This collaborative space allows users to contribute additional information, tips, and insights to enhance the original deal post. Feel free to share your knowledge and help fellow shoppers make informed decisions.
Pretty poor analysis considering these people don't even appear to be fit correctly for their clubs. The spin rate on the fast SS driver tests are out of control. 2600-2700 spinrate is going to kill the distance. Only way to understand how the ball truly performs is by testing it in the way it was designed. That spin rate is 30% above optimal avg spin rate for anyone swinging over 105.
It's not just a handful of guys. It's a relatively large population of golfers who perform the tests. They range from high handicappers to low handicappers. Importantly, the same guys were hitting each ball. So, the guys spinning it at 1,800 were included in the data for all balls tested. As were the guys spinning it 3,600.
Since the good is included with the bad, it doesn't affect the analysis. For instance, you would anticipate different numbers for each ball if you just used the good golfers, but you wouldn't anticipate a difference in how the balls compare to each other.
edit: and fwiw, there's a difference between optimal and attainable. Per Trackman PGA Tour stats, the numbers aren't far off from what the pros are pumping out. https://blog.trackmangolf.com/tra...our-stats/
Last edited by Brooky03 November 22, 2023 at 07:18 AM.
It's not just a handful of guys. It's a relatively large population of golfers who perform the tests. They range from high handicappers to low handicappers. Importantly, the same guys were hitting each ball. So, the guys spinning it at 1,800 were included in the data for all balls tested. As were the guys spinning it 3,600.
Since the good is included with the bad, it doesn't affect the analysis. For instance, you would anticipate different numbers for each ball if you just used the good golfers, but you wouldn't anticipate a difference in how the balls compare to each other.
edit: and fwiw, there's a difference between optimal and attainable. Per Trackman PGA Tour stats, the numbers aren't far off from what the pros are pumping out. https://blog.trackmangolf.com/tra...our-stats/
Tour players rarely go out and hit a straight shot for Max distance. They're playing to a number, fade/draw, land soft/hard, under the wind, or high to not run through, etc... They're playing courses in a totally different condition as well. My point still stands, in order to get an understanding of which ball is actually best for you, you'd either want to hit them on a sim yourself... Or have a robot hit multiple different types of shots and find which is closest to you. Having a group of ppl with totally different swings doesn't tell you much about how the ball will actually play for you. From what I've found, and my buddy who is a +1.8 the maxfli was a few yards shorter off the driver and less durability than the srixon.
There is one out there, this one cannot be given the large variation in spin axis. Also, they must have their elevation on the launch monitor set to mount Everest because 300+ carry with a 10° launch, 2700 spin rate, and 165 mph ball speed is impossible.
Last edited by StrongTank3603 November 22, 2023 at 07:37 AM.
Yes! You're right. That was a change this year that I didn't realize.
There is no way it was a robot arm with 6° of variation between avg spin axis. Additionally whatever launch monitor they used couldn't be further incorrect. 170 ball speed with 10° launch and 2700 spin is going to carry like 275 and maybe get 10 yards of roll. In the test it is showing 315 with 30 yards of roll totally 345, which is outrageous.
Tour players rarely go out and hit a straight shot for Max distance. They're playing to a number, fade/draw, land soft/hard, under the wind, or high to not run through, etc... They're playing courses in a totally different condition as well. My point still stands, in order to get an understanding of which ball is actually best for you, you'd either want to hit them on a sim yourself... Or have a robot hit multiple different types of shots and find which is closest to you. Having a group of ppl with totally different swings doesn't tell you much about how the ball will actually play for you. From what I've found, and my buddy who is a +1.8 the maxfli was a few yards shorter off the driver and less durability than the srixon.
You're making a point different from the original point we were discussing. We were discussing the performance of the Maxfli balls and Srixon balls, were we not? Of course, which ball is best for an individual golfer will vary quite a bit, but that doesn't change the quality of the balls being compared.
My point remains that Maxfli Tours are legitimate high quality golf balls. At $2/ball, this is a very good value. Objectively (through testing) they're not significantly worse than anything but ProV1's, which are better than anything on the market. If you can get Z-stars for about the same price or cheaper, then certainly get the Z-stars. But for the value-minded golfer, a Maxfli Tour at $2 vs. a Z-star at $2.50 or $3 a ball would probably be the better buy.
Last edited by Brooky03 November 22, 2023 at 07:50 AM.
1
Like
Helpful
Funny
Not helpful
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
There is no way it was a robot arm with 6° of variation between avg spin axis. Additionally whatever launch monitor they used couldn't be further incorrect. 170 ball speed with 10° launch and 2700 spin is going to carry like 275 and maybe get 10 yards of roll. In the test it is showing 315 with 30 yards of roll totally 345, which is outrageous.
You're making a point different from the original point we were discussing. We were discussing the performance of the Maxfli balls and Srixon balls, were we not? Of course, which ball is best for an individual golfer will vary quite a bit.
My point remains that Maxfli Tours are legitimate high quality golf balls. At $2/ball, this is a very good value. Objectively (through testing) they're not significantly worse than anything but ProV1's, which are better than anything on the market. If you can get Z-stars for about the same price or cheaper, then certainly get the Z-stars. But for the value-minded golfer, a Maxfli Tour at $2 vs. a Z-star at $2.50 or $3 a ball would probably be the better buy.
My point is you can't use that data to make your point.. that is all. $2 a ball it's great, srixon is better. I'd argue Titleist isn't any better than srixon or Callaway.
My point is you can't use that data to make your point.. that is all. $2 a ball it's great, srixon is better. I'd argue Titleist isn't any better than srixon or Callaway.
There are so many things wrong with that data.
The data is good. They've been doing this a while. They also assess the balls separately in what I'd call the 'quality control' areas, which you might be interested in. Concentricity, variations in cover thickness, uniformity of the core layers, etc. Their ball reviews will also usually comment on cover durability and some other factors.
The website is a good resource to get objective data and reviews on golf equipment. They don't take ad dollars the way Golf Digest or other companies do, so it's as close to unbiased as there is.
This topic has probably gotten too tangential for a deal post. Bottom line, I'd say this is a good deal for recreational and serious golfers. I don't think many low handicaps are going to be leaving much/any performance on the table by going with these Maxfli's. For that matter, they wouldn't be leaving anything on the table by going with the Srixon's either.
The data is good. They've been doing this a while. They also assess the balls separately in what I'd call the 'quality control' areas, which you might be interested in. Concentricity, variations in cover thickness, uniformity of the core layers, etc. Their ball reviews will also usually comment on cover durability and some other factors.
The website is a good resource to get objective data and reviews on golf equipment. They don't take ad dollars the way Golf Digest or other companies do, so it's as close to unbiased as there is.
This topic has probably gotten too tangential for a deal post. Bottom line, I'd say this is a good deal for recreational and serious golfers. I don't think many low handicaps are going to be leaving much/any performance on the table by going with these Maxfli's. For that matter, they wouldn't be leaving anything on the table by going with the Srixon's either.
I guess my point is, whatever launch monitor they used must have been broke. Also I am not sure how a robot has such a massive variation in spin axis.
I own a foresight GCQuad and live in Phoenix, so I have it setup to local weather. I have a similar SS (112mph) and generate about 165 ball speed. My numbers are far more optimized as I spin around 2k and launch at about 13°. The carry numbers in relation to the SS, vLaunch, and ball speed are impossible. You'd have to be at like 10k feet elevation to get those numbers.
I guess my point is, whatever launch monitor they used must have been broke. Also I am not sure how a robot has such a massive variation in spin axis.
I own a foresight GCQuad and live in Phoenix, so I have it setup to local weather. I have a similar SS (112mph) and generate about 165 ball speed. My numbers are far more optimized as I spin around 2k and launch at about 13°. The carry numbers in relation to the SS, vLaunch, and ball speed are impossible. You'd have to be at like 10k feet elevation to get those numbers.
If it was broken, it was broken equally for all golf balls. I guess that's the point I'm getting at. The launch monitor won't be broken in a way that it just throws out randomly high and randomly low numbers. In whatever way it's broken, it will be consistent. So the balls can still be compared one-to-one.
It was apparently 105 degrees with winds around 5mph when they tested. So, it seems that temperature is at play here quite a bit. I know you said your monitor is set up for local weather, but perhaps there is some wiggle room between how a computer calculates the affects of temp and humidity vs. real world.
In the comments section of the ball test, they get into the numbers and how some differences came to be. Notably, there are always going to be differences between indoor and outdoor numbers and Trackman and Foresight numbers. Tony Covey goes into a little bit of detail about how an indoor-centric launch monitor like the GCQuad is great for ball speed and spin rate because those are evident from impact. But it falls a bit short when spitting out ball flight numbers because it's not directly measuring them, it's using math. Math strips away the aerodynamic properties of a ball. So QCQuad is less accurate with launch, height, descent, stuff like that.
Spin axis, unlike spin rate, is a ball flight measurement, not a strictly impact measurement. The spin axis differences could be attributable to Trackman (maybe within margin of error, maybe just a different way of measuring. IDK) and/or attributable to the aerodynamics of the different balls. The robot itself likely also has some margin of error for the face angle at impact. It's swinging a stiff noodle that vibrates and oscillates. None of those spin axis numbers are high enough to generate much of a draw or fade, so I'm not sure controlling them to be closer to zero would net results any different from what was observed.
Last edited by Brooky03 November 22, 2023 at 08:47 AM.
I play with what I find in the woods, I pick the best out of them and leave the rest in the cart or give them to someone who hacks and doesn't care what they're hitting.
Remember, balls in the woods are the ones that didn't listen.
29 Comments
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Since the good is included with the bad, it doesn't affect the analysis. For instance, you would anticipate different numbers for each ball if you just used the good golfers, but you wouldn't anticipate a difference in how the balls compare to each other.
edit: and fwiw, there's a difference between optimal and attainable. Per Trackman PGA Tour stats, the numbers aren't far off from what the pros are pumping out. https://blog.trackmango
Since the good is included with the bad, it doesn't affect the analysis. For instance, you would anticipate different numbers for each ball if you just used the good golfers, but you wouldn't anticipate a difference in how the balls compare to each other.
edit: and fwiw, there's a difference between optimal and attainable. Per Trackman PGA Tour stats, the numbers aren't far off from what the pros are pumping out. https://blog.trackmango
My point remains that Maxfli Tours are legitimate high quality golf balls. At $2/ball, this is a very good value. Objectively (through testing) they're not significantly worse than anything but ProV1's, which are better than anything on the market. If you can get Z-stars for about the same price or cheaper, then certainly get the Z-stars. But for the value-minded golfer, a Maxfli Tour at $2 vs. a Z-star at $2.50 or $3 a ball would probably be the better buy.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
They used robots at two locations in Arizona in the middle of Summer
My point remains that Maxfli Tours are legitimate high quality golf balls. At $2/ball, this is a very good value. Objectively (through testing) they're not significantly worse than anything but ProV1's, which are better than anything on the market. If you can get Z-stars for about the same price or cheaper, then certainly get the Z-stars. But for the value-minded golfer, a Maxfli Tour at $2 vs. a Z-star at $2.50 or $3 a ball would probably be the better buy.
There are so many things wrong with that data.
There are so many things wrong with that data.
The website is a good resource to get objective data and reviews on golf equipment. They don't take ad dollars the way Golf Digest or other companies do, so it's as close to unbiased as there is.
This topic has probably gotten too tangential for a deal post. Bottom line, I'd say this is a good deal for recreational and serious golfers. I don't think many low handicaps are going to be leaving much/any performance on the table by going with these Maxfli's. For that matter, they wouldn't be leaving anything on the table by going with the Srixon's either.
The website is a good resource to get objective data and reviews on golf equipment. They don't take ad dollars the way Golf Digest or other companies do, so it's as close to unbiased as there is.
This topic has probably gotten too tangential for a deal post. Bottom line, I'd say this is a good deal for recreational and serious golfers. I don't think many low handicaps are going to be leaving much/any performance on the table by going with these Maxfli's. For that matter, they wouldn't be leaving anything on the table by going with the Srixon's either.
I own a foresight GCQuad and live in Phoenix, so I have it setup to local weather. I have a similar SS (112mph) and generate about 165 ball speed. My numbers are far more optimized as I spin around 2k and launch at about 13°. The carry numbers in relation to the SS, vLaunch, and ball speed are impossible. You'd have to be at like 10k feet elevation to get those numbers.
I own a foresight GCQuad and live in Phoenix, so I have it setup to local weather. I have a similar SS (112mph) and generate about 165 ball speed. My numbers are far more optimized as I spin around 2k and launch at about 13°. The carry numbers in relation to the SS, vLaunch, and ball speed are impossible. You'd have to be at like 10k feet elevation to get those numbers.
It was apparently 105 degrees with winds around 5mph when they tested. So, it seems that temperature is at play here quite a bit. I know you said your monitor is set up for local weather, but perhaps there is some wiggle room between how a computer calculates the affects of temp and humidity vs. real world.
In the comments section of the ball test, they get into the numbers and how some differences came to be. Notably, there are always going to be differences between indoor and outdoor numbers and Trackman and Foresight numbers. Tony Covey goes into a little bit of detail about how an indoor-centric launch monitor like the GCQuad is great for ball speed and spin rate because those are evident from impact. But it falls a bit short when spitting out ball flight numbers because it's not directly measuring them, it's using math. Math strips away the aerodynamic properties of a ball. So QCQuad is less accurate with launch, height, descent, stuff like that.
Spin axis, unlike spin rate, is a ball flight measurement, not a strictly impact measurement. The spin axis differences could be attributable to Trackman (maybe within margin of error, maybe just a different way of measuring. IDK) and/or attributable to the aerodynamics of the different balls. The robot itself likely also has some margin of error for the face angle at impact. It's swinging a stiff noodle that vibrates and oscillates. None of those spin axis numbers are high enough to generate much of a draw or fade, so I'm not sure controlling them to be closer to zero would net results any different from what was observed.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.