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

1 minute ago, revkev said:

@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 was talking to our Titleist rep and the assistant at my home club last week.  The Titleist rep said they weren't thrilled having to dip into the "soft ball market" but the marketing campaign from other companies had taken such a toe-hold within the public conscience, they felt like they had to.  Titleist still believes the Pro V1 and Pro V1x are better for virtually every avid golfer than a low compression option. 

For validation, the Titleist rep played college golf for an ACC school and is a past champion of the North-South Amateur!

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes 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

Agree. I've learned A LOT from being a member there about club building, made a few connections which really helped my game, and a host of other benefits. I just find myself getting into these random altercations lately with certain members there and I just find it's easier to not acknowledge or be a part of it, than to try and defend my position, even if I do it calmly and logically. I'll probably lurk around this website for a while, fairly new here still.

 

Anyway, pressing the play button on that post article podcast now..

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Berg Ryman said:

Also, the company who should be the most upset in this whole thing is a company no one has heard a peep from, and that's Cut! Their balls basically got a tier to themselves to designate how bad they are, yet no one is saying anything. Maybe they're going back to the lab to try and figure it all out, which would be commendable.

It's like the first direct to consumer ball test MGS did, sure everyone remembers the ball that finished top in the Snell My Tour Ball, but do y'all remember who finished dead last? It's a company that now sits with Very Good Tour Level ball in the new test, Oncore. They figured it out and got better, hopefully that's what Cut is doing as well instead of complaining and crying fix like a certain brand.

I think most companies use the data/info/responses and gauge their next step and don’t need to respond to positives or negatives from these types of tests, especially the negatives. Look at Srixon and some others who use the most wanted to promote their product.

callaway is marketing force and anything negative about their brand they address and if you notice they focus heavily on the GD hot list in their promotions but ignore things like the most wanted. Their focus is on building a brand following which is pretty much every company and the easiest way to do it is using the general golfing public that doesn’t read forums or blogs but gets their info from golf coverage and commercials.

cut is probably looking over the data and figuring out their course of a action.

47 minutes ago, sixcat said:

I have to admit, I have played the MTB-X since Thursday and am having a hard time finding any reason to not play it exclusively.  The only negative I can remotely come up with is, it's a little clicky with the putter but nothing I can't get around.  I tested a Scotty Cameron Newport 2 yesterday at my club and the clickiness was reduced substantially from my SeeMore Brass Blade.

From what I hear and read it’s a great ball and it performed well in some areas of the ball test. The wrx crew and twitter were a mixed bag from

the comments I saw on it but for the most part nobody knocked it.

44 minutes ago, z1ggy16 said:

Gotta say though, the thread on WRX about this testing is filled with a lot of "haters" and "non believers" who it's apparent did not read the whole article, up to and including the comments. Now obviously with this being MGS forum there will be a lot more support but there is a ton of "I just don't believe it" going on over there. People saying how oh it's just robots, everybody hits differently, etc. While yes I agree with that... Just because somebody hits down or up vs the robot doesn't suddenly mean a ball acts/spins totally different. This was a RELATIVE comparison and it doesn't matter if the robot swung up, down, neutral.. left, right, diagonal or anywhere in between. I've stopped posting on WRX for the most part now and honestly I don't even go on there that much anymore. I've laid down well over 7,000 posts there over the last few years but I'm just kind of sick of the internet forums in general and that place is getting more and more toxic. Starting to catch up to Twitter and Facebook. There are a select few really great guys there but many handfuls more of ones who aren't.

 

I've always been a little critical on WRX with regards to how MGS does some of their testing when it comes to "most wanted" etc, but I think this is one of the tests they absolutely nailed. I still need to watch the 75minute podcast on youtube but I've read the article literally 15 times and all the comments at the bottom. I find that that MGS so far has addressed most of the legit questions pretty well and I'm struggling to find any major faults. I do find one thing sort of odd but I'm keeping that to myself.

There’s a group of haters there and other places towards mgs, mgs testing and such. They are going to find fault with anything. There’s also a group some in the haters group that think they are smarter than they are and their qualms about the testing were quickly shot down by others.  

Like with any subject, testing, data one needs to evaluate multiple sources and form an opinion

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, kinkade said:

Anyone got any thoughts on the vice pro, the numbers look really good and from my amateurish reading it seems to be a consistent ball but it only rated good?

 

Anyone fill me in as to why?

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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!

I would have liked to see a little more data on quality - actual compression numbers or a ratio of those within a certain range compared to those out of range. Possibly something similar on durability would have been nice as well. Regardless, I've always speculated that this was the major difference between Titliest, Bridgestone, and other manufacturers. When you control so much of your process and set high standards for yourself, you're going to create a good product. Honestly, I see much less of a problem with Titleist charging what they do for the ProV1 & ProV1x now that it's clear just how superior those balls are from a quality standpoint. When you take the steps necessary to ensure quality, you also incur additional costs and lower your profit margin.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dean Snell is doing a live Facebook chat tomorrow at 1PM to discuss the MGS Ball testing report concerning Snell balls.  Most notably, the consistency issue found within the MGS testing.  Should be an interesting watch/listen.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

I think most companies use the data/info/responses and gauge their next step and don’t need to respond to positives or negatives from these types of tests, especially the negatives. Look at Srixon and some others who use the most wanted to promote their product.

callaway is marketing force and anything negative about their brand they address and if you notice they focus heavily on the GD hot list in their promotions but ignore things like the most wanted. Their focus is on building a brand following which is pretty much every company and the easiest way to do it is using the general golfing public that doesn’t read forums or blogs but gets their info from golf coverage and commercials.

cut is probably looking over the data and figuring out their course of a action.

From what I hear and read it’s a great ball and it performed well in some areas of the ball test. The wrx crew and twitter were a mixed bag from

the comments I saw on it but for the most part nobody knocked it.

There’s a group of haters there and other places towards mgs, mgs testing and such. They are going to find fault with anything. There’s also a group some in the haters group that think they are smarter than they are and their qualms about the testing were quickly shot down by others.  

Like with any subject, testing, data one needs to evaluate multiple sources and form an opinion

I think if I have any questions about MGS tests, I'll come here, and probably only here. I have/did have a bunch of questions about the recent putter test, as I was pretty critical. However, I thought I presented some solid points and I was just looking for some rationale and answers as to why certain things were done. Could have been as simple as "not enough time/too expensive to try XYZ out" but instead I got met with personal attacks. Not only that but then a certain person from that same thread came into a totally unrelated thread I had made regarding Irons, and attacked me there personally for no reason.

 

And this is an adult male, presumably with a career, family, etc. Imagine if his coworkers or family knew how he acted anonymously online. Jeez.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, bellairemi said:

Mostly played ProV1x but also a few from Bridgestone and the TP5x.  Did not see any strange ball flights and today saw that they held their line in the wind better than the ProV1x.  Driver swingspeed is 100-102.

Good to hear they held the line better. Interesting to see you've played what you have, do you prefer the MTBX over the others. I've played the TP5/ProV's/ Srixon but not the MTBX. I was a little put off by some of the test results and not just the driver data. Just going by the data I'd pick the ProV1X or Srixon Zstar/XV -Tour BX. But does it really matter which of these top performers an amateur plays, I doubt it but who knows. I question some of the robot's numbers, not because I know any better, just because some of them don't make sense when looking at the trends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twitter is full of hate, and keyboard idiots... good grief. I see why Rob is taking a break. Just a downright nasty place.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why wouldn’t you? We have been saying that in these forums for over 10 years. Now that a company says it, they are wrong. The only part of the study where the Chrome soft didn’t fare as well as others is driver distance. You have to try different balls to determine what works best for you. We’ve been saying that around here for a long time. This ball test can point you into a direction for a type of ball, but you still have to try them out. I don’t care what any marketing department says or doesn’t say in regards to this test, it will not sway me in determining my choice of golf ball. I am going to find the best one for me, based on my own metrics, and distance off the tee is not the top priority, otherwise I would use a rock flight. 



My point is the way they said it. They put out a release that obviously disagrees with the results. They certainly like that MGS loves their driver the most, no? Don’t come off like sour grapes and then say we have our own testing (which we won’t show you) and go buy some and you’ll see. I would either not release anything and let customers decide for themselves because they value feel or whatever. Or i provide my own research to combat the results or what backs their info.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 🙂

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by z1ggy16
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 8

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...