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

[fixyurdivot]

2 hours ago, Rob W. said:

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.

Interesting point and valid - at least for the LM part of the assessment.  I mean, MGS's mission statement runs along the lines of replacing marketing hype with facts... pretty much the Myth Busters of golf.  I may be wrong but suspect the OEM's do the majority (if not all) product development tests using a robot simply because they can isolate conditions and do so consistently.

What would be fun to see is some comparative data, using a robot and Trackman average player AOA, CFTP, SS, etc., and hits at dead center, and off-center; crown, sole, toe, and heel. I think that would be quite informative. 

[John Bachman]

27 minutes ago, TR1PTIK said:

I think the reason for the MGS reply is they felt Rick was doing some sort of disservice to the golf consumer by not being more specific about what makes the Stealth driver special. I don't feel it was handled correctly, but I do believe that is the driving force behind the response as alluded to when the (for now) anonymous staffer said,

"When it comes to the Stealth, what I can tell you is that I have never seen a single product in the driver category produce ball speed personal records for EVERY staff member of MGS that tested the product. That is a first. Will it be better for everyone, maybe not, but you need to give kudos to something when it actually deserves it.

This wasn’t just words and an ad, they actually pushed an envelope and made something better and moved a technology forward for golfers. And trust me that is more than a lot of the products we see that come across our facility.

I give a golf clap to what they did this year, it was a lot of work and work they should be proud of."

Maybe Rick didn’t think the driver was special since it really didn’t improve his numbers. He’s not there to kiss TMs rear or any other company. He gave his honest review as he saw it as did MGS. Just because their results are different doesn’t mean one is right and the other is wrong. I’m 

[TR1PTIK]

21 minutes ago, John Bachman said:

Maybe Rick didn’t think the driver was special since it really didn’t improve his numbers. He’s not there to kiss TMs rear or any other company. He gave his honest review as he saw it as did MGS. Just because their results are different doesn’t mean one is right and the other is wrong. I’m 

What I was saying (which you seem to have missed) is that the MGS staffer's response was not driven by numbers. It was driven by a new way of doing something which could have a profound impact on the way drivers across all brands are constructed in the future. The fact TM was able to produce a carbon-faced driver with performance similar to that of current titanium drivers is fairly impressive given that (by all accounts I've read) the Callaway C4 from '02 was somewhat of a dud. I tried to find information on the JDM Taylormade Gloire, but there's not much out there based on the brief search I did.

Ball speed and distance numbers have very little to do with what was being said, but that's all anyone focuses on. No one ever cares much about where the performance comes from. The statement about ball speed was simply meant to convey the point that Stealth is something the MGS staff have never seen.

Perhaps you're right though, maybe that's why Rick didn't think the driver was special and if that's the case I think he kind of missed the boat.

Anyway, it's not about kissing anyone's rear, it's about acknowledging a leap forward in technology. At least that's how I read it.

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, LICC said:

I don't see how you can look at it that way. The MGS rep took an unwarranted shot at Shiels that in no way was necessitated by the comment from the poster.

The poster used Rick Shiels as his reference. Mgs replied with their thoughts on Rick. It’s not like they brought him into the conversation out of nowhere. But then again I’m not one trying to to read anything into whats really nothing and whole bunch of people are trying to turn into something that’s not there so they can vent about mgs and their gripes with mgs

also imo Rick despite his large following isn’t one that I would consider a great source on golf equipment and the details of design and so on and definitely not one I would look to for swing advice 

[cnosil]

4 hours ago, Rob W. said:

 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.

 

What you are missing is that a robot doesn't react to feel and looks;  it swings on the plane that is setup.  People react to feels,  I may leave the face open because of how it feels or because of visual queues hit snap hooks.  

 

3 hours ago, fixyurdivot said:

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?

I don't know the makeup of the testers as the testers are different for each club type.   The spectrum is pretty wide as there are + handicappers all the way to 20+ handicappers.  Ages range from 20s to 70s.    As mentioned by someone else's response,  handicap isn't really a great indicator if the clubs works for you.   I'd probably look at things measured on a launch monitor as a you can have a scratch golfer that hits it 230  and a 20 that hits it 300.  

[Moose4282]

21 hours ago, MNUte said:

After a 1 mph average increase and highest overall of 2mph, your takeaway from this is to bash Rick?

Regardless of whether he's your flavor or not, he's a single data source, one of many. You're right, he tends to be a fairly skeptical source. But so are plenty of people. And the majority of reviewers who are public with their results didn't show much increase. As a countering data point, Alex Etches showed significant increases. So you review the sources and take any particular one with a grain of salt.

Rick said that to him there was no difference in ball speeds. His numbers reflect that. And again, many also show no or negligible differences. You yourself state that you think MGS's claims are a tad inflated and that for you the speeds were fairly negligible (I'm assuming you're over 100 mph ball speed and so the 1 to 2mph increase is at most 1 to 2 % increases). So how does all of that that justify the MYGOLFSPY Response and some of the low blow statements. Similarly, how does that justify your comments that his skepticism equates to him not understanding data or science?

 

Because what sheils does (and many other yt) is so unscientific in nature. You cant call it a test or comparison of you dont understand how science works. There are variables and constants that have to be accounted for. His approach is incredibly simplistic. Another thing that seems to be happening is ALL reviews im seeing that use trackman has stealth clubhead speed UP 2-3mph and smash actually a bit lower than other drivers, even tho ball speed is up. They all bumble around this fact having no clue what is actually happening. Its sad.

Edited January 14, 2022 by Moose4282

[Moose4282]

5 hours ago, Rob W. said:

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.  

 

Bingo. To do anything less is get lost in clouds

[Moose4282]

38 minutes ago, cnosil said:

What you are missing is that a robot doesn't react to feel and looks;  it swings on the plane that is setup.  People react to feels,  I may leave the face open because of how it feels or because of visual queues hit snap hooks.  

 

I don't know the makeup of the testers as the testers are different for each club type.   The spectrum is pretty wide as there are + handicappers all the way to 20+ handicappers.  Ages range from 20s to 70s.    As mentioned by someone else's response,  handicap isn't really a great indicator if the clubs works for you.   I'd probably look at things measured on a launch monitor as a you can have a scratch golfer that hits it 230  and a 20 that hits it 300.  

No doubt an actual golfer introduces random variables that a robot cant replicate. But all we want to know here is it faster. In certain parts of the face. Control all variables and make them equal, chs, dynamic loft, face angle, aoa, strike location. Let the chips fall where they may. Thats where the truth resides. 

[cnosil]

2 minutes ago, Moose4282 said:

No doubt an actual golfer introduces random variables that a robot cant replicate. But all we want to know here is it faster. In certain parts of the face. Control all variables and make them equal, chs, dynamic loft, face angle, aoa, strike location. Let the chips fall where they may. Thats where the truth resides. 

Don't disagree that that will give you information about one configuration of the club.   But just because the club is the fastest using a robot that doesn't mean it will be the fastest when it is in your hands.   There are multiple truths and you have identified one particular truth.  

[chisag]

59 minutes ago, cnosil said:

What you are missing is that a robot doesn't react to feel and looks;  it swings on the plane that is setup.  People react to feels,  I may leave the face open because of how it feels or because of visual queues hit snap hooks. 

 

...  A robot will tell me little if anything. Even ball speed doesn't tell me much because trajectory, spin and swing speed can negate any increase in ball speed. That said it is good information to have and the more info the better. But as you said that info is not just technical aspects a robot can reveal but I wanna know how it plays. I remember the original remake of the Big Bertha and at that time it was the best feeling and sounding driver I had hit. A wonderful dense feel and muted sound. Some reviewers and especially younger wrx members commented how it just felt dead and lifeless compared to the explosive driver they had been playing so they really disliked it. One player looks at a Max head and thinks they can't hit something that large and the next guy thinks it gives them added confidence. 

... And while a robot can be very valuable and reveal many truths it cannot emulate average golfers swings. Just taking one over the top, out to in, face open, negative angle of attack, 89mph driver swing and if you change one of those variables like how open the face is, everything changes. Now the combination of incremental changes for that one swing has to be in the thousands if not millions. And we haven't even touched on shafts because unless you have carbon copy of Byron Nelsons swing, how you swing any given shaft cannot be duplicated by a robot, just the swing speed. 

[Tyler86]

Good to see that so many people have such different opinions on this little golf drama, and are all conversing like adults.  (Not sarcasm) 

Edited January 14, 2022 by Tyler86

[Moose4282]

1 hour ago, cnosil said:

Don't disagree that that will give you information about one configuration of the club.   But just because the club is the fastest using a robot that doesn't mean it will be the fastest when it is in your hands.   There are multiple truths and you have identified one particular truth.  

Well actually yea. If its fastest with a robot butnot the fastest in your hands, then something is off… too much loft, etc. would need to make adjustments to maximize it. Or you just have a mental block and well…

[Moose4282]

58 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

...  A robot will tell me little if anything. Even ball speed doesn't tell me much because trajectory, spin and swing speed can negate any increase in ball speed. That said it is good information to have and the more info the better. But as you said that info is not just technical aspects a robot can reveal but I wanna know how it plays. I remember the original remake of the Big Bertha and at that time it was the best feeling and sounding driver I had hit. A wonderful dense feel and muted sound. Some reviewers and especially younger wrx members commented how it just felt dead and lifeless compared to the explosive driver they had been playing so they really disliked it. One player looks at a Max head and thinks they can't hit something that large and the next guy thinks it gives them added confidence. 

... And while a robot can be very valuable and reveal many truths it cannot emulate average golfers swings. Just taking one over the top, out to in, face open, negative angle of attack, 89mph driver swing and if you change one of those variables like how open the face is, everything changes. Now the combination of incremental changes for that one swing has to be in the thousands if not millions. And we haven't even touched on shafts because unless you have carbon copy of Byron Nelsons swing, how you swing any given shaft cannot be duplicated by a robot, just the swing speed. 

No technology is helping that swing… truth

[cnosil]

3 minutes ago, Moose4282 said:

Well actually yea. If its fastest with a robot butnot the fastest in your hands, then something is off… too much loft, etc. would need to make adjustments to maximize it. Or you just have a mental block and well…

Disagree.  The balance and weighting of the club can influence how you swing you might not  be able to generate the fastest swing speeds so you wouldn't get the fastest ball speeds.   

[Moose4282]

8 minutes ago, cnosil said:

Disagree.  The balance and weighting of the club can influence how you swing you might not  be able to generate the fastest swing speeds so you wouldn't get the fastest ball speeds.   

Sooo change the balance of the club… shafts, weights, grips… pretty standard stuff. If you are talking about cog placement… thats silly. Now i will say there can be placebo. For example if a club seems to not go left on a player, then they are more apt to swing harder because they dont fear that miss. Still doesnt invalidate a robot test to see of a face is faster or not

[Thin2win]

Obviously, I like the MGS forums. Also, I like Rick. 

The MGS Staffer that made that response was 100% wrong for going after Rick. I don't care if it was Adam, Harry or intern #3. It was low ball and only diminished the MGS brand and reputation. 

 

 

 

 

[GolfSpy_APH]

As you can imagine I've been following this thread pretty closely. A few things I want to say I appreciate everyones views and opinions and how they have been expressed. I think this is a pretty touchy thread and the constructive solid conversation and back and forth is a huge reason why I want to be part of this forum. 

I can't speak to what was said on the main site as I don't know who/why what was said was said? I haven't hit the new Stealth driver even though I think the new tech is cool and do have it on my shortlist. I will also admit that probably a year and a half ago I unsubscribed and set my youtube to ignore Ricks videos. Simply put I didn't enjoy them and wasn't finding value in them. I also recall there being a podcast of his I listened to and he was talking about shafts/fittings which really disagreed with me. For me and his content it was time to move on so I did. 

Someone also mentioned that at one point he was working on a better testing method with someone from New York. I was excited for this as even though he hits what I'm sure is more then 10 shots), it was quite often 10 shots which were shown in videos and those same 10 shots are the basis for the data shown (again keep in mind I haven't watched one of his videos in nearly a year). The testing method he was talking about was seemingly going to be more robust and consistent. However I think Covid and change in locations may have had something to do with that never quite taking shape... I dunno?

Again I've read every comment on this thread and believe this is a good example of makes this forum so great. We have a pretty divisive topic that could easily fall deep down the rabbit hole and have to be shutdown and ppl warned and so on, yet we have nearly 100 posts of back and forth with varying reviews that has been constructive with no real BS. I hope that at some point we find/hear more about this as I do think we have hashed out what has been said on both sides at length and talked on various other points, but appreciate what everyone is bringing to this conversation and who knows maybe the most wanted testing will show some data that none of us really expected?

[cnosil]

9 hours ago, Moose4282 said:

Sooo change the balance of the club… shafts, weights, grips… pretty standard stuff. If you are talking about cog placement… thats silly. Now i will say there can be placebo. For example if a club seems to not go left on a player, then they are more apt to swing harder because they dont fear that miss. Still doesnt invalidate a robot test to see of a face is faster or not

I am fine with robot testing but it really doesn’t help me as a player.  You have stated several times that fastest one a robot is fastest for a player.  Having tested lots of drivers including most of this years releases different drivers work better for player misses…One might be better high toe while another low heel.   I also know that  I swing different drivers at different speeds.  Sure I could customize the driver and maybe change increase speed but that doesn’t guarantee I would get same results as a robot.  Either way, robot testing is a valid test and can reveal information about a club.  That said, the intent of MGS testing is putting stock OTR configurations in a persons hands to see what works best for the masses.  They do this because 99% of all golfers purchase OTR without fitting.  Your last statement isn’t placebo, it is how people react to clubs.  

as for my evaluation, the Stealth has not been the “fastest” single top ball speed driver for me, but it was probably the most consistent for ball speeds when I miss hit the ball.  For me the Callaway and Cobra were faster based on single ball speed. 

[russtopherb]

3 hours ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

I can't speak to what was said on the main site as I don't know who/why what was said was said?

Whoever it was should step up. Staff is usually good about posting under their own handle. Making a comment like that behind a generic screen name is bush league and a huge disappointment. Not what I would have expected out of a site that claims to be all about truth and being transparent.

[sixcat]

TaylorMade massively overhyping a product? I don't believe you!!! /s

On a serious note, just my 30-mile view of this situation but MGS comes off quite petty, territorial and butthurt. Not a good look for MGS but that has been the rule rather than the exception of late. Which is why I find myself spending more of my time elsewhere.