Matte vs Gloss

[Middler]

12 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. 

  Best of luck.

[GregGarner]

As a PhD candidate, it makes me happy to see folks advocating for the source data. As a Joe Schmo consumer, I just wonder what MGS would gain by advocating against matte if it were not, in fact, more affected by the presence of moisture...

That this thread has reached 5 pages is something else

[cnosil]

I think the final answer for this thread is that we are all different.   Some of us don't think the impact of wet or dry, matte or gloss, two piece or three piece, or anything else matters to their game.    MGS provides information and whether you think there is enough information or not you as a player needs to test and evaluate how the equipment impacts you.  If you need to see the data then capture your own data for your own game and see how a condition plays out for you.    We have to remember that the intended reader of most of MGS's articles is the person that walks in off the street and buys equipment blindly and not the person that generally reads this forum and asks questions.  

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, Riverboat said:

If the ball is wet, that will usually mean the course is wet, which will result in less release in most cases. If higher spin and launch results in more carry, when you combine that with less release, the overall distance could very well wind up evening things out substantially, resulting in less necessity for adjusting to the wet conditions, not more. Advanced math,I know.

And if the overall distance variability is a matter of a few yards, big deal. 137.5 yards vs 140 is the same swing for me. Maybe since your handicap is a whole strike lower than mine, it makes a huge difference to you. 

So again, I'll test each ball I'm interested in on the course for myself. Rickybobby saying "my last post in the thread to answer the OP matte balls suck, just ask Bubba" (which was how many posts ago?) is not going to do it for me. 

Handicap is irrelevant. We all get to our handicaps differently. There’s mid caps that rely on shirt game to keep theirs low but don’t have a tee game and others that have decent tee game but struggle around the greens so basing anything on handicap is the wrong way to go about anything.

Just because a ball is wet doesn’t mean the whole course is wet. Have you event played a course when they are watering the fairways but they haven’t watered the greens yet? 

And yes when it comes to hitting into a green 3 yards can make a huge difference. 
 

and when there dumb stuff being posted in a thread I will jump back in 
 

[AndySP]

7 hours ago, cnosil said:

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.[…]

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

A: […] 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. 

Sort of, I think that information and conclusions are different. I’m saying that using phrases like “more significantly” and “more appreciably” are conclusions based on the facts that are not presented. Saying something is “significant” is not strictly information and not really in line with the MGS ethos. It’s an interpretation of information without the underlying facts. It’s the same thing as what TM and others ads rely on every year to sell  new product. 

[AndySP]

7 hours 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.

Geez, I’m a donor here. I just don’t have the badge. Also, if it were not withholding data, then it would be worse. 

Just saying that there isn’t much we know about the differences between the two finishes beyond some conclusory statements, which is a long way away from a ball test.

[cnosil]

2 minutes ago, AndySP said:

Sort of, I think that information and conclusions are different. I’m saying that using phrases like “more significantly” and “more appreciably” are conclusions based on the facts that are not presented. Saying something is “significant” is not strictly information and not really in line with the MGS ethos. It’s an interpretation of information without the underlying facts. It’s the same thing as what TM and others ads rely on every year to sell  new product. 

Everything is an interpretation of data even if the data is presented.  Then the simple answer is go test it yourself and see what results you get when you hit the ball as those are the only results that matter.    

[RollingGreens]

3 hours ago, greggarner said:

As a PhD candidate, it makes me happy to see folks advocating for the source data. As a Joe Schmo consumer, I just wonder what MGS would gain by advocating against matte if it were not, in fact, more affected by the presence of moisture...

That this thread has reached 5 pages is something else

It seems that a few people in this thread would want the raw data with the statistical testing shown to come to their own conclusion but I think it would only benefit a minority. A very small percentage of readers or forum members have the ability to make sense of the raw data. I can understand why MGS has gone to a more streamlined way of presenting data and info

[AndySP]

4 hours ago, cnosil said:

Everything is an interpretation of data even if the data is presented.  Then the simple answer is go test it yourself and see what results you get when you hit the ball as those are the only results that matter.    

I think you are equivocating “interpretation” to fit what you think I mean. This doesn’t need to be about philosophies of science. Obviously, collecting data is complicated because we’re only human, but, there can still be a difference between “200 rpm greater standard deviation” and “appreciably less consistent”. That’s really all I’m sayin.
 

I don’t really care if they ever do the test, but I prefer ‘most wanted’ to ‘golf digest best of’ for exactly this reason.

[BIG STU]

18 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. 

Basically you are like me and agree everything works differently for different folks. I have never been closed minded for things. Just because I disagree with Tony and others in this case does not mean absolutely I am right and he is wrong. Me even though I read and digest the data I am a hands on person for myself. That is why you will always see me state that this either worked for ME or it did not work for ME.  Lots of times I read and digest the raw data on here and the opinion of others and go from there to whether I will try the product or not. Lots of times I get intrigued and run the "Stu Test" on it for myself

But yeah in a nutshell I stay open minded and read and digest and after much thought and contlemplation I form my opinion right or wrong

[cnosil]

3 hours ago, BIG STU said:

Basically you are like me and agree everything works differently for different folks. I have never been closed minded for things. Just because I disagree with Tony and others in this case does not mean absolutely I am right and he is wrong. Me even though I read and digest the data I am a hands on person for myself. That is why you will always see me state that this either worked for ME or it did not work for ME.  Lots of times I read and digest the raw data on here and the opinion of others and go from there to whether I will try the product or not. Lots of times I get intrigued and run the "Stu Test" on it for myself

But yeah in a nutshell I stay open minded and read and digest and after much thought and contlemplation I form my opinion right or wrong

I think what you stated here is exactly what MGS advocates.  Even though they perform most wanted or ball tests and determine a "winner" that winner isn't for everyone and as a player you need to find what works for you.  I am generally low spin off the driver so balls that spin more will generally perform better for me.  Their charts give my a idea for balls to try.  @Riverboat like softer compression balls so the MGS provides a consistent way of measuring so he can evaluate which balls work best for him based on the way he plays.    As players we should be fit and fit could be via a professional fitter or simply trial and error by the player themselves.   

I also think people try to read too much into the data that is presented and treat it like it is the perfect answer for everyone.  Look at the wet ball test that MGS does.  I hit those 50 yard shots and saw that the ball launched higher (not just on the launch monitor but where it was impacting the screen) and based on launch monitor data had lower spin and more rollout.    People look at the titleist ball fitting as an advertisement for Titleist and that everyone should play Prov1 type balls.   While it does in some way advertise for titleist I look at is as education for players on a way to evaluate whatever ball and brand they choose.   

No matter what any article or test states, players owe it to themselves to do their own "Stu Test"

 

[Thin2win]

Wow, that was... all over the place. I grabbed a spray bottle and 6 assorted golf balls, 3 matte, 3 gloss, 2 Surlyn, 4 Urethane. I used my Sub 70 52 Wedge, it isn't fancy like a Ping or Mizuno which both seem to negate the issues that wet balls see. I tried to swing about the same every time, obviously, human and not possible. I ended up hitting about 90y carry shots.

So a couple things. The 2 piece balls, are not safe for hitting indoors when wet!! It didn't matter if it was the gloss Titleist Velocity or the Matte Superhot. The launch angle goes through the ceiling... quite literally.

I took almost 100 shots in this test. You can decide if that is enough or not enough. But the numbers were pretty interesting across the board. I think I will actually have to test this further with an iron.

First the standard bearer, the ProV1:

A little higher launch, a little faster and basically identical spin, this was the last of the wet ball testing I did so my swing was probably the most calmed down after the Velocity/Superhot heartbeat check.

Next TP5x, another gloss urethane ball.

I need to put a real disclaimer on this one. I probably should have retest this at the end. It was the first ball I hit after the Velocity/Superhot and I was afraid to swing... I'm still giving you the averages, you can see that the launch is way up and the spin pretty far down, but my swing speed was  in nervous mode.  But the launch being that high with club speed down was worth showing.

Now to the first of the Matte balls, the Maxfli Tour X:

Ball speed, launch angle both up and spin down by about 12%. Carry a little further, total roll out about the same. It looked a lot different coming off the club, but I wouldn't say it was unplayable.

Q Star Tour Divide

Launched higher, came down stepper... but almost the same in practical terms.

Velocity(Gloss)/Superhot(Matte). I only hit 2 superhots and then a single 3/4 velocity. I need more ceiling protection to hit them when wet. My setup is not ready for 40° + launch angles. But the spin on these 2 piece balls falls off a cliff while the launch angle jumps by about 6°.

My take away after this... Urethane balls do pretty good when wet. The ProV1(gloss) and the Q Start(Matte) didn't really show much different. The TP5x(gloss) and the Maxfli Tour X(Matte) showed a drop in spin with their increase in launch angle but not to the point that I was concerned and probably not to the point that it would make difference in how I would play a shot on the course. Surlyn cover balls behave very different. I can't tell you how much more drastic the difference was between them being dry and wet. The number above don't tell the whole story.

So, my hot take:

2 piece surlyn(glossy or matte) = scary when wet.

3 piece urethane(glossy or matte), good dry or wet regardless of finish.

4+ piece urethane(glossy or matte) seem to lose more spin then 3 piece when wet.

tl:dr I'll test more but don't see wet drastically affecting Matte finishes more then Glossy finishes.

[Thin2win]

Side note, I just looked at the shot area's on the Q Star, dry I was not so good with that ball, but if I can spray it while on the course, that thing could be my gamer, I was laser like consistent with it!! haha.