Jump to content
Testers Wanted: RUNNER Golf and Byrdie Golf Design ×

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

This thread is starting to remind me when I was a young sailor running nuclear chemistry analysis.  The accuracy of the analyisis was +/- 25% and we were doing calculations by sliderule.  I took the results to the engineering officer of the watch for his review.  He whips out this fancy TI calculator that was the size of 3 golf GPS units and proceeded to correct my calculations.  I refused to change my results.  He tried to tell me how much more accurate his calculator was than my circular sliderule was and his calculations showed I needed to change my results (I forget the actual difference but it was WELL within the accuracy of a sliderule and along the lines of <0.05.  He had completely dismissed the accuracy of the actual analysis in his demands that he was correct.   Years later, we were all using calculators but the accuracy of the actual analysis never changed. 

So, we nitpick the perfect ball hit with the perfect swing done by machine in perfect conditions, measured by high levels of accuracy to come up with the ideal ball.   Then we take our imperfect swing and wonder why we didn't shoot better.  🙂  Sorry, for wandering off on that....might be the pain meds talking.  

Actually, I'm loving the thread and the information being shared.   

 

Driver: :callaway-small: Rogue ST Max (10.5* set at -1 and neutral) -- Mitsubishi Tensai Blue 55g R shaft

Fairway: :callaway-small: Rogue ST Max 3 wood (16.5*) and Heaven Wood (20*)-- Tensai Blue 55g R shaft

Hybrids: :callaway-small: Rogue ST Max 5H (23*)--Tensai Blue 55g R shaft

Irons:  :callaway-small: Apex CF19 6-9, PW, AW -- KBS Tour Graphite  TGI 70 shafts R +1/2 inch 3* upright

Wedges: Edison 53* and  57* KBS PGI 80 Graphite +1/2 inch 2* upright

Putter: L.A.B. DF 2.1 -- BGT Stability shaft

Ball:  Maxfli TourX...Golf Bag: :ping-small: Pioneer...Shoes: :footjoy-small: Hyperflex... Glove: Red Rooster Feather

 

My Photography can be seen at Smugmug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always fun reading the various comments especially after the TXG test. Haven’t watched the video but have read that it discredits to MGS test....at least based on MGS naysayers comments.

When a robot is used the response is that people should be used. When people are used it should be a robot. Indoors vs outdoors. They didn’t answer question X or responded that more testing was needed so the results are obviously wrong. Etcetera...etcetera....etcetera.


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

22 minutes ago, CarlH said:

This thread is starting to remind me when I was a young sailor running nuclear chemistry analysis.  The accuracy of the analyisis was +/- 25% and we were doing calculations by sliderule.  I took the results to the engineering officer of the watch for his review.  He whips out this fancy TI calculator that was the size of 3 golf GPS units and proceeded to correct my calculations.  I refused to change my results.  He tried to tell me how much more accurate his calculator was than my circular sliderule was and his calculations showed I needed to change my results (I forget the actual difference but it was WELL within the accuracy of a sliderule and along the lines of <0.05.  He had completely dismissed the accuracy of the actual analysis in his demands that he was correct.   Years later, we were all using calculators but the accuracy of the actual analysis never changed. 

So, we nitpick the perfect ball hit with the perfect swing done by machine in perfect conditions, measured by high levels of accuracy to come up with the ideal ball.   Then we take our imperfect swing and wonder why we didn't shoot better.  🙂  Sorry, for wandering off on that....might be the pain meds talking.  

Actually, I'm loving the thread and the information being shared.   

 

You make some good points but, like you say with our imperfect swings, which most have lots of variables, we don't need to be adding more variables into the equation. So it would make perfect sense( to me or in my opinion) to pick a ball with the best data, particularly offline dev/ carry dev(dispersion or shot area) so as to lessen the extra variables. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it’s worth, OnCore just sent me an email for a “free” sleeve following a brief ball fitting survey for $3.99 shipping.

Not a bad deal if you choose to take advantage.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

  • Titleist TSi3 Fujikura Speeder NX Blue 60X
  • TaylorMade SIM2 3 wood Fujilkura Ventus Blue 7-X
  • Titleist U505 2 Tensei 1K Black 85 X
  • Titleist T100 4-P Nippon Modus 3 120X
  • Vokey SM8 50, SM9 54 & 60  Nippon Modus 3 120s
  • L.A.B. MEZZ Max Broom Accra 47" 79.5*
  • Srixon Z-Star XV 

Currently testing the 2023 Titleist T100 Irons 4-P, follow along!

https://forum.mygolfspy.com/topic/60456-titleist-t-series-irons-2023-forum-review/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cnosil said:

Always fun reading the various comments especially after the TXG test. Haven’t watched the video but have read that it discredits to MGS test....at least based on MGS naysayers comments.

When a robot is used the response is that people should be used. When people are used it should be a robot. Indoors vs outdoors. They didn’t answer question X or responded that more testing was needed so the results are obviously wrong. Etcetera...etcetera....etcetera.

 

For what it's worth Ian from TXG never said anything of the sort. In fact he said softer balls are definitely slower, but something else had to be in play (likely aerodynamics/wind/temperatures) to get 18 yards of difference 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not surprised by the TXG results honestly. I think this is such a controversial topic that we might start seeing a lot of YT channels releasing their own GCQ data (I'm sure Mr Parfield will get on the click train). However, even if MGS does do some retesting, I find it somewhat hard to think they'd walk any claims back and suddenly say, oh actually we didn't maybe do the best job, here's some more accurate data, and suddenly Chrome Soft goes further and MTB X doesn't. It undermines their entire company and I'm not so sure it would provide much else useful but it sure would confuse the heck out of us, and make even more controversy. The best thing here is just more and more high visibility people within the community run their own tests as scientifically as possible, but I doubt anybody will/can do it to this scale & magnitude as MGS has done, especially with outdoor Trackman. There also aren't many 'unbiased/unsponsored' channels with Trackman. 

I know the guys said the day they did testing, winds were 2mph or so, but that doesn't account for gusts/swirls that aren't felt on the ground. I'm fairly convinced something environmental was going on or MGS simply got a weird batch of balls...Something more out of spec than you'd normally see in a box which would have caused the Cally balls to lose yardage in the air. Still, you'd think if a gust hit a ball and put it 15 yards short, that would have been removed if most of the other shots didn't show that end result. 

 

Do the Tour Only Chrome Soft balls have a different dimple pattern? 

 

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

2 hours ago, jlukes said:

For what it's worth Ian from TXG never said anything of the sort. In fact he said softer balls are definitely slower, but something else had to be in play (likely aerodynamics/wind/temperatures) to get 18 yards of difference 

No,  it was not directly said,  but they did indicate that based on their testing they don't see a reason for averaging 18 yards less carry across the tested balls.   I think they were being very careful with the wording in the video.  Hard to judge the TXG tests since they did throw out shots but we didn't see the criteria for throwing them out.  They hit 3 ball while MGS hit 24.  

For what its worth,  I found both tests interesting.  Wish we could see more of the detailed numbers.  

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

We’ve officially entered the paralysis by analysis stage. Like@shankster said. Use it or don’t.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

  • Titleist TSi3 Fujikura Speeder NX Blue 60X
  • TaylorMade SIM2 3 wood Fujilkura Ventus Blue 7-X
  • Titleist U505 2 Tensei 1K Black 85 X
  • Titleist T100 4-P Nippon Modus 3 120X
  • Vokey SM8 50, SM9 54 & 60  Nippon Modus 3 120s
  • L.A.B. MEZZ Max Broom Accra 47" 79.5*
  • Srixon Z-Star XV 

Currently testing the 2023 Titleist T100 Irons 4-P, follow along!

https://forum.mygolfspy.com/topic/60456-titleist-t-series-irons-2023-forum-review/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, cnosil said:

No,  it was not directly said,  but they did indicate that based on their testing they don't see a reason for averaging 18 yards less carry across the tested balls.   I think they were being very careful with the wording in the video.  Hard to judge the TXG tests since they did throw out shots but we didn't see the criteria for throwing them out.  They hit 3 ball while MGS hit 24.  

For what its worth,  I found both tests interesting.  Wish we could see more of the detailed numbers.  

But science dictates that everything else equal, that change on ball speed doesn't equate to 18 yards difference. There had to be another variable at play 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They stated in the video they hit 20 shots with each ball but only showed 4 with each to keep the length of the video down. They removed outliers as required to not unfairly skew the data. And they saw results that have been consistent with the results they've had with other softer vs. firmer ball tests. 1-2 mph extra ball speed in the firmer ball for 4-5 yards of extra carry. Their data had the Chrome Soft X being approx. 1 mph slower in ball speed than the MTB-X and 4 yards shorter, with fairly similar launch conditions across the data set.

The MGS test had the MTB-X just over 3 mph faster than the Chrome Soft X with average carry roughly 17.5 yards further. Looking further at the data, launch angle and spin numbers were near enough as makes no difference. 3 mph ball speed does not equate to 17.5 yards with the same launch characteristics. Something else was at play there.

No,  it was not directly said,  but they did indicate that based on their testing they don't see a reason for averaging 18 yards less carry across the tested balls.   I think they were being very careful with the wording in the video.  Hard to judge the TXG tests since they did throw out shots but we didn't see the criteria for throwing them out.  They hit 3 ball while MGS hit 24.  
For what its worth,  I found both tests interesting.  Wish we could see more of the detailed numbers.  


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

... I could be wrong, but I think most better players that have a reasonably repeatable swing and ball flight have done their own testing. I had tried some of the original Bridgestone RX but the rep came on another forum and was really touting the newest version so I gave them another try. I pretty quickly knew it wasn't for me. Got a dozen Duo Urethane balls at the Show and pretty much same results. Of course I wanted to see what all the hype was about with the Chrome Soft and while it's green side performance was better than Duo and Rx, it was still lacking in spin on aggressive chips and pitches. And as stated a little shorter off the tee. 

... On the other end of the spectrum, at 100mph I just don't compress the Srixon XV enough and it felt very hard and clicky to me. There is little doubt that someone swinging 115, 100 and 85 will find any given ball can feel very different. I played with a guy with around a 120 swing speed and he plays the XV because the Z Star feels like mush to him. Yet someone swinging 85 may think the Z Star feels a lot firmer than the Chrome Soft. But feel is just a tie breaker and the last factor I look at in a golf ball. Obviously if the XV and TP5x perform very similar I will choose the one that feels better. So while I found this test interesting, I already know which balls work for my game and the test only confirmed that. Because I am curious, I'll try some MTB-X and B-X balls but I have quite a few balls that I know work well for my game that I need to get through first. 

* I wil add that when I was on staff with Titleist it was like pulling teeth to get ProV1's. They sent me 1 dozen with a full staff bag of clubs. I asked several times for more but never received them. To be fair this is when they first came out and were very hot but a Maxfli rep I talked to after giving a lesson sent me 5 dozen HT-100's even though I was on staff with Titleist. I have avoided Titleist balls ever since but have little doubt they would be equal to the balls I play. The fact that they are more expensive also makes me want to support the little guy which explains Snell and Maxfli, although Taylor Made isn't exactly selling balls at farmers markets. 

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

You guys ever watch MLB Home Run Derby? A righty comes up and all the kids in the outfield move to left field to try to catch a ball. Batter hits a fly ball, a bunch come rushing in and it flies over their heads. That is how I picture the MGS ball testing and they said as much in their video. They expected a ball to land somewhere and it wasn’t even close.

I’d take that method over a dude hitting 10 feet into a screen.


Sent from my iPad using MyGolfSpy

Wedgie

 

Driver - XXIO X Driver 9.5

:cleveland-small: - Launcher Turbo 2 hybrid

:cobra-small: - F9 One Length 3-L

:EVNROLL: - ER 1.2

Top Flite Gamer

Play Right

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GolfSpy MBP said:

MGS was also rotating balls within 2 dozen and if there were big manufacturing inconsistencies such as compression, with 60's and 80's in the same box, this could affect the results too. I believe the overall numbers are a combination of performance and quality control. This all plays back into the idea that the next ball you are pulling out of your bag could be the exact same model, but perform grossly different.

This exactly.  They mentioned that more than once and I have heard from one ball manufacturer that another major manufacturer had more inconsistencies in their balls (based on buying dozens of them in different parts of the county and testing) than they certainly deemed acceptable.  Most had to do with dimple depth and pattern. 

1 hour ago, jlukes said:

But science dictates that everything else equal, that change on ball speed doesn't equate to 18 yards difference. There had to be another variable at play 

Definitley.  See above comment about the dimples.  

If TXG discarded the bad shots. Whose to say it wasn't a bad ball and not a bad strike.  Unless a ball was 100% mishit badly I think it should hand been used.  

Just my .02

:ping-small: G430 Max 10K 

:titelist-small: TSiR1 15.0 Aldlia Ascent 60g

:titelist-small: TSR2 18.0 PX Aldila Ascent 6og

:titelist-small: TSi1 20 Aldila Ascent Shafts R

:titelist-small: T350 5-GW SteelFiber I80 

:titelist-small: SM10 48F/54M and58K

:ping-small: S159 48S/52S/56W/60B

:scotty-cameron-1: Select 5.5 Flowback 35" 

:titelist-small: ProV1  Play number 12

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/3/2019 at 11:46 AM, txgolfjunkie said:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_dJtEC5vWMuZ2QzMy0tdER0Q3BDemdaRzhFRS1rNTQzOC13/edit?usp=docslist_api&filetype=msexcel

 

Here's the link to view the spreadsheet. If you want to edit with your personal preference, then you'll need to download a copy. Let me know if you have any questions.

I tried to use the spreadsheet, but it shows view only, and I cannot input any numbers. So I made a copy and input the percentages. And no matter what percentage I put in for any of the 3, the balls never change position. How do I know which ball it is choosing? 

I think I figured it out. Change the data and then look at the total column for the highest number, or is it the lowest number. 

Edited by Kor.A.Door

Lefties are always in their Right Mind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Golfspy_CG2 said:

If TXG discarded the bad shots. Whose to say it wasn't a bad ball and not a bad strike.  Unless a ball was 100% mishit badly I think it should hand been used.  

Just my .02

 

... I think TXG is reputable enough to be trusted that they threw out bad strikes, not center strikes with inconsistent numbers. I have seem them do this in the past. 

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

Yeah. I wasn't questioning their judgement ....although they did have me in for a fitting ...LOL

Just saying its not impossible they ran across in of those Holy Sh^^ balls that Tony talked about

Having played a round of golf with Matt, im aware of how good he is and his ability to recognize bad strikes. 

:ping-small: G430 Max 10K 

:titelist-small: TSiR1 15.0 Aldlia Ascent 60g

:titelist-small: TSR2 18.0 PX Aldila Ascent 6og

:titelist-small: TSi1 20 Aldila Ascent Shafts R

:titelist-small: T350 5-GW SteelFiber I80 

:titelist-small: SM10 48F/54M and58K

:ping-small: S159 48S/52S/56W/60B

:scotty-cameron-1: Select 5.5 Flowback 35" 

:titelist-small: ProV1  Play number 12

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trusting the data and the test results. Just got my 3 boxes of mtb-x golf balls in the mail and can't wait to try them and see if low is slow

Sent from my SM-N960W using MyGolfSpy mobile app

DRIVER -  Ping G425 SFT Driver Tensei AV 55 Orange Reg Flex 

Woods -  Ping G425 7 wood  Tensei AV 65 Orange Reg Flex 

Irons - Cobra Rad Speed 1 Length UST Recoil 780 Smacwrap Graphite Reg Flex 

WEDGES-  Callaway jaws 52/56/60

PUTTER-  Taylormade FCG spider putter 34" 

BALL-  Pro V1x or Tp5X  -- trying to figure this one out.

Footjoy Tour S golf shoe 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
... I think TXG is reputable enough to be trusted that they threw out bad strikes, not center strikes with inconsistent numbers. I have seem them do this in the past. 

I don’t question the integrity of TXG; just would have liked to know why they threw the ball out if the test. Was it simply a bad strike or was the strike interpreted as a misread by GCQuad.


Just saying its not impossible they ran across in of those Holy Sh^^ balls that Tony talked about
Having played a round of golf with Matt, im aware of how good he is and his ability to recognize bad strikes. 


This is the question about the MGS results is that one ball should not drop an average by that many yards. The TXG test showed that the ball speed was slightly slower and had about 4 yards less carry distance. Let’s look at some numbers. Assume that MGS hit 24 balls and one was bad. Let’s say 285 was the carry for 23 of them. Even if the next ball went 0 yards that is a 273 average. If I hit 19 285 and 5 200 then I drop my average down to 267. Essentially you have to have a good sampling way below your good balls to give you that 18 yard difference.

I don’t know what evaluation was done following the experiment, am not questioning the numbers and I don’t think either source is manipulating results. All we can do with the data that has been presented is formulate some scenarios: different day, different weather, bad quality control, etc. Unless more details are revealed people will continue to make assumptions.

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

23 minutes ago, cnosil said:


I don’t question the integrity of TXG; just would have liked to know why they threw the ball out if the test. Was it simply a bad strike or was the strike interpreted as a misread by GCQuad.



This is the question about the MGS results is that one ball should not drop an average by that many yards. The TXG test showed that the ball speed was slightly slower and had about 4 yards less carry distance. Let’s look at some numbers. Assume that MGS hit 24 balls and one was bad. Let’s say 285 was the carry for 23 of them. Even if the next ball went 0 yards that is a 273 average. If I hit 19 285 and 5 200 then I drop my average down to 267. Essentially you have to have a good sampling way below your good balls to give you that 18 yard difference.

I don’t know what evaluation was done following the experiment, am not questioning the numbers and I don’t think either source is manipulating results. All we can do with the data that has been presented is formulate some scenarios: different day, different weather, bad quality control, etc. Unless more details are revealed people will continue to make assumptions.

I know people are saying this is paralysis by analysis but I find this interesting and sort of fun. Sry long post ahead:

 

I used a FlightScope optimizer to try and at least confirm some of the MGS numbers concerning the CSX and MTBX since those seem to be the two really 'controversial' balls right now.

https://flightscope.com/products/trajectory-optimizer/

With the exact average numbers from the table (high speed driver), at sea level you get 277 carry for CSX and 282 for the MTB-X. So honestly, I'm much more questioning the MTB-X longer distance than I am the CSX shorter distance. It makes me think that either A) the aerodynamics packages of the Snell is much better than the CSX and thus GCQ wouldn't show that large difference or B) wind or other factors were at play (which I think is much more likely).

The reason I think B) is more likely is because the peak heights and descent angles between the two balls are pretty different on the MGS table. You've got the CSX flying on average 17 feet lower, despite almost identical launch and spin conditions. The FlightScope sim showed the CSX peak height to be 115 vs the MTBX to be 120.

So just based on these FlightScope calcs there are 2 things really sticking out: 1) the MTB-X should not be carrying 289 on average unless other factors are at play, and 2) the CSX flew about 10% lower in the MGS data than it should have but the overall carry distance is in line with predicted values.

Lastly, I couldn't replicate the offline numbers MGS was showing inside this simulator. I set the side launch to 2 degrees to the right (due to my assumption of them setting up for slight draws) with a spin axis of 2.4 & 2.7 degrees L (from the MGS table). The balls both finished to the right of the target line by a few yards. According to the MGS data table, both balls finished on average 8 or so yards LEFT of target. Since the confidence interval is 85% and from above it seems they hit at least 20 (different) balls for each make, I really am starting to think wind was a factor here. I'm really hesitant to think that on average, both balls were basically introducing 10+ extra yards of draw off high speed driver purely from QC issues. If that does happen to be the case, wow that is not awesome... both balls had standard devs over 15 yards.

In conclusion, either wind or some environmental factors would seem to be at play and this MGS testing isn't really ideal, and thus no 'major' conclusions should be drawn in regards to the actual distance and dispersion numbers. Compression measurements still valid, so is ball speed I'd say, too. However, if wind wasn't a factor... I think we have a much bigger issue on our hands in regards to quality control of the balls not used on Tour released from some OEMs (not all, but a select few).

If anybody thinks I'm way off base, please let me know. If you made it through that novel of a post, congrats.

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

14 hours ago, chisag said:

... I could be wrong, but I think most better players that have a reasonably repeatable swing and ball flight have done their own testing. I had tried some of the original Bridgestone RX but the rep came on another forum and was really touting the newest version so I gave them another try. I pretty quickly knew it wasn't for me. Got a dozen Duo Urethane balls at the Show and pretty much same results. Of course I wanted to see what all the hype was about with the Chrome Soft and while it's green side performance was better than Duo and Rx, it was still lacking in spin on aggressive chips and pitches. And as stated a little shorter off the tee. 

... On the other end of the spectrum, at 100mph I just don't compress the Srixon XV enough and it felt very hard and clicky to me. There is little doubt that someone swinging 115, 100 and 85 will find any given ball can feel very different. I played with a guy with around a 120 swing speed and he plays the XV because the Z Star feels like mush to him. Yet someone swinging 85 may think the Z Star feels a lot firmer than the Chrome Soft. But feel is just a tie breaker and the last factor I look at in a golf ball. Obviously if the XV and TP5x perform very similar I will choose the one that feels better. So while I found this test interesting, I already know which balls work for my game and the test only confirmed that. Because I am curious, I'll try some MTB-X and B-X balls but I have quite a few balls that I know work well for my game that I need to get through first. 

* I wil add that when I was on staff with Titleist it was like pulling teeth to get ProV1's. They sent me 1 dozen with a full staff bag of clubs. I asked several times for more but never received them. To be fair this is when they first came out and were very hot but a Maxfli rep I talked to after giving a lesson sent me 5 dozen HT-100's even though I was on staff with Titleist. I have avoided Titleist balls ever since but have little doubt they would be equal to the balls I play. The fact that they are more expensive also makes me want to support the little guy which explains Snell and Maxfli, although Taylor Made isn't exactly selling balls at farmers markets. 

I'm curious why you say you can't compress the XV enough. Point #4 in the ball test writeup MGS stated;

4. Don’t Worry About Compressing The Golf Ball

Let’s tackle one of the most common golf ball myths. Forget what you might have heard, you swing fast enough to compress the core of the golf ball.

Our testing showed that golf balls do not perform differently at different swing speeds – at least not to any significant degree. Balls that are fast at 115 MPH are fast at 85 MPH. 

You play the TP5X (104) which is only 7 points lower than the XV (111) and you feel your 100mph SS isn't enough for the XV. I'm not about to question your doubts as I do recall you mentioning you spent a lot of time on the mini tours so no doubt you know how a ball feels and what you want in a feel. Does 7 points make that much difference, I ask because I've never really given it any thought.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to Ireland in a few weeks, and from looking at the data, I'm having a tough time figuring out which ball I should play in the wind. My initial though is to play something with a lot of ball speed and lower backspin (so maybe the TP5x or the MTB-X). Looking for a sanity check.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I messed around with TX golf junkies spreadsheet that he set up, and I cannot figure out how the data is working within that file. I doesn’t matter what information I change in the file, it only tells me the best balls are all the soft ones. The only firm ball it shows to use is the Srixon XV, and CSx. I have changed all of the numbers and not one time did the spreadsheet show to pick Prov1x, TP5x, or any of the very good options from the test. I like the spreadsheet, but I don’t think it works correctly, or I am not using it correctly. Most likely the latter. 

The only true way to find a ball is to use the data that has been given. Go get the balls that you think fit your categories, and use them. Whichever one is best, stick with it. There is no data from any test that will be able to direct you to a golf ball that fits you. It can point you into a direction, but it cannot choose. 

Lefties are always in their Right Mind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Kor.A.Door said:

I tried to use the spreadsheet, but it shows view only, and I cannot input any numbers. So I made a copy and input the percentages. And no matter what percentage I put in for any of the 3, the balls never change position. How do I know which ball it is choosing? 

I think I figured it out. Change the data and then look at the total column for the highest number, or is it the lowest number. 

Yes, once you change your club weight and ball characteristics, it should automatically recalculate the total...lowest being the best golf ball. Keep in mind, if there's a few points (I looked at any ball within 15% of the lowest point total) that separate a three or five golf balls, then you'll really be splitting hairs and it comes down to personal preference. For my personal preferences, the Pro V1x is my top golf ball with a total score of 38.21 and the next ball is The Bridgestone Tour B XS at 44.15. I'll try both along with the 4th place golf ball, the TP5 and make a determination from there. 

And yes, every time I run the data, I tweak my preferences but this time I did it blindly and this is what I got...Pro V1x by a good margin. 

Cobra Connect 5 Competitor - Team Chad

  • :cobra-small: King Radspeed 10.5* w/ Hzrdus RDX Blue 60 6.5 tipped 1/2" - Peacoat/Red
  • :cobra-small: King Radspeed Big Tour 3 Wood w/ Hzrdus RDX Blue 70 6.5 Tipped 1/2"
  • :cobra-small: King Radspeed Tour 5 Wood w/ Motore X F1 70 X Flex 
  • :cobra-small: King Utility 4 21* w/ Tensei Pro White 100 X Flex
  • :cobra-small: King Tour MIM Copper Irons 5-G w/ AMT White X100 Onyx
  • :cobra-small: King MIM Black Wedges 55* & 60* w/ AMT White X100 Onyx
  • :taylormade-small: Spider SR
  • :titelist-small: Pro V1x Left Dash
  • Lefty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was all the ball data based on launch monitor data which is a predicted result based on launch conditions? Or did MGS actually measure shot distance and dispersion? 

(I viewed the "how we tested" video and I don't think it mentioned it).

Thanks. 

Driver:    Titliest TSi3 - Tensei white stiff
Wood:   PING  G425 LST 14.5* - Tensei orange stiff
Hybrid:   PING  G425 19* - Tensei orange stiff
Irons:    PING i525 - Project X I/O 5.5 - 4-W
Wedges:     Taylormade MG3 52* and HiToe 56* Project X I/O 6.0
Putter:  TM Spider X HYDROBLAST (33", 3* upright)

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was all the ball data based on launch monitor data which is a predicted result based on launch conditions? Or did MGS actually measure shot distance and dispersion? 
(I viewed the "how we tested" video and I don't think it mentioned it).
Thanks. 

Since they used trackman I would go with the assumption that they relied on the radar of the unit to measure. Since it was done outdoors, the radar should provide results that match what they were seeing. In a quick discussion with Sam he indicated that the results from the poor performers were verified

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

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...