Jump to content
Eric Cartmenez

Am I the only one that notices this about MGS?

Recommended Posts

I have long suspected that MGS has "favorites" in the golf manufacturing community. Please, guys, if this doesn't tell you they do - I don't know what else will - straight from the mouth:

 

"MyGolfSpy reaches over 7+ Million golfers every year. We also accept $0 advertising dollars from any of the major golf manufacturers. This allows us to maintain our high level of integrity and ensures our content is never in conflict with our business interests. Delivering the unbiased truth to you is our only business.

MyGolfSpy does, however, allow small and medium-sized golf companies that maintain a proven track record of performance to advertise. We believe this benefits both the consumer and the industry. It helps level the playing field by giving small budget companies with above average performing products a place to compete. It also helps expose the golfing consumer to a wider array of brands and products."


I think they might want the "little guys" to succeed - they're telling you their biased opinion - "we believe this benefits both the consumer and the industry".  I'm not saying it DOESN'T - just stating there IS at least some bias with MGS. I pay attention to how they always leave off or don't have "glowing" reviews for Scotty Cameron Putters (regadless of where they finish, top five or not) or other major manufacturers at times (they're the first to point out Evnroll putters whether they finish in the top 5 or not - they'll create a category in which they can finish "near the top in" if they don't already in initial testing). They swear by face tech, yet a Tommy Armour putter won their mallet test two years in a row - with NO face tech and basic alignment tech - standard for all putters - no mention of the lack of face tech putters are just as good if not better at times than "high tech" putters. All I'm saying is, "give me a break." If you are going to be totally unbiased, then great. If not, it's OK to say you would prefer to see light shed on other smaller groups or medium sized golf manufacturers (because they're just as good sometimes, if not better - I believe that!) - just don't say otherwise. You can deny it and fight it all you want but I'm not going to take every test MGS does for the "gospel". 

 

All that being said, I enjoy MGS, I just don't appreciate people claiming one thing and then it actually not being true. I'll still support and watch, but go test all equipment for yourself. I appreciate the testing they do, I'll just come to my conclusions and I won't be swayed whether it's a large or small manufacturer - I could not care less about "leveling the playing field for small and medium-sized golf companies."

 

Wake up guys - this isn't the bible - it's MGS.  Am I the only one that notices this? 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, Berg Ryman said:

Welcome to the forum sir, enjoy your stay, however brief or long it may be.

Well that's a nice response...

Otherwise, I'm gonna hold my tongue here. 

Edited by GB13
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Welcome to the forum sir, enjoy your stay, however brief or long it may be.


RB you’re all right brother 🤣
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Understand 

1 hour ago, TR1PTIK said:

I'm not sure why you thought the MGS forum would be a great place to air your grievances with MGS, but I'll bite.

First off, the only time I've heard MGS talk about being unbiased is in regard to their testing - which is proven year after year. Who they choose to support via ad space is their own choice and their reasoning is well stated. 

They probably haven't written glowing reviews of Scotty Cameron because they proved - in a test - that a counterfeit product could outperform them. If that's what the data says, who am I to disagree (and I play a SC putter). Also, if you care to actually look up the product page for the TA Impact #3 you'll find the following points are highlighted

  • "6061 Aluminum Face Insert delivers optimal speed and sound for more reliable feedback"
  • "Elastomer insert behind the face provides enhanced feel and response on every putt"
  • "Precision milling across the entire face allows for consistent contact and roll"

While not significant, I would personally consider any effort made to boost performance (objective or subjective) on the face as "face tech". Perhaps, MGS has referred to this putter or others like it as lacking technology but I couldn't tell you for sure without obsessively combing through articles and tests to verify. If that is the case, that would be an error on their part, but not necessarily a huge one since TA isn't trying to sell face tech like some other brands.

On your last - completely unrelated and needless - point. I'll simply refer you to the forum's Moral Codes page. https://forum.mygolfspy.com/guidelines/

At the end of the day, we're all adults (well most of us - and I mean that literally, not as an insult) and can form our own opinions. I don't think we'd be here supporting the MGS team and helping the MGS community as a whole grow if we did not agree (at least in general terms) with what MGS does or how they go about doing it. It's really that simple.

I hear you on all of this - just pointing out the discrepancies and potential "bias" I do see. A definitely lean towards the smaller guys - not saying they don't publish when a major manufacturer succeeds. I've just noticed, and it would be silly to think there isn't somewhat of a bias after they clearly state they would prefer to "level the playing field"...seems like...they're trying to level the playing field lol. 

Only point with the TA winning was to point out that if your putter doesn't have face tech then you aren't necessarily playing an inferior putter - as MSG would prefer us to believe. I just call it like I see it and thought others might have seen the same - I guess I'm alone in the opinion and I got about the response I figured I would get. My bad on the political reference - it was a joke. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, GolfSpy STUDque said:

I feel compelled to weigh in from the MGS perspective so I'll do my best to address your concerns. You don't have to take my word for it but please consider these with an open mind. 

Here we go:

  1. Allowing Ads from small/medium companies: Yes, ad dollars are accepted from these companies, but that's only after MGS vets their product and deems it to be of high quality. There's a lot of products that get denied sponsorship because they just don't pass the smell test. You'd see these companies highly ranked in tests regardless if they were sponsors. 
  2. Bias for the little guys through  test results:   Advertising on the site is completely removed from the tests. Most Wanted could be written by a robot with zero emotional connection because there's a straight line from the data to the results.  Tests may change from year to test but that objective is to increase the quality of the test. All things must improve over time and Most Wanted is no different. 
  3. Glaring (or not) reviews: The MGS Blog has long been out of the game of writing reviews. They may do feature pieces on new technology but the reviews can be found here, on the forum, conducted by real people. We can only put clubs in the hands of real people if a company offers up product. We ask every OEM, every year, and run the tests that we  receive commitments from.  No Scotty reviews means no Scotties have been submitted (as much as our  members would love it). 
  4. Forum Review Integrity: Any agreement we make comes with the caveat that good reviews are not guaranteed. We've lost sponsors before at the hands of poor performing member reviews.  So be it.  If there's one thing we promise, it's an unbiased opinion and that will not be compromised. 
  5. Political Affiliation: Please don't

 

Your final statement is an aggressive agreement with our philosophy. The data indicates tendencies of key attributes over large sample sizes but does not dictate what's best for you. Every player is different. The large data size or individual reviews should be considered a starting point, not a finish line.  

 

Eric, I would like to sincerely thank you for voicing your concerns on our site. Open discussion is key to education.  I hope my response sufficiently addressed your apprehensions about MyGolfSpy. If you have any other questions or concerns, fire away and we'll be happy to respond. 

Got you. Again, I'll leave 5 alone -  it was just a joke but understand the nature of our world now. Just thought I'd ask, but I'll go away silently!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, GolfSpy STUDque said:

Well you don't have to go away either. We're an all-inclusive and respectful community. You'll never catch us trying to push someone out. Ever. 

There's a lot of fantastic conversations going on at all times. Take a look around and jump in!

**Applause**

 

Image result for you da real mvp

  • Like 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Eric Cartmenez said:

Only point with the TA winning was to point out that if your putter doesn't have face tech then you aren't necessarily playing an inferior putter - as MSG would prefer us to believe. I just call it like I see it and thought others might have seen the same - I guess I'm alone in the opinion and I got about the response I figured I would get. 

I  think the general answer is that face tech does provide benefit but putters without can also work.  The MGS staff always suggests that players test and get fit for equipment since the MGS most wanted may not be the best for you.   I personally see the advantage of face tech in a putter especially for a player that struggles with contact.  Out of curiosity,  can you explain the tests you have done and their results?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Berg Ryman said:

Welcome to the forum sir, enjoy your stay, however brief or long it may be.

I think I'll just let that speak for me also.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, cnosil said:

I  think the general answer is that face tech does provide benefit but putters without can also work.  The MGS staff always suggests that players test and get fit for equipment since the MGS most wanted may not be the best for you.   I personally see the advantage of face tech in a putter especially for a player that struggles with contact.  Out of curiosity,  can you explain the tests you have done and their results?

 

My point was you can still successfully and sometimes (two years in a row) beat the latest and greatest "face tech". I'm not saying face tech hurts, but I am not saying it will make you make more putts - I am not even disputing the "roll" on the ball - not here to dispute that..simply here to state that you don't need face tech to be a top performing putter...that's all I was looking for anyone to say? There have been other studies outside of MGS - go look at what Bob Bettinardi says about face tech - they've done some research as well. Also, I happen to love Evnroll putters, I simply just don't make more putts with them than I do a SeeMore or a Cleveland.

 

As for my research, as I am sure you will be asking about. I have a state of the art beachfront facility in Arizona that I perform my tests at and their results will be published in the near future. 

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

Welcome to the forum Eric. Actually, that they could be and have chosen not to be is what amazes me the most.  I presume you have read through at least some of the myriad of member reviews, covering a really wide cross section of products, from small, medium and large mfg's., before reaching your opinion? Their "Official Member Products Review" format provides, IMO, some of the most candid and least biased information available. In my 58 years, I've never seen the perfect, completely unbiased anything that involves us bipeds - especially golfing bipeds (only fishermen are worse 😆). But, based on my fairly limited tenure with the forum, I would say they are as close to an unbiased resource for candid reviews of golf industry equipment as we could hope for.  

I would agree. I would 100% agree with it being as close to being unbiased as we have out there. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, the people involved in the testing performed better with non face tech. All that MGS is saying is that most players would benefit from using face tech.

Looking forward to seeing your published data.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

@Eric Cartmenez I would have you consider a small company like Sub 70, they haven't won any of the Most Wanted tests. Also, if MGS didn't allow these small companies to advertise, then we may never hear of them. And small business is what used to run this country and made it so great.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

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...