up 20 feet left or right of the target which caused me to wonder if it was me or the ball. I did hit a "foul ball" with the driver on #5 over the weekend but I have hit that shot on #5 more than I have hit the fairway in 12 years. It's hard for me to blame the ball given the frequency at which I end up in that spot off the 5th tee. The difference though, the MTB-X cleared the water. Never had that happen before with another ball. They all ended up wet.
I will snap you a pic this afternoon and post it in the morning. My bag is currently in my locker at the club.
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.
-
22 minutes ago, Jim418 said:
As the launch monitors predict ball flight rather than measure it, I don't think they take into account the ball aerodynamics. If one ball had a dimple pattern that made it stay in the air longer (all else being equal) I'm not sure the launch monitor would include that difference.
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.
-
-
1 minute ago, Wedgie said:
In today’s blog introducing a couple new e6 balls a representative from Bridgestone discusses a bit of their take from the test. Worth a quick read IMO and makes me want to take the RX out for a spin.
Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpyWhich blog would you be referring to?
-
38 minutes ago, Jim418 said:
Was all the ball data based on launch monitor data which is a predicted result based on launch conditions? Or did MGS actually measure shot distance and dispersion?
(I viewed the "how we tested" video and I don't think it mentioned it).
Thanks.
I just asked Tony C. that question over in the ball test writeup, we'll see if he answers.
-
13 minutes ago, chisag said:
... I am talking compression for feel, not performance. The XV feels like I don't compress it, even though I do. Srixon has recommended speeds of 105+ for the XV (111). MGS stated OEMs measure compression differently but even if it were identical to their tests, compression is clearly not the final factor as the Maxfli X (109) and ProV1x (111) do not feel as hard as the XV. As I said, feel is the last factor in my decision and if the XV outperformed all the others I would get used to the rock hard feel.
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.
-
14 hours ago, chisag said:
... 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.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.
-
22 minutes ago, CarlH said:
This thread is starting to remind me when I was a young sailor running nuclear chemistry analysis. The accuracy of the analyisis was +/- 25% and we were doing calculations by sliderule. I took the results to the engineering officer of the watch for his review. He whips out this fancy TI calculator that was the size of 3 golf GPS units and proceeded to correct my calculations. I refused to change my results. He tried to tell me how much more accurate his calculator was than my circular sliderule was and his calculations showed I needed to change my results (I forget the actual difference but it was WELL within the accuracy of a sliderule and along the lines of <0.05. He had completely dismissed the accuracy of the actual analysis in his demands that he was correct. Years later, we were all using calculators but the accuracy of the actual analysis never changed.
So, we nitpick the perfect ball hit with the perfect swing done by machine in perfect conditions, measured by high levels of accuracy to come up with the ideal ball. Then we take our imperfect swing and wonder why we didn't shoot better.
Sorry, for wandering off on that....might be the pain meds talking.
Actually, I'm loving the thread and the information being shared.
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.
-
6 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:
Gcquad is doing calculations as the ball passes its cameras once it’s gone either indoors or outside.
Trackman while using radar to track the entire flight still uses an algorithm to compile the numbers.
This is why gcquad is as accurate indoors as outdoors compared to trackman. Trackman indoors needs a lot of room to be close to accurate
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.
-
On 3/8/2019 at 1:53 PM, clafoone said:
Edingc,
Thanks for the inspiration.
I had some 1" steel rod left over from a project.
I got the shafts from DTG also.
Thanks again,
Randy.jpeg.5b2837308f73e788b471074181eeb8e6.jpeg)
Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
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.
-
25 minutes ago, THEZIPR23 said:
Has anyone had any durability issues with the Prov1X new model compared to the previous version? I have noticed more shaving than previously.
hmmm, well that's not good, seems from the responses that it may be a problem. Most expensive ball and they scuffing problems.
-
1 hour ago, JonMUSC08 said:
I love the people that over-analyze someone else's analysis and how they prefer to utilize data...
. All of a sudden everyone becomes an expert in data analysis and what golf ball is perfect. hahaha
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.
-
13 hours ago, bellairemi said:
Mostly played ProV1x but also a few from Bridgestone and the TP5x. Did not see any strange ball flights and today saw that they held their line in the wind better than the ProV1x. Driver swingspeed is 100-102.
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.
-
3 hours ago, Mowine4me said:
I played Snell Red last year and was very happy. Since that ball was discontinued I ordered the Snell test pack (6 MTB and 6 MTBX). Tested them on Trackman last week and had interesting results:
Tee Shot- Black average Carry 237, Spin 2780 and Launch Angle 15.8. MTBX Carry 225.7, Spin 2938 and Launch Angle 13.5
Not just on averages, but looking at individual shots the MTB was consistently longer for me.
7 Iron- MTB Avg Carry 147, Spin 7115 and Launch 23.2. MTBX was 149.7, 7287, and 23.3. So no meaningful difference here.
54 degree wedge hitting a three quarter shot- MTB average spin was 6921, MTBX was 6262. More importantly with the MTB I had half the shots over 7500 spin, MTBX never got higher than 7253.
I want to repeat the test, but at this point MTB has the advantage for me, being longer off the tee and spinning more on pitch shots.
Interesting, what's your driver swing speed. That's a considerable distance difference between the two considering the distances.
- tony@CIC and GeekingGolf
-
2
MGS Golf Ball Test
in Golf Balls/Shafts/Grips
Posted
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.