Can I like MyGolfSpy?

Lately, seems like MGS has gotten very butthurt about anything that comes out that contradicts their ‘research.’ I put research in quotes because I dont actually think any of their writers are actually scientists.

Case in point being their pin in pin out feud with the MIT guy. Which was discussed in this thread. Putting with the Flagstick In

Now (and full disclosure I didn’t click on this because it looked to clickbaity) they are coming after golf club reviews on YouTube.

Seriously guys, you’re not the only people on the planet who can have/share an opinion on golf related subject matter. Nor are you the inly people who can run ‘experiments’ or do testing.

I used to find their content decent and I perceived that it was probably close to bias free. But now ai am wondering, is it just a big bunch of phonys who are really only in it to pimp their own brand?


I think they work hard, run a nice website, and definitely have a passion for what they do.

They’re not experts.


I think theyre starting to believe in their own “process” a little too much. And its very possible their stance on advertising is dubious at best.

I still think they are a decent resource. Definitely not the end all be all.

I find Adam Beach unbearable to listen to. And Tony Coveys hat is as bad as Brysons.

The way he comes off in this video is completely off putting to me.


Their total failure to do relatively basic statistical analytics to consider randomness/normal errors makes a lot of what they produce pretty worthless.

Like, I’m sure you can hit the same ball with a robot and get a good amount of variation in results. You can’t just pass off that random variation as evidence of one ball being better than another.


Forsure feel like they put out some good and useful stuff, but kinda feels like they think they’re the end all be all for golf equipment testing/reviewing and won’t let anyone tell them otherwise.


I really wanted the golf ball test to be enlightening and groundbreaking. It wasn’t. I have no interest in their online “fitting” tools. The site has so much potential and just continually falls short.


I use to read their stuff on Twitter and follow some of their links. Even searched out their ball tests this year. But the more they tweeted, the more I started to suspect they weren’t quite as unbiased and professional as they claim to be. For one, if you have to constantly tell people how smart you are or how much of an expert you, that probably means you’re not. Second, I’m not convinced they aren’t getting something from the smaller brands. The wording “We do not accept ad revenue from the big golf companies” doesn’t exactly scream completely independent.


That was kind of my impetus for finally writing this post. Them crapping all over anyone else doing reviews or coming out with data different than theirs and it’s like they take their ball and go home.

Mostly agree with this. But lately i feel like they’re trying to pass themselves off as experts.

Seems like all of this started when there was some pushback on their flagstick study and it has trickled into everything else they’re now doing. Unfortunate as I do like some of the stuff they do but that attitude towards criticism puts me off a bit.

1 Like

Yeah, the idea that their results presented a white Srixon ball as significantly better than a yellow one is where they really lost me.

If you’re doing the study, how does that not jump off the page at you as either a sign that you need to do more swings to even out that difference OR do a deeper dive on if there is an actual impact of ball color. If you want your study to have credibility you have to be able to see something like that in the data and call it out yourselves.


Have the founders/main guys behind it made their credentials public? Is it a STEM background, journalism, do we know?

I want a grudge match for everyone we have a “beef” with

1 Like

I was kinda hoping that by putting this topic out here we might have one of them reveal themselves as a lurker and we can get some #dialogue


I don’t mind them. I do appreciate that they put out articles about weirder things like rain suits and stuff like that. I find that stuff helpful. Don’t really read too much about the club and ball stuff that much.

I was also a huge fan of consumer reports back in the day - but I think it’s generally trash now. So I for sure appreciate looking over a review before purchasing something.

Turns out we don’t need to speculate. Instead of a resume we have a TWO PART origin story. Turns out he’s an “entrepreneur” with a background in, apparently selling golf equipment online? Not a ton of substance about his career details, but plenty on his no bullshit attitude.

I had an issue a few months back when they pass off their club testing as experts then you read their process and it is literally we gave ten guys clubs and asked them to rate them. Wtf.


I think you mean “off putt-ing”

Ha! Sorry had to make that joke


Their total failure to do relatively basic statistical analytics to consider randomness/normal errors makes a lot of what they produce pretty worthless.

I would absolutely LOVE to see some of their tests done properly. Conduct a power analysis, collect sufficient amounts of data (probably way more than what they collect currently), and then see whether there are any statistically significant differences between equipment.

That’s what NLU membership should get you – properly done statistical testing analysis.


This. Anyone who has a basic grasp of statistics wouldn’t find anything they do interesting.