TESTING: Independent Ball For MyGolfSpy Testing

[GolfSpy_X]

Hey Fellas,

 

Just wanted to possibly get your feedback on something we have been kicking around.

 

FULL TRANSPARENCY: After the Kirkland vs Titleist test was completed it caused quite the shake-up.  There were lots of calls, emails, texts being sent around.  All trying to fully understand the impact this test would have on those in the industry.

 

Up until this point we have used a Bridgestone ball for testing.  When we first began our search for our test ball to be used in Most Wanted testing we had a checklist of items that needed to be addressed.

 

The Bridgestone ball was able to check off all those items on our list.

 

- It did not conflict at the time with the equipment we were testing (Clubs)

- It was known to be a very consistent ball regarding QC

- It was readily available to consumers

- It was made for different types of golfers

- etc, etc.

 

Since that time quite a few things have changed:

 

- Bridgestone clubs were also tested now (perceptual conflict of interest by consumers)

- It seems odd to talk about a ball during club tests, when it should just be a controlled variable

- We have grown a tremendous amount since that ball was chosen. Exploring options like this are part of trying to get consumers better information in our eyes.

 

 

Also I have now heard from multiple sources that Bridgestone is unhappy with our Kirkland test and possibly not wanting to be a part of Most Wanted testing in the future.  At the end of the day I can understand their frustration but at the end of the day the consumer is always first at MGS and promoting a top performing company, brand or product will always be secondary.  

 

Moving forward the more independent we become the better.  So, I just wanted to show you something we are working on and hopefully get your feedback.

 

Thanks!

 

[Kanoito]

Nice! MGS purchased the factory where Kirkland's are manufactured?

[The Dansome]

That Kirkland ball test blew the socks off the industry, I can't see any ball company being happy with us.

[fozcycle]

Sounds like a bunch of whiners!  As if the very small production of kirkland Balls could affect the financial outcomes of golf industry leaders like Bridgestone & Titleist.....

[Undershooter]

I like Bridgestone and I get why they are mad, but that test was something that most of us wanted to see. 

 

GSX- power to the player

[PlaidJacket]

I didn't know you guys used a Bridgestone ball for testing, etc. But then again I probably didn't read the reviews closely enough. Why not just used a mixture of balls? Bridgestone, Titleist, Snell, Kirkland, Wilson, Callaway, MG, etc. etc. I don't see any point in using a mystery ball with your logo on it. That just clouds the issue. Then you'll have to defend your own mystery "control" ball. Stick with what everyone already knows, plays, and trusts.

[GolfSpy Dave]

I didn't know you guys used a Bridgestone ball for testing, etc. But then again I probably didn't read the reviews closely enough. Why not just used a mixture of balls? Bridgestone, Titleist, Snell, Kirkland, Wilson, Callaway, MG, etc. etc. I don't see any point in using a mystery ball with your logo on it. That just clouds the issue. Then you'll have to defend your own mystery "control" ball. Stick with what everyone already knows, plays, and trusts.

Multiple ball makes would be very difficult to insert into the experimental design for the testing. A single ball removes all of that variation.

 

If the ball is constant, then the performance variation produced can be attributed to the clubs. If the ball varies as well, then you cannot say that the variation in results came from the ball or the club.

[hckymeyer]

I didn't know you guys used a Bridgestone ball for testing, etc. But then again I probably didn't read the reviews closely enough. Why not just used a mixture of balls? Bridgestone, Titleist, Snell, Kirkland, Wilson, Callaway, MG, etc. etc. I don't see any point in using a mystery ball with your logo on it. That just clouds the issue. Then you'll have to defend your own mystery "control" ball. Stick with what everyone already knows, plays, and trusts.

Sounds like a Titleist commercial...

 

The hardest part of any scientific test is eliminating variables.  If I test one club with a Snell, one with a kirkland and one with an MG and all the results are different how can you attribute what difference was the club vs what was the ball?  You can't, so you need to eliminate that variable by using the same ball for all testing.

 

It doesn't really matter which ball is being used, I'll agree to that part.  Like X said though with Bridgestone clubs being tested now you have a potential for reader to perceive a conflict of interest in that test.  There isn't one, but some won't believe that no matter how many times it's said.

 

Going to a ball that is made specifically for MGS leaves them beholden to no one in the industry for supplying balls for testing.  It also won't put them in a bind when they perform a test that someone in the industry doesn't like and decides to take their balls and go home.

 

Personally I like it and can't see a down side other than MGS now have to buy their own golf balls.

[The Dansome]

I didn't know you guys used a Bridgestone ball for testing, etc. But then again I probably didn't read the reviews closely enough. Why not just used a mixture of balls? Bridgestone, Titleist, Snell, Kirkland, Wilson, Callaway, MG, etc. etc. I don't see any point in using a mystery ball with your logo on it. That just clouds the issue. Then you'll have to defend your own mystery "control" ball. Stick with what everyone already knows, plays, and trusts.

 

I'm even more confused on how this solves things.

[The Dansome]

MGS Most Wanted driver test 2017--to be published late 2018. Sorry, we had to test every club with every ball on the market.

[null]

Very cool. Will you post details about the ball? (layers, cover material, compression, etc?

[Golfspy_CG2]

I get why your considering a bon branded ball.

 

But just me personally as a consumer. I would have more questions about an unbranded ball than I would concerns over conflict of interest.

 

If you feel the 330RX has always been a good all around ball to conduct the rest. Then I would stick with that and to any nay sayers. Say we are sticking with what we know works.

 

Some will cry impartial. But haters going to hate.

 

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

[null]

That's a good really good point about consumers questioning an off brand ball.

 

Damned if you do and damned if you don't

[GolfSpy_X]

You just have to go with the one that gives you the least damns.

 

 

That's a good really good point about consumers questioning an off brand ball.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't

[Fivesome]

I like the idea of using a ball most people are at least a little familiar with hitting.  If you use a non-branded ball I would want to see a ball test with that ball against a lot of other balls that I have the chance to hit so I know how it compares.

[null]

I like the idea of using a ball most people are at least a little familiar with hitting. If you use a non-branded ball I would want to see a ball test with that ball against a lot of other balls that I have the chance to hit so I know how it compares.

No doubt a ball comparison test is the first thing they do.

[Liberty Ball Markers]

People will probably have conspiracy theories about the ball being made to favor some specific manufacturer.

 

I would go with the ProV1.

 

They are the standard, and all "similar performance for 1/2 the price" balls are compared to it.

 

Titleist doesn't send clubs for consideration, so it's a totally unbiased ball.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[null]

Why not someone who only makes balls, like Snell?

[Mr_Theoo]

Why not someone who only makes balls, like Snell?

Because they are not readily available in stores like Bridgestones are

[Kenny B]

I think everyone that matters know that the MGS testing will be fair no matter what ball is used.  The idea is to test clubs against each other which can only be done using the same ball for all.  Will some clubs be better with certain balls over others, maybe.  I bet the relative difference is immaterial given the variables in human testing.  But that could be another test.

[jlew2144]

Since you're bringing it up here, I'm sure you guys have already dabbled the idea out there to your contacts. I think as long as you are able to produce a product that at least mimics the top of the line balls currently on the market then it brings that constant to the equation.

 

That's one of the things I like about MGS-- you guys give opinions regardless of how it affects the top companies.

 

Now if you guys come up with the next Pro V1 killer then might those find their way into the store??😉

[SuperDave]

I'd like to put all the talk about ball testing aside for a moment and ask where can I get some MGS logo golf balls. I collect them, but normally don't play them. In this case, I'd be honored and proud to play those all day long.

 

Sent from my SM-G920V using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[PMookie]

Would y'all go the route of an RX/RX-S again, or go urethane/multi-layer?

I noticed the hexagonal design in the ball pic... Just coincidence?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cnosil]

The biggest problem is that you will never make anyone happy.   If you use your own branded balls and a club doesn't perform,  it is the balls fault.  Ultimately companies and many consumers seem to be afraid of MGS since you might say something negative about their product or what is in their bag.   People always ask for numbers and proof until you provide them the proof and then you did something wrong.  The bottom line is that you provide information for the consumer and the consumer has to digest that information and determine how it impacts them as a player.  

 

Ultimately if it makes it more tolerable for companies if you use your own branded ball then do that so we can get more products in for evaluation.  

[SuperDave]

Well to me it just proves that companies don't want the truth. They just want to be praised so they can make millions of dollars off of us. They need to take that truth so they can try and be better. But they won't because that would dip into their profits.

 

 

Sent from my SM-G920V using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[EthanSterlingPrice]

you have to have a control (a factor that doesn't change) when your doing experiments/testing on anything using the same ball for every test is one of the easiest ways to do that and since none of the companies were using Bridgestone balls when they were developing their gear that was a good choice. But now Bridgestone clubs are being tested and they'll use their ball for testing when they create equipment so that ball can't be the one to use cuz of the possibility of results being effected. Creating a ball specifically for tests that won't be found anywhere else means no variables like "Bridgestone irons got high marks but is it because they were designed to work well with a Bridgestone ball?" It's all about making the results as unbiased and accurate as possible, which I think is a good idea by the way!Hope that helps a bit of the confusion.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[deejaid]

I think if MGS were to choose a "4-piece Urethane Tour Ball made in the same factory that makes many of the top performing balls in golf" people will accept test results without questioning the quality of the ball. Just saying urethane means tour level ball to many people.

 

I think a MGS logo ball made by Nassau Golf (Costco Ball Manufacturer) would be the best solution.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using MyGolfSpy

[ole gray]

I would use a tour level ball with the MGS logo on it and not give a flip what anyone thought about it. You're testing equipment not the ball.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[Kanoito]

Or MGS branded balls might sell hotter than Kirkland!

[chershey]

I see no issue with using a non-branded ball for the testing as long as it's high quality and comparable with the top balls on the market much like the Kirkland ball is. On a another note, I'm glad companies are taking notice of the performance of the affordable Kirkland ball. Maybe it will drive ball prices down for all the other manufacturers. Probably not, but we can dream.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy