Jump to content
txgolfjunkie

MGS Golf Ball Test

Golf Ball Test Results...Pre-Reveal  

56 members have voted

This poll is closed to new votes
  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

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

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Berg Ryman said:

I guess someone should have asked Tony if this own your own factory includes Srixon since they are owned by a rubber company, but he would know better than all of us and would have put it there if they did.

I didn't know to what degree Titleist, Callaway, and Taylor Made owned/controlled manufacturing, but I agree. That's why I was guessing Srixon would be among the leaders in consistency too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, chisag said:

 

... Not sure if I am missing something but the TP5x spins less than the Chrome Soft off the driver but spins more than the CS with the wedge. Personally I find the TP5x spins more for pitches and chips than the CS, which is one of the reasons I didn't use it and gave away the rest of my dozen when I tried them out. RX was even worse for me. But the Bx is almost identical in numbers as the TP5x and out performs the CS. 

My personal testing has shown the same thing. The '19 TP5x, even the previous generation, are great balls and I wouldn't change anything about them. They fit me very well for what I'm looking for in a ball. They go high without being spinny on irons, but still check up and often come to rest within a few feet of my pitchmark. Around the greens they're predictable, and they're firm without feeling like a rock.

11 hours ago, mr.hicksta said:

Doing more reading, I'm a bit torn now. Since I'm a tweener in terms of swing speed, I'm now leaning towards giving the Pro V1X a serious go. Overall I think the MTB Black is a good ball and not a bad choice for my game, and the price is definitely right. But I want to play what performs best overall so I'm going to have to do some tee to green testing to figure out what works best for me.  

I got some of last year's V1x if you wanna trade some of your MTB Blacks. I'm also a tweener swinging around 105 up to like 108 when I step on it. For me, the V1x is nice because it launched higher than my previous gamer, Tour B XS. The B XS was good but I didn't like how penetrating of a flight I got from it. The first round I put a V1x into play I noticed a much higher ball flight, which was what I wanted from my ball. I'd still be playing the V1x if I didn't find the '19 TP5x on sale in bulk, plus an additional 15% off eBay coupon, but I'm glad I #5witched. I'm finding the same launch but lower spin on irons and wedges, which lets me squeeze out a little more distance, and I don't have to worry about sucking balls off the green. The V1x definitely spins more for me when chipping as well, and in that regard is better for control, but as an overall fit I think the TP5x is better for me. I'm giving the MTB-X a shot as I mentioned in the "What have you bought lately" thread, and if I can get similar performance out of a ball that costs half, then it'll be my new gamer. They're within a degree of launch and 300 RPM difference in spin so I'm hopeful 🙂 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I play a lot of low checkers around the green and it's only the CS and the older 330X that gave me the results I wanted. 

 

In my 2nd home course where I have a harder time with the low checker for any ball the differences are so miniscule I use the Rx on that course.

 

Could be the type of grass and grain. My home greens are very grainy aside from being firm.

 

I just got 1 doz '19 TP5 (not x) to try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, chisag said:

 

... Not sure if I am missing something but the TP5x spins less than the Chrome Soft off the driver but spins more than the CS with the wedge. Personally I find the TP5x spins more for pitches and chips than the CS, which is one of the reasons I didn't use it and gave away the rest of my dozen when I tried them out. RX was even worse for me. But the Bx is almost identical in numbers as the TP5x and out performs the CS. 

Just realized my TP5x experice is with the older model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, PMookie said:

If you’re a 115 person, which ball are you choosing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I'm going to play the Pro V1x, MTB-X and Tour B X and see what I prefer.  Played the Pro V1x earlier in the week, played the Tour B X last night.  The MTB-X is supposed to arrive today.  I can't tell them apart but I will keep comparing.  I assume that's common among average players with certain balls testing so close in the MGS report. 

I don't do a lot of "practicing" in the traditional sense of the word.  I prefer to play at least 9 holes on a daily basis.  Having played the Pro V1x and the Tour B X on the course this week, both "hopped and stopped" with wedges quite nicely and I could have placed a beach towel over the pitches around the green with each ball. 

I have a feeling this isn't going to be an easy decision.  But if I can't tell the difference between the MTB-X and the other two, I will save myself $20 a box.  We will see when they get here today.

Edit to add; with the modern ball, I believe it's time to replace the SeeMore Brass Blade.  That brassy "ting" is annoying!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally made a decision on my first premium ball and went with 5 dozen Vice Pro balls. I can’t wait to get out and see how they perform. They just seemed the most consistent for my swing speed and the price was right. I’m not consistent enough yet to worry about maximum carry, I need all the help with consistency I can get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going play 9 tonight and do some ball testing for myself. I'm going to compare the ProV1, ProV1X, Brigestone Tour BX, and both types of Callaway Chromesofts to first see if the Chromesofts are that much shorter, and then to see which of the other 3 balls performs the best for me off the driver, mid irons, and wedges. For reference, I swing my driver around 110 and just based on my short game practice with each ball I actually prefered the clicky feel of the Bridgestone balls off the wedges and putter. If it performs well off the longer clubs, it might be my new ball.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MaxEntropy said:

I didn't know to what degree Titleist, Callaway, and Taylor Made owned/controlled manufacturing, but I agree. That's why I was guessing Srixon would be among the leaders in consistency too. 

It was either in twitter or in the blog comments but tony replied to the question.Titleist owns everything. Callaway owns most of third abd taylormade only a portion. 

Titleist has a piece on their site about the number of people (something like 1100) that work in the ball and qc efforts. Somewhere around 90 different checks for the Prov1 and 120 for the 1x

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MaxEntropy said:

I didn't know to what degree Titleist, Callaway, and Taylor Made owned/controlled manufacturing, but I agree. That's why I was guessing Srixon would be among the leaders in consistency too. 

Based on the article comment replies by Tony and the live chat yesterday, Titleist and Srixon own and control the entire process.  Taylormade owns the cover application process but the core and materials are outsourced.  Callaway outsources most of the process and owns very little.

At least that's what I remember.  Please correct me if anything differs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, sixcat said:

Based on the article comment replies by Tony and the live chat yesterday, Titleist and Srixon own and control the entire process.  Taylormade owns the cover application process but the core and materials are outsourced.  Callaway outsources most of the process and owns very little.

At least that's what I remember.  Please correct me if anything differs.

Coolest of beans, thanks Sixcat and to Tony for answering one of my questions. I really want to Oncore, but I'm not in the need for balls right now and I've got my spiff deal with Srixon where I can go super cheap... decisions, decisions.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to get some background on Srixon since they are one of the balls I'm interested.

It's never easy...
Looks like Dunlop owns Srixon.
Their mfg plant is in Japan - https://www.dunlopsports.co.jp/en/products/sports/ichijima.html
Dunlop owns Sumitomo Rubber co. and that's used in both the golf and tennis balls - https://www.dunlopsports.co.jp/en/company/profile/index.html

I'm sure I could go further down the rabbit hole, but I'm personally interested in a ball where the company controls the core component - the rubber on the inside - and it looks Srixon is one of those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this article and podcast really interesting and will definitely be using this information to choose the ball that’s right for me.

I’m cheap, so I’m  most interested in the mid priced balls - Snell offerings, Maxfli (on sale) and my current gamer, the Srixon Qstar tour. I plan to test all, but would like a little more information about how/why balls were placed in each category (very good, good, etc.).

I understand that the cut balls were placed in the poor category based on their tendency to get damaged, and the excellent balls seem to have a combination of both high performance and excellent quality control/consistency. What differentiates those balls in the middle of these two extremes?

just a general comment about what qualities balls in these middle categories possess would be great!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After going through the incredible MGS Golf Ball report a couple times & watching the live chat, I started thinking about whether I should consider switching from my current ball, which happens to be the Snell MTB Black (last year’s model), for one of the higher consistency balls. I, too, was surprised by the left turn one of this year’s Snell’s took during the test. But since I have more than 3 dozen of them (couldn’t resist the winter sale), I wanted to find a way to use them the best I could before switching. So, I looked up how to salt water float golf balls to check them out. I also decided to check 7 brand new Kirkland 4-piece balls left over from last year and 4 new ProV 1’s. What I found was interesting enough that I thought I’d share my results should anyone else be interested.

I started off using just salt water and found 4 of the 7 Kirkland’s were pretty significantly out of balance (righted itself to the same spot quickly), but none of the ProV 1’s & none of the first 15 Snell’s I checked were - they all came back to a reasonably random spot.

Considering how significant some of the inconsistencies were during the Ball Test, though, I was confused why none of the first 15 Snell’s showed any out of balance conditions.  I also noticed that while not returning to the same spot, 2 of the 3 Kirkland’s that tested good did come back to a general area each time and fairly abruptly stopped rotating. Wondering whether surface tension of the salt solution itself was possibly affecting ball rotation, I added a drop or 2 of dish soap to the solution and, voila! The 2 Kirkland’s now rotated to a consistent spot. Even the last Kirkland would rotate to a consistent spot, just quite slowly.

So, of course, I had to retest the 15 Snell’s and found ALL of them would return to a consistent spot. It was very slowly meaning that they weren’t as significantly out of balance as the 4 Kirkland’s, but they were out of balance. Wondering how they stacked up against the new ProV 1’s, I retested them as well. I was surprised to find that all 4 of the ProV 1’s were also somewhat out of balance – about as much as the Snell’s (slowly returned to a spot).

Out of 41 Snell MTB Blacks, 4 ProV 1s, and 7 Kirkland 4-piece balls (all brand new, never been hit), none of them were perfectly in balance. But only 4 of the Kirkland’s appeared to be badly out of balance.  I have no way to quantify how far out they are and to what extent it would affect ball flight, just that they would obviously return to a consistent spot quickly - even before I reduced the surface tension of the salt solution. And while 4 balls aren’t a very large sample size, I was happy to see that the Snell’s didn’t seem to be any worse than the ProV 1’s.

So, the questions this leaves me with; Does that mean last year’s Snell model was more consistent than this year’s model that was tested by MGS? No clue. I’d need to check a few dozen of the current model to even speculate.  Does this mean that NO golf ball is perfectly balanced, even one as high quality as the ProV 1?  I’d have to check a much larger sample size to speculate, but I think it’s possible – at least on a consumer level. Does this mean that if you balance check whatever brand you like to play that you can effectively take consistency issues out of the equation? From a side-to-side deviation prospective, possibly. (Can’t wait for someone to suggest that MGS re-run their entire ball check AFTER they balance check them!)

But now that I’ve marked the balance point of my stash, though, I'm reasonably certain that I can’t blame my errant tee shots on the ball (damn it!!!!).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great work on the test, with one exception.  There's a significant hole between 115mph and 85mph.  Those of us that sit in that 95-105 range would likely experience different results.  Just wondering why that middle swing speed was not covered, and how we should interpret the data given that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, gbtrsc said:

Great work on the test, with one exception.  There's a significant hole between 115mph and 85mph.  Those of us that sit in that 95-105 range would likely experience different results.  Just wondering why that middle swing speed was not covered, and how we should interpret the data given that.

Asked and answered ad nauseam!  

Every industry expert, many who work directly for the balls being tested, agreed that any findings would be linear.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great work on the test, with one exception.  There's a significant hole between 115mph and 85mph.  Those of us that sit in that 95-105 range would likely experience different results.  Just wondering why that middle swing speed was not covered, and how we should interpret the data given that.

Tony answered that question in the comments in the blog post and I believe it has been repeated earlier in this thread. Basically display both speeds and draw a line in the middle and you will see how a 100ish swing speed would perform. The results are basically linear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know if the current model, but I just got an email from Hurricane Golf... TP5 and TP5X balls for $29.99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is so nice to be discussing this test with fellow-MGSers. My local golf forum has people upset about the test because either a) that's my experience so the test must be wrong b) there's too much information or c) how can they discount FEEL? It's the MOST IMPORTANT THING IMO. 

Just wanted to tell you all how much I appreciate you 🙂

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Golfspy_CG2 @GolfSpy MBP I currently play the Taylormade Project(a) ball (b/c i got them free). Though it was not tested in the report, the TM site and articles say it is a compression of 70... that would make it the softest ball out there. HORRIBLE. That would be below the Callaway ERC Soft. Am I right? Do you all have any data that may give better #'s on the compression? Or how can i get a true compression #? thanks

Share this post


Link to post
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.   Paste as plain text instead

  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...