2021 MGS Ball Test

[Thin2win]

6 minutes ago, HeathS16 said:

I have spent the entire day going through this and comparing my current gamer (The Maxfli Tour CG) with just about every other premium golf ball. There just isn't much difference that I can see to convince me to change golf balls. After this test I would only consider it if there was a quality control issue with the Maxfli. 

Could I get a few more yards? Yes, but I can save $20 per dozen and get just about the same performance its a no brainer. Nice to know that my inner cheapskate isn't costing me strokes. This is so useful, to be able to feel confident about the ball I am putting in play. Bravo MGS! 

Also, note that the maxfli has better carry, so depending on your course, it might be the further ball. But yes, basically the same

[HeathS16]

21 minutes ago, Thin2win said:

Also, note that the maxfli has better carry, so depending on your course, it might be the further ball. But yes, basically the same

It's a sleeper ball for sure. I just hope Dick's/GG don't increase the price 2 days after the test results like they did last time! MGS might be costing me money with these ball tests 

[ejgaudette]

6 hours ago, PMookie said:

I can’t imagine how hard the CSX LS is because the first CSX was the hardest ball I’ve played since I was a kid in the 70s/80s!!! Horrible!!!

Yeah I would say stay away for sure.

[Tsecor]

ok, so looking through all the data, what ball is considered the best for a mid speed swing, high ball hitter looking for more distance off the tee and irons and more spin into the greens with a wedge?

Chromesoft X???

Left Dash? 

Out of the top 10 balls I want to consider, I noticed the driver at slow speeds, the TP5X carries 194, last of the 10.....and the left dash is 201.  bump that up to the mid speed and the TP5X jumps to #1 with 251 yards in carry while the left dash falls way down the list. 

with the wedge  game the left dash does not spin as much as the overall data suggests it should at slow and mid speeds....i thought the softer cover promotes spin?  its at the bottom of the list for spin whereas the CS X brings almost 500rpms more to the table... with the 8 iron the gap close to 200 rpms.  At high speeds the gap goes back to 700 RPM's.   Kinda quirky given the fact these balls are "similar"....there is a ton of data to sift through but its interesting breaking it down

Edited August 17, 2021 by Tsecor

[RickyBobby_PR]

24 minutes ago, Tsecor said:

ok, so looking through all the data, what ball is considered the best for a mid speed swing, high ball hitter looking for more distance off the tee and irons and more spin into the greens with a wedge?

Chromesoft X???

Left Dash? 

 

Based on how I read the data the csx would be the choice based on your want for green side spin. 

[TR1PTIK]

I'm hoping Tony will reply to my comment on the main blog. I'd love for him to detail some of the differences between the '21 test and '19 test. Just looking at the raw data, all ball models saw an increase in spin and decrease in ball speed.

Some of it could be explained away by newly redesigned (or refreshed) balls, but looking at the Snell MTB line which hasn't undergone any changes (that have been announced) I see a decrease of 2.09 MPH (MTB Black) & 3.07 MPH (MTB-X) and an increase of 684 RPM (MTB Black) & 703 RPM (MTB-X).

Robot averages for all models at 115 MPH state a launch of 13.7 while the 2019 test looks to be <12.5 (I'd guess about 12.3). Just curious to know what could have influenced this. The 2019 report doesn't describe anything about test setup that I saw (i.e. what brand/model clubs were used, loft, etc.).

EDIT: Since I like to play around with numbers, I threw all corresponding data from both tests into Excel, and by all appearances it would seem test setup for 2021 was designed to maximize carry distance. Average Carry in 2019 was 279.22 @ 115 MPH & 2021 is 298.85 @ 115 MPH. This would definitely suggest some differences in how the test was designed this year. However, it's important to note that regardless of these differences, you can still see performance distinctions between ball models and most golfers would probably want to maximize carry yardage so this change makes sense.

EDIT 2: Migrated the Excel data over to Google Sheets so I could share with anyone who wants to look. I color coded the data to make it easier to distinguish between tests: purple = 2019; blue = 2021.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/140qKBwQVN5beOitybapQYea6aRuERtGX7GYTrvBKoJY/edit?usp=sharing

Also, I threw in compression information for each model as well. Even though compression was measured with a different device in 2021, it's still a good point of reference to determine high, mid, & low compression performance.

[Tsecor]

8 minutes ago, Tsecor said:

ok, so looking through all the data, what ball is considered the best for a mid speed swing, high ball hitter looking for more distance off the tee and irons and more spin into the greens with a wedge?

Chromesoft X???

Left Dash? 

 

 

8 hours ago, Thin2win said:

Also, note that the maxfli has better carry, so depending on your course, it might be the further ball. But yes, basically the same

the spin on this ball around the greens is what is stopping me from trying this. Does the test results compare to real life action? just curious if you notice better results 50 yards and in than what the test shows

[Tsecor]

1 hour ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Based on how I read the data the csx would be the choice based on your want for green side spin. 

i hope the frmness does not stop me from liking it...lol.

[fixyurdivot]

10 hours ago, TBT said:

Well…..I’ve been worried that I suddenly lost 10 yards in distance and it turns out it’s the Kirkland balls my wife gave me for Father’s Day

Luckily I only have a dozen left.

I’ve had good luck with Snell MTB Black before…guess I need to go back to them

 

 

Am I the only one who thinks course lakes and ranges are going to have a bump in Kirkland ball inventory?

[TR1PTIK]

7 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

Am I the only one who thinks course lakes and ranges are going to have a bump in Kirkland ball inventory?

Depends on what people think about it after reading the Ball Lab report (if they do at all). People may just stop buying it if they want consistent performance.

[GregGarner]

34 minutes ago, Tsecor said:

i hope the frmness does not stop me from liking it...lol.

CSX LS is going to be firmer than CSX and Left Dash is going to be slightly firmer than CSX LS. Based on the table at the top of the post, the CSX is going to feel pretty similar to the ProV1x, maybe just a touch softer. Pair that with better greenside spin than Left Dash and I think you might have a gamer.

Of note, when you get to the low-spin, super-firm balls like CSX LS and Left Dash, you're not only dealing with an overall firm ball, but a firm cover as well, which explains why a) lots of folks don't like it off the putter (very clicky) and b) why you give up greenside spin. Softer covers over firmer inner layers, like on CSX and ProV1x give you firm feel on full swings but more spin greenside and softer sounds off the putter (which is where "feel" in putting actually comes from)

[fixyurdivot]

1 hour ago, TR1PTIK said:

I'm hoping Tony will reply to my comment on the main blog. I'd love for him to detail some of the differences between the '21 test and '19 test. Just looking at the raw data, all ball models saw an increase in spin and decrease in ball speed.

Some of it could be explained away by newly redesigned (or refreshed) balls, but looking at the Snell MTB line which hasn't undergone any changes (that have been announced) I see a decrease of 2.09 MPH (MTB Black) & 3.07 MPH (MTB-X) and an increase of 684 RPM (MTB Black) & 703 RPM (MTB-X).

Robot averages for all models at 115 MPH state a launch of 13.7 while the 2019 test looks to be <12.5 (I'd guess about 12.3). Just curious to know what could have influenced this. The 2019 report doesn't describe anything about test setup that I saw (i.e. what brand/model clubs were used, loft, etc.).

EDIT: Since I like to play around with numbers, I threw all corresponding data from both tests into Excel, and by all appearances it would seem test setup for 2021 was designed to maximize carry distance. Average Carry in 2019 was 279.22 @ 115 MPH & 2021 is 298.85 @ 115 MPH. This would definitely suggest some differences in how the test was designed this year. However, it's important to note that regardless of these differences, you can still see performance distinctions between ball models and most golfers would probably want to maximize carry yardage so this change makes sense.

EDIT 2: Migrated the Excel data over to Google Sheets so I could share with anyone who wants to look. I color coded the data to make it easier to distinguish between tests: purple = 2019; blue = 2021.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/140qKBwQVN5beOitybapQYea6aRuERtGX7GYTrvBKoJY/edit?usp=sharing

Great deep dive, questions, and insights!

[TR1PTIK]

1 minute ago, fixyurdivot said:

Great deep dive, questions, and insights!

Thanks! I also couldn't help but notice AoA is not shown in either test. Not that it's important to the conversation of ball performance, but I do think it would be a helpful point of comparison for golfers who look at this data and wonder how it relates to their swing.

[TR1PTIK]

11 hours ago, toehold57 said:

It would be really, really nice to be able to download csv files.  Tableau is nice but a real spreadsheet on a big monitor is better 

 

I put all relevant data from both tests in Google Sheets for us data nerds to look at! 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/140qKBwQVN5beOitybapQYea6aRuERtGX7GYTrvBKoJY/edit?usp=sharing

EDIT: I should note that data is currently limited to 115 MPH swing speed. 

[TR1PTIK]

9 hours ago, HeathS16 said:

I have spent the entire day going through this and comparing my current gamer (The Maxfli Tour CG) with just about every other premium golf ball. There just isn't much difference that I can see to convince me to change golf balls. After this test I would only consider it if there was a quality control issue with the Maxfli. 

Could I get a few more yards? Yes, but I can save $20 per dozen and get just about the same performance its a no brainer. Nice to know that my inner cheapskate isn't costing me strokes. This is so useful, to be able to feel confident about the ball I am putting in play. Bravo MGS! 

I'm going to have to go back through the ball labs. I may be making a switch to the Maxfli just so my gamer ball is something a little more readily available.

 

[BMart519]

21 minutes ago, TR1PTIK said:

I'm going to have to go back through the ball labs. I may be making a switch to the Maxfli just so my gamer ball is something a little more readily available.

 

Great analysis and since you took the time and have the interest, I figure you would be the best person to pose the question to:

If there was no commentary in the 2021 ball test about outliers that went significantly offline, high/low, etc., do you feel the quality data from the individual ball labs influence ball performance during flight? If memory serves, the MTB-X was one of the most offline with driver in the 2019 test, which I find more concerning than a measured difference of 3 compression points between the pole and seam and some of the other criteria used to identify a ball as bad.  

[ejgaudette]

2 hours ago, TR1PTIK said:

I'm hoping Tony will reply to my comment on the main blog. I'd love for him to detail some of the differences between the '21 test and '19 test. Just looking at the raw data, all ball models saw an increase in spin and decrease in ball speed.

Some of it could be explained away by newly redesigned (or refreshed) balls, but looking at the Snell MTB line which hasn't undergone any changes (that have been announced) I see a decrease of 2.09 MPH (MTB Black) & 3.07 MPH (MTB-X) and an increase of 684 RPM (MTB Black) & 703 RPM (MTB-X).

Robot averages for all models at 115 MPH state a launch of 13.7 while the 2019 test looks to be <12.5 (I'd guess about 12.3). Just curious to know what could have influenced this. The 2019 report doesn't describe anything about test setup that I saw (i.e. what brand/model clubs were used, loft, etc.).

EDIT: Since I like to play around with numbers, I threw all corresponding data from both tests into Excel, and by all appearances it would seem test setup for 2021 was designed to maximize carry distance. Average Carry in 2019 was 279.22 @ 115 MPH & 2021 is 298.85 @ 115 MPH. This would definitely suggest some differences in how the test was designed this year. However, it's important to note that regardless of these differences, you can still see performance distinctions between ball models and most golfers would probably want to maximize carry yardage so this change makes sense.

EDIT 2: Migrated the Excel data over to Google Sheets so I could share with anyone who wants to look. I color coded the data to make it easier to distinguish between tests: purple = 2019; blue = 2021.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/140qKBwQVN5beOitybapQYea6aRuERtGX7GYTrvBKoJY/edit?usp=sharing

Also, I threw in compression information for each model as well. Even though compression was measured with a different device in 2021, it's still a good point of reference to determine high, mid, & low compression performance.

This is a great data pull, and as a data nerd as well I love it. I would just add that as relates to comparing previous years the club used and the weather conditions for each test were different so. A little warmer, a different driver that launches a bit higher, or spins will have an effect. So to control for that only 1 year at a time would work. Of course to get in the data weeds you could normalize 2021 and 2019 separately to really compare how they performed in each year, but I'll leave it there before I bore 99% of the forum members.

[vandyland]

18 hours ago, vandyland said:

@greggarner That is certainly worth noting! I must have missed that. I play basically at sea level in Tennessee. 

Also I looked up the Specs on a PXG 0311 Gen 4 8 iron and it is 37" long with 31* of loft...which is a 7 iron in most sets or even almost a 6 iron in traditional lofts like Ben Hogan.

So if I compare that to the hottest 7 iron I hit (New Level MODB-1 30* 7 iron) the MODB-1 topped out at 132.1 Ballspeed which was 182.3 yards carry and rolled out to 186.7 yards total. So getting closer but that 10mph difference in ball speed is a real headscratcher. 

I was wrong, they either updated the article or I missed it but the article now notes that is a PXG 0311P Gen 4 iron which is a 34* 8 iron. Which is still pretty strong but not quite the PXG XP that I listed in the above quote. 

[TR1PTIK]

5 minutes ago, BMart519 said:

Great analysis and since you took the time and have the interest, I figure you would be the best person to pose the question to:

If there was no commentary in the 2021 ball test about outliers that went significantly offline, high/low, etc., do you feel the quality data from the individual ball labs influence ball performance during flight? If memory serves, the MTB-X was one of the most offline with driver in the 2019 test, which I find more concerning than a measured difference of 3 compression points between the pole and seam and some of the other criteria used to identify a ball as bad.  

MTB-X had one of the largest Shot Areas of the 2018 test, but was only 8.57 yards left of target on average which placed it somewhere mildly worse than average. Shot Area is simply the ellipses you would draw around all shots represented as a number and accounts for left, right, long, and short - put simply, total dispersion.

 

However, it's possible to achieve a seemingly large shot area with individual shot performance that falls within a perfectly acceptable range. This is probably why not much was said about it during the 2019 test and why it was left out entirely in the 2021 test. Without being able to see individual shot performance and deep dive into the variances it's difficult to say how meaningful the shot area number from the 2019 test really is.

As for Ball Lab, I am more than willing to trust quality metrics derived from a scientific approach using calibrated gauges in determining a suitable ball for my performance needs and budget. However, that would simply be a start as I would still want to (and did in the case of MTB-X) test the ball on the golf course. 

[jroot327]

15 hours ago, PMookie said:

Right off the bat, after looking at numbers across the board for the 115 swing speed, Z Star has my attention. I know one thing, the 10 yard advantage that Left Dash showed in the test off the 8 iron vs Pro V1X, I saw it last round! I hit a Left Dash and it carried a green that the V1X, AVX, and MTB Black hit the front-middle! There would be a definite yardage adjustment needed in my head if I go Left Dash full-time.

I'm with you on the Z-star. While trying to stay away from the outliers in the high swing speed category the Z-Star seems to give a great do-it-all ball while being fairly soft as well. Relatively low spin off the driver (which I need) with solid distance, good spin/distance with the 8-iron (nothing that will be noticeably different from other premium balls), and more wedge spin than the category competitors as well. 

As someone who needs a low spin driver ball, but still wants spin and control from short irons and wedges, the Z-star out performs ProV1 and Chrome soft IMO. I was also surprised it out performs the Tour BX (my current gamer) off the tee too. Looks like a great all around ball. The only potential downside is it seems to have higher peak height than some of the other balls in the category, so if you wanted a lower ball flight/trajectory the ProV1 or CS might be better. Once I've used up the rest of my Tour BX balls, the Z-stars are getting another shot.

Edited August 17, 2021 by jroot327