MyGolfSpy 2023 Golf Ball Test!!!

[Dooby]

On 8/30/2023 at 1:11 PM, Dooby said:

I think after digging through the data - I am between the MaxFli Tour X and the Mizuno RB TourX. 

I'm actually backtracking on this. While I am going to continue to take note of where these land in my eval - I am going to restart from scratch in looking at the testing data and see where I land. I also was working from driver down the bag rather than the other way which I have now learned is a less optimal way of going about it.

[Londo]

I am between mid & high SS but closer to mid and am a low spin player across all the clubs in my bag. Between winning a Ballnamic fitting, the results here, and some of my own experimenting- I have my top 4 going forward for continued tinkering:

1. Chromesoft X

2. Pro V1x

3. Srixon Z Star Diamond (current gamer)

4. Maxfli Tour X

Between price and not having truly superior performance elsewhere, the Bridgestone B X barely missed the cut. Really look forward to finding my ball from these over the next months

[JohnnyO3478]

First 9 holes with Triad:

 

It is light. Noticeably light. Freakishly Noticeably, light. Seems like a Princess and the Pea kinda situation, but there's no denying. The ball is light.

That said. It performed well off the T. It performed well AROUND the greens. ON the green. I was blasting it past holes. And it feels light.

 

Comparing to Maxfli Tour and Pro V1.

 

Playing 18 tomorrow .....

 

 

 

[JohnnyO3478]

27 holes with one ball. Unusual for me. Damage was from tree strikes. Same durability as a yellow Maxfli Tour, I'd say.

 

Longest drive was 265 - with a little bit of downhill help. Good drives on flat holes were my normal 220 - 240 yds.

 

Putting is solid, once you get used to how light they are. 

 

They sound and feel great. Still not convinced they at $8 - $10 better than the Maxfli Tour - for me.

[tdc1]

@JohnnyO3478 Are you using MaxFli Tour or Tour X?  Also, DSG shows Tour and Triad at same price.  Are you using bulk price/dozen for Tour vs. single price/dozen for Triad to get the $8-$10 difference.

Very much enjoying your posts as I look for best ball for my game.

[JohnnyO3478]

4 hours ago, tdc1 said:

@JohnnyO3478 Are you using MaxFli Tour or Tour X?  Also, DSG shows Tour and Triad at same price.  Are you using bulk price/dozen for Tour vs. single price/dozen for Triad to get the $8-$10 difference.

Very much enjoying your posts as I look for best ball for my game.

Glad to hear somebody is enjoying!  Best of luck in your search.

I have not tried either the X or the S version.  The S version does not meet my specs - and I would not be all that keen on trying any 4 pc ball from Foremost - as they just can't seem to control the compression.  If I needed a 4 pc ball it would most likely be coming out of Ball Plant 3 ....

 

I buy in bulk - so when doing my comparison on the pricing btw the Tour and the Triad - I am using the $119 for 4 dz for Maxfli vs either the $38 or $40/ dz for the triad.  Basically you 4 Maxflie dozens for the price of 3 Triad dozens.  That's noticable, IMO.

[Dooby]

I wish there was more detail on how the MGS recommendations were chosen and almost a more in-depth ranking, like a top 5, 7 or 10. Maybe one of the testers or Tony can comment. He may have already done so and I missed it - I know the ball test states its based on a mix of performance between the driver and irons but I am curious how they narrowed it down to 3 or what they specifically looked at when trying to make recommendations.  I tried sorting the data to align with their recommendations and failed to see a pattern.

[JohnnyO3478]

53 minutes ago, Dooby said:

I wish there was more detail on how the MGS recommendations were chosen and almost a more in-depth ranking, like a top 5, 7 or 10. Maybe one of the testers or Tony can comment. He may have already done so and I missed it - I know the ball test states its based on a mix of performance between the driver and irons but I am curious how they narrowed it down to 3 or what they specifically looked at when trying to make recommendations.  I tried sorting the data to align with their recommendations and failed to see a pattern.

Ignore their recommendations. Take the data and do your own testing. 

[cnosil]

1 hour ago, Dooby said:

I wish there was more detail on how the MGS recommendations were chosen and almost a more in-depth ranking, like a top 5, 7 or 10. Maybe one of the testers or Tony can comment. He may have already done so and I missed it - I know the ball test states its based on a mix of performance between the driver and irons but I am curious how they narrowed it down to 3 or what they specifically looked at when trying to make recommendations.  I tried sorting the data to align with their recommendations and failed to see a pattern.

It would probably have to be @Tony Covey MGS to answer since he compiled the data.  The "tester" was a robot and probably doesn't have much to say       In my opinion, it doesn't really matter what MGS recommends;  you need to figure out the performance metrics that work for your game.  start with a baseline ball and then adjust from there.   This was also the MGS recommendation based on the No Putts Given episode that discussed the ball test and results. 

[Idahohacker]

I am comfortably in the Mid Speed Swing arena.  My current ball stash is:  V1 from both '21 and '23 - solid all around performer for me, BXS - always liked the feel of the ball, pretty interchangeable with the V1 for the most part for me, Vice Pro - new ball for me this year, higher flight than V1 but similar performance & Q Star Tour for Cold weather play (early and late here in Northern Idaho).

Read thru the test - not a lot to change my mind on what I have been playing but the Mizuno RB Tour caught my eye.  So bought a sleeve today and gave them a run.

Scoring - shot an 81, same as I shot with my BXS last round.  So did not drastically change my game!  But - for me - the RB Tour flew higher off the driver (similar to Vice Pro) and a touch lower off of the irons (similar to V1).  Felt great - as I like a softer feeling ball.  Short game had plenty of check (closer to the BXS vs the V1 or Vice).  Distance was good all of the way around for me (more carry and less roll than the V1).  Durability was good as well.

I will play them again on Monday and report back but I enjoyed them today.  Very surprised!

[Rappers]

I think we will agree to disagree.

The benefit from so-called real world data is contaminated because over several hours/days the weather including wind direction can change which will obviously skew the data. Most metrics can be achieved accurately with modern technology in a sterile environment i.e. indoors.  

[PhilM75072]

1 hour ago, Rappers said:

I think we will agree to disagree.

The benefit from so-called real world data is contaminated because over several hours/days the weather including wind direction can change which will obviously skew the data. Most metrics can be achieved accurately with modern technology in a sterile environment i.e. indoors.  

I agree with you but have been taken to task elsewhere by those critics of the Today's Golfer ball test. I think outdoor testing, comparing a couple of balls, is well worth the effort and is valuable after narrowing one's choices down using indoor testing. There is no way temperature, humidity and wind/breeze can be constant for every shot with every ball over several days of outdoor testing.

[GolfSpy_APH]

3 hours ago, Rappers said:

I think we will agree to disagree.

The benefit from so-called real world data is contaminated because over several hours/days the weather including wind direction can change which will obviously skew the data. Most metrics can be achieved accurately with modern technology in a sterile environment i.e. indoors.  

These factors and discussion points are all explained on the article itself. There is a reason they did the testing where they did fwiw.

[chisag]

8 hours ago, Rappers said:

I think we will agree to disagree.

The benefit from so-called real world data is contaminated because over several hours/days the weather including wind direction can change which will obviously skew the data. Most metrics can be achieved accurately with modern technology in a sterile environment i.e. indoors.  

 

... Well, considering I play contaminated golf outdoors and not sterile golf indoors, I want my ball and my equipment fittings to be outdoors. 

[JohnnyO3478]

Three rounds completed this weekend. Lost 2 Triads.  The first one lasted 33 holes! 

I absolutely walloped one on 17 today. Overall it was a good driver day and mostly a good approach shot day. Made 5 pars on the back 9 which is more than normal for me - a 19 index player. I needed every one of them to offset the 8 I carded on 16 .....

This week I'll go out in the evening and play some holes with both the Triad and Maxfli Tour - head to head.

[GolfSpy_KFT]

10 hours ago, Rappers said:

I think we will agree to disagree.

The benefit from so-called real world data is contaminated because over several hours/days the weather including wind direction can change which will obviously skew the data. Most metrics can be achieved accurately with modern technology in a sterile environment i.e. indoors.  

So you’d rather see data from a ball test that by all intents and purposes would be rendered potentially pointless as soon as you get outside and play? What’s to say a certain ball won’t be impacted more significantly than another when playing in the wind, for instance?

[Javs]

11 hours ago, Rappers said:

I think we will agree to disagree.

The benefit from so-called real world data is contaminated because over several hours/days the weather including wind direction can change which will obviously skew the data. Most metrics can be achieved accurately with modern technology in a sterile environment i.e. indoors.  

I can understand your logic and point. Indoors might be your preferred testing arena. However, I personally prefer to do equipment and ball fittings outdoors. I want to see the actual flight of the ball. It’s important to me to see the actual flight. I would not buy clubs that I couldn’t test outdoors. I have been misfitted in the indoor sterile environment and won’t make that expensive mistake ever again! The same with balls I use. Around the greens I want to see how the ball reacts. I also want to see the flight and how easy I can maneuver the ball flight. Indoors does not meet that criteria for me.

Edited September 3, 2023 by Javs

[chisag]

2 minutes ago, Javs said:

Around the greens I want to see how the ball reacts.

 

... Good point! Chipping numbers from a mat will be quite different than Bent and Bermuda grass. I wanted max bite on Bent greens where the first hop has a slight skid but Bermuda can grab like velcro, so I still want enough spin to control my pitches/chips but no longer need as much spin as I can get. 

[Javs]

2 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

... Good point! Chipping numbers from a mat will be quite different than Bent and Bermuda grass. I wanted max bite on Bent greens where the first hop has a slight skid but Bermuda can grab like velcro, so I still want enough spin to control my pitches/chips but no longer need as much spin as I can get. 

Yes Sir, fully agree. I need to see the ball react in the environment I use it. 

[Preeway]

I think using launch monitors and hitting mats is useful when getting fitted or trying to compare one club vs. another just so you can eliminate as many other variables as possible. But I’d rather see ball data in a real setting rather than a “lab-like” setting. 

[Javs]

3 minutes ago, Preeway said:

I think using launch monitors and hitting mats is useful when getting fitted or trying to compare one vs. another just so you can eliminate as many other variables as possible. But I’d rather see ball data in a real setting rather than a “lab-like” setting. 

I personally use the launch monitor outdoors so I get to see the numbers and the actual flight. 

[chisag]

24 minutes ago, Preeway said:

I think using launch monitors and hitting mats is useful when getting fitted or trying to compare one club vs. another just so you can eliminate as many other variables as possible. But I’d rather see ball data in a real setting rather than a “lab-like” setting. 

 

... I can't argue with your logic, but indoor fitting are useless for me. Every swing I take is to a specific target and that's the way my game is wired. I want to control trajectories and see how any given club/ball reacts to 3/4 and knockdown swings, something I can't do indoors. Hitting off a mat indoors with no target in the distance or the ability to see my ball flight and make corrections just doesn't compute for my mental process and nothing like being outdoors. I know more than a few feel anything from cramped to target less indoors and it just doesn't replicate their swings or games on a range with a LM.  That said, I have always admired those that can swing indoors with the same ability as outdoors. 

[Preeway]

I’m 100% in agreement with your sentiment. I definitely had my struggles this year with my new irons after being fitted last fall. I think I’m just now starting to get comfortable with using them outdoors the same way I do in a hitting bay during a lesson or in my back patio into my net. Swinging while also trying to deal with thoughts of target line in the background is skill that is often undervalued and not understood by many people. Hitting in a sterile environment indoors just doesn’t prep you as well for the real thing. 

[mbrodeur86]

12 hours ago, Rappers said:

I think we will agree to disagree.

The benefit from so-called real world data is contaminated because over several hours/days the weather including wind direction can change which will obviously skew the data. Most metrics can be achieved accurately with modern technology in a sterile environment i.e. indoors.  

I understand your point but for me it would have to be outdoors, especially for the short game. I have a friend who owns HD golf simulators and I can tell you that the short game side of playing on those machines is a completely different animal than outdoors. Plus those machines are not entirely accurate. 

If you have access to a simulator nothing stopping you from grabbing a few balls that you think might do the job and do your own testing. I think the whole point MGS is saying is that you NEED to do your own test. I take the findings here as a starting point to what I'm looking for and go from there.

[mbrodeur86]

So I received my Chrome Soft X LS balls today. Ordered the white ones with triple track. I've played 1 round with them but I'm liking what I'm getting from them. I hit a couple of thin shots today where in one case the ball released to the hole for about a 15 footer and the other case I hit it think and it checked up instead of releasing for another 10-15 footer for a bird. Drives where lower than the Pro v1s but I got good roll out of them and can say that they were longer overall. Obviously more testing will happen and I think my next dozen will be yellow without the triple track. I tend to use the alignment when I'm close but I use more feel from further back. 

 

Anyways, I'm impressed and will continue updating as I play with them.

[Dooby]

5 hours ago, chisag said:

 

... Good point! Chipping numbers from a mat will be quite different than Bent and Bermuda grass. I wanted max bite on Bent greens where the first hop has a slight skid but Bermuda can grab like velcro, so I still want enough spin to control my pitches/chips but no longer need as much spin as I can get. 

So with wanting max bite, what balls do you lean towards with the 2023 test results out?

[Preeway]

13 minutes ago, Dooby said:

So with wanting max bite, what balls do you lean towards with the 2023 test results out?

Getting maximum bite isn’t all about the ball. It has more to do with the technique and lie of the shot. 

[chisag]

15 minutes ago, Dooby said:

So with wanting max bite, what balls do you lean towards with the 2023 test results out?

 

... I do not want max bite, just enough for control. But pitching and chipping can be very player dependent. I play more of a back in my stance trap chip so I tend to create a lot of spin around the greens. Someone chipping more middle stance and using the bounce will not produce as much spin. So the numbers can tell you which balls "tend" to spin more than others but not really how that spin will correlate to your short game. Not to sound like a broken record but the numbers are just a starting point. 

[GolfSpy_APH]

How many of you have bought or changed golf balls since the ball test, because of the ball test?

[Rappers]

I agree there is a difference from hitting balls off a matt and grass, where the turf interaction can have a significant effect on the ball dynamics. Testing clubs is also better in a real world environment, where flight, feel, sound is part of the feedback. However, much of this is down to aesthetics, which is not the case when testing golf balls for purely performance data.