Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Wooderson

Two Critical MGS Recommendations

Recommended Posts

Just a couple things that I have been thinking about.  In the spec section of your "Best" equipment testing it is imperative that MGS start measuring and publishing face angle data for woods and hybrids.  Of all the fitting/selection criteria for golfers this spec is at the top.  

Secondly, it is time for a ball test that includes more 2/3 piece surlyn options.  I can't state enough that the average high handicap golfer would benefit more from the data on those balls.  I understand this would probably upset the manufacturers and retailers the most because expensive urethane is where they make their money, but for the consumer it needs to happen.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this feedback.  If there is a more appropriate place to post please let me know. 

  • Like 1
  • Off Topic 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most driver, woods and hybrids are adjustable and the face angle is going to change. It’s also one of the reasons mgs pushes for getting fit. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes getting fit is nice for those close enough to a quality fitter.  That's maybe less than 10% of fitters.  Is it useful to post length and swingweight specs if people are going to play different shafts and configurations.  

Their mission statement says they want to inform golfers and ensure they get the most out of their money, time, and performance.  Face angle would be a nice spec addition to ensure their mission statement is met.  Not critiquing just trying to throw out a tip that would propel them farther past others in club testing and benefit golfers.

I think that doing a 2/3 piece ball test would help most golfers also.

Edited by Wooderson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Wooderson said:

Just a couple things that I have been thinking about.  In the spec section of your "Best" equipment testing it is imperative that MGS start measuring and publishing face angle data for woods and hybrids.  Of all the fitting/selection criteria for golfers this spec is at the top.  

Secondly, it is time for a ball test that includes more 2/3 piece surlyn options.  I can't state enough that the average high handicap golfer would benefit more from the data on those balls.  I understand this would probably upset the manufacturers and retailers the most because expensive urethane is where they make their money, but for the consumer it needs to happen.

Regarding the ball perspective,  not sure that the 2/3 piece surlyn options will provide much value.  Off the driver and longer clubs the balls generally equal to the urethane balls.   The difference comes around the green where urethane excels due to increased spin; which all golfers benefit from.   Low spin around the green isn't something any golfer should want.    It isn't about money or cost or trying not to upset manufacturers;  MGS has been known to do that in the past and I am sure they will ultimately do that in the future.   

Which face angle data do you want?  Face angle at impact or static face angle?   Not sure I understand why this is at the top for fitting/selection for a golfer;  would be interested in hearing why you thing this.   I''ll assume you mean static face angle.   First almost all clubs are adjustable which allows the golfer to change the face angle.  As part of most wanted testing the clubs are adjusted to each tester to best fit their swing.  So even if the clubs default face angle is open,  it may be adjusted to closed for some of the golfers.   Also, If your concern from a selection process is that you don't want an open face because you already slice the ball features such as weight (not swingweight), look, and setup (club on the ground vs. off the ground) will impact how a player delivers the clubs at impact.   For example a lighter weight club may close faster turning that open club face into a closed face club at impact.  

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Static face angle.  The top 3 driver fitting specs are length, loft, and face angle according to Tom Wishon.  And yes you are correct that face angle can be adjusted, but not without affecting loft.  MGS already provides us the loft spec.  By publishing face angle a knowledgeable golfer can then decide what loft driver head to start with.  If I want a ten degree head with a square face angle and MGS publishes that a Ping LST 9 degree head has 8.5 degree loft and a square face angle then I would know this club is not for me as raising the loft with the adapter would get me to 10 degree, but end up with a closed face angle. 

Now I agree that if a person gets fit by a competent club fitter then it's not necessary, but for the vast majority of us who truly understand golf clubs and can fit ourselves having the face angle verified and published by MGS would be very nice.

Share this post


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

Static face angle.  The top 3 driver fitting specs are length, loft, and face angle according to Tom Wishon.  And yes you are correct that face angle can be adjusted, but not without affecting loft.  MGS already provides us the loft spec.  By publishing face angle a knowledgeable golfer can then decide what loft driver head to start with.  If I want a ten degree head with a square face angle and MGS publishes that a Ping LST 9 degree head has 8.5 degree loft and a square face angle then I would know this club is not for me as raising the loft with the adapter would get me to 10 degree, but end up with a closed face angle. 

Now I agree that if a person gets fit by a competent club fitter then it's not necessary, but for the vast majority of us who truly understand golf clubs and can fit ourselves having the face angle verified and published by MGS would be very nice.

The ones that that face angle would matter to is quite small. I can tell you on every fitting I’ve been to with competent fitters including the ones from ping HQ static face angle has never once been discussed. The vast majority of golfers don’t get fit and every brand knows this and it’s why they design clubs and pick shafts that will fit the majority of golfers. 
 

the loft that mgs provides is the stated loft of the club and as cnosil mentioned the clubs are adjusted for each tester so that loft will probably change. Fittings for some are also about gapping so if one chooses a 19* head in a hybrid and turns it up or down to get the distance they want the face angle and lie have changed.

imo it’s a measurement that makes no sense to include in the study...just like mgs isn’t publishing the shafts used. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Static face angle.  The top 3 driver fitting specs are length, loft, and face angle according to Tom Wishon.  And yes you are correct that face angle can be adjusted, but not without affecting loft.  MGS already provides us the loft spec.  By publishing face angle a knowledgeable golfer can then decide what loft driver head to start with.  If I want a ten degree head with a square face angle and MGS publishes that a Ping LST 9 degree head has 8.5 degree loft and a square face angle then I would know this club is not for me as raising the loft with the adapter would get me to 10 degree, but end up with a closed face angle. 

Now I agree that if a person gets fit by a competent club fitter then it's not necessary, but for the vast majority of us who truly understand golf clubs and can fit ourselves having the face angle verified and published by MGS would be very nice.

I see a problem with the need to publish the face angle.

Can agree that the knowledgeable golfer will already know that going up in loft will close the face and going down will open the face?  

So now the problem I see.  Every head will have a different loft, face, and lie spec due to the manufacturing tolerances.  Therefore it is more important to know the exact specs of the head you will be playing and not the specs of the head someone else is playing. One ping 8.5* head may be 7* loft and 2* open so going to 9* will help square the face. The next 8.5* head may already be 9* loft and have a square face. Knowing the specs of what someone else is testing is of very little value to another individual. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Static face angle.  The top 3 driver fitting specs are length, loft, and face angle according to Tom Wishon.  And yes you are correct that face angle can be adjusted, but not without affecting loft.  MGS already provides us the loft spec.  By publishing face angle a knowledgeable golfer can then decide what loft driver head to start with.  If I want a ten degree head with a square face angle and MGS publishes that a Ping LST 9 degree head has 8.5 degree loft and a square face angle then I would know this club is not for me as raising the loft with the adapter would get me to 10 degree, but end up with a closed face angle. 

Now I agree that if a person gets fit by a competent club fitter then it's not necessary, but for the vast majority of us who truly understand golf clubs and can fit ourselves having the face angle verified and published by MGS would be very nice.

No one is arguing that it wouldn't be nice, but it will only tell you the numbers for that particular club and does not take manufacturing tolerances into consideration.  You may know you need 9* loft and square,  but the one you get may be 9.5* and open.   Per Wishon "Very few drivers sold in retail stores offer options in the face angle to reduce the golfer’s tendency to slice or hook the ball."   Also,  knowing that you need a 9* in one head doesn't mean you need 9* in every head.  Shaft, total weight, swing weight, weight position, and other variables will impact factors such as rotation, angle of attack, and how you deliver the club at impact.   If you know the specific specifications you need,   you should special order that configuration and have the head hand picked.    Tolerances are why you often hear the advice to buy the club you tested and not purchase a different club.  I am pretty sure that MGS is also just picking one of several heads to measure the numbers.  For testing there are quite a few heads and shafts;  they don't just have a single head for testing,. 

Ultimately,  the most wanted testing recognizes that most people buy clubs off the rack and is designed to provide input into the clubs that work best for a majority of golfers.  As a knowledgeable golfer you know there are lots of variables that go into a fitting;  use the most wanted testing as a starting point and not as your final decision.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All valid points.  I know of very few methods to get handpicked heads to known specs outside of buying TaylorMade tour clubs or Wishon.  I agree there are manufacturing tolerances, but those have tightened up over the years.  MGS does post the stated and actual loft at the bottom of the most wanted driver articles.  The past few years the vast majority of stated and actual lofts have been within 1 degree of each other.  If the loft specs are met that closely I am certain face angle is too.  The thing is I can find only one instance of a company referencing face angle and that is Ping this year with the LST.  Even then they don't state what the face angle is.  They say,

"Its “Tour Square” face sits slightly open and the score-line pattern frames the impact area to aid in alignment.

I also agree that if a golfer gets a good fitting that they don't need to know what the published or actual face angle is, but by the same line of thinking do they need to know lie angle.  Most manufacturers post a lie angle number for their drivers when it has minimal effect on shot direction.  Face angle influences shot direction and shape far more than lie angle.

In the end it's up to MGS.  I really hope they decide to provide as much information to the consumer as they can to help make informed decisions.

Edited by Wooderson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All valid points.  I know of very few methods to get handpicked heads to known specs outside of buying TaylorMade tour clubs or Wishon.  I agree there are manufacturing tolerances, but those have tightened up over the years.  MGS does post the stated and actual loft at the bottom of the most wanted driver articles.  The past few years the vast majority of stated and actual lofts have been within 1 degree of each other.  If the loft specs are met that closely I am certain face angle is too.  The thing is I can find only one instance of a company referencing face angle and that is Ping this year with the LST.  Even then they don't state what the face angle is.  They say,
"Its “Tour Square” face sits slightly open and the score-line pattern frames the impact area to aid in alignment.
I also agree that if a golfer gets a good fitting that they don't need to know what the published or actual face angle is, but by the same line of thinking do they need to know lie angle.  Most manufacturers post a lie angle number for their drivers when it has minimal effect on shot direction.  Face angle influences shot direction and shape far more than lie angle.
In the end it's up to MGS.  I really hope they decide to provide as much information to the consumer as they can to help make informed decisions.

While I do agree with you that face angle is important, at least in my testing over the years. While a closed face may help some of the chronic slicers to close the face, not all of them will benefit from it. I am a prime example. For years I fought a push fade/slice, and was always seeking closed face drivers hoping to help calm it. I just happened to try a friends club that had an open face and the results confused me to be honest. I was hitting that thing with a beautiful 5-10 yard fade. I pondered what was so different for weeks before finally taking a stab at it being the open face. I apparently had a mental issue that was causing me to swing the closed face driver open at impact. By using the open face driver I was more conscious in closing the face during the swing. What looks open to me may actually be square or even possibly look close to someone else.

All that said, I still fail to see any validity in knowing ANY specs of a club that someone else is swinging. The MGS Mosted Wanted Testing is a starting point and nothing more. Nobody should look at the results and say I should be play X because it is the Most Wanted. This should be a given to the knowledgeable golfer and the “other” golfers probably wouldn’t care.

Dynamic Loft vs Launch and strike location vs spin (back/side) and ball speed are more important when looking at somebody else’s numbers.
As far as I’m concerned static numbers of individual heads are more beneficial in a fitting to help find optimal numbers.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy
  • Like 4

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...