Jump to content

2020 Driver center-of-gravity report ?


Recommended Posts

On 11/28/2020 at 8:36 PM, blackngold_blood said:

I’m just guessing but I bet you don’t see anything until things become somewhat normal again. The Most Wanted and Ball testing are far more popular IMO.

The COG of drivers could be different from head to head due to tolerances and makes the test fairly useless tbh. 

The tolerances are why the dots are larger, to account for the variability from head to head.

Man of Christ first, husband, dad, golfer (obv), bass player, and STL sports nut.  Romans 12

Driver: Callaway Razr Fit

FW: Callaway Razr X Black 4W

Hybrids: Callaway X2 Hot 3, 4H

Irons: Callaway Razr X 5-AW

Wedges: Callaway Mack Daddy 2 54, 58

Putter: Ping Mid Ketsch Heavy

Ball: Snell MTB Black

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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 an

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

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 cont

Posted Images

1 hour ago, mattschaefer16 said:

The tolerances are why the dots are larger, to account for the variability from head to head.

The dots are bigger due to MGS tolerances in measuring. They are not for Manufacturer tolerances. Also if you take the 2019 test and click on the Cobra F9 for example. It shows 2 dots, one for heavy front and one for heavy back. That is great. However keep in mind there are oem tolerances as well as lofts differences that will make those dots different.  Also remember your 9* head could be anywhere from 7-11* and the lie could also be different. 

To the others disappointed with no test

MGS can't possibly test every club in every loft from every oem and even if they could there are Manufacturer tolerances that come into play. 

If COG matters to you then have your FITTED head measured. With the ability to manipulate the cog with moveable weights and hotmelt, a standardized test doesn't make sense to ME there are just too many variables. 

To each their own though

  • Like 1

 

 

 

What is in my Bag Boy Revolver

Driver:    PXG Gen2 0811x 10.5* set to small + with a VA Composites Nemesys 55s @ 44.75"

Fairway:  :srixon-small: F85 5 wood with a UST Elements Chrome 7F5 @ 41.5"

Irons: Testing the Titleist T200 irons 4-W2 with Project X LZ 5.5 shaft -1/2" and 1* Up

Wedge: Titleist SM7 56* with Project X LZ 5.0 shaft

Putter:  :scotty-cameron-1: Custom Futura X5 flow neck with a UST Frequency Filtered shaft -1" with a SS wristlock grip

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, blackngold_blood said:

The dots are bigger due to MGS tolerances in measuring. They are not for Manufacturer tolerances. Also if you take the 2019 test and click on the Cobra F9 for example. It shows 2 dots, one for heavy front and one for heavy back. That is great. However keep in mind there are oem tolerances as well as lofts differences that will make those dots different.  Also remember your 9* head could be anywhere from 7-11* and the lie could also be different. 

To the others disappointed with no test

MGS can't possibly test every club in every loft from every oem and even if they could there are Manufacturer tolerances that come into play. 

If COG matters to you then have your FITTED head measured. With the ability to manipulate the cog with moveable weights and hotmelt, a standardized test doesn't make sense to ME there are just too many variables. 

To each their own though

Ok I re-read it, it does measurement tolerances.  And while it's true that there will also be manufacturing tolerances, to say the report is "useless" is, I think, extreme.

Sure, like you said loft for example will change things, but having a baseline to start with is extremely useful.

For example I'm shopping for a used driver for my dad (can't afford new), and without a shop having every driver from the last 5 years to go through and test, since I know his swing and his flight tendencies, having the CG and MOI reports from MGS gives me a good idea of what may be more likely to work for him and will is likely not.

It at least gives me a way to kind of narrow the list down to what sooner good candidates might be.

Edited by mattschaefer16

Man of Christ first, husband, dad, golfer (obv), bass player, and STL sports nut.  Romans 12

Driver: Callaway Razr Fit

FW: Callaway Razr X Black 4W

Hybrids: Callaway X2 Hot 3, 4H

Irons: Callaway Razr X 5-AW

Wedges: Callaway Mack Daddy 2 54, 58

Putter: Ping Mid Ketsch Heavy

Ball: Snell MTB Black

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mattschaefer16 said:

Ok I re-read it, it does measurement tolerances.  And while it's true that there will also be manufacturing tolerances, to say the report is "useless" is, I think, extreme.

Sure, like you said loft for example will change things, but having a baseline to start with is extremely useful.

For example I'm shopping for a used driver for my dad (can't afford new), and without a shop having every driver from the last 5 years to go through and test, since I know his swing and his flight tendencies, having the CG and MOI reports from MGS gives me a good idea of what may be more likely to work for him and will is likely not.

It at least gives me a way to kind of narrow the list down to what sooner good candidates might be.

Useless may have been the wrong word but the premise still stands. 

Take your example. Unless you measure the heads you are looking at as well as his old one, tolerances can make your starting point less than ideal. OEMs already give you a guestimate on where the cog is with descriptions of the club.  Low spin=forward, high launch=lower, and higher moi=back. That will get you a similar starting point if your not going to measure or hit every head. 

With OEM tolerances and the ability to manipulate the cog and moi with moveable weights and hotmelt, having the cog and moi of ONE head isn't all that important imo. 

 

 

 

What is in my Bag Boy Revolver

Driver:    PXG Gen2 0811x 10.5* set to small + with a VA Composites Nemesys 55s @ 44.75"

Fairway:  :srixon-small: F85 5 wood with a UST Elements Chrome 7F5 @ 41.5"

Irons: Testing the Titleist T200 irons 4-W2 with Project X LZ 5.5 shaft -1/2" and 1* Up

Wedge: Titleist SM7 56* with Project X LZ 5.0 shaft

Putter:  :scotty-cameron-1: Custom Futura X5 flow neck with a UST Frequency Filtered shaft -1" with a SS wristlock grip

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, blackngold_blood said:

Useless may have been the wrong word but the premise still stands. 

Take your example. Unless you measure the heads you are looking at as well as his old one, tolerances can make your starting point less than ideal. OEMs already give you a guestimate on where the cog is with descriptions of the club.  Low spin=forward, high launch=lower, and higher moi=back. That will get you a similar starting point if your not going to measure or hit every head. 

With OEM tolerances and the ability to manipulate the cog and moi with moveable weights and hotmelt, having the cog and moi of ONE head isn't all that important imo. 

His existing driver is a 1998 Callaway Big Bertha War Bird that her bought used off the rack, not fitted. 

MGS INCLUDES the CGs with the movable weights in various positions (ex. Epic Flash in Draw, Neutral, or Fade).

As far as hot melt of course it doesn't include hot melt, it gives you a baseline to get an idea where you're starting from.

As far as mfg. tolerances yeah it's not perfect.  But neither are the Most Wanted Driver/Iron tests.  They don't tell you whether one of the testers had a pronounced outside in swing or inside out, so you can see how the tester that is closest to you tested, they don't test every single iron on the market, etc.  Does that make the data useless?  No of course not, you take the very good data and do with it what you will.

YOU might not care for the CG report but I think it's fantastic even if not 100% perfect.

 

 

Man of Christ first, husband, dad, golfer (obv), bass player, and STL sports nut.  Romans 12

Driver: Callaway Razr Fit

FW: Callaway Razr X Black 4W

Hybrids: Callaway X2 Hot 3, 4H

Irons: Callaway Razr X 5-AW

Wedges: Callaway Mack Daddy 2 54, 58

Putter: Ping Mid Ketsch Heavy

Ball: Snell MTB Black

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, blackngold_blood said:

Useless may have been the wrong word but the premise still stands. 

Take your example. Unless you measure the heads you are looking at as well as his old one, tolerances can make your starting point less than ideal. OEMs already give you a guestimate on where the cog is with descriptions of the club.  Low spin=forward, high launch=lower, and higher moi=back. That will get you a similar starting point if your not going to measure or hit every head. 

With OEM tolerances and the ability to manipulate the cog and moi with moveable weights and hotmelt, having the cog and moi of ONE head isn't all that important imo. 

The problem with that approach is that qualitative descriptors like “low” and “high” are not consistently defined across OEMs so if anything that is less useful than a quantitative, objective comparison by a 3rd party (even with OEM tolerances). No content from this site (or any for that matter) should be used as the gospel, simply as an aid to potentially narrow down the ever growing number of choices.

With that said, the range of CG in reality is quite small so the differences will have a negligible effect on performance for most golfers (hence the reason I feel MWT is of little benefit as it generally involves too little weight moving too little distance to have a noticeable impact on CG). I personally find the MOI measurements of this report to be more useful even though most heads are at the point of diminishing returns.

:titelist-small:  915D3

:titelist-small:  909F2

:titelist-small:  690.CB

:titelist-small:  Vokey SM5

:ping-small:  iWi D66

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mattschaefer16 said:

His existing driver is a 1998 Callaway Big Bertha War Bird that her bought used off the rack, not fitted. 

MGS INCLUDES the CGs with the movable weights in various positions (ex. Epic Flash in Draw, Neutral, or Fade).

As far as hot melt of course it doesn't include hot melt, it gives you a baseline to get an idea where you're starting from.

As far as mfg. tolerances yeah it's not perfect.  But neither are the Most Wanted Driver/Iron tests.  They don't tell you whether one of the testers had a pronounced outside in swing or inside out, so you can see how the tester that is closest to you tested, they don't test every single iron on the market, etc.  Does that make the data useless?  No of course not, you take the very good data and do with it what you will.

YOU might not care for the CG report but I think it's fantastic even if not 100% perfect.

 

 

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one. 

As I said useless was the wrong word but again this test doesn't give you a starting point. 

Do you know the cog of the 98 warbird?  If not then you are missing your "starting point". On top of that you say you know his swing. Well you know his swing with the warbird. Not any other recent club that in no way what so ever resembles that club. His swing could change completely with a larger newer club. Even if you want to purchase used, go find a place to hit as many as you can. That will do more for him than any test done by someone that isnt him. 

I'm just gonna bow out. Have a wonderful holiday season. 

 

 

 

What is in my Bag Boy Revolver

Driver:    PXG Gen2 0811x 10.5* set to small + with a VA Composites Nemesys 55s @ 44.75"

Fairway:  :srixon-small: F85 5 wood with a UST Elements Chrome 7F5 @ 41.5"

Irons: Testing the Titleist T200 irons 4-W2 with Project X LZ 5.5 shaft -1/2" and 1* Up

Wedge: Titleist SM7 56* with Project X LZ 5.0 shaft

Putter:  :scotty-cameron-1: Custom Futura X5 flow neck with a UST Frequency Filtered shaft -1" with a SS wristlock grip

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, storm319 said:

No content from this site (or any for that matter) should be used as the gospel, simply as an aid to potentially narrow down the ever growing number of choices.

I absolutely agree with you here.  

My main point for this topic is that if you don't know the cog (as well as all other measurements) of what you hit well/currently, the numbers your looking for with this test don't mean a whole lot. 

 

Have a wonderful holiday season. 

 

 

 

What is in my Bag Boy Revolver

Driver:    PXG Gen2 0811x 10.5* set to small + with a VA Composites Nemesys 55s @ 44.75"

Fairway:  :srixon-small: F85 5 wood with a UST Elements Chrome 7F5 @ 41.5"

Irons: Testing the Titleist T200 irons 4-W2 with Project X LZ 5.5 shaft -1/2" and 1* Up

Wedge: Titleist SM7 56* with Project X LZ 5.0 shaft

Putter:  :scotty-cameron-1: Custom Futura X5 flow neck with a UST Frequency Filtered shaft -1" with a SS wristlock grip

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, storm319 said:

No content from this site (or any for that matter) should be used as the gospel, simply as an aid to potentially narrow down the ever growing number of choices.

I guess this is the point we will all agree on LOL.  Really that's all I want to be able to use it for.

Blessings to you both and have a wonderful season! 🙏@storm319@blackngold_blood

  • Like 1

Man of Christ first, husband, dad, golfer (obv), bass player, and STL sports nut.  Romans 12

Driver: Callaway Razr Fit

FW: Callaway Razr X Black 4W

Hybrids: Callaway X2 Hot 3, 4H

Irons: Callaway Razr X 5-AW

Wedges: Callaway Mack Daddy 2 54, 58

Putter: Ping Mid Ketsch Heavy

Ball: Snell MTB Black

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

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 !

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1

:titelist-small: TS3 Tensei Av Raw White 65s

:titelist-small: TS3 15.5 3W Fuji Speeder Tour Spec

:titelist-small: 818 H1 19deg Hybrid Fuji Atmos White or King Cobra UT 18.5 with KBS C Taper

:mizuno-small: JPX 921 Hot Metal 4-GW Nippon Modus 120s

:vokey-small: SM7 54 and 58deg Dynamic Gold Wedge Flex stiff

:odyssey-small:  Double Wide Stroke Lab 2019 with Super Stroke Tour 3.0

:Snell: MTB-X Golf Ball or Vice Pro Plus

:ping-small: Hoofer Stand Bag

:CaddyTek: V8 3 Wheel Push Cart

Leupod Gx2i3 Rangefinder

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 4

:titelist-small: TS3 Tensei Av Raw White 65s

:titelist-small: TS3 15.5 3W Fuji Speeder Tour Spec

:titelist-small: 818 H1 19deg Hybrid Fuji Atmos White or King Cobra UT 18.5 with KBS C Taper

:mizuno-small: JPX 921 Hot Metal 4-GW Nippon Modus 120s

:vokey-small: SM7 54 and 58deg Dynamic Gold Wedge Flex stiff

:odyssey-small:  Double Wide Stroke Lab 2019 with Super Stroke Tour 3.0

:Snell: MTB-X Golf Ball or Vice Pro Plus

:ping-small: Hoofer Stand Bag

:CaddyTek: V8 3 Wheel Push Cart

Leupod Gx2i3 Rangefinder

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. Screenshot_20210117-040044~4.jpeg

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. 

  • Like 2

 ⛳🛄 as of Sept 24, 2020

SuperSpeed 2020 from 100-112 and climbing!

Driver:   :callaway-small: Epic Sub Zero - Set at 10* with Aldila Rogue Max 65 gram 

Wood:    :cobra-small: F7 3 wood 14.5* w/ weight back

               :ping-small: G410 Crossover - 2 and 4 iron

Irons:     :ping-small: i210 5-U w/ Nippon Modus 105 stiff (2018 Tester)

Wedge:  :ping-small: Glide 2.0 54* 58* w/ Nippon Modus 105 Stiff

Putter:   :odyssey-small: Stroke Lab 7 35* and oversized grip (2019 Tester)

Balls:      :srixon-small: Z Star

Other:     :Arccos: 360 (Caddie)

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. Screenshot_20210117-040044~4.jpeg

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!

 

  • Like 5

Check out my reviews

 :ping-small: G710 Irons Lacassem official review

WITB:

 :taylormade-small: FlexTech is filled with all this shiny metal and tracked by :Arccos::

:cobra-small: RadSpeed 8* - MotoreX F1 6X I :taylormade-small: SIM 3W - Project X HZRDUS Green 

 :taylormade-small: 2019 P790 4-PW - Project X 6.5 LZ I :titelist-small: 48 SM8 - Nippon Modus 125 S 

:titelist-small: 52, 56, 60 SM7 - Nippon Modus 125 S :odyssey-small: O-Works 1W I :titelist-small: PROV1X #19 

🇺🇸Thank you to all those that have served/are serving and God Bless America 🇺🇸

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 8

Driver:  :ping-small: G400 Max 9* w/ KBS Tour Driven
Fairway: :titelist-small: TS3 15* set  to 16.5* w/Project X Hzardous Smoke
Hybrids:  :titelist-small: 816H1 19* set at 18* w/KBS Tour Graphite Hybrid Prototype
                :titelist-small: 915H  21*  w/KBS Tour Graphite Hybrid Prototype
               :titelist-small: 915H 24*  w/KBS Tour Graphite Hybrid Prototype
Irons:      :honma:TR20V 6-11 w/Vizard TR20-85 Graphite
Wedge:  :cleveland-small: 588 54-14, 58-12
Putter:  Bellum Winmore 787

Backups:  :bobby-grace-1: 6330, :taylormade-small:TM-180

 

Member:  MGS Hitsquad since 2017697979773_DSCN2368(Custom).JPG.a1a25f5e430d9eebae93c5d652cbd4b9.JPG

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. Screenshot_20210117-040044~4.jpeg

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.

  • Like 2
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...