2020 Driver center-of-gravity report ?

[RollingGreens]

19 hours ago, Carl Bunch said:

And here is a perfect example of the why the MGS center-of-gravity reports are important:

The new PXG 0211 driver claims to have a COG of 5200 with cog 1mm below the neutral axis. (Jan 7 MGS new release)

But if you view the 5 years (2015-2019) of MGS COG data, you can plainly see that 5200MOI and 1mm below the neutral axis is in impossible territory. It would require weight below the surface of the ground !

PXG is flat out lying about their latest driver and Tony Covey is letting them do it on MGS.

Tony Covey might as well start accepting advertising $$ from manufacturers, because if he's just going to repeat their marketing lies to us, then he's basically advertising for them for free !

I think you are taking it a little too far. I don’t thing PXG would make baseless claims. It’s open up too much legality with false advertising. Just ask vibram the five finger toe shoe company how much money they’ve had to pay back. Tony is an honest guy, he does his research. MGS has gone out on a limb to debunk any theory or viewpoint and has even rubbed major OEMs the wrong way I.E callaway chrome softs. Bob parsons is a smart guy he has no reason to lie. I highly doubt he needs to sell sub $500 dollar drivers to keep the lights on but he’s doing it and making a larger dent in the market putting OEMs on notice. 

[Carl Bunch]

4 hours ago, RollingGreens said:

I think you are taking it a little too far. I don’t thing PXG would make baseless claims. It’s open up too much legality with false advertising. Just ask vibram the five finger toe shoe company how much money they’ve had to pay back. Tony is an honest guy, he does his research. MGS has gone out on a limb to debunk any theory or viewpoint and has even rubbed major OEMs the wrong way I.E callaway chrome softs. Bob parsons is a smart guy he has no reason to lie. I highly doubt he needs to sell sub $500 dollar drivers to keep the lights on but he’s doing it and making a larger dent in the market putting OEMs on notice. 

Then why this ? :
On the MGS new release article Tony Covey says   "By contrast, PXG says its 0211 driver should spec out around 5,200 MOI with a center of gravity about one millimeter below the neutral axis. If I’m starting to lose you, understand that, on paper, that projects to something akin to a higher-launching, lower-spinning PING G410 LST"

But that's not true.
The MGS COG data shows the Ping G410 LST is 5200 MOI but almost 4mm ABOVE the neutral axis.
Either Tony Covey doesn't read his own data or he's lying for the benefit of PXG.
 

[FrogginBullfish]

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here. Tony is reporting the data that is given to him by the manufacturer. He does not have the head to perform a measurement on yet. And if you've read the CG reports you'd know the CG locations as reported by the manufacturers come from CAD models and may differ from the actual product based on manufacturing tolerances.

Second, if the G410 LST is 5200 MOI with a CG 4mm above the neutral axis, the PXG 0211 having 5200 MOI having a CG 1mm below the neutral axis, means it will launch higher and spin lower than the G410 LST on equivalent strikes through gear effect. Whether the actual head that MGS tests the CG location for has the CG in that exact location remains to be seen and there's certainly nothing that you can take from past CG reports to suggest that Tony is shilling for PXG.

Then why this ? :
On the MGS new release article Tony Covey says   "By contrast, PXG says its 0211 driver should spec out around 5,200 MOI with a center of gravity about one millimeter below the neutral axis. If I’m starting to lose you, understand that, on paper, that projects to something akin to a higher-launching, lower-spinning PING G410 LST"

But that's not true.
The MGS COG data shows the Ping G410 LST is 5200 MOI but almost 4mm ABOVE the neutral axis.
Either Tony Covey doesn't read his own data or he's lying for the benefit of PXG.
 

Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[Carl Bunch]

2 hours ago, FrogginBullfish said:

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here. Tony is reporting the data that is given to him by the manufacturer. He does not have the head to perform a measurement on yet. And if you've read the CG reports you'd know the CG locations as reported by the manufacturers come from CAD models and may differ from the actual product based on manufacturing tolerances.

Second, if the G410 LST is 5200 MOI with a CG 4mm above the neutral axis, the PXG 0211 having 5200 MOI having a CG 1mm below the neutral axis, means it will launch higher and spin lower than the G410 LST on equivalent strikes through gear effect. Whether the actual head that MGS tests the CG location for has the CG in that exact location remains to be seen and there's certainly nothing that you can take from past CG reports to suggest that Tony is shilling for PXG.

 

Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app
 

 

I'm asking why Tony Covey is currently LYING for PXGs benefit.

1) PXG makes claim that driver is 5200MOI and COG 1mm below neutral axis. Now that claim, if true, would be groundbreaking. There is no other driver in the past 5 years that has even come CLOSE to that territory on the MOI/COG Neutral Axis chart.

2) Having done all of the COG data and analysis for MGS over the past 5 years, Tony would (should) have noticed this immediately.

3) Toney Covey then LIES to support PXGs claim. Tony says that the PXG driver would have the same MOI/COG as the Ping G410 LST, which is absolutely NOT TRUE. MGS data shows that the Ping G410 LST has a COG almost 4mm ABOVE the neutral axis. 

Either Tony misread his own data and misstated the comparison to the Ping G410 LST (and is also missing the near-impossibility of the PXG MOI/COG claim), or Tony is intentionally lying for the benefit of PXG.

[FrogginBullfish]

I'm asking why Tony Covey is currently LYING for PXGs benefit.

1) PXG makes claim that driver is 5200MOI and COG 1mm below neutral axis. Now that claim, if true, would be groundbreaking. There is no other driver in the past 5 years that has even come CLOSE to that territory on the MOI/COG Neutral Axis chart.
2) Having done all of the COG data and analysis for MGS over the past 5 years, Tony would (should) have noticed this immediately.
3) Toney Covey then LIES to support PXGs claim. Tony says that the PXG driver would have the same MOI/COG as the Ping G410 LST, which is absolutely NOT TRUE. MGS data shows that the Ping G410 LST has a COG almost 4mm ABOVE the neutral axis. 

Either Tony misread his own data and misstated the comparison to the Ping G410 LST (and is also missing the near-impossibility of the PXG MOI/COG claim), or Tony is intentionally lying for the benefit of PXG.

Okay let's break this down.

You are accusing Tony of lying for PXG's benefit. This is not only a flat out lie, but also just so incredibly off-base, it's not even funny. Tony mentions CG locations and MOI numbers given to him by manufacturers in pretty much all of his driver release articles. Why is it only an issue with PXG?

But let's get back to the PXG driver in particular. Tony does not have the club in hand to verify PXG's claims on MOI or CG location. He's doing his job by reporting what PXG says the CG location and MOI is which they determined through the finalized CAD model. You don't believe it, which is fine, but that does not mean Tony is lying for PXG's benefit. He is doing his job and reporting the numbers that PXG is giving him. And again, in any CG report MGS has done in the past, they make it clear to note that the specified CG locations and MOI numbers from manufacturers come from CAD models while the real driver will differ due to manufacturing tolerances and measurement tolerances.

Now you also say Tony says the PXG 0211 will have the same CG/MOI numbers as the Ping G410 LST. This is untrue. Tony says in his article that, on paper, the 0211 is something akin to a higher launching, lower spinning G410 LST. I've included a screenshot of the relevant part of Tony's article with the important words underlined to reinforce the point. Nowhere in that piece does Tony say those two drivers have the same CG or MOI. What he does say is based on the information given to him by PXG, and he clearly notes that it is an on paper comparison, not a real world comparison where manufacturing tolerances come into play, the PXG will be higher launching and lower spinning than the Ping. That is a factually accurate statement based on the information Tony has.

Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to gain here but there is absolutely no evidence to back up your ridiculous claim that Tony is lying in his article for PXG's benefit.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[RollingGreens]

5 hours ago, Carl Bunch said:

Then why this ? :
On the MGS new release article Tony Covey says   "By contrast, PXG says its 0211 driver should spec out around 5,200 MOI with a center of gravity about one millimeter below the neutral axis. If I’m starting to lose you, understand that, on paper, that projects to something akin to a higher-launching, lower-spinning PING G410 LST"

But that's not true.
The MGS COG data shows the Ping G410 LST is 5200 MOI but almost 4mm ABOVE the neutral axis.
Either Tony Covey doesn't read his own data or he's lying for the benefit of PXG.
 

The article is written as a informative piece discussing the new lineup. It takes a lot of information and combines it in an article to discuss the upside. Attaching technical terms for what golfers may be looking for in layman’s terms. No research has been done. Tony never put his name claiming that it is correct and he has spec checked it, only that PXG is stating some numbers. 

[GolfSpy_APH]

2 hours ago, FrogginBullfish said:

Okay let's break this down.

You are accusing Tony of lying for PXG's benefit. This is not only a flat out lie, but also just so incredibly off-base, it's not even funny. Tony mentions CG locations and MOI numbers given to him by manufacturers in pretty much all of his driver release articles. Why is it only an issue with PXG?

But let's get back to the PXG driver in particular. Tony does not have the club in hand to verify PXG's claims on MOI or CG location. He's doing his job by reporting what PXG says the CG location and MOI is which they determined through the finalized CAD model. You don't believe it, which is fine, but that does not mean Tony is lying for PXG's benefit. He is doing his job and reporting the numbers that PXG is giving him. And again, in any CG report MGS has done in the past, they make it clear to note that the specified CG locations and MOI numbers from manufacturers come from CAD models while the real driver will differ due to manufacturing tolerances and measurement tolerances.

Now you also say Tony says the PXG 0211 will have the same CG/MOI numbers as the Ping G410 LST. This is untrue. Tony says in his article that, on paper, the 0211 is something akin to a higher launching, lower spinning G410 LST. I've included a screenshot of the relevant part of Tony's article with the important words underlined to reinforce the point. Nowhere in that piece does Tony say those two drivers have the same CG or MOI. What he does say is based on the information given to him by PXG, and he clearly notes that it is an on paper comparison, not a real world comparison where manufacturing tolerances come into play, the PXG will be higher launching and lower spinning than the Ping. That is a factually accurate statement based on the information Tony has.

Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to gain here but there is absolutely no evidence to back up your ridiculous claim that Tony is lying in his article for PXG's benefit.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app
 

Thank you for posting that. Hopefully will help clear some things up. In the mean time we can wait and see what comes out in the report when it does get posted. 

[GolfSpy_SHARK]

3 hours ago, FrogginBullfish said:

Okay let's break this down.

You are accusing Tony of lying for PXG's benefit. This is not only a flat out lie, but also just so incredibly off-base, it's not even funny. Tony mentions CG locations and MOI numbers given to him by manufacturers in pretty much all of his driver release articles. Why is it only an issue with PXG?

But let's get back to the PXG driver in particular. Tony does not have the club in hand to verify PXG's claims on MOI or CG location. He's doing his job by reporting what PXG says the CG location and MOI is which they determined through the finalized CAD model. You don't believe it, which is fine, but that does not mean Tony is lying for PXG's benefit. He is doing his job and reporting the numbers that PXG is giving him. And again, in any CG report MGS has done in the past, they make it clear to note that the specified CG locations and MOI numbers from manufacturers come from CAD models while the real driver will differ due to manufacturing tolerances and measurement tolerances.

Now you also say Tony says the PXG 0211 will have the same CG/MOI numbers as the Ping G410 LST. This is untrue. Tony says in his article that, on paper, the 0211 is something akin to a higher launching, lower spinning G410 LST. I've included a screenshot of the relevant part of Tony's article with the important words underlined to reinforce the point. Nowhere in that piece does Tony say those two drivers have the same CG or MOI. What he does say is based on the information given to him by PXG, and he clearly notes that it is an on paper comparison, not a real world comparison where manufacturing tolerances come into play, the PXG will be higher launching and lower spinning than the Ping. That is a factually accurate statement based on the information Tony has.

Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to gain here but there is absolutely no evidence to back up your ridiculous claim that Tony is lying in his article for PXG's benefit.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app
 

As someone not interested in COG and honestly pretty blind to most of the information you guys are discussing, this reply (of all the reply’s on this thread) is perfect and well written. 
I think claiming that someone is taking money for their own personal gain is a pretty hefty statement and with no proof whatsoever is pretty disgusting IMO

Hit em long and straight boys!

 

[cnosil]

11 hours ago, Carl Bunch said:

I'm asking why Tony Covey is currently LYING for PXGs benefit.

1) PXG makes claim that driver is 5200MOI and COG 1mm below neutral axis. Now that claim, if true, would be groundbreaking. There is no other driver in the past 5 years that has even come CLOSE to that territory on the MOI/COG Neutral Axis chart.

2) Having done all of the COG data and analysis for MGS over the past 5 years, Tony would (should) have noticed this immediately.

3) Toney Covey then LIES to support PXGs claim. Tony says that the PXG driver would have the same MOI/COG as the Ping G410 LST, which is absolutely NOT TRUE. MGS data shows that the Ping G410 LST has a COG almost 4mm ABOVE the neutral axis. 

Either Tony misread his own data and misstated the comparison to the Ping G410 LST (and is also missing the near-impossibility of the PXG MOI/COG claim), or Tony is intentionally lying for the benefit of PXG.

I think you need to look at the location that the article was placed on the MGS page.   As new clubs come out the articles about them are in the "New Release" section of the stie.  These articles contain mostly marketing type information provided from the manufacturer and there are generally no tests to verify claims.  Later as testing is done,  they articles are published under "reviews", "most wanted", and "labs".  

Obviously you aren't happy with the product that MGS is providing.  My suggestion would be to contact Adam and tell him that this testing is very important to you and that you are willing to fund the MOI/CoG testing so that you can get the results you are seeking. 

[Carl Bunch]

15 hours ago, FrogginBullfish said:

Okay let's break this down.

You are accusing Tony of lying for PXG's benefit. This is not only a flat out lie, but also just so incredibly off-base, it's not even funny. Tony mentions CG locations and MOI numbers given to him by manufacturers in pretty much all of his driver release articles. Why is it only an issue with PXG?

But let's get back to the PXG driver in particular. Tony does not have the club in hand to verify PXG's claims on MOI or CG location. He's doing his job by reporting what PXG says the CG location and MOI is which they determined through the finalized CAD model. You don't believe it, which is fine, but that does not mean Tony is lying for PXG's benefit. He is doing his job and reporting the numbers that PXG is giving him. And again, in any CG report MGS has done in the past, they make it clear to note that the specified CG locations and MOI numbers from manufacturers come from CAD models while the real driver will differ due to manufacturing tolerances and measurement tolerances.

Now you also say Tony says the PXG 0211 will have the same CG/MOI numbers as the Ping G410 LST. This is untrue. Tony says in his article that, on paper, the 0211 is something akin to a higher launching, lower spinning G410 LST. I've included a screenshot of the relevant part of Tony's article with the important words underlined to reinforce the point. Nowhere in that piece does Tony say those two drivers have the same CG or MOI. What he does say is based on the information given to him by PXG, and he clearly notes that it is an on paper comparison, not a real world comparison where manufacturing tolerances come into play, the PXG will be higher launching and lower spinning than the Ping. That is a factually accurate statement based on the information Tony has.

Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to gain here but there is absolutely no evidence to back up your ridiculous claim that Tony is lying in his article for PXG's benefit.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app
 

Ok, this explains it for me, thank you.
I misread this paragraph as Tony claiming that the new PXG was 'akin" to the Ping 410LST at 5200MOI 1mm below neutral axis. At a glance this looked to me that Tony was saying the PING G410 LST was 1mm below neutral axis (it's almost 4 mm above). 
Since the PXG MOI/COG claim is a near-impossibility, I made that incorrect claim that Tony was therefore lying for PXG. 
I was wrong, Tony was NOT lying for PXG.
My apologies to Tony Covey, I was wrong on this particular point.

[Carl Bunch]

7 hours ago, cnosil said:

I think you need to look at the location that the article was placed on the MGS page.   As new clubs come out the articles about them are in the "New Release" section of the stie.  These articles contain mostly marketing type information provided from the manufacturer and there are generally no tests to verify claims.  Later as testing is done,  they articles are published under "reviews", "most wanted", and "labs".  

Obviously you aren't happy with the product that MGS is providing.  My suggestion would be to contact Adam and tell him that this testing is very important to you and that you are willing to fund the MOI/CoG testing so that you can get the results you are seeking. 

Yeah, see, I'm not the one who decided MGS should have the tag of "Truth Digest". 
They decided to base their brand on that tag, I didn't force them to do it.
They decided to host a forum where readers could voice their opinions, I didn't force them to do it.

And they've done a very very good job as far as drivers are concerned, because the MGS COG reports are the only place where the name brand drivers are actually measured to see if their marketing claims are true. Every years report emphasizes how important COG is to the way a driver performs. And the 5 years of data (2015-2019) paint a very illustrating engineering picture as to what is possible and what is not possible in driver creation.

So if MGS can't do a 2020 COG report because of the pandemic, that's totally understandable. It would be nice to get some statement that it will return in 2021, or maybe they're just dropping it altogether, but whatever.

And if the New Release section is just a regurgitation of the manufacturer's marketing claims, ok fine.

I'm just pointing out that PXG is claiming their new BUDGET driver will have a MOI/COG location that is in impossible territory. 
Every manufacturer has tried for years to get a low/back COG on the neutral axis, and nobody has even come CLOSE to what PXG is claiming to have achieved in their BUDGET driver.
Tony called it "intriguing", maybe that's his polite way of calling BS.

I guess we'll have to wait for the COG report to learn the truth from the "Truth Digest".

[cnosil]

47 minutes ago, Carl Bunch said:

Yeah, see, I'm not the one who decided MGS should have the tag of "Truth Digest". 
They decided to base their brand on that tag, I didn't force them to do it.
They decided to host a forum where readers could voice their opinions, I didn't force them to do it.

I guess we'll have to wait for the COG report to learn the truth from the "Truth Digest".

Yes,  they decide on what they want to do and they decided not to do the CoG report last year and they may decide not to do it again.  When they execute tests,  they state the claim and then test the claim.   

You can also voice your opinion; which you have.  We get your point and you have repeated it several times in muptiple areas on the MGS site.  If you want something to change,  the forum probably isn't the place to get that done.   My point was that if you really want the CoG information you can choose to do it yourself or you can contact Adam and tell him that this report is really important to you and that you want to fund the work.  

[Carl Bunch]

OR,

MGS could charge for access to the data.
I would gladly pay extra for a MGS "premium membership" for access to the data.

But telling me I should fund the whole report is complete stupid bs.

[cnosil]

2 minutes ago, Carl Bunch said:

OR,

MGS could charge for access to the data.
I would gladly pay extra for a MGS "premium membership" for access to the data.

But telling me I should fund the whole report is complete stupid bs.

Yep they could go that route as well.  

It really isn't complete stupid BS.  For example in the software industry,  companies often pay a software development company to add features to their software or move planned features to the left on their roadmap.

Basically, other things that are higher on their priority list.