Matte vs Gloss

[BIG STU]

1 minute ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Search the best balls or mygolfspy best balls. The report will come up. There was at least one thread if not more on wrx talking about the test and colored balls. From what I remember the yellow was about 6 yards shorter than the white and the shot area between the two was significant. I don’t know if it was in the report or in the social media posts they were doing during the test but there was a comment about the yellow version and they wanted to examine it further.
 

The paint on the balls can affect the ball performance and it’s why titleist took a long time to ensure the yellow versions of the prov performed the same as the white.

LOL I can remember a few years back when Titleist did not offer a Yellow Pro V some guys on the golf sites were using yellow Easter Egg dye on Pro Vs--- I never did get into the posts deep enough to see if that affected performance or not

[fozcycle]

46 minutes ago, BIG STU said:

Not being sarcistic in any shape or form but I bet you would really like the Srixon Marathon ball which is a 2 piece ball. I think I have won like 3 15 ball packs over time. They are a good ball for what they are I use them on my practice and beat around play. I have also used them playing my Persimmon and classic stuff. Now I am not going to lie and say they spin like a Q-Star or go as far but that is just me. But for a guy who likes a 2 piece they may work well for you. I think for a 15 ball pack they retail around $18 or so . 

Hey Stu, being a Srixon Fan, thought you would be interested…..seeing the recent update n the Q Star, I reached out to their Support group and asked if the Q Star was the AD333, a ball I used to play until I could not get it anymore. Well, they replied and said Yes, they are the same…..very interesting.

[GregGarner]

1 hour ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

The paint on the balls can affect the ball performance and it’s why titleist took a long time to ensure the yellow versions of the prov performed the same as the white.

Something something difference between painting them yellow and making the actual urethane yellow something

And here's the report (with data) about the yellow Srixon performing differently than its unpainted counterpart

[pakman92]

37 minutes ago, greggarner said:

Something something difference between painting them yellow and making the actual urethane yellow something

And here's the report (with data) about the yellow Srixon performing differently than its unpainted counterpart

Differences between Painted vs unpainted seems likely.  As someone said ability keep out moisture etc.   I can’t imagine real differences between yellow and white paint.  

[ChitownM2]

3 minutes ago, pakman92 said:

Differences between Painted vs unpainted seems likely.  As someone said ability keep out moisture etc.   I can’t imagine real differences between yellow and white paint.  

Can't confirm for all balls, but most yellow balls are not painted yellow.  They actually change the cover material to make them yellow and it's apparently more complicated than just adding yellow dye to raw material.  They perform differently because the covers are different.  

[GregGarner]

20 minutes ago, pakman92 said:

Differences between Painted vs unpainted seems likely.  As someone said ability keep out moisture etc.   I can’t imagine real differences between yellow and white paint.  

 

7 minutes ago, ChitownM2 said:

Can't confirm for all balls, but most yellow balls are not painted yellow.  They actually change the cover material to make them yellow and it's apparently more complicated than just adding yellow dye to raw material.  They perform differently because the covers are different.  

https://mygolfspy.com/first-look-2019-pro-v1-and-pro-v1x-available-in-optic-yellow/

[HDTVMAN]

Gloss

[Middler]

19 hours ago, Riverboat said:

It's your summary of what I said that makes zero sense. You can never let a conversation go, can you? Matte vs gloss?

8 hours ago, Riverboat said:

If you've hit thousands of balls (and I'm assuming played many rounds) with both colors without noticing any difference, why worry about what someone else has to say? Play what you've found works for you. Every player and every swing is different. Miniscule differences identified with a robotic swing shouldn't overrule your own experience. 

7 hours ago, Riverboat said:

I probably would have liked them a few years back, but due to many aches and pains, I now play mostly only low compression balls. I switched to them to ease pain, but found the added bonus that they are longer for me and react like I want... release and roll. I like the srixon soft feels, but my favorites are Wilson staff 50 elite and vice drive. Both 50 compression, long, and consistent with my swing. 

You can never let a conversation go, can you? Matte vs gloss?

[Middler]

23 hours ago, greggarner said:

OnCore does (Elixr) as well as Golf Galaxy in the Maxfli Tour

Thanks, hadn’t noticed either.

[AndySP]

Honestly I thought the reason not to play a matte ball was that the difference in spin between wet and dry conditions is greater than the differences with a regular finish. You don’t need to compare them to other models because it’s a consistency issue within the same ball.  Something to do with the finish holding onto water better maybe. 

I can’t remember seeing a test though. It’s mentioned in the 2019 ball test and maybe TXG guys maybe said it too. But I don’t see any data backing it up.

 

[fixyurdivot]

37 minutes ago, AndySP said:

Honestly I thought the reason not to play a matte ball was that the difference in spin between wet and dry conditions is greater than the differences with a regular finish. You don’t need to compare them to other models because it’s a consistency issue within the same ball.  Something to do with the finish holding onto water better maybe. 

I can’t remember seeing a test though. It’s mentioned in the 2019 ball test and maybe TXG guys maybe said it too. But I don’t see any data backing it up.

 

Like I stated, I've not seen the data either but simply on the surface (no pun intended), it makes sense that they would tend to retain moisture more so and longer than gloss finish.  All that said, and in the spirit of "Myth Busters" (loved that show), MGS is a "Truth Digest"... time for some controlled Ball Lab Tests.

[ChitownM2]

 

took me a while to find this again but Tony explains the problem with the matte finish although no data.  Basically, it's the same reasons as stated above, less spin compared to gloss when wet and less consistency in spin from shot to shot. 

[ChitownM2]

3 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

Like I stated, I've not seen the data either but simply on the surface (no pun intended), it makes sense that they would tend to retain moisture more so and longer than gloss finish.  All that said, and in the spirit of "Myth Busters" (loved that show), MGS is a "Truth Digest"... time for some controlled Ball Lab Tests.

Pretty sure they have the data already dating back to the 2019 ball test, they just need to release it to us.  

[Golfzilla70]

Well, here's my two cents' worth:  i'm a 3  handicap, and i can tell real quick when my Titleist Pro V's cover starts getting a little dinged up that the driver distance is immediately affected.  Pulling out a new glossy one immediately shows improvement.  Having said that, it seems to me that the glossy balls are more aerodynamic just because they're slick.  Those matte balls aren't slick, so i have to believe they'd suffer in flight.  I confess i've never hit one; just feeling the cover makes me think they're shorter than their glossy counterparts so i haven't experimented with them at all.

[Middler]

13 hours ago, ChitownM2 said:

Pretty sure they have the data already dating back to the 2019 ball test, they just need to release it to us.  

Tony’s word is good enough for me. Isn’t MGS primary mission to provide data based information to players? Doesn’t mean we have to see all the data all the time.

[cnosil]

13 hours ago, ChitownM2 said:

Pretty sure they have the data already dating back to the 2019 ball test, they just need to release it to us.  

I understand the desire to see the data but for every person that wants to see the data and could maybe interpret it there are 5 people that would go glassy eyed and skip right over the information.  MGS tries to present information in a way that is consumable by everyone not just the data nerd or gear junkie.    

[AndySP]

33 minutes ago, Middler said:

Tony’s word is good enough for me. Isn’t MGS primary mission to provide data based information to players? Doesn’t mean we have to see all the data all the time.

Well, isn’t withholding the data a bit misaligned with the primary mission then? I’d like to see what the actual difference is without anyones interpretation, even if I’m sure there is no intentional bias on Tony’s part. 

[cnosil]

Just now, AndySP said:

Well, isn’t withholding the data a bit misaligned with the primary mission then? I’d like to see what the actual difference is without anyones interpretation, even if I’m sure there is no intentional bias on Tony’s part. 

What is is against the primary mission?   There mission is to provide information to the consumer based on data;  they don't say anything about having to provide that data to everyone. 

[ChitownM2]

3 minutes ago, AndySP said:

Well, isn’t withholding the data a bit misaligned with the primary mission then? I’d like to see what the actual difference is without anyones interpretation, even if I’m sure there is no intentional bias on Tony’s part. 

I would tend to agree with you, but I don't think it is actually going to be realistic.  The data we do get has already been parsed by Tony and their consultants to arrive at the conclusions they draw and that is what a majority of people care about.  To provide all of the raw data would probably add a significant amount of work to present it to people in a way they could understand and use it which would be on top of the work they are already doing to determine winners/rankings/etc.  

It's probably just not worth it for them to spend time making the data presentable relative to the number of people that would actually take that deep of a dive into it.  Personally, while I would like to see it, I wouldn't want to add more work that could potentially reduce the quantity of different content we get.  

[AndySP]

7 minutes ago, cnosil said:

What is is against the primary mission?   There mission is to provide information to the consumer based on data;  they don't say anything about having to provide that data to everyone. 

I guess it’s just that we just disagree about what ‘information’ is. The golf ball testing and other testing labs are all very data-centric. I donate to the site because of their transparency in testing, and this claim in particular is uncharacteristically opaque.

[Middler]

56 minutes ago, AndySP said:

Well, isn’t withholding the data a bit misaligned with the primary mission then? I’d like to see what the actual difference is without anyones interpretation, even if I’m sure there is no intentional bias on Tony’s part. 

“Withholding” is your conclusion, I don’t expect them to publish every piece of data or every thought they might hold. This appears to be a free service in your case, it is free to most viewers - are they entitled to whatever data they want to see? Their track record with data, and transparency, is enough for me. Lots of people look for conclusions from reliable sources and don’t want all the details. We disagree, no problem.

[cnosil]

25 minutes ago, AndySP said:

I guess it’s just that we just disagree about what ‘information’ is. The golf ball testing and other testing labs are all very data-centric. I donate to the site because of their transparency in testing, and this claim in particular is uncharacteristically opaque.

Information is simply facts about something and what you are questioning is the depth of information presented.  What you are questioning is their claim;  just like MGS questions the claims made by OEMS.  The following question was asked of MGS and here is the response.   MGS testing has shown that moisture increases launch and decreases spin with wedges.  Based on the response,  a matte ball will increase launch and decrease spin over a gloss ball.    I am assuming your question is how much.  My answer is that will depend on variables like club, club speed, AoA, and other swing characteristics.   

What is the difference in numbers between matte finish vs. regular finish in the same ball type?

A: Assuming that the regular finish ball is of reasonable quality, the biggest difference is that the matte finish ball sucks and the regular ball doesn’t. Maybe that’s a little strong but unless you need the visibility provided by something like a matte red finish, you’re trading shot-to-shot consistency for some sort of color-driven fashion statement. Here’s the deal. When a bit of moisture is introduced, compared to standard glossy finish balls, launch angles will increase more significantly and spin will drop more appreciably. There are enough variables in golf so it’s silly to introduce another one when it’s easily avoidable. Friends don’t let friends drive matte balls.

[pakman92]

15 minutes ago, Middler said:

“Withholding” is your conclusion, I don’t expect them to publish every piece of data or every thought they might hold. This appears to be a free service in your case, it is free to most viewers - are they entitled to whatever data they want to see? Their track record with data, and transparency, is enough for me. Lots of people look for conclusions from reliable sources and don’t want all the details. We disagree, no problem.

I'm in the camp where I would like to see the data whenever I can.  For example, I like seeing the data presented for Most Wanted testing.  More data, the better.   Only data I always see routinely skipped is statistical significance.   Without that, I have to just take MSG's word for the result.   My uneducated guess for leaving that out may be because to have statically significant results/findings, testing may have to be significantly expanded.  Instead of 1000 shots, 10000 shots may be required for example.   This is entirely speculative on my part of course.

[Middler]

16 minutes ago, pakman92 said:

I'm in the camp where I would like to see the data whenever I can.  For example, I like seeing the data presented for Most Wanted testing.  More data, the better.   Only data I always see routinely skipped is statistical significance.   Without that, I have to just take MSG's word for the result.   My uneducated guess for leaving that out may be because to have statically significant results/findings, testing may have to be significantly expanded.  Instead of 1000 shots, 10000 shots may be required for example.   This is entirely speculative on my part of course.

I prefer more data as well. When they provide lots of data great, when they don’t - their prerogative. But again most viewers here pay nothing, it’s all free. The site and the content here is certainly not without cost to the MGS team. So I’m not inclined to accuse MGS of “withholding” anything.

I’m still trying to figure out why some don’t trust the conclusions they’ve published re: wet matte finish balls. What do they gain?

[pakman92]

1 minute ago, Middler said:

I prefer more data as well. But again most viewers here pay nothing, it’s all free. When they provide lots of data great, when they don’t - their prerogative. So I’m not inclined to accuse MGS of “withholding” anything.

I’m still trying to figure out why some don’t trust the conclusions they’ve published re: wet matte finish balls. What do they gain?

Trust but verify...  Honestly, this is the best site there is IMHO for equipment reviews and tests.   However, there should always be suggestions on how to make it better.  I think including statistical significance information would further solidify their findings.

[cnosil]

8 minutes ago, pakman92 said:

Trust but verify...  Honestly, this is the best site there is IMHO for equipment reviews and tests.   However, there should always be suggestions on how to make it better.  I think including statistical significance information would further solidify their findings.

It appears that as they have streamlined their articles and changed their data presentation they have talked less about statistical significance and data details.   Articles from 2019 and prior did provide more specifics.   As I have mentionsed,  my interpretation of discussions with Adam are that the articles are written for the masses.   I've asked about some of the testing protocols and information and it is presented that way for a reason.  

[Thin2win]

Okay all, I'm sitting at a car dealership waiting for them to get to fixing a faulty sensor. But since I can, when I get back home I'll get you all some data on this whole wet gloss VS wet matte finish. I have a stock of glossy golf balls, and a stock of glossy ones. 

How about 100y wedge and 7i shots? Driver too? 

I have some new in box gloss maxfli tours and matte maxfli tour x that I can hit both dry and wet. 

From my limited understanding of wet ball performance, I thought that any ball that was wet would launch higher and spin less. Matte balls being more affected which would add to the chance of a real flyer shot. 

I don't think the short chip shots around the green are the "concern", the ball carries what an extra foot? It has less spin (some) but the green being wet likely means it is softer and rolling slower so maybe it is all a wash? Too many variables there to test without a actual testing facility. 

My concern would be hitting full irons, if a full shot is carrying 5-15 yards further on average that is worth understanding. If a gloss ball carries 5 yards, and a matte ball carries 15 yards further that would be worth noting. 

I haven't seen a test or data, but like I said, I've got the tools to test this, so I'll do that. 

[ChitownM2]

6 minutes ago, Thin2win said:

Okay all, I'm sitting at a car dealership waiting for them to get to fixing a faulty sensor. But since I can, when I get back home I'll get you all some data on this whole wet gloss VS wet matte finish. I have a stock of glossy golf balls, and a stock of glossy ones. 

How about 100y wedge and 7i shots? Driver too? 

I have some new in box gloss maxfli tours and matte maxfli tour x that I can hit both dry and wet. 

From my limited understanding of wet ball performance, I thought that any ball that was wet would launch higher and spin less. Matte balls being more affected which would add to the chance of a real flyer shot. 

I don't think the short chip shots around the green are the "concern", the ball carries what an extra foot? It has less spin (some) but the green being wet likely means it is softer and rolling slower so maybe it is all a wash? Too many variables there to test without a actual testing facility. 

My concern would be hitting full irons, if a full shot is carrying 5-15 yards further on average that is worth understanding. If a gloss ball carries 5 yards, and a matte ball carries 15 yards further that would be worth noting. 

I haven't seen a test or data, but like I said, I've got the tools to test this, so I'll do that. 

interested to see what your results would be, but ideally you could test the same ball in both matte and gloss versions.  Several people have already tested the maxfli tour and tour X balls in the review threads and unless I am not remembering correctly the data already backs up that the tour X spins more than the regular tour.  This is also what the manufacturer claims so I am inclined to believe it.

A 100 yard wedge and a 7 iron are probably the two worth checking.  Driver spin is going to be low regardless so differences there would be hard to correlate with being wet vs. quality of the strike.  

[Middler]

2 hours ago, Riverboat said:

Everyone has biases, stated or unstated, acknowledged or unacknowledged, conscious or subconscious. Having those biases confirmed by data is satisfying, again consciously or subconsciously. Over many years, I have seen enough egregiously misinterpreted and/ or misrepresented data, as well as horrendously poor experimental design (intentional or accidental) from entities ranging from students to major corporations, to convince me that Mark Twain (or Disraeli, you decide) was correct when he said... There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. I I'm not accusing MGS of anything nefarious, but blindly accepting anyone's word based on their claimed statistical findings... no thanks for me. 

MGS is a good place to start exploring equipment options, but blindly accepting their conclusions without testing performance with MY swing for MY game is definitely not for me. My bag would be much different and my game and pain levels at least marginally worse if I took MGS' word for everything. 

Seriously, blanket statements? Please show us where I advocated “blindly accepting anyone’s word” as a general practice. I’d suggest considering the track record of reliable sources we have personal experience with is a reasonable approach, MGS in this specific example. If you’d like to mistrust everyone always, knock yourself out.

And your results for YOUR swing and YOUR game won’t always differ - if the matte finish reacts differently to moisture than gloss, it won’t be more spin for some and less for ANY others…

[RickyBobby_PR]

2 minutes ago, Riverboat said:

 

Call it what you want, the first quote looks pretty blind to me. 

As for the second, will it be to the same extent for all swings, speeds, etc? Will the results be negligible for most. If you understand statistics,you know that results can be "significant" for very miniscule differences if sample sizes are large. Not to mention that some have indicated that this situation would actually result in extra distance, which would inadvertently help most amateurs since they typically come up short a great majority of the time. 

So, no, MGS saying "matte bad, gloss good" isn't enough for me. 

Less spin is going to be less spin and higher launch is going to be higher launch. It doesn’t matter how much it is they will be higher for wet matte balls. The chances that it will help a golfer is slim. It’s a bad situation for glossy balls when they are wet it’s going to be an even worse situation for the matte ones.

It’s it an ok situation with the glossy balls it’s going to be less of an ok situation for the matte one. Not sure how many times you need to read that in this thread but you apparently don’t grasp that simple concept