2021 Golf Ball Test

[rkelso184]

So the 2021 golf ball test is done and dusted with numbers being crunched ATM. On Mi Gulf Spi (sorry can't say their name as it gets bleeped) YouTube they have made some pretty interesting comments to start

 

*Chrome Soft appears to have improved

*TaylorMade is a disappointment 

*Titleist Tour Speed is really really good

*Dont get fit with range balls

*Dont play refurb balls 

 

What other takeaways do you expect to see? What do you think will be the "best ball"? I personally just went back to the ProV1x and think once again they will be the ball to beat.

 

 

 

[Shushwap]

Curious to see what the end results are 

[03trdblack]

Don't play Matte finish golf balls 

[Golf64]

Going to try Tour Speeds.

[SBH9458]

Results will be interesting for sure. Hard to beat ProV1X or ProV1X Left Dash…IMO. 

[Hougz79]

The initial buzz on Tour Speed is interesting.  Will be interested to see final results.  That said, I am wonderfully satisfied with Left Dash at the moment.  

[jtj74]

16 hours ago, rkelso184 said:

 

 

What other takeaways do you expect to see? What do you think will be the "best ball"? I personally just went back to the ProV1x and think once again they will be the ball to beat.

 

 

 

I expect that Bridgestone Tour BS/BXS are the best balls on the market. I don't care what their test says. 

[mvhoffman]

Very intrigued to see what is said about the K-Sig 3.2.  I just started playing this ball and have had great success/response to it.  I am extremely happy with it so far

[Cliffy2020]

I’m interested in the direct to consumer market and specifically how the Snell ball compares to Titleist. 

[Kentendo]

I take their "scientific tests" with a grain of salt.  I've never been a fan, but I was over their content completely when they "tested" golf ball retrievers and tried to make it sound professional.

 

All of the ball tests are redundant and ignore two critical pieces:  trajectory and overall playability.  A golf ball is much more than its driver ball speed and wedge spin rate.

 

 

 

[arbeck]

3 minutes ago, Kentendo said:

I take their "scientific tests" with a grain of salt.  I've never been a fan, but I was over their content completely when they "tested" golf ball retrievers and tried to make it sound professional.

 

All of the ball tests are redundant and ignore two critical pieces:  trajectory and overall playability.  A golf ball is much more than its driver ball speed and wedge spin rate.

 

 

 

You'll be happy to know that Trajectory is something they are tracking in this test. They noticed that the difference in launch angle off the driver at high speeds was basically the same for every ball, so they are tracking peak height, and more importantly how far down the range the peak occurred along with descent angle. This allows them to see aerodynamic differences in the balls that something like a GCQuad wouldn't show.

 

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by playability. They decided their wedge test from the first big test wasn't as informative as it should have been. To combat this they tested a much shorter wedge shot so that they are really only testing the cover.

 

Their first test wasn't perfect, they would admit that themselves. But they learned a lot about what they needed to test this time to make it more valuable. 

 

There are also some other interesting things they are going to be publishing. They are going to quantify things like damage to the ball, which is something I've always been curious about. If nothing else I think we can say that the work they have done in this area has pushed the manufacturers to make better balls.

[flushem]

I am always interested in order of:

• consistency
• spin
• trajectory
• distance

By this order, I chose B'stone B RX from the last test (100mph swing speed).  I play it along with Snell MTB Black depends on the course/hole condition.  the data helped me to find the right ball for me.  I do look forward to the new data.  

[gioreeko]

1 hour ago, Cliffy2020 said:

I’m interested in the direct to consumer market and specifically how the Snell ball compares to Titleist. 

In the test a few years ago, the Snell MTB-X was pretty much the top ball. I concur. Amazing ball.

[scott406]

3 hours ago, flushem said:

I am always interested in order of:

• consistency
• spin
• trajectory
• distance

By this order, I chose B'stone B RX from the last test (100mph swing speed).  I play it along with Snell MTB Black depends on the course/hole condition.  the data helped me to find the right ball for me.  I do look forward to the new data.  

Same here

I was playing the BridgeStone RX but moved to the Snell Black b/c of the price

I find the Snell Black has a slightly lower trajectory and a bit more spin than the RX

The consistency in both balls is top notch

 

I also play the Z-Star when they have their deals 

 

 

[flushem]

Just now, scott406 said:

Same here

I was playing the BridgeStone RX but moved to the Snell Black b/c of the price

I find the Snell Black has a slightly lower trajectory and a bit more spin than the RX

The consistency in both balls is top notch

 

I also play the Z-Star when they have their deals 

 

 

How does Z-Star compare to RX or MTB Black?

[North Butte]

3 hours ago, arbeck said:

You'll be happy to know that Trajectory is something they are tracking in this test. They noticed that the difference in launch angle off the driver at high speeds was basically the same for every ball, so they are tracking peak height, and more importantly how far down the range the peak occurred along with descent angle. This allows them to see aerodynamic differences in the balls that something like a GCQuad wouldn't show.

 

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by playability. They decided their wedge test from the first big test wasn't as informative as it should have been. To combat this they tested a much shorter wedge shot so that they are really only testing the cover.

 

Their first test wasn't perfect, they would admit that themselves. But they learned a lot about what they needed to test this time to make it more valuable. 

 

There are also some other interesting things they are going to be publishing. They are going to quantify things like damage to the ball, which is something I've always been curious about. If nothing else I think we can say that the work they have done in this area has pushed the manufacturers to make better balls.

It's remarkable the amount of complaints the first MGS robot test generated. In many cases it's the same people who base their own ball choices on some indoor numbers from hitting into a net that someone posts in a YouTube video. They see a fairly well done, very thorough test of the majority of the balls on the market and start nitpicking it to death about only having two swing speeds or not hitting deliberate slices and hooks or whatever they can dream up. Really? 

 

That particular test and the similar but slightly less comprehensive one that UK magazine did a few months later provide so much more and better information than anything else out there isn't not even funny. If they can also add in actual trajectory data they'll be getting pretty close to a definitive test IMHO. 

 

Anyone who wants to dismiss the MGS stuff ought to try and go compare any half-dozen models of golf ball even half as carefully as was done in that test and report back to us how easy it was. 

Edited July 29, 2021 by North Butte

[dlygrisse]

If anything the test showed what balls NOT to try, some are just very inconsistent.  

 

The Tour Speed I am sure is a consistent ball, but I didn't like it, mostly because I like a really high spin ball on the short game and this was just too much of a tweener.

 

I am sure Callaway QC is getting better, they got called out on the last test, it's a fine ball if you get a good one though.  

 

Can't wait to read it.  

[gioreeko]

51 minutes ago, North Butte said:

It's remarkable the amount of complaints the first MGS robot test generated. In many cases it's the same people who base their own ball choices on some indoor numbers from hitting into a net that someone posts in a YouTube video. They see a fairly well done, very thorough test of the majority of the balls on the market and start nitpicking it to death about only having two swing speeds or not hitting deliberate slices and hooks or whatever they can dream up. Really? 

 

That particular test and the similar but slightly less comprehensive one that UK magazine did a few months later provide so much more and better information than anything else out there isn't not even funny. If they can also add in actual trajectory data they'll be getting pretty close to a definitive test IMHO. 

 

Anyone who wants to dismiss the MGS stuff ought to try and go compare any half-dozen models of golf ball even half as carefully as was done in that test and report back to us how easy it was. 

Right? I applaud all the hard work that team puts into the test, the most comprehensive that I've seen. People b**** about every little thing, even about them using a robot!!! How else are you supposed to get a consistent swing that takes the human element out?  I'm anxiously awaiting the results from this go around, and where the Snells, left dash Prov1 and Kirkland end up.

[rwbloom93]

The complaints about the robot test from 2019 were well founded and accurate.  Sounds like from the posts above they at least heard the complaints and have made changes. I guess that is good, but it doesn't change the fact that human golfers (the vast majority) don't have robot perfect swing planes or strikes.  So the data has little value (besides being interesting).

 

Secondly, when the 2nd major robot test came out by PXG via TG, there were significant data differences, especially in the the category I care about most (85 mph swing speeds). Besides that, their data showed no significant distance differences in 2pc, 3 pc, 4 pc, and 5pc golf balls (completely opposite MYYSpyGolf). "Soft is slow" and by implication, short...not always true!

 

Remember, the main difference in the two 2019 Robot tests were the clubs used which produce differing results. So what type club, shaft, loft angle, etc....all effect ball performance in the robots "hands".

 

Anyway, I'll look at the data but it will have no actionable information for the masses (IMHO).  The only testing that matters is your own...and that data is not really transferrable to anyone else.

 

Regards

[DrDon]

I greatly appreciated the MGS testing.    

 

There's no way that I can even test a few different balls in the same scientific fashion.   The MGS team tested 37 different golf balls, hitting 5,000 total shots.  

 

 

 

 

[gioreeko]

26 minutes ago, rwbloom93 said:

The complaints about the robot test from 2019 were well founded and accurate.  Sounds like from the posts above they at least heard the complaints and have made changes. I guess that is good, but it doesn't change the fact that human golfers (the vast majority) don't have robot perfect swing planes or strikes.  So the data has little value (besides being interesting).

 

Secondly, when the 2nd major robot test came out by PXG via TG, there were significant data differences, especially in the the category I care about most (85 mph swing speeds). Besides that, their data showed no significant distance differences in 2pc, 3 pc, 4 pc, and 5pc golf balls (completely opposite MYYSpyGolf). "Soft is slow" and by implication, short...not always true!

 

Remember, the main difference in the two 2019 Robot tests were the clubs used which produce differing results. So what type club, shaft, loft angle, etc....all effect ball performance in the robots "hands".

 

Anyway, I'll look at the data but it will have no actionable information for the masses (IMHO).  The only testing that matters is your own...and that data is not really transferrable to anyone else.

 

Regards

then you're testing the golfer, and not the balls. Not scientific at all.

[North Butte]

41 minutes ago, rwbloom93 said:

Anyway, I'll look at the data but it will have no actionable information for the masses (IMHO).  The only testing that matters is your own...and that data is not really transferrable to anyone else.

 

Regards

Then don’t read it. Seriously. 
 

Regards. 

Edited July 29, 2021 by North Butte

[rwbloom93]

28 minutes ago, gioreeko said:

then you're testing the golfer, and not the balls. Not scientific at all.

Can you explain why the MySpYGolf test data had the ProV1x the top distance ball for 85 mph swing speed golfers and the TP5x below average....but the PXG robot for the same swing speed had the TP5x at the top and the ProV1x below average?

 

Is that a golfer thing?

 

Regards

 

[arbeck]

3 minutes ago, rwbloom93 said:

Can you explain why the MySpYGolf test data had the ProV1x the top distance ball for 85 mph swing speed golfers and the TP5x below average....but the PXG robot for the same swing speed had the TP5x at the top and the ProV1x below average?

 

Is that a golfer thing?

 

Regards

 

You can optimize the delivery of an 85MPH swing to make just about any ball the longest ball. If you are using a low spin driver, with a positive angle of attack and not delivering a lot of loft, the higher spin ball will go further than the lower spin ball (which is what the TP5x and V1x are). There simply is not enough time in the world to re-optimize the robot's delivery to maximize the distance for each individual ball.

 

The total distance was probably the least useful metric they were testing, so if you base your decision on that, you're doing it wrong. Ball speed was the most important metric, then trajectory/aerodynamic, then spin. The differences in spin aren't great off the driver, but they do matter. However, just switching a weight or the loft of your driver can make one ball go slightly further than the other.

 

If you spin the ball too much, a lower spin ball will go further for you even if it has slightly less ball speed. If you don't spin the ball enough and you see drives fall out of the air, the opposite is true. But all that data was in the test, you just needed to read it. What you can't do is say "I swing 85MPH what ball will be longest for me"

[The Pearl]

1 hour ago, rwbloom93 said:

The complaints about the robot test from 2019 were well founded and accurate.  Sounds like from the posts above they at least heard the complaints and have made changes. I guess that is good, but it doesn't change the fact that human golfers (the vast majority) don't have robot perfect swing planes or strikes.  So the data has little value (besides being interesting).

 

Secondly, when the 2nd major robot test came out by PXG via TG, there were significant data differences, especially in the the category I care about most (85 mph swing speeds). Besides that, their data showed no significant distance differences in 2pc, 3 pc, 4 pc, and 5pc golf balls (completely opposite MYYSpyGolf). "Soft is slow" and by implication, short...not always true!

 

Remember, the main difference in the two 2019 Robot tests were the clubs used which produce differing results. So what type club, shaft, loft angle, etc....all effect ball performance in the robots "hands".

 

Anyway, I'll look at the data but it will have no actionable information for the masses (IMHO).  The only testing that matters is your own...and that data is not really transferrable to anyone else.

 

Regards

 

There is plenty of actionable information in the tests.  The purpose of the test is not to ferret out the best ball for "everybody", the purpose of the test is to establish some type of basic statistical golf ball performance "base rates".  This allow for general "base rate" conclusions as starting point for golfers to head off into their own experimentation armed with some information rather than using the shot gun approach. 

 

With that said, even in terms the advice of "what works best for you" is probably total BS  because "what works best for you" is by and large mostly the result of our own bias conclusions. 

[rwbloom93]

56 minutes ago, arbeck said:

You can optimize the delivery of an 85MPH swing to make just about any ball the longest ball. If you are using a low spin driver, with a positive angle of attack and not delivering a lot of loft, the higher spin ball will go further than the lower spin ball (which is what the TP5x and V1x are). There simply is not enough time in the world to re-optimize the robot's delivery to maximize the distance for each individual ball.

 

 

That's my point.

 

We all swing so different, and use different clubs, such that the robot data is not likely to have any value.  I do read all robot data, even the smaller versions  (VICE and others) because I find it interesting.  I also look at a lot of human data because it is interesting too.

 

All of it confirms my year long testing in 2018. That is....The best performing balls, for the swing I have, and the clubs I use, are unique to me and not readily transferrable to anyone else.  Put another way....what is longer for you will not necessarily be longer for me, what spins more for me may not spin more for you.  That is the main takeaway from robot testing, the more the merrier!

 

Regards 

Edited July 30, 2021 by rwbloom93

[rwbloom93]

3 minutes ago, The Pearl said:

 

There is plenty of actionable information in the tests.  The purpose of the test is not to ferret out the best ball for "everybody", the purpose of the test is to establish some type of basic statistical golf ball performance "base rates".  This allow for general "base rate" conclusions as starting point for golfers to head off into their own experimentation armed with some information rather than using the shot gun approach. 

 

With that said, even in terms the advice of "what works best for you" is probably total BS  because "what works best for you" is by and large mostly the result of our own bias conclusions. 

Serious question...

 

What actionable data did get from the MYYSPY test, and was it confirmed by the PXG test and your own personal play?

[arbeck]

16 minutes ago, rwbloom93 said:

That's my point.

 

We all swing so different, and use different clubs, such that the robot data is not likely to have any value.  I do read all robot data, even the smaller versions  (VICE and others) because I find it interesting.  I also look at a lot of human data because it is interesting too.

 

All of it confirms my year long testing in 2018. That is....The best performing balls, for the swing I have, and the clubs I use, are unique to me and not readily transferrable to anyone else.  Put another way....what is longer for you will not necessarily be longer for me, what spins more for me may not spin more for you.  That is the main takeaway from robot testing, the more the merrier!

 

Regards 

The robot data is all that matters really. You just need to translate how the ball reacts to the robot to how you swing. You simply can't replicate all the swings, with all the equipment setups that are out there. But you don't need to. If two balls have 200RPM of spin difference and 1MPH of ball speed different and 10ft of peak high difference for one swing at 85MPH it will have the same difference for any other swing and equipment at 85MPH. One ball might go further than the other for each person, but the differences in spin ball, speed, and trajectory between the balls will be constant.

 

Using the numbers they published you can go hit any ball in the test on a launch monitor, record what you see, and use the data to find a ball that would go the furthest for you.

 

What you need to keep in mind is that the ball characteristics don't change based on the swing or equipment hitting it. 

[North Butte]

I do believe within a certain margin of error, if the MGS test shows that one ball spins a few hundred rpm more than another off a 7-iron at a certain swing speed then that ball has higher iron spin. Likewise if the ball speed is 3mph lower off driver for one ball than another, I believe it reflects an actual difference in the balls under those conditions.

 

Of course it's only measured under two very specific conditions. But they tell you exactly what those conditions are and they keep them as consistent as mechanically possible when comparing ball to ball to ball to ball.  So the relative balls speeds, launch, spin and trajectory of any two balls are what they are at those conditions.

 

No, they can't tell every ball at 200,000 different launch conditions to perfectly match the 200,000 different golfers who read it. And yes, you won't know until you try a ball whether it works or not for you. So what? If you want to find a ball that's got really low spin off the irons at a certain clubhead speed the MGS table will let you find a dozen or so that you ought to try first. 

 

What I don't understand is why someone who professes to believe that no ball test, period, is ever going to have any validity whatsoever because it wasn't himself swing the club...then why are you opining about one particular test? There is literally nothing they or anyone else could ever do to make to accept any part of their results. So why would you waste your time reading it and even moreso why waste your time trying to critique it? 

[trackcoach13]

28 minutes ago, North Butte said:

I do believe within a certain margin of error, if the MGS test shows that one ball spins a few hundred rpm more than another off a 7-iron at a certain swing speed then that ball has higher iron spin. Likewise if the ball speed is 3mph lower off driver for one ball than another, I believe it reflects an actual difference in the balls under those conditions.

 

Of course it's only measured under two very specific conditions. But they tell you exactly what those conditions are and they keep them as consistent as mechanically possible when comparing ball to ball to ball to ball.  So the relative balls speeds, launch, spin and trajectory of any two balls are what they are at those conditions.

 

No, they can't tell every ball at 200,000 different launch conditions to perfectly match the 200,000 different golfers who read it. And yes, you won't know until you try a ball whether it works or not for you. So what? If you want to find a ball that's got really low spin off the irons at a certain clubhead speed the MGS table will let you find a dozen or so that you ought to try first. 

 

What I don't understand is why someone who professes to believe that no ball test, period, is ever going to have any validity whatsoever because it wasn't himself swing the club...then why are you opining about one particular test? There is literally nothing they or anyone else could ever do to make to accept any part of their results. So why would you waste your time reading it and even moreso why waste your time trying to critique it? 

rwbloom93 asked this question and yet no one answered..."Can you explain why the MySpYGolf test data had the ProV1x the top distance ball for 85 mph swing speed golfers and the TP5x below average....but the PXG robot for the same swing speed had the TP5x at the top and the ProV1x below average?