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

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."

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
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!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2019 at 6:44 PM, jjfcpa said:

As did I.  At $ 25 a dozen, I couldn't go wrong.  Special promotion.

Any codes for Free Shipping out there?  I'm seeing $9.95 for shipping 3 dozen.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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 !!!!!
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
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!

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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]

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 2

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...