2019 MGS Ball Test

[saevel25]

I re-arranged the data into a chart showing the average rankings in Ball Speed, Accuracy (Lower Axis Tilt, Shot Area, Low Offline), and Consistency (Lower Std. Dev's in the categories for the rankings in the chart). I highlighted anything in the top 15. This is for higher swing speeds. Because it is self serving 😉 

For me, I might be shying away from the MTB-X due to the inconsistency. The Vice Pro looks like pretty good bargain, just missing out of the top 15 in ball speed, but at $25 dollars a dozen may take over for me as the best deal if the MTB-X is that inconsistent.

Just looking at the iron and wedge test, the MTB-Black is a beast. Very good in consistency on wedges and iron shots. Then it has the trifecta of being in the top 15 in ball speed, accuracy, and consistency with the driver. Come on Snell, just keep releasing the MTB-Black 😉 

Edited May 4, 2019 by saevel25

[dennyjones]

On 4/30/2019 at 10:19 AM, Foot Wedge said:

not to mention I am smack dab in the middle of the 2 swing speed charts, so their data sets don't even correlate to me directly. 

If you look at the data, there is a way to get 100 mph swing speed.    Make sure both swing speeds are checked and it will show the average of 115 and 85.  

[Carl3]

Definitely ditching my "soft" Titleists and going with the ProV1 and/or ProV1x.

[iacas]

8 hours ago, saevel25 said:

Just looking at the iron and wedge test, the MTB-Black is a beast. Very good in consistency on wedges and iron shots. Then it has the trifecta of being in the top 15 in ball speed, accuracy, and consistency with the driver. Come on Snell, just keep releasing the MTB-Black 😉 

They are. MTB-X and MTB-Black.

[saevel25]

19 minutes ago, iacas said:

They are. MTB-X and MTB-Black.

Yea, I got a bit mixed up and thought they replaced the black with the X. 

[iacas]

X replaced Red.

[Chasing_Bogeys]

On 5/4/2019 at 6:10 PM, iacas said:

They are. MTB-X and MTB-Black.

any concerns with the high STD for "offline" on the driver at 115? 21.5yds seems like a very big issue.

[iacas]

33 minutes ago, Chasing_Bogeys said:

any concerns with the high STD for "offline" on the driver at 115? 21.5yds seems like a very big issue.

Not for my ball.

I have concerns about their test as a whole, too. I'm not so certain that they tested a statistically significant number of shots with each test to provide good numbers.

[dennyjones]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

I'm not so certain that they tested a statistically significant number of shots with each test to provide good numbers.

That is usually a problem with statistics.    I realize they can make an educated guess like "with 3% of the vote in NJ, we can predict the winner of tonight's senate race".    This study should not have been an educated guess.   I did not find in their article where they were specific about the number of balls used.    I have not watched the video to see if that was explained.   

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, dennyjones said:

That is usually a problem with statistics.    I realize they can make an educated guess like "with 3% of the vote in NJ, we can predict the winner of tonight's senate race".    This study should not have been an educated guess.   I did not find in their article where they were specific about the number of balls used.    I have not watched the video to see if that was explained.   

It wasn't explained.

We don't know how many balls they hit.

[Chasing_Bogeys]

3 hours ago, dennyjones said:

That is usually a problem with statistics.    I realize they can make an educated guess like "with 3% of the vote in NJ, we can predict the winner of tonight's senate race".    This study should not have been an educated guess.   I did not find in their article where they were specific about the number of balls used.    I have not watched the video to see if that was explained.   

I haven't seen how many of each ball they hit either and it's been asked a few times. If it's a small # then yes, the study goes out the window. The question is "what is small?"

[iacas]

37 minutes ago, Chasing_Bogeys said:

I haven't seen how many of each ball they hit either and it's been asked a few times. If it's a small # then yes, the study goes out the window. The question is "what is small?"

< 30 IMO.

[saevel25]

It seems a question they won't answer (a few in the comments asked about it).

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

It seems a question they won't answer (a few in the comments asked about it).

Yep. Severely hurts the credibility.

[boogielicious]

15 hours ago, iacas said:

It wasn't explained.

We don't know how many balls they hit.

Or whether it was a valid designed experiment randomizing the test variables. You really need both.

[Chasing_Bogeys]

On 5/6/2019 at 4:14 PM, iacas said:

< 30 IMO.

Absolutely that would be a "small number." 30 would be a bare minimum for shots of each ball. I probably shouldn't assume they did that. 

I would have loved for them to have hit 30 different balls 30 times each and provided data on variation in manufacturing/quality that way.

Overall, I think the info is interesting and useful. And I appreciate that they didn't crown a "Most Wanted" in this test.

[iacas]

If you want to skip to the results, go to about 8:20.

[JxQx]

It is kind of odd that the test shows almost identical numbers for the longest and shortest balls with the only difference being 3mph ball speed. Are the aerodynamics really that bad on the shortest ball to cause that big of a distance loss?