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

Our Sponsors

17 minutes 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.
 

 

... Freudian slip? It is a really good ball and fits a ton of players but that is the one area where the RX is lacking. 😉

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

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. 

Exactly the reason why I don't really trust some of the data from GC Quad type launch monitors. Trackman seems better suited to this type of testing.

Edited by WalterS

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

I thought that they incorporated both the LM data and the actual results of the ball landing. I think I saw somewhere a pic of them putting flags on balls on the range. Maybe I'm mistaken. We will see if Tony answers that question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 


Trackman uses radar and tracks the entire ball flight; you can confirm this by researching the data that trackman provides. That is a key reason why trackman is ideal for outdoor use. Indoors launch monitors calculate ball flight based on the measurements they calculate in the limited space.
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought that they incorporated both the LM data and the actual results of the ball landing. I think I saw somewhere a pic of them putting flags on balls on the range. Maybe I'm mistaken. We will see if Tony answers that question. 

Could be I didn’t have a detailed conversation. Sam was working and I was testing.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JonMUSC08 said:

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

How did you apply a swing speed of 100mph?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Popeye64 said:

How did you apply a swing speed of 100mph?

Select both the 85 and 115 mph boxes.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony C. briefly addressed the TXG test in the comments in the article if your interested...

Share this post


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

Tony C. briefly addressed the TXG test in the comments in the article if your interested...

 TONY COVEY

 9 HOURS AGO

It’s kind of a shame that the previous commenter has the same name, but I swear I’m not posting twice. I’m not going to throw rocks at TXG because ultimately I respect what they do. Their stuff is generally top-tier. The fact is that their setup couldn’t have been much more different from ours. Any reasonable person would expect a different result. Anybody with knowledge of testing (specifically ball testing) and basic critical thinking skills should be able to understand as much.

We tested with a robot Why? Because it ensures consistent contact from swing to swing. A golf ball is round. Short of laying the blade into the upper half, you don’t hit it the ball off-center. Anything else that happens…high face, low face, heel, toe, the force is applied proportionally and will impact every golf ball mostly the same.

Not to get sidetracked – all of a sudden, the forgiveness benefits of low compression balls are being promoted largely because they lose less speed when you miss the sweet spot. This is true, but it’s mostly a clever use of math meant to confuse golfers. Consider this scenario: Your ball speed is 150 with a high compression ball and 148 with a lower compression ball. An off-center club strike costs you 5% of ball speed. With the high compression ball you’re now at 142.5 having lost 7.5 mph. At 148, that same 5% only costs you 7.4 mph. YOU’VE SAVED BALL SPEED (.1 mph in this scenario – because of the softer ball). Granted, you’re still almost 2 mph slower, but you’ve lost less speed – you’re a tick closer than you were before. Now, it is true that because of the low spin properties of soft balls, the relationship is not exactly 1:1, but according to one golf ball expert I spoke with about “forgiveness”, soft balls do retain ever-so-slightly more speed, but not to any degree that he would feel comfortable telling golfers that a soft ball is more forgiving.

Back on topic…we tested with a robot, outdoors, full flight. Why? Because it’s what every expert we talked to (+/- half a dozen over the last 5 years) told us was the right way to do it. It’s almost certainly the methodology any ball company would have recommended before the test. The full flight aspect is critically important for ball testing as dimple design can have a significant impact on downrange performance (the number we’ve been given is “up to 8 yards” due to dimples alone). Again, this is what everybody in the ball industry knows (just like everyone in the ball industry already knew that softer is slower). It’s exactly why, despite having the means to do an indoor ball test for the last 5 years, we waited until we could use what the industry says are the right tools.

Everything else other Tony said is true. The overwhelming majority of Callaway PGA tour pros have never played the retail ball. Callaway has had AT LEAST 2 players that I know of break contract to play a competitor’s ball. Two members of Callaway’s ball team confirmed that fact for me during the Epic Flash launch event. It’s also true that the new CSX Triple Track is a different golf ball. It’s not the same as the CSX white, CSX Truvis, etc.. While Callaway hasn’t hidden that fact it changed the CSX, it hasn’t exactly shouted it from the rooftops. The CSX TT wasn’t available at the time we tested, but sources have told us that it’s ~7% higher compression. I don’t know it for a fact, but I’m also told it’s the ball that the majority of Callaway’s Tour Players use.

Point being, while the benefits of soft are being promoted on one side, on the other the balls are already starting to get firmer.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious what about the MTB-X package for aerodynamics is much different than everything else? According to my FlightScope data back last page, physics/calculations says the ball shouldn't haven't flown as far as it did on average.

All the balls have to conform to the rules of golf, so what did Mr. Snell figure out that a huge company like Titleist, Bridgestone, etc haven't to make the ball get like an extra 5-7 yards in the air than predicted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, z1ggy16 said:

I'm curious what about the MTB-X package for aerodynamics is much different than everything else? According to my FlightScope data back last page, physics/calculations says the ball shouldn't haven't flown as far as it did on average.

All the balls have to conform to the rules of golf, so what did Mr. Snell figure out that a huge company like Titleist, Bridgestone, etc haven't to make the ball get like an extra 5-7 yards in the air than predicted?

Obviously I cannot answer the aerodynamics question but I can confirm that it is the longest ball off the driver that I have ever hit.  Simply put, I have hit the Snell in places that the ProV1x never got to (and this has been in cold, wet conditions - I'm wondering what will happen in July).  I like it very much around the greens too.  The only negative is that it does "feel" hard - much more so than the V1x.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bellairemi said:

Obviously I cannot answer the aerodynamics question but I can confirm that it is the longest ball off the driver that I have ever hit.  Simply put, I have hit the Snell in places that the ProV1x never got to (and this has been in cold, wet conditions - I'm wondering what will happen in July).  I like it very much around the greens too.  The only negative is that it does "feel" hard - much more so than the V1x.  

I don't mind a firm ball. I feel like it helps with feedback on strike across all clubs.

 

One thing I didn't consider - Did MGS do their testing well above see level? The numbers I got off FlightScope were at an elevation of 0 feet. Maybe if they were around 2000+ft elevation, I can see the MTB-X going further than predicted. It would also probably exacerbate any offline stuff, too.

 

But then that means the CSX was much shorter than it should be... which then flips the question about aerodynamics. The Snell would be "normal" and the CSX's would be poor.

Share this post


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

Obviously I cannot answer the aerodynamics question but I can confirm that it is the longest ball off the driver that I have ever hit.  Simply put, I have hit the Snell in places that the ProV1x never got to (and this has been in cold, wet conditions - I'm wondering what will happen in July).  I like it very much around the greens too.  The only negative is that it does "feel" hard - much more so than the V1x.  

I'm having a very similar experience.  I have been a member at my club for 12 years.  Since getting the MTB-X, I have been hitting clubs into greens that I would never have imagined.  I had a pitching wedge into #2 on Monday.  I've never hit a 9-iron into that green before much less a wedge. It's 430 yards!  Also had a similar experience on numbers 5, 6, 13, 14 and 16 having approach shots with clubs I'm certain I have never hit into those greens before.

I also love this ball around the greens!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, z1ggy16 said:

One thing I didn't consider - Did MGS do their testing well above see level? The numbers I got off FlightScope were at an elevation of 0 feet. Maybe if they were around 2000+ft elevation, I can see the MTB-X going further than predicted. It would also probably exacerbate any offline stuff, too.

If they did the testing at or near their Yorktown, VA facility, it would be lass than a dozen feet above sea level.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, sixcat said:

If they did the testing at or near their Yorktown, VA facility, it would be lass than a dozen feet above sea level.  

I see, thanks. That would lead to me to believe then the MTB-X has some kind of superior aero. package.

Would you be so kind as to maybe post a close up view of the dimples, and it would be really cool to see that right next to a ProV1X and also a CSX if possible.

 

Lastly, have you found the ball to be inaccurate? Having a wedge into a 430 par 4 means your speed must be at least in the 110 range, unless that hole was very down wind/down hill. I'd imagine after enough shots, this whole 21 yard std deviation on dispersion would have reared it's head a little bit by now? I do really wonder how it applies to real humans hitting balls vs a robot. How do we know when the wind took a ball a little offline and not the ball, and vice versa?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, z1ggy16 said:

I see, thanks. That would lead to me to believe then the MTB-X has some kind of superior aero. package.

Would you be so kind as to maybe post a close up view of the dimples, and it would be really cool to see that right next to a ProV1X and also a CSX if possible.

 

Lastly, have you found the ball to be inaccurate? Having a wedge into a 430 par 4 means your speed must be at least in the 110 range, unless that hole was very down wind/down hill. I'd imagine after enough shots, this whole 21 yard std deviation on dispersion would have reared it's head a little bit by now? I do really wonder how it applies to real humans hitting balls vs a robot. How do we know when the wind took a ball a little offline and not the ball, and vice versa?

There wasn't a breath of wind and the second at my club couldn't be more flat.  My swing speed is right on the 110 mph range.  I haven't been playing the Pro V1x, Bridgestone Tour B X and MTB-X side by side.  I don't like doing that for a number of reasons.  I bought a sleeve each of the Tour B X and Pro V1x about two weeks, playing one every other day.  I got a dozen of the MTB-X balls last Thursday and haven't played anything else since.

After nearly a week, I haven't noticed anything out of the ordinary.  I have had a couple of iron shots end up 20 feet left or right of the target which caused me to wonder if it was me or the ball.  I did hit a "foul ball" with the driver on #5 over the weekend but I have hit that shot on #5 more than I have hit the fairway in 12 years.  It's hard for me to blame the ball given the frequency at which I end up in that spot off the 5th tee.  The difference though, the MTB-X cleared the water.  Never had that happen before with another ball.  They all ended up wet.

I will snap you a pic this afternoon and post it in the morning.  My bag is currently in my locker at the club.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If they did the testing at or near their Yorktown, VA facility, it would be lass than a dozen feet above sea level.  

Not done in Yorktown. I know Sam was out of town for the testing.
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

There wasn't a breath of wind and the second at my club couldn't be more flat.  My swing speed is right on the 110 mph range.  I haven't been playing the Pro V1x, Bridgestone Tour B X and MTB-X side by side.  I don't like doing that for a number of reasons.  I bought a sleeve each of the Tour B X and Pro V1x about two weeks, playing one every other day.  I got a dozen of the MTB-X balls last Thursday and haven't played anything else since.

After nearly a week, I haven't noticed anything out of the ordinary.  I have had a couple of iron shots end up 20 feet left or right of the target which caused me to wonder if it was me or the ball.  I did hit a "foul ball" with the driver on #5 over the weekend but I have hit that shot on #5 more than I have hit the fairway in 12 years.  It's hard for me to blame the ball given the frequency at which I end up in that spot off the 5th tee.  The difference though, the MTB-X cleared the water.  Never had that happen before with another ball.  They all ended up wet.

I will snap you a pic this afternoon and post it in the morning.  My bag is currently in my locker at the club.

 

 

Interesting to say the least. Keep us updated on the ventures with the new MTBX and also on the Prov1X and Tour BX when you get around to playing them. Or did you say you played the other balls already, what's your take on them, do they match up to the test results?

Are you aware of the test data on the MTBX while you're playing the ball? Does any of it fit, of course maybe it's too early to judge it just yet. The extra length seems to be holding true at least.

Can't wait to hear what Dean Snell has to say, apparently(after talking with Snell) he's waiting for the real raw data from MGS so he can get an idea of what was happening to his balls.

Edited by WalterS

Share this post


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

Interesting to say the least. Keep us updated on the ventures with the new MTBX and also on the Prov1X and Tour BX when you get around to playing them. Or did you say you played the other balls already, what's your take on them, do they match up to the test results?

Are you aware of the test data on the MTBX while you're playing the ball? Does any of it fit, of course maybe it's too early to judge it just yet. The extra length seems to be holding true at least.

Can't wait to hear what Dean Snell has to say, apparently(after talking with Snell) he's waiting for the real raw data from MGS so he can get an idea of what was happening to his balls.

I'm interested in what he says. I doubt he'd reveal it but I wonder how they do QC. Do they inspect each ball and reference a certain set of specs and pass/fail every single one, or might they inspect by "lot" sampling. That is, they produce say 10,000 balls in a "lot" (batch) and randomly select X% (say 2% for example) and check each one. If all of them pass with respect to some sort of reference ball or set of specs, ALL 10,000 in that lot pass.

Depending on their manufacturing scales, I'd assume the latter is done to save on time/cost. However, that could potentially lead to somebody like MGS getting a entire box of duds that purely by chance, had an extremely high rate of non-conformance present that we aren't seeing so far from our users here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...