So MGS is feeling it...

[tmac7592]

> @mukster said:

> > @tmac7592 said:

> > > @tatertot said:

> > > > @tmac7592 said:

> > > > > @Im_A_Savage said:

> > > > > The best golf speakers of 2019 are nothing. I wish they were banned from golf courses.

> > > > I would love to play my music for you any day. Bet you’re fun at parties lol

> > > >

> > >

> > > Parties = love music

> > > Golf = no music

> > >

> > > Back to discussing that nameless golf site.

> >

> > Your golf doesn’t have to have music but golf can and should have music if people enjoy it. This is a game not a job. If it gets More people to have fun, play and help grow the game than it’s an asset. **Anyone who doesn’t see that** is a major part of why golf struggles with its image

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

When my opinion and facts line up>>>>someone thinking they have a funny meme

 

[shakey]

> @FaReal87 said:

> > @tatertot said:

> > > @tmac7592 said:

> > > > @tatertot said:

> > > > > @tmac7592 said:

> > > > > > @Im_A_Savage said:

> > > > > > The best golf speakers of 2019 are nothing. I wish they were banned from golf courses.

> > > > > I would love to play my music for you any day. Bet you’re fun at parties lol

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Parties = love music

> > > > Golf = no music

> > > >

> > > > Back to discussing that nameless golf site.

> > >

> > > Your golf doesn’t have to have music but golf can and should have music if people enjoy it. This is a game not a job. If it gets More people to have fun, play and help grow the game than it’s an asset. Anyone who doesn’t see that is a major part of why golf struggles with its image

> >

> > And there lies the problem ... I've got no issue with people listening to tunes while golfing. But if I'm trying to putt on on #7, and I can hear you blasting Shania on your GolfAmp3000 on #12 tee box, my golf now includes your music. And courses can't regulate pace of play or proper care of divots and pitch marks, I doubt they're going to do much about volume control ... Which is a problem in my neck of the woods.

>

> Fair point. If music is being used I feel like it shouldn’t carry more than 10yards. However, hearing Shania (awful choice IMO ?) isn’t anymore distracting to the guy yelling after he made a long putt.

>

> > @tatertot said:

> > > @tmac7592 said:

> > > > @tatertot said:

> > > > > @tmac7592 said:

> > > > > > @Im_A_Savage said:

> > > > > > The best golf speakers of 2019 are nothing. I wish they were banned from golf courses.

> > > > > I would love to play my music for you any day. Bet you’re fun at parties lol

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Parties = love music

> > > > Golf = no music

> > > >

> > > > Back to discussing that nameless golf site.

> > >

> > > Your golf doesn’t have to have music but golf can and should have music if people enjoy it. This is a game not a job. If it gets More people to have fun, play and help grow the game than it’s an asset. Anyone who doesn’t see that is a major part of why golf struggles with its image

> >

> > And there lies the problem ... I've got no issue with people listening to tunes while golfing. But if I'm trying to putt on on #7, and I can hear you blasting Shania on your GolfAmp3000 on #12 tee box, my golf now includes your music. And courses can't regulate pace of play or proper care of divots and pitch marks, I doubt they're going to do much about volume control ... Which is a problem in my neck of the woods.

>

> > @shakey said:

> > > @Stanks said:

> > > They had a heck of a day getting ripped to shreds on the old instagram today. It seems as though the owners or people that run their accounts are being confrontational to anyone challenging their inputs and blocking them on the gram. I was following them

> > > But can’t find them anymore so I think that means they deactivated their account or blocked me.

> > > I personally always find these tests and this research very subjective. Anything involving a rating or grading can be torn to shreds with challenges. Nothing is absolute or scientific and variables always change. But I do, still do, presently do, enjoy reading the content. The golf ball test was a fun read. It would suck if this company fails on account of stupid marketing and the inability to handle challenges from its own community.

> >

> > Account is still active on IG. They posted 2 days ago which was after the “social influencer” post. They have some good content, but some of it gets bogged down so much with numbers it’s like they are screaming we are smarter than you so you must take what we say as 100% truth.

>

> Wait, using numbers is a negative thing? That’s not saying “we’re smarter than you”, that’s them using objective data to back claims.

 

I don’t have a problem with numbers. I’m all for it. I’m just saying that sometimes they go overboard with it. Almost like they’re just trying to impress their readers.

[FEUO]

They are clickbaiting and trying to be dramatic to get clicks and likes. Very typical of what it takes to make it on social media.

I will say the controversy over essentially shilling free Lamb putters (they were given/loaned for testing) for a profit was when I wrote them off.

Pretty classless. And the more I read the more I'm willing to die on that hill.

[Shilgy]

> @jadams13 said:

> > @Im_A_Savage said:

> > The best golf speakers of 2019 are nothing. I wish they were banned from golf courses.

>

> I don't completely disagree. But sometimes, a little music is alright. **It's when you can hear another group around you, is when it's a problem.

**

Or when you are the other"group".

I have met exactly one considerate music player on the course. He can hear the music in the cart and no further. I could not hear it at all when we were on the tee.

[Djuga06]

Saw both sides of the coin at my FIL’s member-guest this weekend. One group playing against us had music playing but it was never loud enough to hear out of their cart. Apparently in a different flight there was a situation where one team had asked their competitors to turn theirs down and even though they said they would they still kept it loud. And this is why there’s typically a no-speaker policy for tournaments at his club.

[buckeyefl]

> @toc said:

> Shrewd. They’re being talked about on multiple platforms getting so many views on their site, people arguing both for and against them. That kind of attention is priceless

 

Myth

[buckeyefl]

> @"Hot Rod 71" said:

> The problem with music on the golf course is those who play music, and think they keep it low enough so no one else can hear it, really have no clue how loud their music really is. Sounds travels very well in wide open spaces.

 

Sort of like people using mind altering substances who think no one knows.

[FEUO]

As long as the tune selection isn’t too extreme and for a particular mood (metal, certain rap, super techno) then I’m good with music. If it’s just a crew playing a round with nothing serious on the line. I think tournament play is maybe a time it should not be played. Depending on tourney format of course. Member guests are usually sh*tshows so why not.

 

As for the topic.... I look forward to seeing if they take the troll bait and keep digging.

 

 

[longball]

They claim to not take advertising money from bigger golf companies but yet find it okay to have ads from smaller golf companies. They make money off affiliation contracts. They put a link up to the club/ball/glove/bag being tested and a consumer makes a purchase after clicking the link then they make a percentage of the sale.

 

The biggest one for me is some of the testing is done indoors on a simulator. Not accurate and the simulator can be manipulated to get desired results.

[MattM97]

> @"DFS PFD" said:

> Can't speak to the "speaker" reviews, but their rating metrics change every year so it's impossible to follow the "unbiased" nature of their testing if the goal posts constantly move.

 

I asked them on their "Top Putter List" why they didn't or couldn't test/include past winners to you know see how they stack up cause putters stay in the bag pretty long. Basically got a "well just because" answer, I asked if they had the old winners and what not in their possession or if they give them back. They said they had them so I asked why not test? They just gave some generic response and wouldn't respond after that.

[FEUO]

> @MattM97 said:

> > @"DFS PFD" said:

> > Can't speak to the "speaker" reviews, but their rating metrics change every year so it's impossible to follow the "unbiased" nature of their testing if the goal posts constantly move.

>

> I asked them on their "Top Putter List" why they didn't or couldn't test/include past winners to you know see how they stack up cause putters stay in the bag pretty long. Basically got a "well just because" answer, I asked if they had the old winners and what not in their possession or if they give them back. They said they had them so I asked why not test? They just gave some generic response and wouldn't respond after that.

 

Well apparently they listened. Saw on youtube their top5 mallet putters and they included the past year winner (Tommy Armour Impact).

[sdrthedj]

> @longball said:

> They claim to not take advertising money from bigger golf companies but yet find it okay to have ads from smaller golf companies. They make money off affiliation contracts. They put a link up to the club/ball/glove/bag being tested and a consumer makes a purchase after clicking the link then they make a percentage of the sale.

>

> The biggest one for me is some of the testing is done indoors on a simulator. Not accurate and the simulator can be manipulated to get desired results.

 

They use a GC2 typically and the raw data they post raw data without manipulation. Are you implying they boost the sim in the software for some manufacturers? Please provide proof.

[KAndyMan]

> @longball said:

> They claim to not take advertising money from bigger golf companies but yet find it okay to have ads from smaller golf companies. They make money off affiliation contracts. They put a link up to the club/ball/glove/bag being tested and a consumer makes a purchase after clicking the link then they make a percentage of the sale.

>

> The biggest one for me is some of the testing is done indoors on a simulator. Not accurate and the simulator can be manipulated to get desired results.

 

Thats like the "best electric caddies of 2019". Think they tested like 4 or 5 total and funny how they had a link to buy each one on amazon all from the same store owner... And when i asked about it (in a very civil way mind you) in the comments wouldnt ya know my question got deleted..???

Also how can they be so unbiased with their obvious buddy-buddy relationships with Dean Snell and Kim Braley. Im sure Snell makes a great ball just seems odd how its always one of their top picks.

[longball]

> @sdrthedj said:

> > @longball said:

> > They claim to not take advertising money from bigger golf companies but yet find it okay to have ads from smaller golf companies. They make money off affiliation contracts. They put a link up to the club/ball/glove/bag being tested and a consumer makes a purchase after clicking the link then they make a percentage of the sale.

> >

> > The biggest one for me is some of the testing is done indoors on a simulator. Not accurate and the simulator can be manipulated to get desired results.

>

> They use a GC2 typically and the raw data they post raw data without manipulation. Are you implying they boost the sim in the software for some manufacturers? Please provide proof.

 

I am not implying anything about their data.

 

Now the "influencer" who said he had proof of corruption in their review process is now claiming he can't spill the beans until he gets the legal okay to do so.

[jadams13]

> @longball said:

> > @sdrthedj said:

> > > @longball said:

> > > They claim to not take advertising money from bigger golf companies but yet find it okay to have ads from smaller golf companies. They make money off affiliation contracts. They put a link up to the club/ball/glove/bag being tested and a consumer makes a purchase after clicking the link then they make a percentage of the sale.

> > >

> > > The biggest one for me is some of the testing is done indoors on a simulator. Not accurate and the simulator can be manipulated to get desired results.

> >

> > They use a GC2 typically and the raw data they post raw data without manipulation. Are you implying they boost the sim in the software for some manufacturers? Please provide proof.

>

> I am not implying anything about their data.

>

> Now the "influencer" who said he had proof of corruption in their review process is now claiming he can't spill the beans until he gets the legal okay to do so.

 

Makes sense. Gotta keep those influencer $$$ coming in.