2021 MGS Ball Test

[TR1PTIK]

20 minutes ago, ejgaudette said:

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.

That's kinda the point of my post and why I asked Tony about it. Clearly, if you were to take a fully scientific approach you'd eliminate every variable possible - test indoors, same robot, same exact clubs, protocols, etc., but the test as designed is meant to more closely mirror how each category of golfer (swing speed) would ideally want to game the golf ball (maximizing carry distance).

What I noticed in the test comments was repeat mention of how the Snell MTB-X didn't seem to perform as well in 2021 as it did in 2019 despite being the same ball (as far as design goes). My post was simply intended to shed light on the reason(s) for that and seek a little more clarity from MGS on how both tests were conducted.

[HeathS16]

1 hour 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.

 

You might want to do soon cause they might increase in price like last time 

Only 1 brand beat it in ball labs and that was Titleist, thus why I was interested in the head-to-head between Tour CG & ProV1. And don't think I forgot all your work compiling the ball lab data @TR1PTIK into a thread, your time was much appreciated and I visited that thread often! 

Also, don't forget to check out the ongoing review for the 2021 Maxflis from our fellow forum-mates. 

[TR1PTIK]

19 minutes ago, HeathS16 said:

You might want to do soon cause they might increase in price like last time 

Only 1 brand beat it in ball labs and that was Titleist, thus why I was interested in the head-to-head between Tour CG & ProV1. And don't think I forgot all your work compiling the ball lab data @TR1PTIK into a thread, your time was much appreciated and I visited that thread often! 

Also, don't forget to check out the ongoing review for the 2021 Maxflis from our fellow forum-mates. 

After reviewing the Ball Lab for the Maxfli Tour (no report for the Tour X yet) and Snell MTB-X the results were very similar. Snell was slightly better in major defects, but about the same for minor issues that likely would have no bearing on performance. Both tend to lean toward the smaller size which I like and Maxfli seemed to do better on overall consistency metrics. Perhaps the biggest downside to such a switch would be the loss of a bulk order discount. When purchasing 5 dozen Snells at the beginning of the season, the price per dozen still beats Maxfli - even with the current 2 for $60 deal.

Regardless, I'll be digging through the Ball Test data further and buying a box for on-course testing. Even if it doesn't fully replace Snell MTB-X in my bag, I could still see myself using it when I find myself in a pinch - e.g. the beginning of the season didn't fare well for my ball count and I'll likely need to buy a box or two to finish out the year unless I start playing better.

EDIT: Looking at the 8-iron and wedge results for high swing speed, the two balls are nearly indistinguishable. I don't swing it quite that fast, but I certainly skew towards that data set.

[ejgaudette]

27 minutes ago, TR1PTIK said:

That's kinda the point of my post and why I asked Tony about it. Clearly, if you were to take a fully scientific approach you'd eliminate every variable possible - test indoors, same robot, same exact clubs, protocols, etc., but the test as designed is meant to more closely mirror how each category of golfer (swing speed) would ideally want to game the golf ball (maximizing carry distance).

What I noticed in the test comments was repeat mention of how the Snell MTB-X didn't seem to perform as well in 2021 as it did in 2019 despite being the same ball (as far as design goes). My post was simply intended to shed light on the reason(s) for that and seek a little more clarity from MGS on how both tests were conducted.

Totally agree that there were some variables between years that makes the comparisons hard and yes I am sure Tony and team could share even more specifics

[HeathS16]

8 minutes ago, TR1PTIK said:

After reviewing the Ball Lab for the Maxfli Tour (no report for the Tour X yet) and Snell MTB-X the results were very similar. Snell was slightly better in major defects, but about the same for minor issues that likely would have no bearing on performance. Both tend to lean toward the smaller size which I like and Maxfli seemed to do better on overall consistency metrics. Perhaps the biggest downside to such a switch would be the loss of a bulk order discount. When purchasing 5 dozen Snells at the beginning of the season, the price per dozen still beats Maxfli - even with the current 2 for $60 deal.

Regardless, I'll be digging through the Ball Test data further and buying a box for on-course testing. Even if it doesn't fully replace Snell MTB-X in my bag, I could still see myself using it when I find myself in a pinch - e.g. the beginning of the season didn't fare well for my ball count and I'll likely need to buy a box or two to finish out the year unless I start playing better.

Man, I love the way this data was presented cause you really can find what works best for you personally. I mean, the golf ball we play is one variable we can control and reports like this allow us to make an informed decision! 

[TR1PTIK]

2 minutes ago, ejgaudette said:

Totally agree that there were some variables between years that makes the comparisons hard and yes I am sure Tony and team could share even more specifics

If he doesn't do a write-up on it, I'm hoping he'll at least discuss it in the next episode of NPG. Having worked in a testing environment for several years I can understand the reason for changing test protocols, but a lot of people probably don't and just want a fully apples-to-apples comparison every time out just like they want with golf clubs.

[Tsecor]

1 hour ago, greggarner said:

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)

Not interested in the LS version, but am very interested in the X version per these test results.

I tried the left dash for a few weeks and was amazed at how far it went for me in relation to every other ball ive tried this summer.......so that went well.....the mid irons wer just ok for me and around the green, it didnt really work for me. too much roll out for me. I need more spin around the greens......im trying to get past the things i hate about firm balls like the "clicky-ness"......why should i care how it sounds off the putter? I should care about performance only right? Its hard to get past this though.

If the CSX is slightly better felling than the V1X, i will like it.

I currently play prov1 and CS and both have been really good....CS is so much better than it gets credit for, but if I can get 5-10 more yards off the tee with the CSX, i definitely have a gamer. 

[Thin2win]

So I played around with some of the data, I'm a low spin player, low spin on my driver, low on my irons, low on my wedges. So I naturally filter the data for higher spin balls, and looked at their recommendations for the Higher Spin options in the mid swing speed. But I created a new column which wasn't included in the test, Stopping Power. Which is just total distance minus carry distance, basically how far the ball rolled out. So with a selection of balls I was interested in it turned out that the Z-Star XV actual stops the fastest, about 30% faster than an TP5x. And it was even below average on spin.

The Wilson Staff and Chrome X also stopped noticeably below average, as they were the highest spinning two in the batch that was expected. But Vice Pro at 4th in stopping was surprising since it was so low on spin. Also, I didn't include this in the chart below, sorry, but average Spin for this group was 6163.4, average stop was 14.29. So now I am going to look at driver stats and wedge stats for this group, but the clubhouse leader after my specific iron data criteria is the Z-Star XV, with the Maxfli Tour X rounding out the top 5. 

 

[cnosil]

6 minutes ago, Thin2win said:

So I played around with some of the data, I'm a low spin player, low spin on my driver, low on my irons, low on my wedges. So I naturally filter the data for higher spin balls, and looked at their recommendations for the Higher Spin options in the mid swing speed. But I created a new column which wasn't included in the test, Stopping Power. Which is just total distance minus carry distance, basically how far the ball rolled out. So with a selection of balls I was interested in it turned out that the Z-Star XV actual stops the fastest, about 30% faster than an TP5x. And it was even below average on spin.

The Wilson Staff and Chrome X also stopped noticeably below average, as they were the highest spinning two in the batch that was expected. But Vice Pro at 4th in stopping was surprising since it was so low on spin. Also, I didn't include this in the chart below, sorry, but average Spin for this group was 6163.4, average stop was 14.29. So now I am going to look at driver stats and wedge stats for this group, but the clubhouse leader after my specific iron data criteria is the Z-Star XV, with the Maxfli Tour X rounding out the top 5. 

 

Like what you are doing here.   I personally think this is how the data is intended to be used.  I have been playing the TP5 for about a month and I like how it performs for me.  I am typically lower launch, lower Spin off the driver when I hit it with an ascending stroke.  I think the extra spin gives me a little more launch and height.  

[BMart519]

2 hours ago, TR1PTIK said:

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. 

It was the MTB Black... This was the chart I was thinking of but forgot both Snell balls were tested, thanks for posting. 

My opinion is the shot area is either a function of spin/aerodynamic consistency or ball quality/consistency, at least relative to the test pool - with smaller being better. 

[GregGarner]

2 hours ago, ejgaudette said:

Totally agree that there were some variables between years that makes the comparisons hard and yes I am sure Tony and team could share even more specifics

This makes me think about going to a club fitting and only hitting a handful of shots in a single day. Sure, your fit will work whenever you swing exactly like you did during your fit, but then you start going back to the gym. Then it rains. Then you don't stretch quite as well. Then you don't drink enough water. Then you make a tweak to your takeaway. Then... Trying to compare year to year is virtually impossible. There's already an element of randomness introduced in outdoor/downrange testing across a single week, but trying to compare results from 2019 to 2021 should just serve to confirm what we already knew: golf is a game with an element of uncertainty played on a non-uniform field. Having this data in as close to a controlled environment as possible is immensely valuable, but I'm real cautious about trying to overextend the data. For the average Joe, this dataset is leaps and bounds more than anything they could ever hope for and they're not going to get beyond the high/mid/low ball recommendations.

That being said, I totally agree that providing more club data beyond just club specs and swing speed would be helpful for those of us who actually do know our numbers. I'm seeing a lot of posts here and on social where folks are trying to extrapolate ("well I'm a low-spin player" "My driver speed and 8i speed don't match these patterns so..." etc) and I think it's going to lead to a lot of folks drawing very misguided conclusions.

I'm not the first to say it, but hopefully not the last: these data are a starting point for narrowing your search. NOBODY should use these data to buy 6 dozen of something, sight-unseen...

 

Edited August 17, 2021 by greggarner
typo

[ejgaudette]

1 minute ago, greggarner said:

I'm not the first to say it, but hopefully not the last: this data is a starting point for narrowing your search. NOBODY should use this data to buy 6 dozen of something, sight-unseen...

 

Well too late I have already done that , but in all honesty it is so true and its something that they have talked about on the Hack It Out podcast and Lou Stagner I think said something like close to 30 shots with each club would be a place where things start to even out and we all know no one is hitting 30 shots with the each combo they try.

[TR1PTIK]

9 minutes ago, BMart519 said:

It was the MTB Black... This was the chart I was thinking of but forgot both Snell balls were tested, thanks for posting. 

My opinion is the shot area is either a function of spin/aerodynamic consistency or ball quality/consistency, at least relative to the test pool - with smaller being better. 

Even still, MTB Black was only offline by 5-6 yards; it's just that it was offline to the right while everything else was offline to the left so it looks much worse than it actually is.

There is certainly merit to the idea that build quality could have played a role in the shot area for MTB-X during the 2019 test, but with outdoor environmental factors at play who's to say for sure except those directly involved with the test. However, if there was something alarming going on with MTB-X I think it would have been noted somewhere in the test results or discussed in Ball Lab.

Like I stated before, what we see in Ball Lab (as well as what we see in the Ball Test) is merely a starting point for the individual golfer. It's on us to determine what works best for our game and budget.

[TR1PTIK]

So as I sit and ponder more about the test (how it was designed and conducted) I got to questioning my own assumption that Tony and the gang were targeting maximum carry distance. When you look at launch and spin, they are not what we normally hear or read about for achieving max distance. Did they target launch and spin to mimic a player looking for more control (and carry distance was simply a byproduct of elevation)?

I might do okay digging through data, but I know we've got plenty of folks here with more knowledge on launch and spin dynamics. What do you think about the numbers?

[Thin2win]

well, I played around with the driver numbers using the same set of balls. This time I focused on Carry as my most desired trait, I can't control the roll and sometimes there just isn't any in the PNW. That said, I looked at my new made up stat of bonus distance, because if the ball carried the furthest and rolled out the furthest, well that would just be triple stack pancakes. Then I colored stuff, brighter green for more better, brighter brown for more poopy. So, um, I think the Maxfli X is out of the running as it got a 3 poop rating. 

 

 

Then after that, I averaged my 8i list with my driver list, and poof!

Vice Pro and Chrome Soft x come out on top with a 3 way tie for 3rd. Guess I'll try out some Chrome Soft X at some point. But my biggest takeaway, is that I'm basically Tiger Woods, I mean, B XS in my top 3?

[TR1PTIK]

1 hour ago, Thin2win said:

So I played around with some of the data, I'm a low spin player, low spin on my driver, low on my irons, low on my wedges. So I naturally filter the data for higher spin balls, and looked at their recommendations for the Higher Spin options in the mid swing speed. But I created a new column which wasn't included in the test, Stopping Power. Which is just total distance minus carry distance, basically how far the ball rolled out. So with a selection of balls I was interested in it turned out that the Z-Star XV actual stops the fastest, about 30% faster than an TP5x. And it was even below average on spin.

The Wilson Staff and Chrome X also stopped noticeably below average, as they were the highest spinning two in the batch that was expected. But Vice Pro at 4th in stopping was surprising since it was so low on spin. Also, I didn't include this in the chart below, sorry, but average Spin for this group was 6163.4, average stop was 14.29. So now I am going to look at driver stats and wedge stats for this group, but the clubhouse leader after my specific iron data criteria is the Z-Star XV, with the Maxfli Tour X rounding out the top 5. 

 

If it's been mentioned and I just didn't see it I apologize. You talk about stopping power while looking primarily at spin and distance, but have you looked at peak height and descent angle? For being so similar in spin, it makes sense that Z-Star XV would stop faster than TP5x when it's coming in almost 2-degrees steeper.

[Thin2win]

12 minutes ago, TR1PTIK said:

If it's been mentioned and I just didn't see it I apologize. You talk about stopping power while looking primarily at spin and distance, but have you looked at peak height and descent angle? For being so similar in spin, it makes sense that Z-Star XV would stop faster than TP5x when it's coming in almost 2-degrees steeper.

For sure.

my calculation for stopping power was purely total distance minus carry distance. I didn't really care if the stop came from spin, height or decent angle. All those definitely play their part in the stopping equation. 

 So while I did show Spin, that was more just for my curiosity. I didn't use it for anything. I did have decent angle and peak height on my spreadsheet, but hide those columns before adding it here. They just added lots of numbers without much value.

For my sheet, the Z-Star VX has the best stopping power, but below average spin. So without even looking at the table, I could pretty much guess that it had a steeper decent angle to get to that stopping distance, same for the Vice Pro. While the Chrome Soft X gets its juice off spin and a lower angle. 

Since I didn't care how it stopped, it didn't weight spin vs decent vs height at all. But if someone wanted the ball that stopped the fastest with the lowest peak height for example, the data is there to find it, so again, big props to Tony and Team. 

[fixyurdivot]

4 hours ago, jroot327 said:

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 noting that a number of you are focused on wanting lower spin balls with driver.  During my recent fitting, my G410P with the Alta CB S averaged 3642 rpm and with the KBS Tour (my current shaft) averaged 2852 rpm.  I'm curious how my driver spin numbers compare to yours and whether a lower spin ball is something I should consider? 

[TheProfessor02]

At what point would you consider fitting the ball to your play? I understand that different club shafts can produce different ball trajectory and spin rates and that not all balls play the same. With that said is a constant balancing act or is there a certain point where you lock in a shaft and fine tune with the ball or vice versa? 

[GregGarner]

1 minute ago, TheProfessor02 said:

a constant balancing act or is there a certain point where you lock in a shaft and fine tune with the ball or vice versa? 

I mean, at least for me, golf balls are a lot cheaper than new clubs, but don't tell my wife