Jump to content
ChetlovesMer

Has MyGolfSpy Lost Its Edge?

31 posts / 1121 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Darkfrog said:

I'm not sure using a robot makes the test any better.

Who are the experts they spoke with?

What are the tolerances of the robot, and how was this verified for before/during/after testing?

What is the expected variance in spin, distance, and dispersion based on the swing robot tolerances?

What are the tolerances of the Trackman used to generate the spin, distance, and dispersion data?

Was any data generated to show that the robot delivered the club the same way, within tolerance for every swing? 

Was strike location for every single ball hit verified to be the exact same spot on the club face? How was strike location accounted for  in the data if it varies?

Were Trackman data for face/path/angle of attack accounted for when looking at the spin, distance, and dispersion data from each ball struck?

How many balls of each type to you need to hit to establish statistical significance of the data set, and did they hit this many balls?

Did they prove linearity of performance between swing speeds or is that an assumption?

Did they perform testing with different club designs to eliminate the club type as a variable (e.g., blade vs. hollow body vs. cavity back)?

Was the test done indoors or outdoors? What was the temperature, wind, humidity when each shot was struck? How were environmental conditions controlled and normalized?

I’m not sure what your point is?  Robots are more accurate and consistent than humans.  So far this is the most (or only) comprehensive test I’ve seen.  Which makes it better than just guessing.  
 

so, as far as I (or anyone) is concerned this is the best job of testing available to the public.    But, if someone can provide a better test, I’m certainly excited to read it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Register for free today and you won't see this ad spot again!

15 minutes ago, lastings said:

I’m not sure what your point is?

I thought it was pretty obvious.

15 minutes ago, lastings said:

Robots are more accurate and consistent than humans.

Not necessarily. They often are, but what if the way the clubhead attached to the machine was not perfectly secure, and the club face could wobble around slightly. What if it hit the ball +/- 1/2" from the center of the face - many humans could "beat" that.

15 minutes ago, lastings said:

Which makes it better than just guessing.

Now there's a ringing endorsement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

19 minutes ago, iacas said:

Now there's a ringing endorsement.

It's always easy to find flaws in anything, especially when you really want to.     Showing me something better is a real challenge.   
That said, given the marketing budget of companies like callaway, and the consumer traction MyGolfSpy is gaining, if this was a truly flawed test, we probably would have been beaten over the head with it.    My guess is that their raw data and testing methods are more than sufficient to justify their conclusions. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

21 minutes ago, lastings said:

Showing me something better is a real challenge.

I don't have to be able to show you something better in order for me to prove that the MGS study sucked.

21 minutes ago, lastings said:

That said, given the marketing budget of companies like callaway, and the consumer traction MyGolfSpy is gaining, if this was a truly flawed test, we probably would have been beaten over the head with it.

Uhm, read the comments section. And those are just the ones they didn't delete.

Also, why the f*** would Callaway bother to refute a goofy Internet site that's biased for Snell, EVNROLL, etc. There's a reason Coke almost never mentions Pepsi, but Pepsi talks about Coke all the time.

MGS hopes that Callaway would actively respond to and engage with them. It would go a long way toward legitimizing MGS as a voice to be listened to. They may have responded occasionally, briefly, but as you note they didn't do much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

3 hours ago, Darkfrog said:

I agree that their tests are poorly done, including the ball test. But it's probably a good move by MGS to not publish any specifics about how they perform their testing and data analysis (which makes them even shadier).

If I were "Big Golf Company X" and my product was not rated as most wanted, if I knew their exact test methods, I would simply repeat the test, likely get different results, and prove that the MGS experiments are poorly designed. Or I would hire some real subject matter experts on experiment design (i.e, scientists, not MGS staff), and have them pick apart everything MGS did wrong. Either way, MGS loses. When they don't say what they did, the worst they get is internet dissent, and their most wanted stamp of approval retains it's significance (i.e., monetary value to their brand).

I see your point. However, I disagree. This is how science works. Let the manufacturers do their own tests and publish their own results. They can't really do that with what MGS provided. Also, we can't really know how good the test if we don't know simple things like how many balls they hit.

3 hours ago, ncates00 said:

I suppose you're attempting to demonstrate bias (post-testing) here?

No, pre-test bias. Snell is a significant advertiser with them. At no point, during the test or during the interview, did they disclose this. If I remember correctly, the MTB-X was sold out right after this test was published. Who knows if there was anything fishy going on (and since they didn't publish all their data, it's impossible to know ...), but that is not a good look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

my assumption is that they hit enough of each ball to substantiate a valid conclusion, and used a functional robot with a very minimal tolerance for off center hits.  No clue why they would ever put that much effort into a test where the data wasn't reliable enough to substantiate an accurate conclusion. 
I will use the information drawn here to help inform my golf ball decisions (Bridgestone Tour BX).  because, frankly, no one else is giving me any other information at all.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

20 minutes ago, iacas said:

Oy.

That’s the problem man!

It's not a problem at all, if there is nothing else to compare it to.   I can't even take 20 boxes of balls to the range and test things myself if I wanted to.   (i mean I could, but thats pretty expensive).   I have to get data from somewhere.  So, until you go out and do some testing that you can get behind and then publish the data, I've gotta take them at their word.   because it's theirs, or Jimmy the guy from my club that swears by Maxfli's.  those are my options. 

Edited by lastings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

17 minutes ago, lastings said:

It's not a problem at all

Oy.

That’s the problem with MGS. They are relying on you making assumptions and calling it “scientific” despite no real evidence that shows it to be all that scientific.

The topic is about MGS not you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

13 hours ago, lastings said:

It's not a problem at all, if there is nothing else to compare it to.   I can't even take 20 boxes of balls to the range and test things myself if I wanted to.   (i mean I could, but thats pretty expensive).   I have to get data from somewhere.  So, until you go out and do some testing that you can get behind and then publish the data, I've gotta take them at their word.   because it's theirs, or Jimmy the guy from my club that swears by Maxfli's.  those are my options. 

Taking them at their word is the issue. Without showing actual data done with proper scientific methods, their data can have bias. It is not necessarily on purpose either, it is just not valid from a statistical standpoint.

It is a daunting task to collect the data with proper methods, which is why they take shortcuts to make deadlines. If we understand that when we read their report, then their review is more like a restaurant review, which is subjective versus objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

3 hours ago, boogielicious said:

Taking them at their word is the issue. Without showing actual data done with proper scientific methods, their data can have bias. It is not necessarily on purpose either, it is just not valid from a statistical standpoint.

It is a daunting task to collect the data with proper methods, which is why they take shortcuts to make deadlines. If we understand that when we read their report, then their review is more like a restaurant review, which is subjective versus objective.

And really no different than that of “Jimmy at the club”...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Their attitude on social media and in the comments really puts me off.  And their article on union green reads like an advertisement but they're not up front about it.  Hard to take them seriously 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

On 2/14/2020 at 1:27 PM, DeadMan said:

However, I disagree. This is how science works.

I think we're both saying the same thing. Maybe it came across as if I were defending MGS's tactic, but I was trying to make the point that what MGS does isn't anything close to science, in fact it is quite antithetical to how science works. If MGS were really scientific in any regard, they would publish their test methods and all the raw data, and encourage experts to prove their conclusions wrong.

On 2/14/2020 at 1:27 PM, DeadMan said:

Let the manufacturers do their own tests and publish their own results.

I'm 99.9% sure that ball manufacturers have extensive data on how their balls performs, probably much more rigorously tested than MGS. I wouldn't be shocked if the big manufacturers like Acushnet have extensive data on their competitor's products as well. Of course, publishing it is a different matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...