MGS Golf Ball Test

[Golfspy_CG2]

1 hour ago, revkev said:

 

There is plenty of content at WRX that I respect and I know there are lots of good people on their forums but the times that I’ve tried to post have led to some responses that were not helpful so I gave up.

Please throw down 7000 plus over here - we’re happy to have you. 99 percent of the folks here know how to disagree without being disagreeable.

@GolfSpyRob - Titleist doesn’t need to say much - it’s 70 percent plus your usage speaks for itself. At others of course they had to get into the “soft ball” market - it’s a category and they were loosing sales to it. Doesn’t mean they want to be there.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

 

I told someone the other day, I have over 7,000 pots on each of the 3 sites, dating back over 12 years ago to WRX. I think a lot of the owners there and have met some of the MODs, they are good people.

As large of site as it is, there is going to be a huge number of trolls and people just out to spew hate and pick a fight or have a  $%^$ Measuring contests.    I've got no time for that.     I still pop in now and then to either post something for sale, or read up on a new release as well as reading about it here.    There are some very good players and knowledgeable people there just like there are here, and even on THP, although I pretty much have eliminated any time spent there. 

But Rev, yeah to the point about their dominance on every tour, you're right, they don't need to brag.  They make the best (IMO) ball on the market and let it speak for itself. 

As a few have said, their entry into the Soft market was exactly as has been mentioned, a product they didn't have but felt they needed to have as to not lose any market share.  I think you will see if you haven't already promotion and advertising of that fade away quietly. 

[forerightgolfer]

3 hours ago, JonMUSC08 said:

Probably one of the most overlooked aspects of the golf ball or the company of ball is the quality. It was pointed out to me to look at the raw data at the bottom of the article and review the standard deviation. The higher the standard deviation, the wider the spread of data points, which equates to poor quality. Those with a standard deviation under 1.00 are excellent quality!

Not to nitpick, but I'm going to nitpick just a touch here. YES, the STD is important! YES it points to quality and consistency of the ball and its performance. BUT 1.00 isn't a magic number. The size of the STD will be relative to what the average value is. If you are ONLY referring to the STD of compression, then yes <1.00 is very good. But I still wouldn't draw the line at 1.00.

As an example - I'm a little surprised that everyone is jumping all over the Snell MTB-X. The STD OffLine from driver at 115mph is 21.5yds. Unless I'm missing something in the data (i.e. they had one complete outlier), 1SD includes about 65% of data points. So about 35% of the balls off the robot were >21 yards offline. That is HUGE. The Bridgestone Tour B X is only 3 yards shorter than the Snell and the STD offline is half of the Snell. The Vice Pro is 10 yards shorter (yikes!) but the STD Offline for the Vice Pro is 6.6. That baby is STRAIGHT!!!!!!!! (it performs VERY poorly in the spin categories off the 7I and Wedge though). 

So YES! Look at the data tables. YES! Look at the STD info. But don't use 1.00 as your dividing line.

[Steelman]

Certainly the point of all this testing is that what should be chosen is a ball from the top tier performers that meet all of your requirements.  Distance, spin, control would be my main three.  Feel plays a minor factor. The MSG numbers give us a good expectation of performance overall as well as distinct performance in driver, iron and wedge performance.  The player has to balance those his needs.  For me, best overall is the Pro V1x  and has been for a while.  Does all I need a ball to do.

[z1ggy16]

16 minutes ago, forerightgolfer said:

Not to nitpick, but I'm going to nitpick just a touch here. YES, the STD is important! YES it points to quality and consistency of the ball and its performance. BUT 1.00 isn't a magic number. The size of the STD will be relative to what the average value is. If you are ONLY referring to the STD of compression, then yes <1.00 is very good. But I still wouldn't draw the line at 1.00.

As an example - I'm a little surprised that everyone is jumping all over the Snell MTB-X. The STD OffLine from driver at 115mph is 21.5yds. Unless I'm missing something in the data (i.e. they had one complete outlier), 1SD includes about 65% of data points. So about 35% of the balls off the robot were >21 yards offline. That is HUGE. The Bridgestone Tour B X is only 3 yards shorter than the Snell and the STD offline is half of the Snell. The Vice Pro is 10 yards shorter (yikes!) but the STD Offline for the Vice Pro is 6.6. That baby is STRAIGHT!!!!!!!! (it performs VERY poorly in the spin categories off the 7I and Wedge though). 

So YES! Look at the data tables. YES! Look at the STD info. But don't use 1.00 as your dividing line.

I believe it was mentioned in the comments section the confidence interval as 85% not 68%. MGS can correct me if I'm wrong.

Still... even 35% of balls randomly flying 21 yards offline is pretty huge when you consider the face to path of this set up was probably within +/-1 degree or so (i.e. soft draw or fade). Again, MGS please correct if that's not true, I don't want to perpetuate false assumptions. 

I feel like with the more common extremes of face to path that us Am's display, this would get much worse. I'm personally around a 4-7 in to out guy with a face 3 or even 4 degrees shut to that on a GOOD swing. 21 yards offline could very quickly turn to like... 60. Now imagine it's a windy day.

Edited May 6, 2019 by z1ggy16

[jjfcpa]

2 hours ago, TR1PTIK said:

From what I gathered MGS rated the Vice Pro as being only "Good" because of the inconsistencies in compression ratings from ball to ball. It's also possible they may have had a couple wild card balls that were low quality and flew considerably offline, but the dispersion data makes that seem unlikely. I could also see how the Vice Pro might be less durable than other balls, but not considerably so in my own experience. I just switched back to the Vice Pro after giving the Snell MTB-Black a go last season. Both are great balls, but there is a feel difference to me which is why I went back. It also didn't hurt that I got a great deal on 5 doz. for $25/ea + 1 free dozen last month on a special they were having.

I too switch from the MTB Black to the Vice Pro after playing the Vice Pro for a couple of rounds.  Call it a feel thing, but more importantly, I feel like I'm getting more consistent play out of the Vice Pro.  Not too firm and not too soft.  Really like the feedback off the putter.  Also, not quite as clicky as the MTB Black.  Both are good balls, but the Vice Pro just seems to fit my game a little better.

[cnosil]

Again, MGS please correct if that's not true, I don't want to perpetuate false assumptions. .

Just wanted to let you know that there really isn’t a presence on the forum from headquarters. They do pop on occasionally so you may not get an official MGS response. I don’t know how much contact the MODs have with so not sure how readily an answer can be obtained.

[forerightgolfer]

1 minute ago, z1ggy16 said:

I believe it was mentioned in the comments section the confidence interval as 85% not 68%. MGS can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Still... even 35% of balls randomly flying 21 yards offline is pretty huge when you consider the face to path of this set up was probably within +/-1 degree or so (i.e. soft draw or fade). Again, MGS please correct if that's not true, I don't want to perpetuate false assumptions.  I feel like with the more common extremes of face to path that us Am's display, this would get much worse. I'm personally around a 4-7 in to out guy with a face 3 or even 4 degrees shut to that on a GOOD swing. 21 yards offline could very quickly turn to like... 60. Now imagine it's a windy day.

Yes. I think I saw that in the info somewhere too. So, take my 35% down to 15% and it's not as bad. It's still not good.

[z1ggy16]

8 minutes ago, cnosil said:

 

Just wanted to let you know that there really isn’t a presence on the forum from headquarters. They do pop on occasionally so you may not get an official MGS response. I don’t know how much contact the MODs have with so not sure how readily an answer can be obtained.

I'll try leaving a comment on the youtube video posted in regards to post article discussions. I really want to hear their thoughts on the used ball market.

 

[z1ggy16]

18 minutes ago, forerightgolfer said:

Yes. I think I saw that in the info somewhere too. So, take my 35% down to 15% and it's not as bad. It's still not good.

Imagine you 10/10 nut one with pretty much perfect impact conditions... Depending on your club path you could miss the fairway still. In fact if you hit driver enough per round you'd almost be guaranteed to miss a fairway with perfect strike according to this. Eeek! I'm sort of shocked  I haven't seen a guy come in here yet saying he nutted a drive and watched it hook randomly into the hazard due left. However, I do think I recall seeing Snell say orders are now backed up til Mid May. I think we could see some guys in a few weeks coming in here to comment about that.

I would assume they (MGS testers) hit enough shots with each ball to give good meaning to the data but I also wonder if they just straight up got a bad batch of balls from some of the OEMs. I'd like to see the 3sigma data if they have it.

[JonMUSC08]

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

[cnosil]

I'll try leaving a comment on the youtube video posted in regards to post article discussions. I really want to hear their thoughts on the used ball market.
 

I think I remember hearing them discuss the used ball market in the YouTube video. In summary, don’t play used balls because you don’t know if they were in the water or how they were kept. If price is a consideration play Kirkland or similar as they are about $1 per ball and we’re not poor performers

[Stevens24]

I have never delved into the ball data quite this deep, and it does make you wonder if something is holding you back in the slightest. I remember noticing When Kevin Na switched to Callaway from Titleist the entire bag changed. But the ball stayed a Pro V1X. Keving isn't the longest hitter and is a good short game player. 

[sixcat]

On 5/2/2019 at 1:36 PM, sixcat said:

I think it was Sam in the live chat yesterday that said something to the effect of "why play a junk ball when Kirkland Signatures are $12 a dozen!"  They may not be the best ball on the market but they are certainly better than something dredged off the bottom of a lake and likely cheaper to boot.

 

23 minutes ago, z1ggy16 said:

I'll try leaving a comment on the youtube video posted in regards to post article discussions. I really want to hear their thoughts on the used ball market.

 

As I said last week (quoted above), the Youtube live chat has a ton of information.  They go into some detail about the used ball market. 

[CarlH]

I've read the report several times and still have no plans to change my golf ball.  I regularly play TP5X or Snell Black and only reason it isn't completely Snell is that I have some TP5X left over from last year.  I'm satisfied with Snell Black, although I will likely shift to Snell MTB-X when I buy new balls.  Although ProV1 is a fine golf ball, I don't think my handicap would drop one iota by shifting to ProV1 rather than Snell (My pocket book would notice the change, but likely not my average scoring).  I've probably played all the better golf balls on the market in my years of golf.  My errant shots have little to do with the ball and more to do with my swing faults.  What I want from a golf ball is consistent performance on and near the green.  That's where I need to know how the ball will react and that's why I stick with one ball.  

[z1ggy16]

6 minutes ago, sixcat said:

 

As I said last week (quoted above), the Youtube live chat has a ton of information.  They go into some detail about the used ball market. 

Yeah just getting there now, been listening to it on and off over the past few hours.

 

Seems that the used balls will be going into my short game bag...Sigh. Wish this test came out before I bought like 5 dozen balls last year!

[StrokerAce]

17 minutes ago, cnosil said:

I think I remember hearing them discuss the used ball market in the YouTube video. In summary, don’t play used balls because you don’t know if they were in the water or how they were kept. If price is a consideration play Kirkland or similar as they are about $1 per ball and we’re not poor performers

Played 36 on Sunday...had a handful of "found" PV1 and some new Kirkland's.... long story short, I still have the Kirkland's....

a new ball is better than a found one 99 times out of 100 for me. There may be that 1 time where I find a ball that was hit once and left for dead, but how would I know?

[cnosil]

Played 36 on Sunday...had a handful of "found" PV1 and some new Kirkland's.... long story short, I still have the Kirkland's....
a new ball is better than a found one 99 times out of 100 for me. There may be that 1 time where I find a ball that was hit once and left for dead, but how would I know?

I may have to play some rounds with a new ball to see if I see any performance improvements. I generally play found balls and don’t see much variation in my game.

[Kor.A.Door]

I want to clear some things up from my point, I think some have taken it that I am disappointed with the results and that I am defending Callaway because I don’t like the results of the test. I am not defending Callaway for their statement. What I am trying to point it is that it doesn’t and shouldn’t matter what they said, they are going to try to defend their ball, just as any large ball OEM would do if they were perceived as a poor performing ball. 

I have said this a few times, because this is the important part to take away. We have been saying for years, that everyone should try different golf balls to find something that works for their game. This ball test did not change that. What it did was point us in a direction so we have data to look at when determining what to try. 

TXgolfjunkie made a spreadsheet that has broken down the data and you can input the information according to what you want in a ball, and it will give you some options to try. That’s a great tool to use. 

The ball that I have been pretty comfortable playing is the Chrome soft, and Chrome soft x, that ball does what I need it to do. Due to the cost I have changed and I am giving The MTBx a good look. 

What I don’t like is when guys say something like “I just purchased 2 dozen of x ball, and now that the test shows it didn’t perform perfectly, I am getting rid of them”. That ridiculous. Why?

the data that is given should help point is to a ball that will work for what we need in a ball, I for one am not going to discredit a ball based on a comment by the manufacturer of the ball. 

I don’t care who says what about what ball, I am going to check into any ball that fits my categories. There exceptions, I do not like Titleist, I never have, so I don’t buy Titleist anything. Their equipment just doesn’t work me. Outside of that, I will try anything that I feel will work. 

Find a ball that works for you, it shouldn’t matter who makes it. We all have companies we don’t like, but their are many other companies that we can try. We should use the Data provided and make a decision based on our own needs. 

[Tsecor]

I literally cleaned out my entire bag of duo - u's and chromesofts.....ordered some bridgestones and already had pro v 1's.......ive been brainwashed!!!

[WalterS]

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.   

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, Stevens24 said:

I have never delved into the ball data quite this deep, and it does make you wonder if something is holding you back in the slightest. I remember noticing When Kevin Na switched to Callaway from Titleist the entire bag changed. But the ball stayed a Pro V1X. Keving isn't the longest hitter and is a good short game player. 

The ball is the hardest thing for the pros to change and is one of the reasons guys stay with a ball/ball company that works ie Rose with TM. Sometimes they switch because it’s part of the new deal or a better fit by being all one bag ie Rory who went TM over Callaway because the pairing of TM gear with their bell outperformed Callaway plus prov or their ball.

anotber is money. Titleist pays a nice chunk of change for players and why not keep what works and the money. Callaway doesn’t have many pga tour pros on staff playing their ball 

[mr.hicksta]

@Kor.A.Door - I agree 100% that if someone is playing a ball that didn't perform well in the test, but they're comfortable with it, then they shouldn't switch it up just because of the MGS Ball Test. And I also agree that had any of the other major manufacturers been in Callaway's spot, they would've responded similarly. And to be honest, I'm guilty of not giving golf balls enough time before moving on, but no more! The Pro V1x are my ride or die from here on out!

Having more time to digest the results of the test and see some of the reactions around the interwebz, I have a greater appreciation for what MGS achieved here. MGS should be proud of the test as it covered a lot of ground, and despite some of the criticism, I haven't read a thing suggesting they're saying the test is the 'end all, be all' or anything of the sort. Ultimately, I think what the test represents is an EXCELLENT starting point for anyone looking for a reason to try a different ball. Is it an advertisement for Snell? Nope. Any company would've gotten an influx in traffic and possibly orders if they occupied the top spot. Alternatively, it's also not indictment on golf balls that didn't perform that well. I believe this because a lot of amateurs are going to play what they're comfortable with anyway especially if they believe a certain ball 'does everything they need it to'. 

I think the most important thing achieved by this test is it encourages you to take a deeper look when selecting a golf ball. Because as most of you know, we're blitzed by advertising suggesting something that may not be true (soft is FAST! ). For those of us who want to perform our best on the course, being able to dig a little deeper and perhaps try a ball you normally wouldn't can make a difference! 

[Shankster]

I wonder what Happy Gilmore would have to say?

It’s amazing how many people are missing the point of this “buyers guide” it’s a benchmark. A starting point. Some days I wonder...

[Wedgie]

I literally cleaned out my entire bag of duo - u's and chromesofts.....ordered some bridgestones and already had pro v 1's.......ive been brainwashed!!!

Yeah the test got in my head too. I played the duo pro 4 straight days in Florida. Never lost a ball but changed them out after each round. 2 days I averaged a little over 240 off the tee and the other 2 days averaged 222 off the tee. Same conditions same lame ass swing. Was it me? The ball? Probably me but I’m blaming the ball. Thing is the 240 days were days 1 and 3.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[Popeye64]

It's truly a litmus test to how well you are doing as a Forum, group or some type of platform that when you launch a test such as this and you send a shockwave across the industry and social media platforms.
MGS has seemingly dropped a Nuke. Bravo guys on being the unbiased and the unbought forum.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Shankster]

“Our balls don’t perform well with Robots”...

[StrokerAce]

1 minute ago, Shankster said:

“Our balls don’t perform well with Robots”...

"Golfers aren't robots, they're real players hitting real balls and....."  well, that's about where the argument falls apart.  

[null]

2 minutes ago, Shankster said:

“Our balls don’t perform well with Robots”...

It's because robots can't process hype 

[romeopapazulu]

4 minutes ago, Shankster said:

“Our balls don’t perform well with Robots”...

 

1 minute ago, jlukes said:

It's because robots can't process hype 

If only robots had feelings...

[Shankster]

It's because robots can't process hype 

But it looks like a soccer ball. Surely the robot can process that?