Is MGS unbiased?

[MonsterDrive385]

This is a great site.  But I'd like to know if the site is unbiased and isn't influenced by outside $$$$.  My initial thoughts that this site with reviews and testing is unbiased.

[RickyBobby_PR]

It is unbiased and they don’t take money from the large companies.

https://mygolfspy.com/advertise/

[GolfSpy_APH]

While on the main site also go checkout their Mission Statements... should answer all the questions you have. https://mygolfspy.com/our-mission/

[tony@CIC]

4 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

It is unbiased and they don’t take money from the large companies.

https://mygolfspy.com/advertise/

I believe that (unbiased and $)- especially since some of the large companies also don't supply equipment for official testing. However, how about the small companies? How do they impact or influence the testing/recommendations? 

[Getoffmylawn]

And if you really want proof, spend some time and comb through the Most Wanted test results.  You'll find different OEMs "winning" different categories, and the determinations are based on an actual data rather than subjective anecdotes.  Absolutely unbiased.

[MNUte]

On a slight tangent, I think the best part about MGS is how interconnected its main website is with this forum. So not only do they provide unbiased reviews and opinions, but the forum discussions about those articles and opinions then add an additional layer of corroboration and/or accountability from all of us who contribute. I think the fact that MGS being so encouraging of these discussion rather than trying to suppress all but select opinions is a good example of what they're about.

[GregGarner]

At risk of getting flamed for unnecessary nuance here, I'll share my own take...

There's a difference between being 'unbiased' and 'not taking external money to influence your content.' While MGS as a company doesn't allow companies to pay them to influence their reviews and content, individual members of the team will still have their own biases, just like everyone else, for any number of reasons. Often there are good reasons for these biases and I think overall, the team does a great job using data to overcome them, but they exist nonetheless. 

Clean example: based on the data, the team switched to ProV1s for all of their testing. That's not a Titleist bias in and of itself, but because of this, you may now see an overall Titleist bias in other areas, such as when they did a ball fitting recently. Other companies also offer ball fittings, and they could have even done it themselves based on all the equipment they have, but they chose to attend a Titleist fitting. I don't even think this particular bias is a negative, I think it just is. And I also believe that, if future testing shows other manufacturers can meet the consistency of Titleist's offerings, they may relinquish their Titleist bias. Who knows, maybe Maxfli fittings are in the future? 

[Getoffmylawn]

2 minutes ago, greggarner said:

...you may now see an overall Titleist bias in other areas, such as when they did a ball fitting recently. Other companies also offer ball fittings, and they could have even done it themselves based on all the equipment they have, but they chose to attend a Titleist fitting. I don't even think this particular bias is a negative, I think it just is. 

I'm not sure I agree that's an example of bias.  The data supports Titleist as the premier ball company, to me featuring Titleist for the ball fitting was simply a logical extension of that.  In other words, why would you feature a ball fitting from Vice, Snell, or others if their product and subsequently their overall expertise has been shown to be lesser than another?

[MonsterDrive385]

Thanks for the input.  I really want to find out if everything I'm reading is straight up.  And I believe MGS is an excellent source of information.

 

Edited October 28, 2021 by MonsterDrive385

[GregGarner]

2 minutes ago, Getoffmylawn said:

I'm not sure I agree that's an example of bias.  The data supports Titleist as the premier ball company, to me featuring Titleist for the ball fitting was simply a logical extension of that.  In other words, why would you feature a ball fitting from Vice, Snell, or others if their product and subsequently their overall expertise has been shown to be lesser than another?

I would differentiate between manufacturing tolerances and expertise, personally, since ultimately we're talking about consumer economics. I think it's a tough argument that you should ever do a captive fitting. If I went through an open-label fitting and found a ball or three that worked for my game, shouldn't it be up to me as the consumer to decide if I wanted to consider the Ball Lab consistency metrics (including True Price) on my overall decision? By choosing a captive fitting with no other data presented as to why a captive fitting is better than an open-label fitting, it demonstrates a brand bias, extrapolated off other data that suggests some of the balls in that captive fitting may be more consistent than others. But that's why I alluded to Maxfli, which performed extremely well in Ball Lab. Are there Maxfli fittings? No. But could MGS do an open-label fitting that included Maxfli products? Of course.

Again, all of that is probably unwarranted nuance, but if I were to simplify my overall stance: anything captive (i.e. a single brand) is bias. Bias isn't inherently bad, but it still exists.

[cnosil]

5 minutes ago, greggarner said:

Clean example: based on the data, the team switched to ProV1s for all of their testing. That's not a Titleist bias in and of itself, but because of this, you may now see an overall Titleist bias in other areas, such as when they did a ball fitting recently. Other companies also offer ball fittings, and they could have even done it themselves based on all the equipment they have, but they chose to attend a Titleist fitting. I don't even think this particular bias is a negative, I think it just is. And I also believe that, if future testing shows other manufacturers can meet the consistency of Titleist's offerings, they may relinquish their Titleist bias. Who knows, maybe Maxfli fittings are in the future? 

I have a slightly different view on the Titleist ball fitting.  The team didn’t attend a fitting, I am pretty sure they coordinated a fitting with Titleist to explore how ball fittings work and to educate the consumer on ball characteristics and misconceptions.  Most Wanted testers were invited to be  part of the fitting process not just MGS staff.  I was invite but couldn’t attend.  This perspective should become more visible as more articles are released.

I can say as a most wanted tester that the testing they conduct is data centric. They do not attempt to influence me in any way during the tests.  There is an effort to fit me to the off the rack club and then they capture my data.  
 

are their biases, definitely yes.  As you mentioned, We all have biases based on personal preferences and past experiences.  I can tell you that I don’t like Cobra clubs, but that doesn’t show up in the most wanted tests other than some subjective feedback we provide that isn’t incorporated into the results.  MGS does measurements and evaluations based on data for their tests but that doesn’t mean they didn’t have personal feelings about products or companies based on their interactions.  That said,  from my experience I don’t see any biases in how MGS tests or operates as a company.   
 

 

[Getoffmylawn]

6 minutes ago, greggarner said:

I would differentiate between manufacturing tolerances and expertise, personally, since ultimately we're talking about consumer economics. I think it's a tough argument that you should ever do a captive fitting. If I went through an open-label fitting and found a ball or three that worked for my game, shouldn't it be up to me as the consumer to decide if I wanted to consider the Ball Lab consistency metrics (including True Price) on my overall decision? By choosing a captive fitting with no other data presented as to why a captive fitting is better than an open-label fitting, it demonstrates a brand bias, extrapolated off other data that suggests some of the balls in that captive fitting may be more consistent than others. But that's why I alluded to Maxfli, which performed extremely well in Ball Lab. Are there Maxfli fittings? No. But could MGS do an open-label fitting that included Maxfli products? Of course.

Again, all of that is probably unwarranted nuance, but if I were to simplify my overall stance: anything captive (i.e. a single brand) is bias. Bias isn't inherently bad, but it still exists.

Manufacturing tolerances contributes to performance being consistent from one ball to the next.  It does not serve as the root cause for why the product itself performs better.

That said, those manufacturing tolerances are another reason a "captive fitting" is appropriate, in my opinion.  If you can't be reasonably confident that you'll see consistent performance or flight from one ball to the next, how can you be certain it's a good fit?  Using an OEM where that isn't an issue, is (again) to me a logical extension of the data supplied from the last ball test.

I understand and don't dispute your point that some bias is inherent, just not sure that the ball fitting is a demonstration of it.

[tony@CIC]

My take is a bit different. I'm more heavily swayed by our 'Official Testers'  who represent real life both in performance and economics. So I don't really pay attention or am concerned about bias. For me the 'Most Wanted' is what comes out of our members input. For instance several years ago I purchased a Precision Pro LRF based on feedback from our forum members. It was featured in the 'Most Wanted' category but in the stepchild category of 'Value' LRF's. This device has performed exceptionally well and the company receives accolades from our members on customer service. Bushnell which was rated at the top  - their customer service not so well. 

So if there is a bias I equate it brand recognition/perception vs. buying MGS' stamp of approval. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

24 minutes ago, Riverboat said:

To me, the biggest bias is the expectation that everyone plays the same "American style" game, through the air and wanting the ball to check up immediately. I have seen very little acknowledgement that many of us prefer to play more of a ground game, with the ball releasing and rolling out rather than stopping quickly. The clearest example of this is that the recent ball test only featured urethane covered balls. There are many golfers who favor other balls for various reasons, and there seems to be no acknowledgement of this by mgs. Is there money involved? I don't know. But this is a rather annoying bias. 

They had a limited time to do the test. Putting in other balls wasn’t possible to do because of the time requirements. But feel free to donate the money and equipment to allow them to study that

 

[Pandaman]

2 hours ago, Riverboat said:

To me, the biggest bias is the expectation that everyone plays the same "American style" game, through the air and wanting the ball to check up immediately. I hiave seen very little acknowledgement that many of us prefer to play more of a ground game, with the ball releasing and rolling out rather than stopping quickly. The clearest example of this is that the recent ball test only featured urethane covered balls. There are many golfers who favor other balls for various reasons, and there seems to be no acknowledgement of this by mgs. Is there money involved? I don't know. But this is a rather annoying bias. 

I was hoping, and did suggest, they added at least one or two popular non urethane models for comparision. But sadly it was not to be.

Being In the UK, I do notice the USA centric aspect, but see it more as a by-product of where they, and most of their 'readers', are based rather than anything deliberate.

Edited October 28, 2021 by Pandaman

[cnosil]

3 hours ago, Riverboat said:

To me, the biggest bias is the expectation that everyone plays the same "American style" game, through the air and wanting the ball to check up immediately. I have seen very little acknowledgement that many of us prefer to play more of a ground game, with the ball releasing and rolling out rather than stopping quickly. The clearest example of this is that the recent ball test only featured urethane covered balls. There are many golfers who favor other balls for various reasons, and there seems to be no acknowledgement of this by mgs. Is there money involved? I don't know. But this is a rather annoying bias. 

Question.  While your choice is to play the game in this manner,  does that really mean that non urethane balls are the right choice?   If it was the best option,  why don't competitive golfers play non urethane balls when playing the non american style game?    I believe you are talking lower flight lower spin type game which can be played with urethane balls.  In windy conditions this is how "american style" golf is ideally played.   

[PBH3]

I have a sidebar question for this.  Was Snell a big sponsor that did not re-up?  It seemed that MGS used to constantly talk up Dean Snell now they barely mention the company.  

[cnosil]

12 hours ago, Riverboat said:

Competitive golfers are better than me... agreed. I'm about a 6. I find that urethane balls are far more difficult, at least at my skill level, to judge for release and roll. I'm not alone in this. I'm not saying that they should have tested equal numbers of different types of balls, but to completely ignore all but one type of ball, at least to me, seems to be a pretty big bias. Hey, I appreciate what MGS does, but is there some problem with an honest critique of one thing they've done? The question about bias was asked... I responded with what I see as a pretty consistent lack of recognition that there is more than one way to play the game effectively. 

I have no problem with your statement,  was just asking a question to better understand your perspective.   I even stated in my response in the thread that there is probably a bias as everyone has biases.  MGS has biases in the equipment they choose to include in testing.  Every test people ask why certain equipment wasn't included and those reasons among other things are based on overall consumer interest, company profiles, and market share.   These are the same types of choices that any company makes when looking at putting a product in the marketplace;  it is a similar  to when a company chooses to build a product or iphone or android over the other. 

[MattF]

10 hours ago, PBH3 said:

I have a sidebar question for this.  Was Snell a big sponsor that did not re-up?  It seemed that MGS used to constantly talk up Dean Snell now they barely mention the company.  

It's a good question and I'll say, with my very limited knowledge, no. MGS doesn't operate that way, there's no pay to play.

[BIG STU]

I have been on here a long time and have never seen any bias. The test staff does their tests and presents their honest numbers good or bad for all to see. They leave it up to the reader to form their own opinion. If one does a members test or review the staff tells you up front to be honest good or bad. I can remember when I ran the Renegar wedge test I asked John Barba privately if I could add lead tape and bend the lies some to fit me because they did not fit me right and were too light weight wise. He told me basically by all means do it and I documented it for all to see. I also take stock on what our members say maybe in an indenpendant unofficial view. One thing is here one will not be censored in way way for their opinion good or bad. I have seen it on another nameless site because someone ran down a big $$$ sponsor were either given a time out or banned outright. 

Also if I were to say be doing a basic start up company I would test here because of the honesty of the staff and members. Good example was Precision Pro with their rangefinders. They were relatively unknown at the time. I did a test and found the unit to be a great unit in fact still have mine and still use it. In fact a bud of mine runs a independant shop down the road. He had signed on consignment about 5 Precision Pro units. I showed him mine and other reviews on MGS and he used that and sold all 5 units within 3 days. The guy repping Precision Pro came by and mentioned the MGS reviews and my bud told him that one of his friends and customers had did a review here. Yep if I was doing a start up company I would definetly have MGS test my stuff that way I could see if I had a good product or needed to make changes.

LOl I can remember when MGS shook the whole ball world up on the Kirkland tests a few years back and recently the Callaway ball tests. That really built a solid reputation in the golf world for MGS. On the other site I was threatned a time out and one of my posts removed when I stated I had seen some certain Cally balls wobble on the green and had seen some oughtright funky ball flights with those balls. LOL got them stirred up when I said I saw one of my playing partners who is a good putter have a Cally wobble and miss then threw down a Q Star and it had no wobble and he made the putt. I got accused outright by a Cally fanboy about being an outright Cally hater. Anyone who knows me will tell you I am probably the most brand agnostic person on here or any other board. In fact right now I am front line playing 2 Cally wedges. 

In a nutshell this site fits my persona because it is like me honest and straight off the trailer straight in your face good or bad