My Golf Spy Ball Test - General Discussion

[Pmac2325]

We get it Joker91, you have a problem with the data and analysis. But personally I see it as one of the most detailed/unbiased testing to date on golf balls... use it how you wish. It's definitely a lot better than all of the 20 handicappers on here claiming they can tell a pronounced difference between their ProV1 and a ProV1x.

[mmack067]

> @Pmac2325 said:

> We get it Joker91, you have a problem with the data and analysis. But personally I see it as one of the most detailed/unbiased testing to date on golf balls... use it how you wish. It's definitely a lot better than all of the 20 handicappers on here claiming they can tell a pronounced difference between their ProV1 and a ProV1x.

 

I already miss the days where your handicap was shown next to your post

[Joker91]

> @mmack067 said:

> > @Pmac2325 said:

> > We get it Joker91, you have a problem with the data and analysis. But personally I see it as one of the most detailed/unbiased testing to date on golf balls... use it how you wish. It's definitely a lot better than all of the 20 handicappers on here claiming they can tell a pronounced difference between their ProV1 and a ProV1x.

>

> I already miss the days where your handicap was shown next to your post

 

Apparently adding your handicap to your profile is highly sensitive info and requires you to enter your password again. Let's see if it adds it to a post

 

Edit: nope

[Joker91]

> @arbeck said:

> > @Joker91 said:

> > It's crazy how so many people on here can over-analyze pretty much everything. When it comes to something like this they just take it at face value.

> > Are they using the same driver with the same shaft for 85mph and 115mph? A shaft that works best for 115mph wouldn't be the best for 85mph and vice versa.

> > What are the swing angles they are using? What's the AoA for the driver? Are they using a variety of them and using an average? Are they all positive or negative or level?

>

> All of that is irrelevant. Though a lot of the numbers they published are irrelevant as well. The only ones that really matter are ball speed, spin, and launch angle. Changing the shaft isn't going to change those three numbers more on ball A than ball B. If ball A spins more and has more ball speed with one shaft, it will with the next shaft.

>

> Carry distance would matter (as it would separate the balls on their aerodynamics package), but it can only be relevant if the balls start with the same launch conditions. For instance, you can say that the Chromesoft probably has a better aerodynamics package than the Wilson Duo Urethane. Why? The two balls have nearly identical launch conditions (same balls speed, .02 difference in launch angle, 62RPM spin difference), but the Chromesoft goes 5 feet higher, lands steeper, and carries 1.5 yards further. Unfortunately, not all the balls have such identical launch conditions. You'd need to fire the balls out of an air cannon to really test this.

>

> The driver distances are the most meaningless of the numbers as well. For most normal swing speeds the ball speeds are all very close. A good fitter would be able to optimize your equipment to get the best launch conditions for almost any of them. What this test really shows though is that you don't want to go get fit using a Pro V1x and then start playing an AVX on the course.

 

It's not irrelevant. All that information is important when you are testing such a wide range of swing speeds.

[arbeck]

> @gvogel said:

> > @arbeck said:

> > > @gvogel said:

> > > > @jimb6golf said:

> > > > **** just did a thorough analysis and test of all urethane golf balls and found that the Snell MTX was the top ball available. Pretty amazing for a smaller company and really reinforces all the information that Dean has put out there too. Glad I switched to the Snell ball a few years ago and I'm sticking with my choice. Great ball, great performance and terrific pricing too.

> > >

> > > ON the other hand, for an 85 mph swing speed, the MTB Black is a dud. Too bad, I just bought two boxes.

> >

> > Huh? The MTB Black and the MTB-X are almost identical save for spin off a 7i at 85MPH. Off the driver, there is less than 2MPH of ball speed difference and less than 2 yards of carry distance. With the lower descent angle of the MTB Black, the extra roll will probably put both balls in nearly the same place. Unless you are a pristine ball striker, it would probably take hundreds of rounds before you could tell the difference between the two balls. And even if you did, 2 yards off the driver really isn't going to make a difference in scoring. You're almost always going to be hitting the identical club. The difference between it and the best ball off the driver for 85MPH (the Pro V1X) was less than .5MPH. That means that you could optimize launch conditions with both, they're going to fall almost on top of each other. Depending on the launch conditions you generate and the equipment you use, there's every possibility the MTB Black and the Pro V1X would go the same distance. In fact, for the 85MPH swing speed, I'd argue the driver numbers are almost meaningless. The balls are all close enough (2MPH of ball speed separates low and high).

> >

> > Things are a little different off the 7i. There's as big of a distance gap between the longest and shortest off a 7i at 85MPH as there is with the driver, and almost all of that has to do with spin.

> >

> > So the moral here is, pick a ball that spins enough with the 7i and wedge, and then fit your driver to optimize launch conditions for that ball. The MTB Black spins in a good window for both, and retains plenty of ball speed with the driver.

>

> Those are good points, but at 85 mph (mine is more like 92) the Snell MTB black gives up 7 yards of carry distance to the Pro V1x. That could be significant. Particularly on one hole that I play regularly with a stream about 198 from the tee. I get a lot of satisfaction from carrying that sucker.

> I'll give them a good try on the course.

 

I don't think you understand my point. If the MTB black gives up 7 yards of carry to the Pro V1x with nearly identical ball speeds, that only means that the launch conditions for this test favored the Pro V1x. And unless your launch conditions match theirs, you won't get the same result. It could be that the aerodynamics package of the Pro V1x is just that much better. But it also could mean that with your launch conditions the Snell will go just as far. I have a suspicion that the Pro V1x does have a better aero package than the Snell because it manages to go longer than both Snell balls even when they have more ball speed. But unless you shoot them out of an air cannon, you can't know for sure.

 

You can kind of guess at who has the best aero packages by comparing very similar balls. For instance, the Pro V1, Snell MTB Black, Srixon Z Star, Taylormade TP5, Bridgestone Tour B X, Chromesoft X, Maxfli Tour all have ball speed within 1MPH. All of their launches are within .08 degrees. They're all within 150RPM of spin. But there's about 5 yards of carry distance between them. It looks like Bridgestone has the best aerodynamics with the others jumbled in the middle and Snell bringing up the rear. Again though, this is just guessing as without an air cannon you can't really know for sure.

[Sixcat]

> @Joker91 said:

> > @Tizod said:

> > > @Joker91 said:

> > > > @Oldboy said:

> > > > if there is data to support your claims please share. otherwise its anecdotal. moving on

> > >

> > > That's my whole point. Go with what works for you and what you see on the course, not what any test tells you. You're not a robot. What works for you is all that matters.

> >

> > And the whole point of the article as well. They basically say get fit, find what works from you starting at the green and moving back and stick with it.

>

> People don't read that. They look at the chart and see their ball is "fair" and start panicking.

 

I have two takeaways from this response, given the many responses you have had in this thread. First, evidently nobody can conduct a comprehensive study on golf ball performance because some people are too lazy to read and interpret the results!?!?! That seems like such a defeatist attitude. I guess golfers should stop wearing sun-screen given they are too lazy to read and interpret the instructions on the bottle!

 

Second, you're pissed off that the M-G-S guys placed your ball in the "fair" category......and you're panicking!

[TKS]

I was disappointed that the test didn't include the newer Wilson balls. the Duo U did have some flaws that the new Duo Professional fixed and I find it to be a fine contender, and I try ALL balls I can get my hands on. Which leads me to the next ball the 2019 Wilson FG Tour, played by R. Barnes and a whole slew of European Senior PGA tour guys. Granted laying your hands on these is difficult. but still, some of the other brands Maxfli? Cut? the other one I've never heard of I-something or other.

Other than that nice test guys - really enjoyed it - good data to consider.

 

[Joker91]

> @Sixcat said:

> > @Joker91 said:

> > > @Tizod said:

> > > > @Joker91 said:

> > > > > @Oldboy said:

> > > > > if there is data to support your claims please share. otherwise its anecdotal. moving on

> > > >

> > > > That's my whole point. Go with what works for you and what you see on the course, not what any test tells you. You're not a robot. What works for you is all that matters.

> > >

> > > And the whole point of the article as well. They basically say get fit, find what works from you starting at the green and moving back and stick with it.

> >

> > People don't read that. They look at the chart and see their ball is "fair" and start panicking.

>

> I have two takeaways from this response, given the many responses you have had in this thread. First, evidently nobody can conduct a comprehensive study on golf ball performance because some people are too lazy to read and interpret the results!?!?! That seems like such a defeatist attitude. I guess golfers should stop wearing sun-screen given they are too lazy to read and interpret the instructions on the bottle!

>

> Second, you're pissed off that the M-G-S guys placed your ball in the "fair" category......and you're panicking!

 

I've seen people just post the chart in places and make judgments off of that. Welcome to the real world

[arbeck]

> @Joker91 said:

> > @arbeck said:

> > > @Joker91 said:

> > > It's crazy how so many people on here can over-analyze pretty much everything. When it comes to something like this they just take it at face value.

> > > Are they using the same driver with the same shaft for 85mph and 115mph? A shaft that works best for 115mph wouldn't be the best for 85mph and vice versa.

> > > What are the swing angles they are using? What's the AoA for the driver? Are they using a variety of them and using an average? Are they all positive or negative or level?

> >

> > All of that is irrelevant. Though a lot of the numbers they published are irrelevant as well. The only ones that really matter are ball speed, spin, and launch angle. Changing the shaft isn't going to change those three numbers more on ball A than ball B. If ball A spins more and has more ball speed with one shaft, it will with the next shaft.

> >

> > Carry distance would matter (as it would separate the balls on their aerodynamics package), but it can only be relevant if the balls start with the same launch conditions. For instance, you can say that the Chromesoft probably has a better aerodynamics package than the Wilson Duo Urethane. Why? The two balls have nearly identical launch conditions (same balls speed, .02 difference in launch angle, 62RPM spin difference), but the Chromesoft goes 5 feet higher, lands steeper, and carries 1.5 yards further. Unfortunately, not all the balls have such identical launch conditions. You'd need to fire the balls out of an air cannon to really test this.

> >

> > The driver distances are the most meaningless of the numbers as well. For most normal swing speeds the ball speeds are all very close. A good fitter would be able to optimize your equipment to get the best launch conditions for almost any of them. What this test really shows though is that you don't want to go get fit using a Pro V1x and then start playing an AVX on the course.

>

> It's not irrelevant. All that information is important when you are testing such a wide range of swing speeds.

 

A ball doesn't know what your AoA was, or what shaft you used. If one ball has more ball speed with a senior shaft and a -5 AoA it will also have more ball speed with an extra stiff shaft and +5 AoA. Now if you have a +5 AoA and play a very low lofted shaft and struggle with getting enough spin, you might might want to pick a ball that has more. If you hit down on the ball and tend to spin it way too much, you might pick a ball that spins less. That wasn't what this test was. You can do a ball fitting that find the best ball for your particular launch conditions and equipment. And that will be useful to exactly one person, you. Or you can do what they did here and just tell us what spin, launch and speed these balls have and how that varies with swing speed. That gives you a good idea of what ball you should be playing. Then, as they state, you should use that ball consistently and get fit with it so that your final numbers are optimized for you.

[arbeck]

> @TKS said:

> I was disappointed that the test didn't include the newer Wilson balls. the Duo U did have some flaws that the new Duo Professional fixed and I find it to be a fine contender, and I try ALL balls I can get my hands on. Which leads me to the next ball the 2019 Wilson FG Tour, played by R. Barnes and a whole slew of European Senior PGA tour guys. Granted laying your hands on these is difficult. but still, some of the other brands Maxfli? Cut? the other one I've never heard of I-something or other.

> Other than that nice test guys - really enjoyed it - good data to consider.

>

 

You can kind of figure out where the Duo Pro would be. Wilson states it has 6% more iron spin, which would be around 300RPM off the 7i. They also made it slightly firmer (based on their published numbers and what MGS tested it's probably more like 90 compression). Because of that, you probably get a bit more ball speed, but I wouldn't expect worlds of difference.

 

I would expect the FG Tour to play almost exactly like the Z Star, Pro V1, Chromesoft X, and all of those balls. Their ball speeds, launch angles and spins are all really close together.

[Joker91]

> @arbeck said:

> > @Joker91 said:

> > > @arbeck said:

> > > > @Joker91 said:

> > > > It's crazy how so many people on here can over-analyze pretty much everything. When it comes to something like this they just take it at face value.

> > > > Are they using the same driver with the same shaft for 85mph and 115mph? A shaft that works best for 115mph wouldn't be the best for 85mph and vice versa.

> > > > What are the swing angles they are using? What's the AoA for the driver? Are they using a variety of them and using an average? Are they all positive or negative or level?

> > >

> > > All of that is irrelevant. Though a lot of the numbers they published are irrelevant as well. The only ones that really matter are ball speed, spin, and launch angle. Changing the shaft isn't going to change those three numbers more on ball A than ball B. If ball A spins more and has more ball speed with one shaft, it will with the next shaft.

> > >

> > > Carry distance would matter (as it would separate the balls on their aerodynamics package), but it can only be relevant if the balls start with the same launch conditions. For instance, you can say that the Chromesoft probably has a better aerodynamics package than the Wilson Duo Urethane. Why? The two balls have nearly identical launch conditions (same balls speed, .02 difference in launch angle, 62RPM spin difference), but the Chromesoft goes 5 feet higher, lands steeper, and carries 1.5 yards further. Unfortunately, not all the balls have such identical launch conditions. You'd need to fire the balls out of an air cannon to really test this.

> > >

> > > The driver distances are the most meaningless of the numbers as well. For most normal swing speeds the ball speeds are all very close. A good fitter would be able to optimize your equipment to get the best launch conditions for almost any of them. What this test really shows though is that you don't want to go get fit using a Pro V1x and then start playing an AVX on the course.

> >

> > It's not irrelevant. All that information is important when you are testing such a wide range of swing speeds.

>

> A ball doesn't know what your AoA was, or what shaft you used. If one ball has more ball speed with a senior shaft and a -5 AoA it will also have more ball speed with an extra stiff shaft and +5 AoA. Now if you have a +5 AoA and play a very low lofted shaft and struggle with getting enough spin, you might might want to pick a ball that has more. If you hit down on the ball and tend to spin it way too much, you might pick a ball that spins less. That wasn't what this test was. You can do a ball fitting that find the best ball for your particular launch conditions and equipment. And that will be useful to exactly one person, you. Or you can do what they did here and just tell us what spin, launch and speed these balls have and how that varies with swing speed. That gives you a good idea of what ball you should be playing. Then, as they state, you should use that ball consistently and get fit with it so that your final numbers are optimized for you.

 

It matters for the end user to interrupt the data. An 85mph swing speed with an x-flex shaft with an -4° AoA with a 8.5° driver isn't going to matter to a lot of people. The individual can't make an accurate decision on what to use if they don't know what works best for them.

[dhartmann34]

**I thought this comment and reply from the testing site was QUITE telling for the callaway results.....Especially how Callaway staffers aren't playing the true ball itself...which I've always known. But if it's literally almost none...That's telling. **

 

****HUMZA 5 HOURS AGO

In all of this, I am truly astonished to see how poorly you have shown Callaway, the established #2 in the ball market, to have performed. They have been a runaway retail success since the original Chrome Soft came out and people of all abilities play them regularly. However in all your metrics, they seem to be slower/shorter/wilder/less consistent than the competition. I have tested them against the TP5 and Pro V1 from time to time and haven’t noticed any significant difference. If anything, I have preferred them on short game shots, where they feel very responsive and have great spin control. I don’t understand how they are so popular if there is such a performance drop off compared to others. Surely their success can’t be all down to marketing!?

 

REPLY

TONY COVEY 5 HOURS AGO

It’s almost entirely marketing driven and relies heavily on the idea that golfers will identify with a brand and a product and often see what they want to see because of it. The CS is short. Everybody in the industry knows it’s short (and that it doesn’t spin around the green). Callaway knows its’s short. IMO, the compression vs. ball speed chart illustrates one of the most eye-opening things we’ve ever uncovered in testing. Soft is slow and soft doesn’t spin.

 

Consider this: a significant number of Titleist PGA Tour guys play the retail ball. Tiger plays the retail version of the Bridgestone ball. Until Callaway released the new CSX Triple Track (a ball that’s significantly different from the non-TT CSX), next to none of its PGA Tour staff played the retail ball. Tour guys aren’t big on giving up distance or greenside spin for feel. Consumers will. The reality is that over the last few years, several Callaway staffers have broken contract to play a non-Callaway ball.

So yeah, a lot of marketing driven by an awareness that once consumers decide they like a product, they’ll be inclined to accept responsibility for the deficiencies…things like “I guess I didn’t catch that one as good as I thought”. Sometimes it really is the ball. ****

 

> @Oldboy said:

> it wasnt really soft ball = bad it was soft ball = slow ballspeeds and no greenside spin .. this is a great read with very interesting results imo .. yes callaway took it in the balls .. literally with this one .. in the comment section its stated that callaway is all marketing not performance driven .. ouch

 

 

[Tizod]

> @Joker91 said:

> > @Sixcat said:

> > > @Joker91 said:

> > > > @Tizod said:

> > > > > @Joker91 said:

> > > > > > @Oldboy said:

> > > > > > if there is data to support your claims please share. otherwise its anecdotal. moving on

> > > > >

> > > > > That's my whole point. Go with what works for you and what you see on the course, not what any test tells you. You're not a robot. What works for you is all that matters.

> > > >

> > > > And the whole point of the article as well. They basically say get fit, find what works from you starting at the green and moving back and stick with it.

> > >

> > > People don't read that. They look at the chart and see their ball is "fair" and start panicking.

> >

> > I have two takeaways from this response, given the many responses you have had in this thread. First, evidently nobody can conduct a comprehensive study on golf ball performance because some people are too lazy to read and interpret the results!?!?! That seems like such a defeatist attitude. I guess golfers should stop wearing sun-screen given they are too lazy to read and interpret the instructions on the bottle!

> >

> > Second, you're pissed off that the M-G-S guys placed your ball in the "fair" category......and you're panicking!

>

> I've seen people just post the chart in places and make judgments off of that. Welcome to the real world

 

> @dhartmann34 said:

> **I thought this comment and reply from the testing site was QUITE telling for the callaway results.....Especially how Callaway staffers aren't playing the true ball itself...which I've always known. But if it's literally almost none...That's telling. **

>

> ****HUMZA 5 HOURS AGO

> In all of this, I am truly astonished to see how poorly you have shown Callaway, the established #2 in the ball market, to have performed. They have been a runaway retail success since the original Chrome Soft came out and people of all abilities play them regularly. However in all your metrics, they seem to be slower/shorter/wilder/less consistent than the competition. I have tested them against the TP5 and Pro V1 from time to time and haven’t noticed any significant difference. If anything, I have preferred them on short game shots, where they feel very responsive and have great spin control. I don’t understand how they are so popular if there is such a performance drop off compared to others. Surely their success can’t be all down to marketing!?

>

> REPLY

> TONY COVEY 5 HOURS AGO

> It’s almost entirely marketing driven and relies heavily on the idea that golfers will identify with a brand and a product and often see what they want to see because of it. The CS is short. Everybody in the industry knows it’s short (and that it doesn’t spin around the green). Callaway knows its’s short. IMO, the compression vs. ball speed chart illustrates one of the most eye-opening things we’ve ever uncovered in testing. Soft is slow and soft doesn’t spin.

>

> Consider this: a significant number of Titleist PGA Tour guys play the retail ball. Tiger plays the retail version of the Bridgestone ball. Until Callaway released the new CSX Triple Track (a ball that’s significantly different from the non-TT CSX), next to none of its PGA Tour staff played the retail ball. Tour guys aren’t big on giving up distance or greenside spin for feel. Consumers will. The reality is that over the last few years, several Callaway staffers have broken contract to play a non-Callaway ball.

> So yeah, a lot of marketing driven by an awareness that once consumers decide they like a product, they’ll be inclined to accept responsibility for the deficiencies…things like “I guess I didn’t catch that one as good as I thought”. Sometimes it really is the ball. ****

>

> > @Oldboy said:

> > it wasnt really soft ball = bad it was soft ball = slow ballspeeds and no greenside spin .. this is a great read with very interesting results imo .. yes callaway took it in the balls .. literally with this one .. in the comment section its stated that callaway is all marketing not performance driven .. ouch

>

>

 

Agreed - that was brutal for Callaway. I am going to assume they are none to happy with M-G-S at the moment.

[dhartmann34]

Although they were QUITE happy when MGS announced the Sub Zero as the best driver.... But cricket noises so far on this test it seems. I love the folks at Callaway. Great people. But sometimes you're not the best at everything and you work to be the best moving forward. Maybe their ball division needs to step it up as their clubs division has.... I look forward to hearing if they actually talk about this at some point.

 

 

 

> >

> >

>

> Agreed - that was brutal for Callaway. I am going to assume they are none to happy with M-G-S at the moment.

 

 

[North Texas]

Serious question. How does it help me to know how a robot hits a certain brand of golf ball when I don't swing anything like that robot?

 

 

[EastTNGolfer]

> @"North Texas" said:

>I havE A sPecIAL SwiNG thAt mAkeS GoLFbaLLS FlY DIFFerENtLY!

>

>

Interesting.

 

[arbeck]

> @Joker91 said:

> > @arbeck said:

> > > @Joker91 said:

> > > > @arbeck said:

> > > > > @Joker91 said:

> > > > > It's crazy how so many people on here can over-analyze pretty much everything. When it comes to something like this they just take it at face value.

> > > > > Are they using the same driver with the same shaft for 85mph and 115mph? A shaft that works best for 115mph wouldn't be the best for 85mph and vice versa.

> > > > > What are the swing angles they are using? What's the AoA for the driver? Are they using a variety of them and using an average? Are they all positive or negative or level?

> > > >

> > > > All of that is irrelevant. Though a lot of the numbers they published are irrelevant as well. The only ones that really matter are ball speed, spin, and launch angle. Changing the shaft isn't going to change those three numbers more on ball A than ball B. If ball A spins more and has more ball speed with one shaft, it will with the next shaft.

> > > >

> > > > Carry distance would matter (as it would separate the balls on their aerodynamics package), but it can only be relevant if the balls start with the same launch conditions. For instance, you can say that the Chromesoft probably has a better aerodynamics package than the Wilson Duo Urethane. Why? The two balls have nearly identical launch conditions (same balls speed, .02 difference in launch angle, 62RPM spin difference), but the Chromesoft goes 5 feet higher, lands steeper, and carries 1.5 yards further. Unfortunately, not all the balls have such identical launch conditions. You'd need to fire the balls out of an air cannon to really test this.

> > > >

> > > > The driver distances are the most meaningless of the numbers as well. For most normal swing speeds the ball speeds are all very close. A good fitter would be able to optimize your equipment to get the best launch conditions for almost any of them. What this test really shows though is that you don't want to go get fit using a Pro V1x and then start playing an AVX on the course.

> > >

> > > It's not irrelevant. All that information is important when you are testing such a wide range of swing speeds.

> >

> > A ball doesn't know what your AoA was, or what shaft you used. If one ball has more ball speed with a senior shaft and a -5 AoA it will also have more ball speed with an extra stiff shaft and +5 AoA. Now if you have a +5 AoA and play a very low lofted shaft and struggle with getting enough spin, you might might want to pick a ball that has more. If you hit down on the ball and tend to spin it way too much, you might pick a ball that spins less. That wasn't what this test was. You can do a ball fitting that find the best ball for your particular launch conditions and equipment. And that will be useful to exactly one person, you. Or you can do what they did here and just tell us what spin, launch and speed these balls have and how that varies with swing speed. That gives you a good idea of what ball you should be playing. Then, as they state, you should use that ball consistently and get fit with it so that your final numbers are optimized for you.

>

> It matters for the end user to interrupt the data. An 85mph swing speed with an x-flex shaft with an -4° AoA with a 8.5° driver isn't going to matter to a lot of people. The individual can't make an accurate decision on what to use if they don't know what works best for them.

 

Either you are dishonest, or you don't understand the study. A unicorn swing won't change how a ball reacts compared to another ball. If one is a slow ball, there is no unicorn swing to make it fast. If a ball is a spinny ball there is no unicorn swing to make it not a spinny ball. It will always be the spinniest ball and the slowest ball.

[Joker91]

> @arbeck said:

> > @Joker91 said:

> > > @arbeck said:

> > > > @Joker91 said:

> > > > > @arbeck said:

> > > > > > @Joker91 said:

> > > > > > It's crazy how so many people on here can over-analyze pretty much everything. When it comes to something like this they just take it at face value.

> > > > > > Are they using the same driver with the same shaft for 85mph and 115mph? A shaft that works best for 115mph wouldn't be the best for 85mph and vice versa.

> > > > > > What are the swing angles they are using? What's the AoA for the driver? Are they using a variety of them and using an average? Are they all positive or negative or level?

> > > > >

> > > > > All of that is irrelevant. Though a lot of the numbers they published are irrelevant as well. The only ones that really matter are ball speed, spin, and launch angle. Changing the shaft isn't going to change those three numbers more on ball A than ball B. If ball A spins more and has more ball speed with one shaft, it will with the next shaft.

> > > > >

> > > > > Carry distance would matter (as it would separate the balls on their aerodynamics package), but it can only be relevant if the balls start with the same launch conditions. For instance, you can say that the Chromesoft probably has a better aerodynamics package than the Wilson Duo Urethane. Why? The two balls have nearly identical launch conditions (same balls speed, .02 difference in launch angle, 62RPM spin difference), but the Chromesoft goes 5 feet higher, lands steeper, and carries 1.5 yards further. Unfortunately, not all the balls have such identical launch conditions. You'd need to fire the balls out of an air cannon to really test this.

> > > > >

> > > > > The driver distances are the most meaningless of the numbers as well. For most normal swing speeds the ball speeds are all very close. A good fitter would be able to optimize your equipment to get the best launch conditions for almost any of them. What this test really shows though is that you don't want to go get fit using a Pro V1x and then start playing an AVX on the course.

> > > >

> > > > It's not irrelevant. All that information is important when you are testing such a wide range of swing speeds.

> > >

> > > A ball doesn't know what your AoA was, or what shaft you used. If one ball has more ball speed with a senior shaft and a -5 AoA it will also have more ball speed with an extra stiff shaft and +5 AoA. Now if you have a +5 AoA and play a very low lofted shaft and struggle with getting enough spin, you might might want to pick a ball that has more. If you hit down on the ball and tend to spin it way too much, you might pick a ball that spins less. That wasn't what this test was. You can do a ball fitting that find the best ball for your particular launch conditions and equipment. And that will be useful to exactly one person, you. Or you can do what they did here and just tell us what spin, launch and speed these balls have and how that varies with swing speed. That gives you a good idea of what ball you should be playing. Then, as they state, you should use that ball consistently and get fit with it so that your final numbers are optimized for you.

> >

> > It matters for the end user to interrupt the data. An 85mph swing speed with an x-flex shaft with an -4° AoA with a 8.5° driver isn't going to matter to a lot of people. The individual can't make an accurate decision on what to use if they don't know what works best for them.

>

> Either you are dishonest, or you don't understand the study. A unicorn swing won't change how a ball reacts compared to another ball. If one is a slow ball, there is no unicorn swing to make it fast. If a ball is a spinny ball there is no unicorn swing to make it not a spinny ball. It will always be the spinniest ball and the slowest ball.

 

You're missing the point. Without all the data the individual can't make heads or tails of what's being provided.

[arbeck]

> @"North Texas" said:

> Serious question. How does it help me to know how a robot hits a certain brand of golf ball when I don't swing anything like that robot?

>

>

 

How you swing really doesn't matter. If you have a swing that generates a lot of spin and ball A spins more than ball B, ball A will also spin more for someone who doesn't generate as much spin. There's no swing out there that will be able to make B spin more. The same thing with launch angle and ball speed. They are what they are and while you can change your swing to generate more spin, more speed or a different launch, you can't make one ball start performing better than another.

[arbeck]

> @Joker91 said:

> > @arbeck said:

> > > @Joker91 said:

> > > > @arbeck said:

> > > > > @Joker91 said:

> > > > > > @arbeck said:

> > > > > > > @Joker91 said:

> > > > > > > It's crazy how so many people on here can over-analyze pretty much everything. When it comes to something like this they just take it at face value.

> > > > > > > Are they using the same driver with the same shaft for 85mph and 115mph? A shaft that works best for 115mph wouldn't be the best for 85mph and vice versa.

> > > > > > > What are the swing angles they are using? What's the AoA for the driver? Are they using a variety of them and using an average? Are they all positive or negative or level?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > All of that is irrelevant. Though a lot of the numbers they published are irrelevant as well. The only ones that really matter are ball speed, spin, and launch angle. Changing the shaft isn't going to change those three numbers more on ball A than ball B. If ball A spins more and has more ball speed with one shaft, it will with the next shaft.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Carry distance would matter (as it would separate the balls on their aerodynamics package), but it can only be relevant if the balls start with the same launch conditions. For instance, you can say that the Chromesoft probably has a better aerodynamics package than the Wilson Duo Urethane. Why? The two balls have nearly identical launch conditions (same balls speed, .02 difference in launch angle, 62RPM spin difference), but the Chromesoft goes 5 feet higher, lands steeper, and carries 1.5 yards further. Unfortunately, not all the balls have such identical launch conditions. You'd need to fire the balls out of an air cannon to really test this.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The driver distances are the most meaningless of the numbers as well. For most normal swing speeds the ball speeds are all very close. A good fitter would be able to optimize your equipment to get the best launch conditions for almost any of them. What this test really shows though is that you don't want to go get fit using a Pro V1x and then start playing an AVX on the course.

> > > > >

> > > > > It's not irrelevant. All that information is important when you are testing such a wide range of swing speeds.

> > > >

> > > > A ball doesn't know what your AoA was, or what shaft you used. If one ball has more ball speed with a senior shaft and a -5 AoA it will also have more ball speed with an extra stiff shaft and +5 AoA. Now if you have a +5 AoA and play a very low lofted shaft and struggle with getting enough spin, you might might want to pick a ball that has more. If you hit down on the ball and tend to spin it way too much, you might pick a ball that spins less. That wasn't what this test was. You can do a ball fitting that find the best ball for your particular launch conditions and equipment. And that will be useful to exactly one person, you. Or you can do what they did here and just tell us what spin, launch and speed these balls have and how that varies with swing speed. That gives you a good idea of what ball you should be playing. Then, as they state, you should use that ball consistently and get fit with it so that your final numbers are optimized for you.

> > >

> > > It matters for the end user to interrupt the data. An 85mph swing speed with an x-flex shaft with an -4° AoA with a 8.5° driver isn't going to matter to a lot of people. The individual can't make an accurate decision on what to use if they don't know what works best for them.

> >

> > Either you are dishonest, or you don't understand the study. A unicorn swing won't change how a ball reacts compared to another ball. If one is a slow ball, there is no unicorn swing to make it fast. If a ball is a spinny ball there is no unicorn swing to make it not a spinny ball. It will always be the spinniest ball and the slowest ball.

>

> You're missing the point. Without all the data the individual can't make heads or tails of what's being provided.

 

Sure you can. It's really not hard. If you lack spin, play a ball that spins more. If you have trouble launching the ball, pick the ball with a higher launch. Have a high swing speed? Play a ball that is firmer. Given a few swings on a launch monitor, a competent fitter could probably pick the top 3 or 4 balls for your swing just off the data from this chart. You pick the ball that helps you were you need it, avoid any of the ones that lose a ton of ball speed at your swing speed. If two balls have similar launch characteristics but one has better carry distance, it probably has a better aerodynamics package and you might want to pick that, especially if you play in wind.

[Joker91]

> @arbeck said:

> > @Joker91 said:

> > > @arbeck said:

> > > > @Joker91 said:

> > > > > @arbeck said:

> > > > > > @Joker91 said:

> > > > > > > @arbeck said:

> > > > > > > > @Joker91 said:

> > > > > > > > It's crazy how so many people on here can over-analyze pretty much everything. When it comes to something like this they just take it at face value.

> > > > > > > > Are they using the same driver with the same shaft for 85mph and 115mph? A shaft that works best for 115mph wouldn't be the best for 85mph and vice versa.

> > > > > > > > What are the swing angles they are using? What's the AoA for the driver? Are they using a variety of them and using an average? Are they all positive or negative or level?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > All of that is irrelevant. Though a lot of the numbers they published are irrelevant as well. The only ones that really matter are ball speed, spin, and launch angle. Changing the shaft isn't going to change those three numbers more on ball A than ball B. If ball A spins more and has more ball speed with one shaft, it will with the next shaft.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Carry distance would matter (as it would separate the balls on their aerodynamics package), but it can only be relevant if the balls start with the same launch conditions. For instance, you can say that the Chromesoft probably has a better aerodynamics package than the Wilson Duo Urethane. Why? The two balls have nearly identical launch conditions (same balls speed, .02 difference in launch angle, 62RPM spin difference), but the Chromesoft goes 5 feet higher, lands steeper, and carries 1.5 yards further. Unfortunately, not all the balls have such identical launch conditions. You'd need to fire the balls out of an air cannon to really test this.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The driver distances are the most meaningless of the numbers as well. For most normal swing speeds the ball speeds are all very close. A good fitter would be able to optimize your equipment to get the best launch conditions for almost any of them. What this test really shows though is that you don't want to go get fit using a Pro V1x and then start playing an AVX on the course.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It's not irrelevant. All that information is important when you are testing such a wide range of swing speeds.

> > > > >

> > > > > A ball doesn't know what your AoA was, or what shaft you used. If one ball has more ball speed with a senior shaft and a -5 AoA it will also have more ball speed with an extra stiff shaft and +5 AoA. Now if you have a +5 AoA and play a very low lofted shaft and struggle with getting enough spin, you might might want to pick a ball that has more. If you hit down on the ball and tend to spin it way too much, you might pick a ball that spins less. That wasn't what this test was. You can do a ball fitting that find the best ball for your particular launch conditions and equipment. And that will be useful to exactly one person, you. Or you can do what they did here and just tell us what spin, launch and speed these balls have and how that varies with swing speed. That gives you a good idea of what ball you should be playing. Then, as they state, you should use that ball consistently and get fit with it so that your final numbers are optimized for you.

> > > >

> > > > It matters for the end user to interrupt the data. An 85mph swing speed with an x-flex shaft with an -4° AoA with a 8.5° driver isn't going to matter to a lot of people. The individual can't make an accurate decision on what to use if they don't know what works best for them.

> > >

> > > Either you are dishonest, or you don't understand the study. A unicorn swing won't change how a ball reacts compared to another ball. If one is a slow ball, there is no unicorn swing to make it fast. If a ball is a spinny ball there is no unicorn swing to make it not a spinny ball. It will always be the spinniest ball and the slowest ball.

> >

> > You're missing the point. Without all the data the individual can't make heads or tails of what's being provided.

>

> Sure you can. It's really not hard. If you lack spin, play a ball that spins more. If you have trouble launching the ball, pick the ball with a higher launch. Have a high swing speed? Play a ball that is firmer. Given a few swings on a launch monitor, a competent fitter could probably pick the top 3 or 4 balls for your swing just off the data from this chart. You pick the ball that helps you were you need it, avoid any of the ones that lose a ton of ball speed at your swing speed. If two balls have similar launch characteristics but one has better carry distance, it probably has a better aerodynamics package and you might want to pick that, especially if you play in wind.

 

Or just provide all the info from your test

[North Texas]

> @arbeck said:

> > @"North Texas" said:

> > Serious question. How does it help me to know how a robot hits a certain brand of golf ball when I don't swing anything like that robot?

> >

> >

>

> How you swing really doesn't matter. If you have a swing that generates a lot of spin and ball A spins more than ball B, ball A will also spin more for someone who doesn't generate as much spin. There's no swing out there that will be able to make B spin more. The same thing with launch angle and ball speed. They are what they are and while you can change your swing to generate more spin, more speed or a different launch, you can't make one ball start performing better than another.

 

But I'm thinking that another player with another swing might can make ball B spin more than ball A with more speed or a different launch.

[drewtaylor21]

First off, I'll say thank you to MGS, I thought the results were very interesting, and I appreciate their efforts. Having attempted some ball testing of my own, it's pretty difficult to really control the necessary variables and present useful data. I tend to think the ball speed/launch/spin data is all that I would fully trust from this test, but even that is a big step up from anything I've seen previously, given the amount of product they tested. I feel it would have been very interesting/useful to gather true ball flight data from Trackman as they did, but supplement it with GCQuad data to discuss potential environmental factors.

 

One of the biggest question marks for me surrounds the idea of quality control vs. environmental conditions. MGS is essentially saying that small differences in the manufacturing process can make huge differences in ball flight and that this happens somewhat regularly, it would appear. I really haven't seen this happen in the real world, which makes me question some of their results. Take for example, Chrome Soft X vs. Snell MTBX in the driver test @ 115mph: Snell = 171.5 mph, 12.3* launch, 2200 spin, -2.4 spin axis. CSX = 168.5, 12.3*, 2200, and -2.7*. If you plug these into Flightscope Optimizer you get 283 carry for Snell and 277 for CSX. This is a lot closer to what I would expect, given that 3mph ball speed is the only real difference. Yet MGS report 289 carry (Snell) vs. 272 carry (CSX), a 17-yard difference in carry....To me that really looks like differences in environmental conditions, i.e., wind, temperature, or if you go full Bryson, perhaps even air density! (lol)

 

Anyone have any other suggestions on this? I see someone above mentioned the idea of measuring ball speed down-range as well, which would be potentially interesting. It just seems hard for me to believe that quality control among the biggest names in golf could really explain most of the variances, as MGS suggests.

 

Regardless, I'm very interested in trying the MTB Black, MTB X, and Bridgestone Tour B X, they all performed really well across the board in the categories I'm looking at, and it's possible any of them could replace the TP5x as my gamer.

 

Final note, did anyone else find it mildly amusing that the ProV1 and ProV1x are essentially the exact same ball, performance-wise? They both did great, but there really is no significant difference between them. Sneaky sneaky, Titleist!

[rkelso184]

Do you all think any company will advertise this? So many times you see a post with the whole "MGS Most Wanted" etc.. I don't feel Callaway will be I can almost guarantee that!

[arbeck]

> @drewtaylor21 said:

> First off, I'll say thank you to ****, I thought the results were very interesting, and I appreciate their efforts. Having attempted some ball testing of my own, it's pretty difficult to really control the necessary variables and present useful data. I tend to think the ball speed/launch/spin data is all that I would fully trust from this test, but even that is a big step up from anything I've seen previously, given the amount of product they tested. I feel it would have been very interesting/useful to gather true ball flight data from Trackman as they did, but supplement it with GCQuad data to discuss potential environmental factors.

>

> One of the biggest question marks for me surrounds the idea of quality control vs. environmental conditions. **** is essentially saying that small differences in the manufacturing process can make huge differences in ball flight and that this happens somewhat regularly, it would appear. I really haven't seen this happen in the real world, which makes me question some of their results. Take for example, Chrome Soft X vs. Snell MTBX in the driver test @ 115mph: Snell = 171.5 mph, 12.3* launch, 2200 spin, -2.4 spin axis. CSX = 168.5, 12.3*, 2200, and -2.7*. If you plug these into Flightscope Optimizer you get 283 carry for Snell and 277 for CSX. This is a lot closer to what I would expect, given that 3mph ball speed is the only real difference. Yet **** report 289 carry (Snell) vs. 272 carry (CSX), a 17-yard difference in carry....To me that really looks like differences in environmental conditions, i.e., wind, temperature, or if you go full Bryson, perhaps even air density! (lol)

>

> Anyone have any other suggestions on this? I see someone above mentioned the idea of measuring ball speed down-range as well, which would be potentially interesting. It just seems hard for me to believe that quality control among the biggest names in golf could really explain most of the variances, as **** suggests.

>

> Regardless, I'm very interested in trying the MTB Black, MTB X, and Bridgestone Tour B X, they all performed really well across the board in the categories I'm looking at, and it's possible any of them could replace the TP5x as my gamer.

>

> Final note, did anyone else find it mildly amusing that the ProV1 and ProV1x are essentially the exact same ball, performance-wise? They both did great, but there really is no significant difference between them. Sneaky sneaky, Titleist!

 

The difference in carry distance probably has more to do with the aerodynamics package than anything else. If you look hard you can find multiple balls that have basically the exact same launch conditions, but different carry distances. The aerodynamics probably explain the difference in carry distance. Unfortunately, this really hard to test without an air cannon firing the balls.

 

Titleist has been trying for a while to get the ProV1 and ProV1x to behave the same way and have the feel be the only difference, it seems like they've succeeded. Though the V1 does launch marginally higher with marginally more spin. I'd also be curious if the ball speed separates more between them at swing speeds of 120+.

[Krt22]

The test did one thing for me, it confirmed its likely time to relinquish my stock pile of RZN tour platinums. Im swinging the club better than ever, finally surpassing 170mph ball speed. I need to do some back to back LM testing but I am guessing I'm giving up a few MPH of ball speed with its low compression.

[gioreeko]

Some crazy butthurt Jokers in here that can't seem to understand how tests work. Smh. Great test, some very eye opening results. I wish they would've tested the Kirkland 4 piece ball.

[Stanks]

> @Krt22 said:

> The test did one thing for me, it confirmed its likely time to relinquish my stock pile of RZN tour platinums. Im swinging the club better than ever, finally surpassing 170mph ball speed. I need to do some back to back LM testing but I am guessing I'm giving up a few MPH of ball speed with its low compression.

Oh you're one of those guys, huh? RZN Tour Plat hoarder? Respect.

> @gioreeko said:

> Some crazy butthurt Jokers in here that can't seem to understand how tests work. Smh. Great test, some very eye opening results. I wish they would've tested the Kirkland 4 piece ball.

Why test garbage / a stolen design? No-one disagrees that the K4 was an ok ball. It was like the Glock of golf balls. Cheap but performed for the price. The users are like the Vegans of the sport. Jump on the pointy end of a tee.

Anyone thinking Callaway cares about this report is sorely mistaken, by the way. They have the Truvis which can be customized and utilized for infinite marketing capabilities and logos out there. They have plenty of pros using their ball as well (given they might have some tour only versions). ERC, Warbird, Superhot and Supersoft as well as Magna are selling and being played considerably. THey're available as Costco as well. You can't scoff at their offerings because they're up there with Titleist and all the other big dogs. Publicity is publicity.

[Krt22]

Yep, down to my last 10doz or so

[Jagpilotohio]

I’m set for a while but I found the results interesting. I Bought 20 dozen Srixon XV for $20 a dozen last fall when they were blowing out the 2018 model. Love them. Especially at $1.67 a ball. I’ll check out the snell’s in a few years when I run low,