Jump to content

vamosjackets

Member
  • Posts

    53
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by vamosjackets

  1. Bridgestone J40's. Feel great, nice natural soft-draw flight, good-confidence-inspiring forgiveness. I'm a fan.
  2. I chose the stock options because they look to be pretty much what I need. A "players-distance" iron is a good category for me - good player and ball striker but benefit from added help from the "Tec". Performance-wise, I would want a mid-high ball flight, mid spin, the ability to hit a nice stock fade but also to draw it if I need to, the 4/5 iron to have a little extra "help" to inspire confidence that it's going to be easy to hit, a good consistent distance without worrying about the "hot/flyer" shots, a little help so that the punishment on off-center ones is minimized, good feel out of the center, not harsh off the center but enough feedback to know where you hit it. Jonathan / Dublin, GA I currently play Mavrik Pro irons with X-100 shafts. These seem to be good irons for me and in the same vain as the Forged-Tec. Over the past 2 years, my handicap has moved from 11 to 8.8. Yes, I agree to participate in forum discussions about my experience with these irons. Glad to have a chance to possibly win and try these out. They look great.
  3. If and when you get that fitting, ask the fitter for access to all of the launch monitor data afterward. They should give you a website where it's all stored and organized nicely. Then it would probably be good to bookmark that website as that data could come in handy over the next few years for many currently unforeseen reasons ... at least that's how it was for me.
  4. I would recommend the Ping Ballnamic ball-fitting (google it). It worked very well for me to get me into a ball that outperforms others for my specific swing characteristics (to my surprise). It costs a little money, but it's a one-time cost that can improve your game and improve the way you spend your money from then on, and it will help you to be confident you're playing the best ball for you. You will put in the preferences that are important to you for your game. You can put in your gamer and see how it compares head-to-head with the recommendation. You can also choose to narrow the recommendations to more budget friendly balls. And, you can do it up to 5 times for a single payment, so you can put in different gamer-balls to compare. If you've got some swing data from a personal monitor or from a fitting you've done or from just taking some swings at a golf store, that would probably be helpful for the ball-fitting.
  5. I have tried lots of balls over the past couple years of getting more into golf. MGS has had a major influence on this (used to just play the best ball I could find in my bag that day). So far I've taken a lot of time with the Bridgestone Tour BX, the Snell MTB-X, Cut-Blue, Pro-V1, Maxfli Tour, and Srixon Z-Star Divide. Cut-Blue and Maxfli Tour were both really, really good for the money. Tour BX (older model) and MTB-X both were fine, but nothing special. Pro-V1 was very good all around. I played Z-Star Divide for a good while simply because it provided such invaluable visual feedback on putting. Then, on a whim, I tried Ping's Ballnamic ball fitting. I had swing data I could put in from a club fitting I did last year. It recommended the Chromesoft X (newest model) for me, which was pretty surprising (Tour BX and Pro-V1X were 2nd and 3rd recommendations). So, I went ahead and bought a sleeve and played them side-by-side with the Z-Star Divide I had been playing most recently. It was definitely a great recommendation. The biggest surprise was the extra distance I got on drives - 5-15 yards extra distance when both were hit well (and this was a pretty good sample size). All of the other factors were also good for me - high greenside spin, not super hard feel, good but not super-spinny off of irons. I certainly haven't noticed any inconsistencies from ball to ball or anything like that. I'm confident I'm playing the best ball for my game and would highly recommend anyone do that ball fitting. I'm around a 10 handicap (short game weakness) with a 107-112 mph driver swing.
  6. vamosjackets

    Maxfli Tour

    I've been trying out the Z-Star "Divide" to experiment with the visual alignment help on putting. I've found that the alignment (easier to get that sightline for me than other alignment graphics on balls) and the feedback on the roll (so much feedback that is just really easy to see, unlike anything else I've used) to be invaluable for me. I was doing the Maxfli Tour before that and did find it to be a very good ball, especially considering the price. I can't say anything conclusively about the performance differences between the two.
  7. I wanted to give an update to my experience with the V3 that I reported previously. I had 3 V3's to malfunction, none lasting more than a month. 1 due to showering, 1 due to a little rain, and a third due to dropping it onto a hardwood floor while trying to put it on - not a very hard fall, but it cracked the casing and quit working. Shotscope customer service replaced all three of these for free. The fourth watch has been night-and-day different in its durability. I've had it for about 5 months now, wearing it every day, playing lots of rounds, some in rainy conditions, have dropped it on the floor a few times. There have been zero issues at all. This one seems very durable. I have no idea why my experience with these watches was so different, can't explain it, but just wanted to relay it. Maybe the fourth watch was just better-made, maybe I had the extreme coincidence of the first 3 being duds, maybe it's all just a big fluke. All things considered, I'm pleased with Shotscope customer service and am overall pleased with the watch and will keep using it.
  8. I found the Mavrik Pro's to be really good for me too in fitting, but didn't pull the trigger. And, then I tried a used set of Bridgestone J40's that showed up in the pro shop. Hit those as good or better than I hit any of the new models in the fitting - total surprise. Some I thought would be good that weren't (at least that day) ... anything Mizuno - as much as MGS has always rated Mizuno's highly, I wanted them to be good for me, but I have never gotten along with any Mizuno irons. One fitter said it could be because Mizuno's have a flatter standard lie angle than other irons ... shrug. For Drivers, 2 years ago, the TS2 surprised me, beating out all the others. The TM Sim and the Ping G410 models surprised me on the bad-for-me end.
  9. Asking $800 or Best Offer ... Reduced to Asking $700 or Best Offer Probably don't need a description of these here among other MGS'ers, but here's one just in case: A beautiful and excellent set of irons. These are a pleasure to play ... hitting a Miura is something every golfer needs to experience, and these are some of the best Miura's ever made, IMO. Solid and soft at the same time, great ball flight, enough forgiveness to help the mishits, good distance control. Standard Length, Lofts, Lie. Grips are in excellent shape. Reviews of the Miura CB57: My Golf Spy: https://mygolfspy.com/miura-cb57-iron-review/ Plugged In Golf: https://pluggedingolf.com/miura-cb57-irons-review/ Driving Range Hero: http://drivingrangeheroes.com/miura-cb57-irons-review/
  10. That would be a good way to treat it. I'm not used to treating a watch that way - I'm not an expensive watch guy. As long as the watch isn't horrendously ugly, I'm going for function over form. If I have to think about my watch, that defeats the purpose of having it (for me). I have the watch to simplify life, to serve me, not for me to serve it. I've got a Casio G-shock watch that I bought for $5 on a clearance sale at Walmart 6 years ago. The only time I take it off is when I put on the V3 for golf. It has lasted 6 years, no new battery, no hiccups whatsoever. It's a little strange to me that an expensive watch wouldn't be as useful/durable as a cheap watch (well, cheap in price, not cheap in quality), but maybe there's some intangible aspect that I don't get.
  11. I love the functionality of the Shotscope. My biggest complaint is that it's not waterproof. I lost one watch to forgetting to take it off before showering. I lost another to playing in the rain one round. This makes dependability an issue, keeps it from being worry free, and from being my everyday watch. Now, I just have to keep it in the golf bag to use when I play so that it doesn't mess up. Make it waterproof and the battery longer lasting, and it will be perfect.
  12. Would you categorize more in the high swing speed, low swing speed, or middle? The AVX performed well in the low swing speed analysis ranking 8 on Driver and 5 on 7-Iron. It didn't fair very well on the wedge, ranking 23, but the wedge analysis is really the most suspect in general, imo.
  13. I think that's a good choice. Vice Pro and Vice Pro Soft both seem very impressive. Very interesting video too. I noticed they showed almost nothing about how the cover is formed, applied, and "dimpled". Maybe that's a process they'd like to keep a little more under wraps. It would make for a great episode of "How It's Made".
  14. Good questions! Right now, she really doesn't want anything else. Golf is very basic for her at this point and having to choose between too many clubs (and learning to hit too many clubs) confuses her. I'm struggling a bit too with having a good understanding of her distances. She may get ahold of a drive sometimes and hit it over 200 yards, but she probably hits the driver maybe 160-180 on average. The 3 wood (16*) is probably 140-160, MW 21* might be 120-140, MW 25* might be 100-120, MW 29* might be 80-100, MW 33* might be 60-80. Her PW is probably good for anything inside of 40-50. So, things just overlap and bunch up. For a beginner who doesn't play super-often, hitting clubs consistent distances is not a luxury we have right now. I'm not 100% sure where to go from here other than just use what she has, enjoy playing, and get better, and then maybe it will become more apparent when she does need something else. She actually wants to sell 2 of those MW's after playing with all four of them for a while to determine which ones make the most sense gapping-wise for her. So, from the Driver to the Putter, she wants maybe 6 clubs total and will just adjust to different distances by getting a feel for how to shorten/soften the swing from a full swing. I'd welcome different thoughts and advice on this.
  15. I wanted to update this thread since the Moon Woods FINALLY came in (wow USPS - only took 1 month! /sarcasm) ... In a few words ... ALL HAIL THE MOON WOOD! These things are legit. My wife is hitting them wayyyy better than any iron options or even hybrid options we've tried (and we've tried several), and I don't think there could be a better option out there for her. There are 4 clubs - 21*, 25*, 29*, and 33* - this provides a very nice gapping for her. She's getting nice height on the ball with those 2 highest lofted ones, which is what she's been missing. She's able to take more of an iron swing and is getting a nice result. She loves the length (they're all the same length - I think they're all about the length of a standard 4-iron). They set up with the lie angle to be able to play a little closer to your body so you can have a more upright stance - this actually helps to hit straight and reduce errors horizontally because of the more upright swing plane. Here's how I know these clubs are truly beneficial - I CAN HIT THEM. Seriously, I can hit them left-handed (I'm right-handed), and actually hit them well. I've tried to hit all of the clubs we've tried for her and have been absolutely humbled by how hard it is to hit the ball left handed - I have yet to hit a single good shot with any of the clubs we've gotten her. But, with these, I actually hit good shots - high, long, straight. What I found impossible with other clubs, was possible with these. I can say with the highest confidence - if anyone out there has trouble hitting irons, there is a great chance these clubs can be the answer for you. My dad (75 yrs old, slow swing) just paid a lot of money for a custom-fit set of Cleveland Launcher HB Turbo Irons - a hybrid-type iron-set. He was having a ton of trouble hitting his irons. The Clevelands have been a significant improvement over what he had before (a 10 year old set of Callaway Big Berthas). If I could go back in time 2 months, I would tell him to try these before he spent all that money on the custom Clevelands. Not that the Clevelands are bad, far from it. I just think these would've been even better for him. I'm not sure they wouldn't be good for me (or anybody), even as a somewhat fast swinger, 10-handicap.
  16. I have redone the data analysis with the "Slow" swing speed data. Here are the results: Driver Rankings: V1X, BX, vice pro, BXS, V1, BRX, cutblue, avx, TP5, ONCore Elxr, mxfli tr x, vice pro soft, Mxfli tr, chrsftx, TP5X, cutgrey, BRXS, mtbx, Z*15, vice pro plus, ERC Soft, Z*, chrsft, Inesis 900, mtbb 7-Iron Rankings: chrsft, BRXS, ERC Soft, vice pro, avx, V1, vice pro soft, cutblue, V1X, Inesis 900 (Tie), chrsftx (Tie), ONCore Elxr, BRX, TP5 (Tie), BX (Tie), Z*15, mtbx, vice pro plus, cutgrey, Mxfli tr, TP5X, mtbb, BXS, Z*, mxfli tr x Wedge Rankings: TP5, BX, Mxfli tr, chrsft, vice pro plus, vice pro soft, mxfli tr x, cutgrey (Tie), mtbb (Tie), V1, BXS, cutblue, Inesis 900, V1X, mtbx, TP5X, vice pro, ONCore Elxr, chrsftx, Z*, BRXS, BRX, avx, Z*15, ERC Soft Overall AVG Ranking (Driver & 7I Only - Wedge Data Not Included) 1. vice pro 2. V1X 3. V1 4. avx 5. cutblue 6. BX 7. (Tie) BRX OR vice pro soft OR BRXS 10. ONCore Elxr 11. TP5 12. (Tie) chrsftx OR ERC Soft OR chrsft 15. BXS 16. Mxfli tr 17. Inesis 900 18. (Tie) cutgrey OR mtbx OR Z*15 21. (Tie) mxfli tr x OR TP5X 23. vice pro plus 24. Z* 25. mtbb Overall AVG Ranking (Driver, 7I, & Wedge): 1. BX 2. V1 3. (Tie) vice pro OR V1X OR TP5 6. vice pro soft 7. cutblue 8. chrsft 9. (Tie) avx OR Mxfli tr 11. BXS 12. (Tie) BRXS OR ONCore Elxr 14. BRX 15. (Tie) chrsftx OR cutgrey OR mxfli tr x OR vice pro plus 19. Inesis 900 20. ERC Soft 21. mtbx 22. TP5X 23. mtbb 24. Z*15 25. Z* Notes: 1. I included more balls in this one because it wasn't as obvious to me which balls would not be in contention to be one of the better balls. 2. Again, very interesting and unexpected results. The balls that are supposedly made for slower swings did not perform as well as balls that are supposedly made for faster swings. eg The BX did much better than the B RX or B RXS. 3. Vice and Titleist doing very well in this category. 4. Vice Pro would be the clear winner if Wedge data are discounted, ranking in the top 4 in both the Driver and 7I categories. 5. V1 did very well, ranking in the top 10 in all 3 categories. V1X is number 1 on the driver, number 9 on the 7I, but down to 14 on the Wedge. 6. B X did great in Driver and Wedge (ranking 2nd in both), but not great in 7-Iron (ranking 14th). 7. Cut Blue, again made a strong showing ranking 7, 8, and 12 in D, 7, and W respectively - good for either 5th or 7th overall depending on Wedge inclusion. 8. AVX did much better here, ranking 8 and 5 on D and 7, but falling all the way to 23 on Wedge. 9. If Wedges matter a lot, TP5 is still one to consider here, ranking 1st in Wedge, 9 and 14 in D and 7 respectively. 10. Chrome Soft is also one to consider. It did horrible for Driver (23rd), but excellently in 7I and Wedge - 1 and 4 respectively. 11. If you prefer a softer ball, Vice Pro Soft, AVX, and Chrome Soft are worth considering. 12. If budget is a consideration, Vice Pro, Vice Pro Soft, and Cut Blue are the best options. Vice Pro may be the best option regardless of budget. 13. Interesting how bad Srixon and Snell balls did in this category. Here is a link to my excel file to look at the data and calculations: Golf Ball Selection Data - Slow Swing Speed.xlsx
  17. One pretty big thing that is easy to dismiss/take for granted, which Rick pointed out, is that the newer ball is much more durable than the older ball while also being the slightest bit better in numbers. Even if the numbers were exactly the same, to have a ball with the same performance that is 10X more durable is no small feat. Point being, QC, as you stated, along with durability may be distinguishing characteristics to consider with the plethora of premium balls in the market now.
  18. Something else I was thinking is that if a ball has some issue that makes it fly weird or inconsistently or whatever ... just physically, from the nature of the spherical shape, in order for that to equate into a "right bias", it would have to be teed up in a certain orientation each time. If it had some concentricity issue or dimple issue or something leading to a horizontal flight abnormality, then that horizontal flight abnormality should work both ways depending on where that issue was located in relation to the spin axis of the ball - which would all change if the ball had a different orientation when it was struck to begin with.
  19. I don't understand. I have a Z-Score for Shot Area as well, which is part of the formula. And, when you're dealing with Z-Scores, everything is in the same units. The units would be "Standard Deviations above/below the Mean". Overall Driver Score for Ball X = Z-Distance - Z-Offline - Z-Area. Same for 7-Iron Score. Wedge Score replaces Distance with Backspin. So, if Ball X (for a driver) has a mean distance that is 2 standard deviations above the mean of mean distances of all balls, and a mean offline-distance that is 2 standard deviations below the mean of mean offline-distances of all balls, and a mean shot area that is 2 standard deviations below the man of mean shot-areas of all balls, then it will have these scores (for the driver): Z-Distance = 2 ... Z-Offline = -2 ... Z-Area = -2 ... Overall Driver Score = 2 - -2 - -2 = 6. (Hypothetically speaking) That would give ball X the top Driver Score, so it would be ranked #1 for Driver Score. I'm thinking more about your statement about the Z-Scores being in different units for area than for distance and offline. Am I right in thinking that the Z-Score actually puts each of these sets into the same units, because, I think, the Z-Score is actually "unitless" ... like for distance it would be meters/meters and for area it would be meters^2/meters^2 and so both would actually end up "unitless", and what it ends up telling us is "# of standard deviations above/below the mean" which would kind of be the pseudo-unit for the Z-Score.
  20. One red flag for me is that Matt at TXG (nor Ian) doesn't actually game this shaft. He and Ian have access to any shaft they want, any time they want, and can test them ad infinitum. And neither of them game that shaft. Gotta ask "WHY?"
  21. You're right about the average "offline" stat being possibly flawed, IF the balls flew with "balanced"-inconsistency. But, I would think that if the ball had a nice "offline" stat due to some flying more right and others flying more left, then that same ball would also have a significantly higher "shot area" stat, which would then negatively affect its overall score in the analysis. Without a doubt, this analysis is not perfect. But, I have certainly found it interesting, and I do believe that, if nothing else, I have learned that I was playing the wrong ball. I feel pretty confident in saying that. I don't need to play the Tour B X nor the MTB X. An extra few yards on a drive is not going to help my scores nearly as much as a more punished shot would hurt my scores - not to mention perhaps slightly closer vicinity to the hole on approaches. ,I think I'll very likely do just a tad bit better with one of those top 5 balls. ... I'll probably save a few dollars as well by going with the Vice or the Cut options.
  22. I THINK I understand where you and @BMart519are coming from now with your explanation. However, I don't think what I'm doing with the Z-Scores for distance and offline is going to be able to determine anything about the width or depth of the oval (ie shape of the shot area). I'm not using the actual standard deviation for the ball itself anywhere in the formulas (the standard deviations for the individual balls isn't given anywhere in the MGS data, as far as I can tell/remember). I'm using the standard deviation for the entire set of balls. So, it's like this: Distance Z-Score for Ball X = [(Mean Distance of Ball X) - (Mean of Mean distances of all balls)] / (Standard Deviation of mean distances of all balls). So, if Ball X has a distance Z-Score of 2.00, that means that the mean distance for Ball X was 2 standard deviations above the mean of the mean distances of all balls. (I can imagine the confusion because of the way that had to be written to be accurately stated.) That Z-Score doesn't tell us anything about the variation (standard deviation) of the distances for Ball X, just how Ball X's mean distance compares to all of the other balls' mean distances. And, the same goes for the offline stat as well. If Ball X had an offline Z-Score of -2.00, then that means that the mean offline-distance of Ball X was 2 standard deviations less than the mean of the mean offline-distances of all of the balls. It doesn't tell us anything about the variance of the offline-distance of Ball X. So, I think, then, that Shot Area is a necessary component for the overall formula to take into account. That is the only stat that would punish a ball that had a wide variation in distances or offline-distances. Let's say Ball X had some balls go 350 and other balls go 250, obviously its mean distance would be 300. And, Ball Y had some balls go 305 and other balls go 295, so that it also has the same mean distance of 300. But, both balls then would have the same distance Z-Score. Same for Offline. If Ball X had some balls go 50 yards to the right and other balls go 50 yards to the left, then it would have a mean offline-distance of 0. And, then if Ball Y had some balls go 3 yards right and other balls go 3 yards left, then it too would have a mean offline-distance of 0. But, both balls would then have the same offline Z-Score. Shot Area would then be the only stat which would differentiate Ball X from Ball Y. Ball Y would have a much lower shot area than Ball X (due to variation in distance and variation in offline-distance). And, so Ball Y would then have a better overall score and thus a better overall rank than Ball X in the Driver or 7-iron or Wedge Category (whichever is the case in this hypothetical scenario). Does this make sense, or am I misunderstanding you (or maybe I'm just off in general)?
  23. I just fixed the Rankings in post 13 to show ties (something I was careless to not notice before).
×
×
  • Create New...