MGS Beef with Rick Shiels? He addresses on his new podcast

[LICC 265]

17 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Your right they don’t have a monopoly on it but they amount of data they have blows every forum and YouTube/social media reviewer out of the water. It’s not even close in what mgs does from reviews and testing. Ricks videos are almost predictable in what he will say. He’s also not going to out and our bash a company because he doesn’t want to end up like crossfields where he doesn’t get sent equipment to “review”. He will toe the line of negative and positives and that nothing is really that much better.

Those that are set in finding fault with something mgs says will read that into what was said in the reply. 

 

I don't understand this. Shiels hit over 120 balls on one day and then more the next. How many do you think he needs to hit to get enough data and experience to give an informed opinion. And I find his reviews aren't all the same. He gives his data and his impressions on feel, sound, accuracy, etc. and they differ for each video.

[chisag 17,555]

1 hour ago, TR1PTIK said:

MGS was defending the hard work and dedication, that has resulted in a (potentially) revolutionary product, materials, and manufacturing process. I don't think they showed PXG this kind of reception (maybe they did, and I just can't remember), but they have shown similar appreciation for Cobra's advancements in 3D printing. 

 

... So many love to claim all Marketing is Hype without substance. Of course Marketing is Hype by definition, but there is always at least some substance. How much substance is what we hope to find out in the review and then demo and find out if that substance applies to our game. I really don't think any OEM is producing a bad product in 2022 so a negative review is really difficult to find. But much more often than not, new products are not substantially better than what they are replacing. A slight uptick in ball speed, marginally higher MOI, 100rpm less/more spin, 4% more forgiving and many more improvements that will not have much if any impact on your shots or your scores. I keep saying this but most OEMs are not trying to sell you a this years driver if you own last years driver. They are trying to sell you a SIM2/Radspeed because it is a substantial improvement over your R1/F6.  I remember Titleist saying they do not recommend that original AP2 players upgrade to the new AP2's until the 4th generation because they did not want any customers buying the new AP2's and thinking they were duped, finding there was no difference in their performance on the course. Rare to come right out and say it because every OEM loves a fanboy that buys new products every year so they don't want to discourage them but also want to provide realistic expectations for their serious customers. It was the Titleist VP of Marketing that said "We want customers for life, not one product cycle."

... Going to the Show for the last 20 years I did find clubs that increased my enjoyment through a better feel, sound or look at address but I rarely found a product that made a difference in my play or my scores. When I did find something that was revolutionary I wanted to hype the he!! out of it so fellow golfers would at least demo one for themselves. I understand MGS wanting their readers to know Stealth is a revolutionary product because after so many products that are not really substantially different, barely better or a rehash of what already is, finding a bona fide new technology is pretty exciting. 

[TR1PTIK 3,492]

28 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

... So many love to claim all Marketing is Hype without substance. Of course Marketing is Hype by definition, but there is always at least some substance. How much substance is what we hope to find out in the review and then demo and find out if that substance applies to our game. I really don't think any OEM is producing a bad product in 2022 so a negative review is really difficult to find. But much more often than not, new products are not substantially better than what they are replacing. A slight uptick in ball speed, marginally higher MOI, 100rpm less/more spin, 4% more forgiving and many more improvements that will not have much if any impact on your shots or your scores. I keep saying this but most OEMs are not trying to sell you a this years driver if you own last years driver. They are trying to sell you a SIM2/Radspeed because it is a substantial improvement over your R1/F6.  I remember Titleist saying they do not recommend that original AP2 players upgrade to the new AP2's until the 4th generation because they did not want any customers buying the new AP2's and thinking they were duped, finding there was no difference in their performance on the course. Rare to come right out and say it because every OEM loves a fanboy that buys new products every year so they don't want to discourage them but also want to provide realistic expectations for their serious customers. It was the Titleist VP of Marketing that said "We want customers for life, not one product cycle."

... Going to the Show for the last 20 years I did find clubs that increased my enjoyment through a better feel, sound or look at address but I rarely found a product that made a difference in my play or my scores. When I did find something that was revolutionary I wanted to hype the he!! out of it so felow golfers would at least demo one for themselves. I understand MGS wanting their readers to know Stealth is a revolutionary product because after so many products that are not really substantially different, barely better or a rehash of what already is, finding a bona fide new technology is pretty exciting. 

Absolutely agree with this perspective and I hope it didn't come off as though I think Stealth is going to be significantly better than anything else that comes out this year from a performance standpoint. I don't really think MGS Staff believes that either to be honest.

It's simply that revolutionary products which introduce new materials and manufacturing methods open up new doors and what we see 10 years down the line could be quite different as a result. Perhaps the whole "every MGS staffer that tested picked up ball speed" (I'm summarizing of course) is overstated. However, I get the excitement surrounding that and wanting to point it out. There was a lot of excitement about the Cobra F9 when it came out and while it did perform exceptionally well for some there were plenty of others who didn't see a benefit and experienced better performance from a different brand/model.

[RickyBobby_PR 9,220]

37 minutes ago, LICC said:

I don't understand this. Shiels hit over 120 balls on one day and then more the next. How many do you think he needs to hit to get enough data and experience to give an informed opinion. And I find his reviews aren't all the same. He gives his data and his impressions on feel, sound, accuracy, etc. and they differ for each video.

That still isn’t even close to the data that mgs has, which is what the mgs reply want pointing out as well as the type of analysis mgs does is far more in depth than Rick. 
 

Rick and his channel went from somewhat of a channel mixed with golf tips and swing reviews to more of an entertainment channel with more reviews and some change in his approach. Don’t fault him for it, he’s trying to monetize his channel and he’s more for the average golfer. I would rather watch a 10 min video from Michael newton on a product than Rick. 
 

once he really made this switch he doesn’t say anything negative that’s going to keep him from getting gear to test. So his reviews will always be down the middle. 
 

But again those that have some run with mgs on any issue are going to find it with their reply and inclusion of Rick. But you you replace Rick with a number of YouTube reviewers and it’s applicable 

[Middler 3,435]

1 hour ago, LICC said:

If this response was from an official MGS representative, then this is a black mark for MGS. The 5-10 shots comment was silly and insulting Shiels seems unwarranted and petty.

I wouldn't think MGS would allow a comment on their website by a user named MYGOLFSPY that wasn't an official MGS rep.

[StrokerAce 11,768]

...whoa, they sure stepped in it here.  

not the first time; won't be the last.

[Middler 3,435]

YouTube Channel | Subscribers

• Rick Shiels 2,010K
• MeAndMyGolf 808K
• Danny Maude 662K
• Clay Ballard 574K
• Peter Finch 459K
• Mark Crossfield 360K
• Chris Ryan 312K
• MrShortGame 286K
• Paige Spiranac 260K
• Golf Digest 192K
• James Robinson 185K
• TXG 176K
• Seb 134K
• GolfMonthly 118K
• Ali Taylor 74K
• Ales Etches 68K
• TheAverageGolfer 59K
• Michael Newton 56K
• MGS 47K

One of the above is included as a joke for those who thrive on picking nits...

Again, MGS was out of line in how "they" went after Shiels IMO, but obviously he knows his lane better than almost anyone on YouTube. It is how he makes his living...it ain't rickshiels.org.

[StrokerAce 11,768]

3 minutes ago, Middler said:

Channel | Subscribers

• Rick Shiels 2,010K
• MeAndMyGolf 808K
• Danny Maude 662K
• Clay Ballard 574K
• Peter Finch 459K
• Mark Crossfield 360K
• MrShortGame 286K
• Paige Spiranac 260K
• James Robinson 185K
• TXG 176K
• Seb 134K
• GolfMonthly 118K
• Ali Taylor 74K
• Ales Etches 68K
• TheAverageGolfer 59K
• Michael Newton 56K
• MGS 47K

One of the above is included as a joke...

Again, MGS was out of line in how they went after Shiels IMO, but obviously he knows his lane better than almost anyone on YouTube. It is how he makes his living...it ain't RS.org.

 Posted yesterday; already 80k+ views and 500 comments; most of which slam MGS...

[cnosil 24,324]

9 minutes ago, Middler said:

YouTube Channel | Subscribers

• Rick Shiels 2,010K
•  
• Paige Spiranac 260K
•  

 

That is just shocking.  

[Rob W. 26]

In my opinion neither MGS nor Rick are reporting testing results, they are reporting reviews.  If they wanted REAL testing, set up the robot, and let it swing away with every driver that comes out.  They did it with the ball test. Why? because the robot gives you the most consistent & controlled data points. 

The reply that a robot doesn't represent the average golfer is BS.  You can set up the robot to replicate off center hits, steep and shallow hits.  Any swing fault can be simulated.  But we don't ever see that data because it would end the debates and would make marketing hype transparent.

As far as this squabble goes, Rick never claims to be doing controlled tests.  He does the kind of tests that you and I can do at the PGA superstore or Golf Galaxy.  MGS is the place that executes more controlled tests, so they needed to take the high road on this one.  The response needed to be less personal in nature.  

 

[chisag 17,555]

46 minutes ago, TR1PTIK said:

I hope it didn't come off as though I think Stealth is going to be significantly better than anything else that comes out this year from a performance standpoint. I don't really think MGS Staff believes that either to be honest.

 

... Not at all. Just because a product is revolutionary doesn't mean that it will be better for everyone but it will be better or at the bare minimum, different. So I think reviewers that see bare bones changes from generation to generation with a different color or other minor change, can get a little excited about something completely new. And as MGS stated, every staff member saw a ball speed increase which of course is factual. Whether or not that ball speed increase gives them better overall performance is a completely different animal and will come out in their review.  Which gets us back to attacking Rick, at least in the one reply, I also have no doubt Rick did not see a ball speed increase for whatever reason which may be just a result of how he swings a driver and of course that is the crux of reviews and potential buyers. Just because it was better for those testing does not mean it will be better for you, but with so many new products every year, these reviews gives you a great starting point and can narrow the field. 

[fixyurdivot 16,505]

1 hour ago, StrokerAce said:

 Posted yesterday; already 80k+ views and 500 comments; most of which slam MGS...

Okay, this post finally pushed me over the edge and I watched the video.  At 01:24 Guy is stating that "MGS is claiming massive gains in ball speeds across the testers"... umm, no they didn't.  They simply stated that it was the first time all testers thus far have recorded their highest ball speeds.  Personal best does not equate to massive.  It may be increases in the tenths and possibly within the testers STD if they hit that same driver over multiple days. Just another example of comment taken out of context. 

Conversely, the claim that Rick only hits 5-10 shots with the Stealth (and seemed to imply this is his basic testing approach with all clubs) seems odd; from whoever it was they were quoting (do we know?).  Clearly Rick's reaction says that's poppycock which begs the question who was it and what is their basis for saying that?

So here we are, two really great entities trying their best to provide the golfing populous around the globe with some good data about new products, having a pissing match which may very well be much to do about nothing.  

Personally, simply from a testing format, I give the nod to MGS. Having a group of testers whose ball striking capabilities represent the cross-section of the golfing population, and who (I'm pretty sure) have no personal stake that would sway their feedback, or cook-the-books so to speak in their effort to give all products their best chance, is solid. Rick, TXG, and many others do great work, but I often don't find my game in their way better than average ball striking prowess.

I'd love to hear that Adam and Rick threw back a few beers at some point and chuckled about some out of context comments gone wild.

 

 

[TR1PTIK 3,492]

51 minutes ago, Rob W. said:

The reply that a robot doesn't represent the average golfer is BS.  You can set up the robot to replicate off center hits, steep and shallow hits.  Any swing fault can be simulated

Why spend the money and time having a robot replicate the shots of average golfers when you can just have average golfers hit shots?

I get that people want apples-to-apples comparisons of equipment, but you could attach the club to a pole and have a robot swing it and it's not going to correlate to the average golfer. Average is average, as in most common. When you have actual golfers test equipment, they aren't going to hit the center of the face with any level of precision; their shot pattern is going to move around and you will achieve exactly the result you're asking for. I think the people clamoring for this type of test simply don't understand what it is they're asking for or what it would mean - and in relation to the golfing consumer that is precisely nothing.

[John Bachman 55]

18 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

Okay, this post finally pushed me over the edge and I watched the video.  At 01:24 Guy is stating that "MGS is claiming massive gains in ball speeds across the testers"... umm, no they didn't.  They simply stated that it was the first time all testers thus far have recorded their highest ball speeds.  Personal best does not equate to massive.  It may be increases in the tenths and possibly within the testers STD if they hit that same driver over multiple days. Just another example of comment taken out of context. 

Conversely, the claim that Rick only hits 5-10 shots with the Stealth (and seemed to imply this his basic testing approach with all clubs) seems odd; from whoever it was they were quoting (do we know?).  Clearly Rick's reaction says that's poppycock which begs the question who was it and what is their basis for saying that?

So here we are, two really great entities trying their best to provide the golfing populous around the globe with some good data about new products, having a pissing match which may very well be much to do about nothing.  

Personally, simply from a testing format, I give the nod to MGS. Having a group of testers whose ball striking capabilities represent the cross-section of the golfing population, and who (I'm pretty sure) have no personal stake that would sway their feedback, or cook-the-books so to speak in their effort to give all products their best chance, is solid. Rick, TXG, and many others do great work, but I often don't find my game in their way better than average ball striking prowess.

I'd love to hear that Adam and Rick threw back a few beers at some point and chuckled about some out of context comments gone wild.

 

 

I’ve never really delved into MGS’s testing too deeply. It might be good in the future to break down their testing data into handicap ranges. Maybe they do this already. I’m a 4 handicap and really don’t need to know the results from testers who may be a 10+ handicap. Like I said, I don’t do a total breakdown of their data results. As with MGS and other sites, I use their reviews and info as a starting point and to get ideas on equipment I may not have known or thought of. 

[bens197 11,613]

25 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

Okay, this post finally pushed me over the edge and I watched the video.  At 01:24 Guy is stating that "MGS is claiming massive gains in ball speeds across the testers"... umm, no they didn't.  They simply stated that it was the first time all testers thus far have recorded their highest ball speeds.  Personal best does not equate to massive.  It may be increases in the tenths and possibly within the testers STD if they hit that same driver over multiple days. Just another example of comment taken out of context. 

 

 

 

Dude...great find...And this right here is a big reason why I don't listen to the fools who just want views and clicks.  

Maybe it's why I like and have stuck around MGS in contrast.  None of this nonsense.

 

[fixyurdivot 16,505]

2 minutes ago, John Bachman said:

I’ve never really delved into MGS’s testing too deeply. It might be good in the future to break down their testing data into handicap ranges. Maybe they do this already. I’m a 4 handicap and really don’t need to know the results from testers who may be a 10+ handicap. Like I said, I don’t do a total breakdown of their data results. As with MGS and other sites, I use their reviews and info as a starting point and to get ideas on equipment I may not have known or thought of. 

Some of the testers "MGS Hit Squad" are regulars here on the forum.  I don't know their exact make-up of playing capability but, largely based on discussions from them in numerous threads, it sounds like they cover the spectrum of ball striking capability.  I think I heard some talk about them creating a "Hit Squad Player Profile" at some point?

[LICC 265]

2 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

That still isn’t even close to the data that mgs has, which is what the mgs reply want pointing out as well as the type of analysis mgs does is far more in depth than Rick. 
 

Rick and his channel went from somewhat of a channel mixed with golf tips and swing reviews to more of an entertainment channel with more reviews and some change in his approach. Don’t fault him for it, he’s trying to monetize his channel and he’s more for the average golfer. I would rather watch a 10 min video from Michael newton on a product than Rick. 
 

once he really made this switch he doesn’t say anything negative that’s going to keep him from getting gear to test. So his reviews will always be down the middle. 
 

But again those that have some run with mgs on any issue are going to find it with their reply and inclusion of Rick. But you you replace Rick with a number of YouTube reviewers and it’s applicable 

I think that saying the new model doesn't provide much if any improvement over the prior year's model (or even the model from 5 years ago which I have seen him do) is a negative. He has also talked about how some clubs vary greatly on mishits while others do well in this area. He often gives varying opinions on sound and feel, both positive and negative. 

Edited January 13 by LICC

[LICC 265]

1 hour ago, fixyurdivot said:

Okay, this post finally pushed me over the edge and I watched the video.  At 01:24 Guy is stating that "MGS is claiming massive gains in ball speeds across the testers"... umm, no they didn't.  They simply stated that it was the first time all testers thus far have recorded their highest ball speeds.  Personal best does not equate to massive.  It may be increases in the tenths and possibly within the testers STD if they hit that same driver over multiple days. Just another example of comment taken out of context. 

The MGS post on the Stealth driver said this, which seems consistent with Guy's description:

"Out of the gate, in our range session with Trackman and TaylorMade TP5 balls, we saw exceptional results.

These days, I typically hover around 158 mph ball speed. With the Stealth Plus, I repeatedly hit 162 and change (a personal best for me). Obvious (though not massive) mishits dipped to 158 mph or so while the total trash typically stayed above 150.

Our Harry Nodwell plays professionally. He’s typically in the 178 mph range but he repeatedly and consistently broke 180, including a personal best of 181.4.

There appears to be real juice in the Stealth."

 

[Riverboat 767]

I have no ax to grind here. Not a Rick Shiels fan or detractors (I actually lean toward the Average Golfer, as his game is close to mine.) However, many of you are being a bit contradictory in defending MGS for their independence and criticizing Rick for never saying anything negative when this all started because someone at MGS felt he was being unfairly negative toward TaylorMade. Sure sounds like in this instance Rick was being more independent than MGS would have liked. He's not the only reviewer out there who has been underwhelmed with the stealth. I haven't seen any bad reviews, but quite a few have suggested minimal gains. 

[RickyBobby_PR 9,220]

55 minutes ago, John Bachman said:

I’ve never really delved into MGS’s testing too deeply. It might be good in the future to break down their testing data into handicap ranges. Maybe they do this already. I’m a 4 handicap and really don’t need to know the results from testers who may be a 10+ handicap. Like I said, I don’t do a total breakdown of their data results. As with MGS and other sites, I use their reviews and info as a starting point and to get ideas on equipment I may not have known or thought of. 

Not all handicaps are achieved the same way. Some guys regardless of handicap can have good short game and mediocre tee and iron. What if some high handicaps are long but lack distance control with irons and wedges (there’s some around here like that) 

it’s doesn’t make much sense to go by handicap.

21 minutes ago, LICC said:

I think that saying the new model doesn't provide much if any improvement over the prior year's model (or even the model from 5 years ago which I have seen him do) is a negative. He has also talked about how some clubs vary greatly on mishits while others do well in this area. He often gives varying opinions on sound and feel, both positive and negative. 

That’s pretty much what everyone says and data shows that. Even mgs says it and put it in the reply on that post. many say that ifs 3-7 years depending on which part of the bag one is looking at.

Everyone so focused on year to year but forget that there’s lots of golfers who have 3 year old+ clubs in their bag. Rick and all the other reviews aren’t doing anything other than a comparison year to year. Yes Rick did his 5 year test a few years back but even that lacks the amount of data that mgs has.
 Many amateurs looking for the magic bullet in a club and not interested in doing the work to get better or longer