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

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.   

 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
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.


  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
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 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
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? 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There simply has to be other variables that weren't accounted for. How else can the Chromesoft have almost 2mph less ball speed than the Chromesoft X, 100rpms more spin, yet still have more average carry distance

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
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 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

... 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
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • 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...