2021 Golf Ball Test

[nsxguy]

12 minutes ago, ShowMe said:

Like I said, my dear Watson, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”  Hence, they must have juiced the monitor to produce that distance.  Improbable, yes.  Impossible, no.

 

Do you get it, my dear boy?  Unless you have another theory as to how that carry distance happened?  Do share, my boy.  🤨

 

 

I'd say you can't make this stuff up but I don't have to.

 

You yourself just said it's improbable they "juiced the monitor" - so you've hardly eliminated all other possibilities yourself.

 

Perhaps a misprint ?

 

Perhaps a MGS associate recorded the result incorrectly ?

 

And that's only 2 of the myriad possibilities.

Edited August 20, 2021 by nsxguy

[tsecor]

11 hours ago, gsxrdn said:

Is anyone disappointed at the MGS golf ball review? So much tease but such a disappointment. 

Its not a ball review.....its a ball performance test.......tons of dta to sort through to use as you see fit.....its no doubt their 1st ball test changed the industry and this is probably going to do the same on many levels....hard to be disapponted in that...if you cant find data to use from that test, not sure what you would be staisfied with.....

 

its an amazing test...more than anyone else in the world has ever done....hard to slam a test like this

[ShowMe]

3 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Perhaps a misprint ?

 

Perhaps a MGS associate recorded the result incorrectly ?

 

And that's only 2 of the myriad possibilities.

ROBOT AVERAGES

• Club Speed: 77 mph
• Ball speed: 108 mph
• Launch Angle: 20.89
• Spin: 6,052
• Carry Yards: 158.69
• Total Yards: 173.54

Well, my dear Watson, the AVERAGE carry distance was 159 yards.

 

Do you have any PLAUSIBLE theories, since you claim there are a myriad of them?

[cardigan]

They (Tony Covey) address it in the comments in several different places and suggest to focus more on the relative numbers between balls.  Altitude, humidity, club used (34 degree 8i), etc.  Take of that what you will.

Edited August 20, 2021 by cardigan

[ShowMe]

4 minutes ago, tsecor said:

Its not a ball review.....its a ball performance test.......tons of dta to sort through to use as you see fit.....its no doubt their 1st ball test changed the industry and this is probably going to do the same on many levels....hard to be disapponted in that...if you cant find data to use from that test, not sure what you would be staisfied with.....

 

its an amazing test...more than anyone else in the world has ever done....hard to slam a test like this

I now know which ball to use if I want to get the most distance from the PXG robot swinging at a specific speed using the PXG driver.  However, I don't swing like the PXG robot nor do I use a PXG driver.  At best, their test might eliminate a few balls from my consideration as to which will work best for me.  Balls, I might add, that I had already eliminated from consideration.  I guess it does give me a little bit of confirmation bias.  So there's that.

[nsxguy]

12 minutes ago, ShowMe said:

ROBOT AVERAGES

• Club Speed: 77 mph
• Ball speed: 108 mph
• Launch Angle: 20.89
• Spin: 6,052
• Carry Yards: 158.69
• Total Yards: 173.54

Well, my dear Watson, the AVERAGE carry distance was 159 yards.

 

Do you have any PLAUSIBLE theories, since you claim there are a myriad of them?

 

This is what you do, (try to) move the goalposts.

 

How PLAUSIBLE is it that the MANUFACTURER (YOUR claim) had any chance to adjust the launch monitor on another site's test when they (presumably I admit) weren't involved.

 

I don't NEED to give you any more. I already GAVE you 2 other than what you suggested.

 

But I'll give you another possibility that is at least as plausible as YOUR contention. The testers were paid off to publish an impossible stat assuming no one would get down to that level of inspection.

Edited August 20, 2021 by nsxguy

[ShowMe]

   a

Edited August 20, 2021 by ShowMe

[ShowMe]

4 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

This is what you do, (try to) move the goalposts.

 

How PLAUSIBLE is it that the MANUFACTURER (YOUR claim) had any chance to adjust the launch monitor on another site's test when they (presumably I admit) weren't involved.

 

I don't NEED to give you any more. I already GAVE you 2 other than what you suggested.

 

But I'll give you another possibility that is at least as plausible as YOUR contention. The testers were paid off to publish an impossible stat assuming no one would get down to that level of inspection.

You are making a lot of incorrect assumptions.  Hint - Next time, read the study before you opine on it.

 

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”  Sherlock Holmes

 

So go read the article and then come back with some educated and intelligent comments.  Then have a beer and relax.  No need to go postal.  It's just a golf blog, my dear boy.

[ShowMe]

20 minutes ago, cardigan said:

They (Tony Covey) address it in the comments in several different places and suggest to focus more on the relative numbers between balls.  Altitude, humidity, club used (34 degree 8i), etc.  Take of that what you will.

That makes sense.  However, if the monitor was "juiced" to produce the best possible numbers, which can be done by adjusting it for altitude and humidity, then the difference in relative numbers between the balls becomes less in a normal setting, which makes their study results a little less relevant.

 

Obviously, they and PXG are honest people and would never stoop to something so sinister.  I'm sure it was just a coincidence and I am just being paranoid.

 

[DLiver]

19 hours ago, gioreeko said:

seems like you would've lost it after one hit, no?

My buddy at the International Space Station grabbed it and sent it back on the SpaceX shuttle.

[cardigan]

3 hours ago, ShowMe said:

That makes sense.  However, if the monitor was "juiced" to produce the best possible numbers, which can be done by adjusting it for altitude and humidity, then the difference in relative numbers between the balls becomes less in a normal setting, which makes their study results a little less relevant.

 

Obviously, they and PXG are honest people and would never stoop to something so sinister.  I'm sure it was just a coincidence and I am just being paranoid.

 

I don't have any experience playing in Scottsdale, with PXG clubs, at this time of year and hitting every ball off of a tee with a perfect strike so I can't really say how realistic the distance numbers are.  I'm personally mostly interested in the spin numbers of the balls in relation to each other and the compression numbers so I can get an idea of how balls that I have tried before relate to balls I haven't tried in those areas. The carry numbers just aren't all that important to me except in the case of extreme outliers. They also seem to take great care in not saying that carry or total distance numbers are the most important factors in judging what the best performing balls would be for broad groups of people (based on swing speed and spin needs) or an individual.  That seems to ring true when you look at their top recommendations for each group.  (Even though I definitely take their top recommendations with a grain of salt since they don't tell us all of the details of the factors involved in making those choices).

 

All that being said, if you think that they've manipulated the data and/or the testing equipment then you should absolutely ignore the results of the tests altogether.  If you doubt the integrity of the numbers, the results have no value for you.  If you want to also try to convince others that the results aren't trustworthy, that's your right as well.

Edited August 20, 2021 by cardigan

[Jeff58]

For those who are interested, the Trackman system *must be* manipulated as part of its standard setup.

 

 

The oddity that isn’t addressed as far as I know it that a ball model is necessary to produce any data. But if the item of interest is a ball, what model do they use? Makes no sense to me. 

[gioreeko]

5 hours ago, ShowMe said:

Elementary, my dear Watson, how many people do you know who swing their 8 iron 77mph and hit it 159 yards in the air?  😏  

plenty, if the loft of said 8 iron is 34 degrees, or, what I like to call a 7 iron. Also, they're hitting the 8 iron (really a 7) off of a tee. My slower swinging friends seem to hit their 7 irons 155-160 off of a tee on a regular basis. 

Edited August 21, 2021 by gioreeko

[gioreeko]

6 hours ago, NoTalentLefty said:

And I fall into the low 90s category with driver . What ball do I use? The 85 or 100 ball ? 

Depends, are you a younger person that with some swing tips or lessons could get faster, or an older person who's starting to lose strength and flexibility?

 

[nsxguy]

On 8/20/2021 at 3:18 PM, ShowMe said:

You are making a lot of incorrect assumptions.  Hint - Next time, read the study before you opine on it.

 

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”  Sherlock Holmes

 

So go read the article and then come back with some educated and intelligent comments.  Then have a beer and relax.  No need to go postal.  It's just a golf blog, my dear boy.

 

LOL "Going postal" ? Now at least THAT is funny.

 

Once again, you tell people "Hey, look over there. What's that ?" while you try to pick their pockets, just like George C Scott in the "Flim Flam Man".

 

In THIS case there is no reason for me to read any test.

 

I'm not making ANY assumptions.

 

I agreed with you the numbers for the 8 iron are incorrect.

 

You asked for PLAUSIBLE reasons why.

 

I GAVE you PLAUSIBLE reasons why.

 

I'd say "Nice try" but just like your previous "fails", this one is also pretty weak. 🤦‍♀️

 

 

Edited August 23, 2021 by nsxguy

[ShowMe]

1 hour ago, gioreeko said:

plenty, if the loft of said 8 iron is 34 degrees, or, what I like to call a 7 iron. Also, they're hitting the 8 iron (really a 7) off of a tee. My slower swinging friends seem to hit their 7 irons 155-160 off of a tee on a regular basis. 

You sure about that?  Do 7 irons and 8 irons have the same shaft length?

[ShowMe]

39 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

LOL "Going postal" ? Not at least THAT is funny.

 

Once again, you tell people "Hey, look over there. What's that ?" while you try to pick their pockets, just like George C Scott in the "Flim Flam Man".

 

In THIS case there is no reason for me to read any test.

 

I'm not making ANY assumptions.

 

I agreed with you the numbers for the 8 iron are incorrect.

 

You asked for PLAUSIBLE reasons why.

 

I GAVE you PLAUSIBLE reasons why.

 

I'd say "Nice try" but just like your previous "fails", this one is also pretty weak. 🤦‍♀️

 

 

No.  I said to come back with "educated and intelligent" comments.  You really do seem to have a problem with this reading comprehension thing, don't you?

 

Do you have any college-educated friends?  Maybe they can read the article for you and explain to you why your reasons aren't plausible.

 

And no, they weren't using a Dominion system to capture the results, in case that was your next "plausible" reason.  lol

[hammergolf]

20 minutes ago, ShowMe said:

You sure about that?  Do 7 irons and 8 irons have the same shaft length?

Well some manufacturers 8 irons have even longer shafts than other manufacturers 7 irons.

[ShowMe]

11 minutes ago, hammergolf said:

Well some manufacturers 8 irons have even longer shafts than other manufacturers 7 irons.

The PXG 8 iron measures at 36.5", which is pretty standard for an 8 iron these days.  I'm not aware of any manufacturers who have 7 irons that measure 36.5" in length.  But, there could be, I guess.

[gsxrdn]

11 hours ago, ShowMe said:

Looking at the carry distances achieved given the swing speed, I can only deduce that PXG juiced the launch monitor to make their clubs look good.

 

'Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” - Sherlock Homes'

 

Or maybe their clubs really ARE that good.  Hmmm...

Exactly, I am looking at mid 100 swing speed and their iron 77 mph carry distance is insane. I am swing driver speed 110 mph, I dont know my 8 Iron speed is but 7 iron speed is only about 7 mph more than there 8 iron swing speed and carry about 175. I am more confused about my swing since reading the review. They also teased a lot about dispersion from ball to ball that would be information I would love to have but I cant seem to find it.  

[gioreeko]

3 hours ago, ShowMe said:

The PXG 8 iron measures at 36.5", which is pretty standard for an 8 iron these days.  I'm not aware of any manufacturers who have 7 irons that measure 36.5" in length.  But, there could be, I guess.

A 7 is 37, a half an inch longer. After trying out some single length irons a few seasons ago, 1/2 inch doesn't mean much.

[Gary Gutful]

Allegedly, it was Bob Parsons himself that juiced the launch monitor...He then yelled 'Bubba Booey' every time the robot hit a shot.

[cristphoto]

On 8/20/2021 at 2:50 AM, gsxrdn said:

Is anyone disappointed at the MGS golf ball review? So much tease but such a disappointment. 

 

A lot of data but it could have been better still. Comments:

 

How did they get so much spin from a surlyn range ball.  Compare that with any other cheap surlyn ball and MGS will complain about no spin. Seems odd to me.

 

When they did get the outlier shot that went way right or left, why not set that ball aside and perform their ball lab test on it (compression, roundness, etc., and then cut it open to check centered layers? Might be helpful.

 

I prefer balance in a ball.  If one ball goes 5 yards longer than another but lacks spin, feel, or accuracy it doesn't help my game much.  For example if I'm on a 400 yard hole and hit a 250 yard drive (I'm not the typical superhero) and have 150 in for me that's between 7 and 8 iron depending on conditions.  Playing a slightly longer ball doesn't change my approach shot that much. Plus the longer ball might not stop as well.

 

Finally, it seems to me that MGS doesn't care much about feel - only ball speed and distance.  What about feel off the putter or chips from 5 yards off the green.  There are a ton of variable shots during a round of golf and I prefer a ball that can address most all of them with some level of success, vs a ball that is a couple yards farther but sacrifices many other traits. Finally it would have been nice to have a couple golfers at each swing speed level hit drive,  mid-iron, wedge, chip and putt with each model and get their comments. A robot doesn't talk much.  I'm sure they could have found some volunteers for this.  

[bluedot]

17 hours ago, ShowMe said:

I now know which ball to use if I want to get the most distance from the PXG robot swinging at a specific speed using the PXG driver.  However, I don't swing like the PXG robot nor do I use a PXG driver.  At best, their test might eliminate a few balls from my consideration as to which will work best for me.  Balls, I might add, that I had already eliminated from consideration.  I guess it does give me a little bit of confirmation bias.  So there's that.

I’m curious; why do you read and comment on the ball test?  
 

You seem to know everything you need or want to know about golf balls, to the point of picking ONE number for one ball out of a mountain of really cool data. The result is that we’re down yet another rabbit hole, so perhaps you could just let it go.

 

Also, repeatedly quoting fictional characters, not to mention injecting sarcasm in that characters voice, seems a bit odd as well.  You could lose that affect with no harm to the credibility of your arguments.  In fact, it might even have the opposite effect.

[dlygrisse]

34 minutes ago, cristphoto said:

 

A lot of data but it could have been better still. Comments:

 

How did they get so much spin from a surlyn range ball.  Compare that with any other cheap surlyn ball and MGS will complain about no spin. Seems odd to me.

 

When they did get the outlier shot that went way right or left, why not set that ball aside and perform their ball lab test on it (compression, roundness, etc., and then cut it open to check centered layers? Might be helpful.

 

I prefer balance in a ball.  If one ball goes 5 yards longer than another but lacks spin, feel, or accuracy it doesn't help my game much.  For example if I'm on a 400 yard hole and hit a 250 yard drive (I'm not the typical superhero) and have 150 in for me that's between 7 and 8 iron depending on conditions.  Playing a slightly longer ball doesn't change my approach shot that much. Plus the longer ball might not stop as well.

 

Finally, it seems to me that MGS doesn't care much about feel - only ball speed and distance.  What about feel off the putter or chips from 5 yards off the green.  There are a ton of variable shots during a round of golf and I prefer a ball that can address most all of them with some level of success, vs a ball that is a couple yards farther but sacrifices many other traits. Finally it would have been nice to have a couple golfers at each swing speed level hit drive,  mid-iron, wedge, chip and putt with each model and get their comments. A robot doesn't talk much.  I'm sure they could have found some volunteers for this.  

“Feel” is nothing more than sound. Which you hear after the ball has left the face. Most soft balls have great “feel” but little spin on pitch shots, which they clearly show in this test. Most balls with “feel” are low compression, which they clearly identify in the test. So I’m not sure what you are talking about, except it’s obvious you are more worried about marketing terms than real data. 

[cardigan]

1 hour ago, cristphoto said:

 

A lot of data but it could have been better still. Comments:

 

How did they get so much spin from a surlyn range ball.  Compare that with any other cheap surlyn ball and MGS will complain about no spin. Seems odd to me.

 

When they did get the outlier shot that went way right or left, why not set that ball aside and perform their ball lab test on it (compression, roundness, etc., and then cut it open to check centered layers? Might be helpful.

 

I prefer balance in a ball.  If one ball goes 5 yards longer than another but lacks spin, feel, or accuracy it doesn't help my game much.  For example if I'm on a 400 yard hole and hit a 250 yard drive (I'm not the typical superhero) and have 150 in for me that's between 7 and 8 iron depending on conditions.  Playing a slightly longer ball doesn't change my approach shot that much. Plus the longer ball might not stop as well.

 

Finally, it seems to me that MGS doesn't care much about feel - only ball speed and distance.  What about feel off the putter or chips from 5 yards off the green.  There are a ton of variable shots during a round of golf and I prefer a ball that can address most all of them with some level of success, vs a ball that is a couple yards farther but sacrifices many other traits. Finally it would have been nice to have a couple golfers at each swing speed level hit drive,  mid-iron, wedge, chip and putt with each model and get their comments. A robot doesn't talk much.  I'm sure they could have found some volunteers for this.  

They address some of that in the article but not necessarily in great detail  They talk about sending offline balls to their ball lab in the Testing Notes (we don't see the results of that though).  They say the the combination of speed, spin and trajectory is the key to finding the best performing ball for you in the Reader Asked Questions section.  They also discuss starting from the green and working backwards to find the best ball for you in that section. 

[Drewhill44]

My take is that this is a ball test about performance only.  The MGS team made the test as equal and consistent as possible by hitting each ball with the same driver, 8 iron and wedge at the same swing speed at 3 different speeds with the robot.  If you look at the the 115 and 100 mph driver test the spins rates seem high for that speed(2,600-3,000 rpm’s) which tells me that the PXG driver produces more spin than others.  For me, my driver carry distance is around 270-280 yards and my 8 iron carry distance is around 160 yards, so I look at data for the High SS for the driver and Mid SS for the 8 iron.  The launch angle and peak height data tells us if the ball will have a lower or higher trajectory on average.  As for feel, it’s proven and as Tony said in the follow up article that a ball with 86 compression will generally feel softer than a 98 compression ball.  Also a urethane covered ball will also feel softer than a surlyn covered ball. Every golfer has there own opinion on feel.  MSG makes ball recommendations for each swing speed based on the best overall performance…it’s our decision as golfers to do our own on course and practice area tests to determine which ball best fits our golf game.  This test gives us a starting point for our own testing.  

Edited August 31, 2021 by Drewhill44

[cardigan]

16 minutes ago, Drewhill44 said:

My take is that this is a ball test about performances s performance only.  The MGS team made the test as equal and consistent as possible by hitting each ball with the same driver, 8 iron and wedge at the same swing speed at 3 different speeds with the robot.  If you look at the the 115 and 100 mph driver test the spins rates seem high for that speed(2,600-3,000 rpm’s) which tells me that the PXG driver produces more spin than others.  For me, my driver carry distance is around 270-280 yards and my 8 iron carry distance is around 160 yards, so I look at data for the High SS for the driver and Mid SS for the 8 iron.  The launch angle and peak height data tells us if the ball will have a lower or higher trajectory on average.  As for feel, it’s proven and as Tony said in the follow up article that a ball with 86 compression will generally feel softer than a 98 compression ball.  Also a urethane covered ball will also feel softer than a surlyn covered ball. Every golfer has there own opinion on feel.  MSG make ball recommendations for each swing speed based on the best overall performance…it’s our decision as golfers to do our own on course and practice area tests to determine which ball best fits our golf game best.  This test gives us a starting point for our own testing.  

I basically agree but they do say in the comments that there is a bit more to it than the data they show us factored in to their recommendations.  Doesn't bother me though because they are just recommendations.  They don't say those balls will absolutely perform the best for any given player.

 

"Recommendations basically boil down to everything we know about a given ball (some of that’s in the data, some of takes in mind what we know from ball lab, and some of the other metrics from the test). It’s what we think what provides the highest probability of success for the typical player in that range. So for the balance recommendation, we’re really looking for the Goldilocks balls (not too little or too much of anything…just right)."

[bluedot]

3 hours ago, Drewhill44 said:

My take is that this is a ball test about performances s performance only.  The MGS team made the test as equal and consistent as possible by hitting each ball with the same driver, 8 iron and wedge at the same swing speed at 3 different speeds with the robot.  If you look at the the 115 and 100 mph driver test the spins rates seem high for that speed(2,600-3,000 rpm’s) which tells me that the PXG driver produces more spin than others.  For me, my driver carry distance is around 270-280 yards and my 8 iron carry distance is around 160 yards, so I look at data for the High SS for the driver and Mid SS for the 8 iron.  The launch angle and peak height data tells us if the ball will have a lower or higher trajectory on average.  As for feel, it’s proven and as Tony said in the follow up article that a ball with 86 compression will generally feel softer than a 98 compression ball.  Also a urethane covered ball will also feel softer than a surlyn covered ball. Every golfer has there own opinion on feel.  MSG make ball recommendations for each swing speed based on the best overall performance…it’s our decision as golfers to do our own on course and practice area tests to determine which ball best fits our golf game best.  This test gives us a starting point for our own testing.  

This is pretty much a perfect summary of how to look at the testing.  It’s data, and what we do with it is up to us.  But it’s sort of hard to imagine a better effort than what these guys put in.  I’m grateful to them.

[ShowMe]

12 hours ago, gioreeko said:

A 7 is 37, a half an inch longer. After trying out some single length irons a few seasons ago, 1/2 inch doesn't mean much.

It's about a 5 yard difference in distance, all other things being equal.