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? 

[GolfSpy AFG]

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? 

[GolfSpy AFG]

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.   
 

 

[GolfSpy AFG]

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

[Golfspy_CG2]

21 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. 

There actually has been an acknowledgement of why the test contained Urethane models.  If you take the time to read it you'll find out.

Also I will assure you if you look at the balls played on the links courses where the game is played "on the ground" you will still see that urethane/tour level balls are the vast majority.  Just because the ball is urethane doesn't mean it can't be played to release and roll.

 

 

[sirchunksalot]

Looking back over the MGS ball test, the team spent 5 days, hit 4500 shots, and took 60 hours to hit 37 different balls (35 urethane models, Pinnacle range balls, and refurbished Pro V 1's). I would think time constraints played a bigger role in what balls got tested than anything else. 

I could imagine with the amount of time spent on urethane, that it would take at least that long to do a test of surlyn covered golf balls. I'm not saying there's not a big demographic of golfers that that play them, just a larger group that would go through the data probably play higher quality golf balls. 

[THEZIPR23]

1 hour ago, Riverboat said:

I didn't say urethane balls couldn't be played with release and roll, I said that at my skill level, they are far less predictable than 2 piece low compression balls. I do not control spin to the level that scratch players do, so lower spinning balls are more consistent for me and many others who prefer to allow the ball to release. MGS regularly places value on balls that spin and check up quickly on the green. I don't think you would deny that. That's fine for those who play the game solely through the air, but for some of us, the quick check up is not an advantage. We are never quite sure when we'll get the spin that will yield the quick check, so it's safer and more consistent to play for less spin and allow some  release. This can be done more easily and consistently with non urethane balls. It would just be nice to see some acknowledgement that there is a place for this rather than MGS's insistence (bias?) that urethane is the one size fits all best ball for every player. 

It is not MGS insistence about urethane balls it is almost everybody who agrees to that. If you are playing a 2 piece ball I strongly advise you to get a ball fitting. Also listen to the example in the latest NPG podcast about the gentleman playing a soft ball and how is mind was blown after the fitting. There is almost zero evidence that a two piece ball will help your game. 

[Larryd3]

2 hours ago, Riverboat said:

I didn't say urethane balls couldn't be played with release and roll, I said that at my skill level, they are far less predictable than 2 piece low compression balls. I do not control spin to the level that scratch players do, so lower spinning balls are more consistent for me and many others who prefer to allow the ball to release. MGS regularly places value on balls that spin and check up quickly on the green. I don't think you would deny that. That's fine for those who play the game solely through the air, but for some of us, the quick check up is not an advantage. We are never quite sure when we'll get the spin that will yield the quick check, so it's safer and more consistent to play for less spin and allow some  release. This can be done more easily and consistently with non urethane balls. It would just be nice to see some acknowledgement that there is a place for this rather than MGS's insistence (bias?) that urethane is the one size fits all best ball for every player. 

going to have to agree to disagree on this.  Your statement that urethane balls are "far less predictable than 2 piece low compression balls" doesn't make sense to me.  Can you supply some facts, other than you like them better to support this?  Our indexes are similar, actually mine is higher than yours by a couple points right now and the urethane balls seem very predictable to me.  Guess different strokes for different folks.      

[ZenGolfer]

On 10/28/2021 at 9:31 AM, MonsterDrive385 said:

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.

I dont know if I would say its unbiased.  Everyone has bias.  I would say though that its one of the least biased sites out there and that much of the claims and reviews give you hard numbers and science to back up what they are saying.

As for $$$, it is my understanding that they do not accept money from golf companies for favorable reviews.  Many other sites out there cannot say the same thing.  A lot of reviews in everything, golf included, are a pay for a good review kind of deal.

[RickyBobby_PR]

9 hours ago, Riverboat said:

Ball fittings tend to focus on your best swings.

Not even close to being true. I’ve done several Bridgestone fittings and a TaylorMade one. The took into account all shots. Just like a club fitting the goal is to understand your good shots and bad shots to put you into a product that will take advantage of your good shots and reduce the negative affects of your bad ones.

15 hours ago, Riverboat said:

I didn't say urethane balls couldn't be played with release and roll, I said that at my skill level, they are far less predictable than 2 piece low compression balls. I do not control spin to the level that scratch players do, so lower spinning balls are more consistent for me and many others who prefer to allow the ball to release.

I play a majority of my shots to release on all partial shots. I have no issue with urethane balls releasing and doing exactly what I want and hope they do. I find them extremely reliable and more predictable than non urethane balls and when I switched to them as a high handicap my short game actually improved.

10 hours ago, Riverboat said:

They are much easier on my golfers elbow. I'm not getting any younger and the aches and pains are an important consideration. 

Can you explain how a ball has impact on this. A shaft for sure, don’t understand how a ball does.

[BIG STU]

Since it has been mentioned I will touch on the subject of 2 piece balls. Now the course I am a member at now has a real strong Srixon presence. Over the last 2 years I have won a plethra of Srixon balls mostly Z stars Q stars and Soft Feels. Last Summer my wife and I won a couples Nine and dine. We won a 15 ball pack of Srixon Marathons each. She only likes colored balls and she has a plethra of them. The Marathons which are a 2 piece ball I had never played at that time. I basically regulated them to the practice round balls in the shag bag. I was actually impressed they are good for what they are. I can spin them good not as good as the before mentioned balls but ok. A little difference bump and run chipping and putting but I can live with it. Distance off the driver and ball flight were about the same for me. They also have a softer feel for me compared to most 2 piece balls. I have played quite a few practice rounds with those and really I am impressed for what they are. I know in the pandemic era they sold a lot of them for those taking up the game and those coming out of Hiatus. Good value for the price. Now do not be misconstrued if I was back playing comp and money matches it would be a Z or Q Star or a Vice Pro but it is a good ball for just knocking around. I will say not tooting my own horn I can spin most balls including range rocks because by design I hit a trap cut

[BIG STU]

26 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Not even close to being true. I’ve done several Bridgestone fittings and a TaylorMade one. The took into account all shots. Just like a club fitting the goal is to understand your good shots and bad shots to put you into a product that will take advantage of your good shots and reduce the negative affects of your bad ones.

I play a majority of my shots to release on all partial shots. I have no issue with urethane balls releasing and doing exactly what I want and hope they do. I find them extremely reliable and more predictable than non urethane balls and when I switched to them as a high handicap my short game actually improved.

Can you explain how a ball has impact on this. A shaft for sure, don’t understand how a ball does.

What I think Riverboat is saying is that certain balls have a different maybe softer feel for him and may react different for him. Everyone has a different method of taking a shot and a different feel. It can be subjective. Personally like equipment I experiment with different balls which is part of my fun now. Ball fittings I have my opinion on. After all they are trying to sell THEIR brand of ball. Like I say very subjective like all things in golf one has to find what works for them. Good example I love Srixon Soft Feels in cooler weather and love putting them and wedge shots for the spin. But I lose about 5 yards distance on them with the driver and all around even in warm weather. I have been known in the Shootout because it is a Scramble anyhow to hit a Z or Q Star off the tee and use a Soft Feel or Vice Pro into say a 8 iron in on the green. Now in warm weather playing real golf off my own ball it would be the Z or Q Star because I like them overall. But this is IMHO or my .02 FWIW and it is not gospel and can be subjective

[RickyBobby_PR]

4 hours ago, Riverboat said:

don't understand how you don't understand that a 50 compression ball is softer off the club and easier on the joints than one that is near or over 100

As someone who has played low compression balls and high compression balls while dealing with golfer and tennis elbow I felt no difference between the balls. Also thin shots in cold weather the feel in hands and arms are the same for me. 

The harsh feeling for me is due to shafts and how they handle vibration from mis hits including thin or fat shows and how they handle the vibration. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, Riverboat said:

Ideal for whom?

Just like in golf club fitting they are looking for ideal for the golfer hitting the ball. They don’t compare the numbers to another golfer but look at the numbers and find a ball that get the ideal launch for that golfer.