11iron

I've always considered Tony Covey's golf club reviews to be the BEST in the business, bar none. Really no close second. Comprehensive, well-written, simply superb. Conversely and surprisingly, I'm not a huge fan of his/MGS' ball reviews, which rely on much-too-small sample sizes to make sweeping, tenuous conclusions. But that is a minor snivel, as I (and many) benefit from his masterful golf club knowledge and ability to communicate same. I have also always been a fan of his work as Murr on Impractical Jokers. Ok, that is tongue-in-cheek, but they are doppelgangers if there ever were....

I would be very interested in this product. I walk every round I play, with a push cart, and getting the cart out of my vehicle would be good thing. Plus when I travel with my clubs, this would be very nice. Here are some thoughts for your consideration based on what I've seen thus far: - kudos on a great idea and product! - make sure the handle is wide enough for two hands. The pic (with the guy's hand) looks like it is not. This is vital for a walker. - many walkers use an umbrella for shade. I wouldn't even consider a cart that didn't have this feature. This should be integrated in the build. - make sure your finished product fits in a hard-shell travel case. - you ask "so why are people so concerned about storage?" Just the fact that they are should be enough for you as a product inventor. But if that isn't enough, everyone has different items they need/want with them on the course, that you didn't mention: Laser rangefinder, personal launch monitor, jacket, medicine, snacks, rainhood, sunglasses case, hat, sunscreen, whatever. Maximizing storage space should be a no-brainer objective. In your pics, the side pockets could/should be larger - extend them upwards (where the logo is) and down if possible. Or better yet, keep one wheel-sized pocket on each side (for -just- the wheels, when needed) and add another. Move the logo onto the pocket. Really maximize all pockets. - colors: I know you want to advertise your brand with your logo. But the bright logo colors may turn some off. Definitely me, for one. As a minimum, consider a "grayout" colorway with a subdued gray logo. - price: $500 (even $450) seems too high for a widespread enthusiastic response. $399 equals a premium $200 cart and $200 bag, $299 equals a budget setup. For your consideration. - All of these are offered as suggestions. I love your product and idea. And side note, learn to ignore internet jerks who talk like they never would ftf. Don't answer them defensively, you will tarnish your product's rep. Looking forward to your product!

Wow Wedgie you are the man, great test, thanks! My three takeaways: - In dry conditions, the matte ball spins >800rpm less and launches ~2 degrees higher than the gloss ball. This makes the two balls, even though they're both Wilson Duo Professionals, designed and manufactured the same except for the paint coat, in effect two different balls. One isn't better than the other, depends on what your game needs. So lets me know the Maxfli Tour (and Tour X, and other balls with both a glossy and matte version) probably differs between its matte and glossy versions as well. Doesn't affect the validity of wet vs. dry comparison at all, since %s can be used. - Your data confirms what MGS and T X G data has previously shown -- in wet conditions, launch increases, spin decreases, distance increases, and apex increases. - In wet conditions, the matte cover does exactly the opposite of what Tony Covey stated - the matte cover is less affected by moisture, much less in fact. Launch (direct SkyTrak measurement) increases 6% (wet ball) and 7% (wet club and ball) for matte, but 14% (both conditions) for glossy (again, %s used since the baselines are different; this is the only way to measure relative effect). Backspin (the other direct SkyTrak measurement) is even more disparate - matte -22%/-23% vs. glossy -28%/-39%. So, according to the data, matte urethane balls are much more consistent in wet conditions, and affected by moisture less significantly than glossy. Is this the be-all end-all test - no. But very valuable, thank you Wedgie - and (re)confirms that data is king, and unsupported claims should be questioned and tested. Of course, now I have to buy some glossy Maxfli Tours and Tour Xs to compare on course with my mattes...

>> Here is what I will do: Awesome, Wedgie! >> Let me know if more needs to be done? You mentioned soaking in water - the testing I've seen (MSG photo and T X G videos) uses a spray bottle. The only other input I would make is to make enough swings to make it statistically significant - it's been a while since my Statistics classes, so won't even try to bust out any formulae - as a wag at least a dozen of each? If that's too many swings for you, could maybe combine 2 with 3, and 5 with 6, and make your best guess re. moisture amount on a dewy morning - maybe a single spray on both ball and club? Definitely don't have to go through full bag - probably one club is enough, even preferable to get more similar swings (sample size) - full swing 9-iron as midway between long irons and short wedges? Cool, will be informative as to matte ball performance.

Yep, that seems to be all that MGS has published. Hoping if this is really a thing, someone has seen data somewhere...or maybe even has done some measuring on their own.

Yep, that's the article, csnosil. No data provided. Has anyone seen/generated data anywhere to support the matte assertion?

Looking for data, Middler. MGS didn't provide any wet matte vs. dry matte data in comparison to wet gloss vs dry gloss. Agreed data via a robot swing would be super.

Thanks, 03. That's probably one of the places I saw data on wet shots, good info for sure. Also the T X G guys did some testing. But no data on the difference of matte vs gloss, just wet vs dry. I am interested because I've always liked the Maxfli urethane balls, and they now have a matte white version. If there is any actual quantifiable difference, it may be minimized or eliminated with a urethane cover, and with white (there is data to suggest colored dye also changes performance characteristics). So, if someone has a launch monitor, a repeatable swing, some Maxfli Tour (or Tour X) in both gloss and matte white (or any other brand that make both a gloss white and matte white version of the same urethane ball), a spray bottle, and the time to do some statistically significant testing with say a 9-iron, that would be super dope!

Tony Covey stated very emphatically on this week's No Putts Given that matte balls lose more spin / launch higher than non-matte balls when wet. see 37:54 of https://mygolfspy.com/warning-are-you-playing-this-golf-ball-noputtsgiven-38/ Is there any data anywhere to support this? I have seen data that all balls lose spin and launch higher when wet. But specifically matte more so than non-matte? Opinions and personal observation are great, but actual data would be beneficial to prove or disprove this. I have no reason to believe or disbelieve this, but have not seen anything anywhere on this, and would obviously inform future purchases.

Using the Cobra Ultralight with a BagBoy TriSwivel II. The bag is nice but the front 2 corner club slots get crushed in by the cart arms (due only to the weight of the bag itself), making it difficult to take/get those two wedges out/in. I imagine may be a similar problem on the ClicGear, because the bag simply isn't reinforced/strong enough in this area to prevent this. Not a good bag for push carts in my experience.

Those who play stiff shafts in your irons: do you play your specialty wedges with the standard wedge flex, or stiffer?

Thanks for your replies, cnosil and golfertrb. I will of course hit the clubs myself, for now I am still in info-gathering mode (although I may wait for the next iterations of these clubs in January). I think you are correct cnosil, without any alternate explanations, that the discrepancy is attributable to different testers, although I would have hoped that testers would be selected so as clubs we know to hit longer, higher, and faster would actually hit longer, higher, and faster, not only within tests but between tests conducted at the same time by the same site under the same guidelines for the same purpose. None of the MGS tests can claim statistical significance, but I guess I hoped that there was an explanation that would still support broader practical significance. Some nuggets of useful info nonetheless.

I am a fan of the great data MGS provides, and dive into it often as a means of narrowing down fitting options. I am considering a new set of players irons, have always played (and loved) Ping irons, so am looking at i210 and i500. The selling point of the i500s is higher speed, longer distance, and higher trajectory, whereas the i210s are touted for feel, consistency, and precision. But, the 2019 MGS Most Wanted data has higher ball speed, longer carry and total distance, and higher apex for the i210 vs the i500 across every tested club: 5I, 7I, and PW. Any considered thoughts on this would be appreciated.