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

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, WalterS said:

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.

 

... I am talking compression for feel, not performance. The XV feels like I don't compress it, even though I do. Srixon has recommended speeds of 105+ for the XV (111). MGS stated OEMs measure compression differently but even if it were identical to their tests, compression is clearly not the final factor as the Maxfli X (109) and ProV1x (111) do not feel as hard as the XV. As I said, feel is the last factor in my decision and if the XV outperformed all the others I would get used to the rock hard feel. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

... I am talking compression for feel, not performance. The XV feels like I don't compress it, even though I do. Srixon has recommended speeds of 105+ for the XV (111). MGS stated OEMs measure compression differently but even if it were identical to their tests, compression is clearly not the final factor as the Maxfli X (109) and ProV1x (111) do not feel as hard as the XV. As I said, feel is the last factor in my decision and if the XV outperformed all the others I would get used to the rock hard feel. 

Okay, thanks for the explanation on the why of your comment. Were you testing the new 2019 Srixon balls, I heard they made them feel softer than last years, according to Srixon they also lowered the comp. for the XV from 105 to 102, the zstar remained at 90.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Jim418 said:

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. 

I just asked Tony C. that question over in the ball test writeup, we'll see if he answers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have taken all of the data from the MGS Golf Ball test and inserted it into my own Excel file for MY OWN analysis. I have added a link to share this data with you but must note the following information...

  • Don't criticize others opinions on the importance of certain ball factors or analysis.
  • I have removed Callaway, CUT and some other balls that I dislike playing... (my analysis so i didn't want them. I might add back in later for reference.)
  • I have the data filtered for 100mph swing speed and for the Driver
  • The importance factors are below the table and can be changed to suit your importance.
    • the categories get a weighted scored off of the importance
  • The Final ranking is in the far right column
  • I tried comparing a few factors to see any correlation but the correlation is not very good...

Enjoy!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fbK2lcehOTHyAxYc53-NggbyLypQsivV/view?usp=sharing

Edited by JonMUSC08
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In today’s blog introducing a couple new e6 balls a representative from Bridgestone discusses a bit of their take from the test. Worth a quick read IMO and makes me want to take the RX out for a spin.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wedgie said:

In today’s blog introducing a couple new e6 balls a representative from Bridgestone discusses a bit of their take from the test. Worth a quick read IMO and makes me want to take the RX out for a spin.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

Which blog would you be referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The MGS blog where you would find the ball test.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wedgie said:

The MGS blog where you would find the ball test.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

Right, already found it, after I posted I thought you might have been referring to MGS, thanks. Interesting comments by the Bridgestone Rep.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, txgolfjunkie said:

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. 

Lowers being the best ball. That’s where I was wrong. I was looking at the highest and was confused. That’s why I said in my last post that it as probably user error. Thanks for the clarification. 

 

I just input  out what I wanted, and now that I am reading it correctly, it shows BXS by a good margin. Then TP5, Snell Black, S4, Prov1x all about the same as each other. 

Edited by Kor.A.Door

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cnosil said:


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

As the launch monitors predict ball flight rather than measure it, I don't think they take into account the ball aerodynamics. If one ball had a dimple pattern that made it stay in the air longer (all else being equal) I'm not sure the launch monitor would include that difference. 

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...