Jump to content
TESTERS WANTED! ×

MGS Golf Ball Test


Golf Ball Test Results...Pre-Reveal  

56 members have voted

  1. 1. Which brand do you think performs the best in MGS Golf Ball Test to be revealed Monday? (I have no idea what balls are being tested but this is my best bet)

    • Bridgestone (e6, e12, Tour B X, Tour B XS, Tour B RX)
      11
    • Callaway (Chrome Soft, Chrome Soft X, ERC Soft)
      1
    • Cut (Red, Green, Blue, Black, Brown, Mauve, Burgundy, Candy Apple, Cyan, Golden Rod)
      0
    • Maxfli (Tour, Tour x)
      0
    • Mizuno (RB Tour, RB Tour X)
      0
    • Snell (MTB Red, MTB Black, MTB X)
      11
    • Srixon (Q Star, Z Star, Z Star XV, LGBTQ Star)
      4
    • TaylorMade (TP5, TP5x, Project (a), Project (s))
      8
    • Titleist (Pro V1, Pro V1x, AVX, Tour Soft, Velocity, DT TruSoft)
      15
    • Vice (Drive, Pro, Pro Plus, Pro Soft)
      5
    • Volvik (I don't even know if they're in the test)
      0
    • Wilson (DUO Soft, DUO U, FG Tour)
      0
    • Other
      1

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 04/29/2019 at 10:00 PM

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, jlukes said:

Matty B is pretty damn close to a robot.  Plus, with GC quad they can sure they are comparing similar club head speeds, deliveries and strike locations.

I guess the only part of a TXG test that I would question, is only that it is done indoors with only 20' or so of ball flight. I'm assuming there are some good calculations, but they have to have some standard aero coefficients plugged in. Might make it hard for one brand /ball to show much difference from another. 

 

Maybe not? 

WITB:

Driver:   :taylormade-small: SIM2 Max 12° - Accra TZ6 M4

FW Wood:     th.jpg.d6e2abdaeb04f007fd259c979f389de6.jpg Gen5 0311 7w  Fujikura Motore X F3

Irons:   :srixon-small: ZX7 PW-7i, ZX5 6i-5i

Wedges: :cleveland-small:  Zipcore 50°, 58°

Putter:   :taylormade-small: MySpider X

Cart: image.png.5aa5e9b8c0d6e08a2b12be76a06a07ca.pngOnewheel XR+

Ball: :srixon-small: Z-Star Diamond/ Z-Star XV

  1

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

let me know because I have some BXs coming tomorrow.....never played either but I am interested in both
My only "complaint" about the B XS is I thought it spun too much for me off the driver. But,,, it was simply perfect for me everywhere else. From the data it showed just that... it was a bit spinny off the driver.
But if I went by the edict of fit the ball to your short game and the driver to the ball it's perfect. Which,, is just what the data for me shows. Perfect for me everywhere but the driver. I'm actually splitting hairs but the B X might be better for me with its lower spin from the driver.
I had been searching for a ball for quite awhile and stumbled upon the B XS. I have a rack full of balls. Chrome Soft, MTB Black, ERC, TP5X and a few PRO Vs. The B XS was given to me and the ball was almost perfect other than the driver which was proven by data. Really eye opening test.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd actually think the opposite. Indoor testing would allow for greater control of all the variables.

I guess the only part of a TXG test that I would question, is only that it is done indoors with only 20' or so of ball flight. I'm assuming there are some good calculations, but they have to have some standard aero coefficients plugged in. Might make it hard for one brand /ball to show much difference from another. 
 
Maybe not? 


Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

DRIVER PXG 0811XF GEN4 (10.5°)

FAIRWAY WOODS PXG 0341XF GEN4 (16°)

HYBRIDS PXG 0317XF GEN4 (19°), PXG 0317X GEN4 (22°)

IRONS PXG 0311T GEN3 (5 - 9)

WEDGES TAYLORMADE MG3 (45°, 50°, 55° TW Grind, 60° TW Grind)

PUTTER PXG BATTLE READY ONE & DONE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, FrogginBullfish said:

I'd actually think the opposite. Indoor testing would allow for greater control of all the variables.

 


Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app
 

 

 

Controls that don't really matter, unless you actually play golf indoors like it's 3019

Driver: :callaway-small: Rogue ST Max LS Tensei AV Blue S

3w/5w: :titelist-small: TSi2 Tensei AV Raw Blue S

4h: :mizuno-small: CLK 22* Hybrid Tensei CK Pro Blue 80HY S

Irons 5-PW: :mizuno-small: 223 Steelfiber PR 95 S

Wedges: :cleveland-small: RTX Zipcore Tour Rack 50, 54, 58 Steelfiber PR 105

Putter: LAB Link.1

Ball: :srixon-small: Z-Star Diamond

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Kor.A.Door said:

I just don’t like Titleist in general. I really don’t like the cost with anything that says titleist. Plus, nothing from them has really ever fit my game. I know I’m not going to buy anything from them, so I don’t look. Anyway. I’ve played the old versions of the RX, and RXS. I have not tried the new versions. Who knows, the characteristics seem to look like they fit. So I’ll give em a try. 

It good up this way. Hot and humid the last couple weeks. the pollen was horrible, and lasted longer than usual, but it seems to have backed off in the last week or so. 

You say price is an issue for you with titleist. Is $3 difference between them and the Bridgestone, Tp5/x or Chrome soft really a difference. Their clubs are also cheaper than several other mainstream brands on the market 

6 hours ago, Thin2win said:

I guess the only part of a TXG test that I would question, is only that it is done indoors with only 20' or so of ball flight. I'm assuming there are some good calculations, but they have to have some standard aero coefficients plugged in. Might make it hard for one brand /ball to show much difference from another. 

 

Maybe not? 

Considering that they use gcquad it’s not tracking the whole flight the distance of ball flight isn’t really an issue. It’s one of the reasons gcquad indoors is better than trackman or flightscope

Driver: PXG 0811 X+ Proto w/UST Helium 5F4

Wood: TaylorMade M5 5W w/Accra TZ5 +1/2”, TaylorMade Sim 3W w/Aldila rogue white

Hybrid: PXG Gen2 22* w/AD hybrid

Irons: PXG Gen3 0311T w/Nippon modus 120

Wedges: TaylorMade MG2 50*, Tiger grind 56/60

Putter: Scotty Caemeron Super Rat1

Ball: Titleist Prov1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Thin2win said:

I guess the only part of a TXG test that I would question, is only that it is done indoors with only 20' or so of ball flight. I'm assuming there are some good calculations, but they have to have some standard aero coefficients plugged in. Might make it hard for one brand /ball to show much difference from another. 

 

Maybe not? 

Good point.  I posted something earlier in the thread where pointing out that the ball speed, launch and spin numbers of the MTBx and the TP5x where very close but the MTBx had a few yards extra carry off the driver at 115 + 85.  There is  no way the launch monitor will pick that up.  If there are any launch monitor experts out there, please explain if this is not the case.   Wonder how the LM results will compare to MGS test.  

BTW I am a huge fan of TXG so in no way am I trying to be negative about their efforts.   TXG has some of the best golf content on YouTube.  

 

Driver - Ping G410 Plus 10.5 - Ping Tour 65 Stiff

4 Wood - Callaway Rogue - Project X Evenflow blue 6.0

Hybrids - Titleist 818 H2 -  3(c-1) and 4(c-4) - Tensei CK Blue 70 stiff

Irons - Callaway Apex  CF 16 5-AW - True Temper XP 95 Steel Stiff

Wedges - Ping Glide 54 SS, 58 TS

Putter - Edel e1 Torque balanced

Indianapolis

5.5 Index

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except the control of variables matters when testing purely for performance characteristics of a given product. If you want a fair comparison of multiple products, then you need to test them under the same exact conditions.

MGS used a swing robot for the buyer's guide for exactly this reason, control of variables. They can control swing speed, strike location, and launch conditions with the robot, such that any difference in output is the direct result of each individual ball being tested.

 
Controls that don't really matter, unless you actually play golf indoors like it's 3019


Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

DRIVER PXG 0811XF GEN4 (10.5°)

FAIRWAY WOODS PXG 0341XF GEN4 (16°)

HYBRIDS PXG 0317XF GEN4 (19°), PXG 0317X GEN4 (22°)

IRONS PXG 0311T GEN3 (5 - 9)

WEDGES TAYLORMADE MG3 (45°, 50°, 55° TW Grind, 60° TW Grind)

PUTTER PXG BATTLE READY ONE & DONE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, mooremikea said:

Good point.  I posted something earlier in the thread where pointing out that the ball speed, launch and spin numbers of the MTBx and the TP5x where very close but the MTBx had a few yards extra carry off the driver at 115 + 85.  There is  no way the launch monitor will pick that up.  If there are any launch monitor experts out there, please explain if this is not the case.   Wonder how the LM results will compare to MGS test.  

BTW I am a huge fan of TXG so in no way am I trying to be negative about their efforts.   TXG has some of the best golf content on YouTube.  

 

Gcquad uses an algorithm based on the data and pictures captured as the ball passes the monitor. In some reading the algorithm on the gcquad seems to be the most accurate of the monitors out there (prior to recent upgrades from trackman)

trackman uses cameras, data, radar info to place into their algorithm so even though it tracks the entire ball flight outdoors there’s still some “guesswork” from the algorithm. 

Flightscope is similar to trackman but in readings ive seen is the least accurate of the three.

Driver: PXG 0811 X+ Proto w/UST Helium 5F4

Wood: TaylorMade M5 5W w/Accra TZ5 +1/2”, TaylorMade Sim 3W w/Aldila rogue white

Hybrid: PXG Gen2 22* w/AD hybrid

Irons: PXG Gen3 0311T w/Nippon modus 120

Wedges: TaylorMade MG2 50*, Tiger grind 56/60

Putter: Scotty Caemeron Super Rat1

Ball: Titleist Prov1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may have been posted in the thread somewhere already but I went to see if I could get some MTb-X to try and apparently they are on backorder, They openly attributed it to the MGS ball test. I also can no longer find any Zstars or Z star XVs on Lostgolfballs. I ordered 48 a month or two ago and there was a plethora of choices...Talk about making waves..now I'm gonna have to pay full price for golf balls...

RH:

Driver: :cobra-small: F9 9.0º - 14g Low - Evenflow White T1100 75G X

Woods: :cobra-small: F9 3W - Evenflow White T1100 75G X

Hybrids: :cobra-small:  F9 3H - Aldila Green X

Irons: :cobra-small: F9 One Length 4-PW - Modus3 Tour 105 S

Wedges: :cobra-small: King Wedges 50º/54º/58º Versatile

Putter: :ping-small:  Sigma G Tyne 35"

Ball: Srixon Z Star XV

#cobraconnect19

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, FrogginBullfish said:

I'd actually think the opposite. Indoor testing would allow for greater control of all the variables.

 


Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app
 

 

Unless someone has a large dome, hitting into a screen and having a computer predict the flight of the ball based on launch statistics isn't exactly having a "greater control of all the variables."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jlukes said:

The problem as I see it is that MGS has come out and pretty much attributed everything to ballspeed with their "soft is slow" tagline. No real commentary or data around aerodynamics affecting distance 

Yep. Soft is talked about, dimples are not. With some of the balls having near identical launch angles and spin numbers, I have to assume that aero plays some roll. But again, I guess it has never really been tested and at this point dimple patterns are all hype.... oh please let there be a dimple pattern ball test in the future.

 

Also, I think TXG does great work. They have shown over and over that shafts do behave different, and there is a "best" option for each person, but that every swing needs to be fit. High launch shafts might be the opposite for some players, they are well thought out and they try not to talk in absolutes. I have no issue at all with them testing different balls, I'm curious what they will find. My previous comment was more about what was said, CG Quad over 20' has to do some cool math. And I get that it does that math very very well, I was just curious if that 20' calculation will be as accurate as a trackman on a range with full flight tracking radar.  If I was putting one in my garage, I would go CG Quad, but on a open range....  I was just asking the question.  I am sure the guy who built those units is probably on this forum and will tell me why it doesn't matter, I'm good with that. 

Based on the Video they did, they mention that spin axis was off immediately on some of the balls that had crazy flyers. And if it is off from the first moment, I'd guess CG quad handles that just fine. 

 

I'm am now more curious about dimple patterns hype/reality. Please MGS, bring in Adam Savage and  Jamie Hyneman for a  golfball dimple myth testing. This needs to happen. 

 

-corrected some of my less than amazing typing skills-

Edited by Thin2win

WITB:

Driver:   :taylormade-small: SIM2 Max 12° - Accra TZ6 M4

FW Wood:     th.jpg.d6e2abdaeb04f007fd259c979f389de6.jpg Gen5 0311 7w  Fujikura Motore X F3

Irons:   :srixon-small: ZX7 PW-7i, ZX5 6i-5i

Wedges: :cleveland-small:  Zipcore 50°, 58°

Putter:   :taylormade-small: MySpider X

Cart: image.png.5aa5e9b8c0d6e08a2b12be76a06a07ca.pngOnewheel XR+

Ball: :srixon-small: Z-Star Diamond/ Z-Star XV

  1

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sixcat said:

Unless someone has a large dome, hitting into a screen and having a computer predict the flight of the ball based on launch statistics isn't exactly having a "greater control of all the variables."

I need to preface this by saying what MGS does is absolutely fantastic and the most thorough testing available to consumers.

That being said, there could always be improvements.

Greater control of variables is a must because it then allows MGS to make more concrete conclusions.  In any good experiment, you need to eliminate variables so that you know what you are testing for.  Was MGS simply trying to prove that ball speed and launch conditions are different between balls?  "Soft is slow" would seem to indicate that, but then GCQuad would have been a more consistent measure of those numbers.  But since trackman and outdoor testing conditions were used, it introduced variables like drag which is manipulated through the aerodynamic properties of each ball.  However MGS does not have the ability to measure the impact of those aerodynamic properties so we are left guessing as to what contributed to large distance variations. 

Sure, ball speed contributes to less carry distance - but does 3 MPH of ball speed really equate to 18 yards difference in carry?  And why did the Chrome Soft, which was 2 MPH slower than the Chrome Soft X, fly 3 yards further than the Chrome Soft X?  Those anomalies are where people begin to question the test and certain conclusions that were mentioned in the article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jlukes said:

I need to preface this by saying what MGS does is absolutely fantastic and the most thorough testing available to consumers.

That being said, there could always be improvements.

Greater control of variables is a must because it then allows MGS to make more concrete conclusions.  In any good experiment, you need to eliminate variables so that you know what you are testing for.  Was MGS simply trying to prove that ball speed and launch conditions are different between balls?  "Soft is slow" would seem to indicate that, but then GCQuad would have been a more consistent measure of those numbers.  But since trackman and outdoor testing conditions were used, it introduced variables like drag which is manipulated through the aerodynamic properties of each ball.  However MGS does not have the ability to measure the impact of those aerodynamic properties so we are left guessing as to what contributed to large distance variations. 

Sure, ball speed contributes to less carry distance - but does 3 MPH of ball speed really equate to 18 yards difference in carry?  And why did the Chrome Soft, which was 2 MPH slower than the Chrome Soft X, fly 3 yards further than the Chrome Soft X?  Those anomalies are where people begin to question the test and certain conclusions that were mentioned in the article

 

... Well said. As stated earlier, how many shots with each ball? If a ball veered off line by 15yds, did they retrieve that exact same ball and hit it again? Lots of good info for sure but also lots of questions. I would love to hear that one ball repeated it's erratic flight or it happened only once. At only 100mph with a driver, I have found many urethane covered balls that perform very similar for me. Lots of actual on course testing with Z Star, Kirkland 4 piece, ProV1x, Snell Black, Maxfli Tour and TP5x. For me the TP5x is a hair longer off the tee and a little longer off my mid/long irons. I can play any of those balls and my score will most likely be very similar if not the same. I am sure there are more balls I could add to that list. Long before the test, one thing I did find is soft is slow for me. Specifically Chrome Soft, B-Rx and Duo Urethane and none of them provided the green side spin I am accustomed to playing. One thing I think I can safely say is I have never taken a good swing, made excellent contact and had an erratic flight off line with any of the balls I have played. So as many have said, the test is a good start to point you in the right direction, but personal testing in the real world should be what gives you the best shot at finding the right ball for your game. 

Driver:     :taylormade-small:  Qi10 10.5* ... Ventus Red Velocore 5R
Fairway:  :cobra-small: Aerojet 3/5 ... Kai'li Blue 60R
Hybrids:  :ping-small:      430 Hybrid 22*... Steelfiber 780Hy 
                  :taylormade-small:  DHy #4 ... Diamana LTD 65r 
Irons:       :titleist-small:         '23 T200 5-Pw ... Steelfiber i95r
Wedges:  :taylormade-small: Vokey 50*/54*/58* ... Steelfiber i95r
Putter:     :cobra-small:  Sport-60 33" 
Ball:           Maxfli     Maxfli Tour

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, jlukes said:

I need to preface this by saying what MGS does is absolutely fantastic and the most thorough testing available to consumers.

That being said, there could always be improvements.

Greater control of variables is a must because it then allows MGS to make more concrete conclusions.  In any good experiment, you need to eliminate variables so that you know what you are testing for.  Was MGS simply trying to prove that ball speed and launch conditions are different between balls?  "Soft is slow" would seem to indicate that, but then GCQuad would have been a more consistent measure of those numbers.  But since trackman and outdoor testing conditions were used, it introduced variables like drag which is manipulated through the aerodynamic properties of each ball.  However MGS does not have the ability to measure the impact of those aerodynamic properties so we are left guessing as to what contributed to large distance variations. 

Sure, ball speed contributes to less carry distance - but does 3 MPH of ball speed really equate to 18 yards difference in carry?  And why did the Chrome Soft, which was 2 MPH slower than the Chrome Soft X, fly 3 yards further than the Chrome Soft X?  Those anomalies are where people begin to question the test and certain conclusions that were mentioned in the article

I get it but hitting into a screen isn't the "end all be all" some people claim it to be either.  Regardless of testing method and procedure, someone will find fault with it.  

At the end of the day, getting fit for a golf ball is the overriding outcome of the MGS testing and they said so very early on in the article as well as the Live Chat.  I think too many people are getting lost in the weeds chasing rabbit trails!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They could repeat the test here.... 

https://www.thegolfdome.com/

But I don't know how long the range is. 

To get at some of the aerodynamics, I would think the robot could be tweaked to produce the same ball speed/launch angle for each one. Any distance differences at that point would likely be a result of aerodynamics. Maybe you don't want to do that exercise with all 36 balls, but a subset? 

In addition to @chisag's concern about number of shots with each ball, I'm curious about the weather over the time they tested. Temperature? Humidity? Wind speed and direction? 

Driver:  :callaway-small:Epic Speed 9* (set -1) MMT 70X
3W:bridgestone-small: Tour B JGR Recoil 760ES
3H, 4H: :bridgestone-small: Tour B JGR 19*, 23* Recoil 780ES
4-AW:bridgestone-small: Tour B JGR HF2 Modus3 Tour 105
SW: :cleveland-small: RTX Zipcore Black Satin 54*
LW:Sub70: TAIII Black 58*
Putter:ping-small: Scottsdale TR Senita
Bag: BigMax Dri Active Lite
Ball:taylormade-small: TP5x or :titleist-small: AVX (yellow)
Pushcart: BigMax iQ+

Testing Complete, Final Review PostedSub70 TAIII Forged Wedges

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However MGS does not have the ability to measure the impact of those aerodynamic properties so we are left guessing as to what contributed to large distance variations. 


Hmmmm, MGS might not have the ability in the lab, but they are about 10 minutes from NASA and wind tunnels. Can anyone say field trip to test ball and dimple aerodynamics !!!!!

Driver:  :ping-small: G400 Max 9* w/ KBS Tour Driven
Fairway: :titelist-small: TS3 15*  w/Project X Hzardous Smoke
Hybrids:  :titelist-small: 915H 21* w/KBS Tour Graphite Hybrid Prototype
                :titelist-small: 915H  24*  w/KBS Tour Graphite Hybrid Prototype        
Irons:      :honma:TR20V 6-11 w/Vizard TR20-85 Graphite
Wedge:  :titleist-small: 54/12D, 60/8M w/:Accra iWedge 90 Graphite
Putter:   :taylormade-small:TM-180

Testing:   SPGC_logo.jpg

Backups:  :odyssey-small: Milled Collection RSX 2, :seemore-small: mFGP2, :cameron-small: Futura 5W

Member:  MGS Hitsquad since 2017697979773_DSCN2368(Custom).JPG.a1a25f5e430d9eebae93c5d652cbd4b9.JPG

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, sixcat said:

I get it but hitting into a screen isn't the "end all be all" some people claim it to be either.  Regardless of testing method and procedure, someone will find fault with it.  

At the end of the day, getting fit for a golf ball is the overriding outcome of the MGS testing and they said so very early on in the article as well as the Live Chat.  I think too many people are getting lost in the weeds chasing rabbit trails!

Couldn't agree more.... on the one hand it is awesome to have all of the data to use at your discretion and reach your own conclusions, but on the other you can really get so deep into it that it becomes more confusing than helpful.

At the end of the day - for me - 2 things stood out in the article.


1. Ball fitting is important and if you can do it then it's worthwhile.
Note - it may be entirely possible that someone gets fit into a soft ball for whatever reason. You're the one playing, not anyone on here, not TXG, not MGS, you are and your ball and equipment are your choice.  Go with what you like!  

2. Try as hard as you possibly can to choose 1 ball and stick with it.
Imagine if you could carry as many clubs as you want in your bag and you had 4 seven irons - you know they all go 'relatively' a similar distance and some are more accurate than others but why would you do that to yourself?  Just pick the best one for you  and stick with it!

 

DriverCobra  Aerojet LS
Woods-
Cobra  LTD 3w 15*, 5W 19*,  F9 24* 
Irons- XXIO X (6-A)

Wedges- Callaway Jaws Raw (54/58)

Putter- Bettinardi BB56
Ball- Maxfli Tour X/Wilson Triad
Buggy- Clicgear 4.0
Bag- Callaway Org 14/Fairway C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Popeye64 said:

My only "complaint" about the B XS is I thought it spun too much for me off the driver. But,,, it was simply perfect for me everywhere else. From the data it showed just that... it was a bit spinny off the driver.
But if I went by the edict of fit the ball to your short game and the driver to the ball it's perfect. Which,, is just what the data for me shows. Perfect for me everywhere but the driver. I'm actually splitting hairs but the B X might be better for me with its lower spin from the driver.
I had been searching for a ball for quite awhile and stumbled upon the B XS. I have a rack full of balls. Chrome Soft, MTB Black, ERC, TP5X and a few PRO Vs. The B XS was given to me and the ball was almost perfect other than the driver which was proven by data. Really eye opening test.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 

The BXS only spins 200 rpms more and flies only 5 feet more on average...did you really notice it that much? I want to try the BX because of the lower driver spin but not sure I will really notice anything. Wanna swap a ball for the BX? Ill send you a pro v  lol

Golf is cool

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BXS only spins 200 rpms more and flies only 5 feet more on average...did you really notice it that much? I want to try the BX because of the lower driver spin but not sure I will really notice anything. Wanna swap a ball for the BX? Ill send you a pro v  lol
The only club I seem to struggle with in true distance these days is the driver. I just cant get to a par 5 in 2 anymore and though it's not really putting stress on my game,, like everyone I'm still trying to score as well as I can.
I dont hit a towering drive, more of a screaming lower line drive that if its spinning too much has no roll out and even worse when it s wet goes no where. Playing with two other very low HP players last week on every hole I was a good 20 + yards behind them and the difference in club head speed is not that great that would cause that much of a distance gap by any means.
The Tour B X was spinning at 2129 and the XS was at 2367 or a 239 rpm difference. The X was also 5 yards further on average. It may seem like a trivial amount but if the Tour B X plays for me like the XS does for every other part of my game why wouldnt I want a few more yards in the one part of my game that is challenged right now.
Yes I know it's more driver technique than anything but it's what I have in the arsenal for now.
I need to get into a club fitting shop and find a lower spinning driver combo soon so it might be a moot point. The Tour B XS checks off every box for me other than the long ball.

I get home in another week so I could send you a few XS if you want to try them.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Help me understand Standard Deviations.  I'm not much of a statistician.  Comparing the "top ball" Bridgestone BX with what I currently play QStar Tour,  the only place where the StdDev is WAY out of whack is on drivers 115+.  I'm more like 95-100.  The other major difference is in 7-iron and wedge spin, where the QStar Tour spins considerably less.  Trying to decide whether that's a big deal for me.  I could easily switch, though, because I paid so little for the QStars.   Thanks in advance. 

------------------------------

Driver:   Titleist TSr2 11 - UST Helium 5F3

Fairway: Titleist TS2 16.5 and 21 - Evenflow Riptide CB R

Irons: Titleist U505 4U and T300 5-GW - Aerotech SteelFiber i80 R

Wedges:  Cleveland Black RTX ZipCore 54 and Full Face 58 - True Temper Dynamic Gold Wedge 

Putter:  Odyssey TriHot 5K TripleWide

Bag:  Titleist 15 Cart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, gbtrsc said:

Help me understand Standard Deviations.  I'm not much of a statistician.  Comparing the "top ball" Bridgestone BX with what I currently play QStar Tour,  the only place where the StdDev is WAY out of whack is on drivers 115+.  I'm more like 95-100.  The other major difference is in 7-iron and wedge spin, where the QStar Tour spins considerably less.  Trying to decide whether that's a big deal for me.  I could easily switch, though, because I paid so little for the QStars.   Thanks in advance. 

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation

 

Because I'm bad at writing and explaining:

Standard deviation is a number used to tell how measurements for a group are spread out from the average (mean), or expected value. A low standard deviation means that most of the numbers are close to the average. A high standard deviation means that the numbers are more spread out.[1][2]

Tsr2 Ventus TR Blue

Tsi3 Ventus TR Blue

Tsr2 Ventus TR Blue

0211 ST 4-GW Axiom 125

Mizuno T22

Flat stick - who knows

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Standard deviations is a measure of variation within a data set. The standard deviation would indicate whether the data points are bunched tightly, i.e. a lower standard deviation, or more spread out, i.e. a higher standard deviation. The lower the standard deviation, the lower the variation within the data set. Which is a good thing as it means the product tends to perform more consistently.

Help me understand Standard Deviations.  I'm not much of a statistician.  Comparing the "top ball" Bridgestone BX with what I currently play QStar Tour,  the only place where the StdDev is WAY out of whack is on drivers 115+.  I'm more like 95-100.  The other major difference is in 7-iron and wedge spin, where the QStar Tour spins considerably less.  Trying to decide whether that's a big deal for me.  I could easily switch, though, because I paid so little for the QStars.   Thanks in advance. 


Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

DRIVER PXG 0811XF GEN4 (10.5°)

FAIRWAY WOODS PXG 0341XF GEN4 (16°)

HYBRIDS PXG 0317XF GEN4 (19°), PXG 0317X GEN4 (22°)

IRONS PXG 0311T GEN3 (5 - 9)

WEDGES TAYLORMADE MG3 (45°, 50°, 55° TW Grind, 60° TW Grind)

PUTTER PXG BATTLE READY ONE & DONE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, FrogginBullfish said:

Standard deviations is a measure of variation within a data set. The standard deviation would indicate whether the data points are bunched tightly, i.e. a lower standard deviation, or more spread out, i.e. a higher standard deviation. The lower the standard deviation, the lower the variation within the data set. Which is a good thing as it means the product tends to perform more consistently.

 


Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app
 

 

In golf they call it "Disperson".... 🙂

But it's relatively the same thing - 
out of X number of balls hit/tests how close is each one/how far apart are they?
If they all land in generally the same spot that's great!  If not...that's not great!!

Of course there could be outliers in which one is just way way off and typically those are eliminated from the sample set.

DriverCobra  Aerojet LS
Woods-
Cobra  LTD 3w 15*, 5W 19*,  F9 24* 
Irons- XXIO X (6-A)

Wedges- Callaway Jaws Raw (54/58)

Putter- Bettinardi BB56
Ball- Maxfli Tour X/Wilson Triad
Buggy- Clicgear 4.0
Bag- Callaway Org 14/Fairway C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jlukes said:

TXG has released their video. The results aren't surprising. Their commentary is extremely fair - they're wondering what other factors led to the 18 yards. They said it has to be something regarding aerodynamics if there are no other variables at play 

Hard to argue with this...18 is a lot....will be interesting to see if this holds true if/when they repeat the test.

DriverCobra  Aerojet LS
Woods-
Cobra  LTD 3w 15*, 5W 19*,  F9 24* 
Irons- XXIO X (6-A)

Wedges- Callaway Jaws Raw (54/58)

Putter- Bettinardi BB56
Ball- Maxfli Tour X/Wilson Triad
Buggy- Clicgear 4.0
Bag- Callaway Org 14/Fairway C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, jlukes said:

TXG has released their video. The results aren't surprising. Their commentary is extremely fair - they're wondering what other factors led to the 18 yards. They said it has to be something regarding aerodynamics if there are no other variables at play 

 

... Thanks for the heads up. These guys are just so classy. Interesting that their difference is much closer to my experience. At 100mph driver swing speed (-18 from Matt) the Chrome Soft, Duo Urethane and Rx were around 3-5 yds shorter. In and of itself not enough to discount it as a ball I would play, but performance around the green was also lacking spin so I gave up on soft golf balls. 

Edited by chisag

Driver:     :taylormade-small:  Qi10 10.5* ... Ventus Red Velocore 5R
Fairway:  :cobra-small: Aerojet 3/5 ... Kai'li Blue 60R
Hybrids:  :ping-small:      430 Hybrid 22*... Steelfiber 780Hy 
                  :taylormade-small:  DHy #4 ... Diamana LTD 65r 
Irons:       :titleist-small:         '23 T200 5-Pw ... Steelfiber i95r
Wedges:  :taylormade-small: Vokey 50*/54*/58* ... Steelfiber i95r
Putter:     :cobra-small:  Sport-60 33" 
Ball:           Maxfli     Maxfli Tour

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Thin2win said:

Yep. Soft is talked about, dimples are not. With some of the balls having near identical launch angles and spin numbers, I have to assume that aero plays some roll. But again, I guess it has never really been tested and at this point dimple patterns are all hype.... oh please let there be a dimple pattern ball test in the future.

 

Also, I think TXG does great work. They have shown over and over that shafts do behave different, and there is a "best" option for each person, but that every swing needs to be fit. High launch shafts might be the opposite for some players, they are well thought out and they try not to talk in absolutes. I have no issue at all with them testing different balls, I'm curious what they will find. My previous comment was more about what was said, CG Quad over 20' has to do some cool math. And I get that it does that math very very well, I was just curious if that 20' calculation will be as accurate as a trackman on a range with full flight tracking radar.  If I was putting one in my garage, I would go CG Quad, but on a open range....  I was just asking the question.  I am sure the guy who built those units is probably on this forum and will tell me why it doesn't matter, I'm good with that. 

Based on the Video they did, they mention that spin axis was off immediately on some of the balls that had crazy flyers. And if it is off from the first moment, I'd guess CG quad handles that just fine. 

 

I'm am now more curious about dimple patterns hype/reality. Please MGS, bring in Adam Savage and  Jamie Hyneman for a  golfball dimple myth testing. This needs to happen. 

 

-corrected some of my less than amazing typing skills-

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

Driver: PXG 0811 X+ Proto w/UST Helium 5F4

Wood: TaylorMade M5 5W w/Accra TZ5 +1/2”, TaylorMade Sim 3W w/Aldila rogue white

Hybrid: PXG Gen2 22* w/AD hybrid

Irons: PXG Gen3 0311T w/Nippon modus 120

Wedges: TaylorMade MG2 50*, Tiger grind 56/60

Putter: Scotty Caemeron Super Rat1

Ball: Titleist Prov1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...