Snell MTB-X - What's your experience with outliers?

[jjfcpa]

The Snell MTB-X did very well in the ball review that the other golf forum did; however, they implied that the reason it wasn't graded higher even though it was the longest distance wise is because there were some slight dispersion issues. I've been playing the Snell MTB-X for the lsat couple months and I have not personally experienced these variances. Have you?

[North Butte]

They did not hit remotely enough shots with each ball to say anything about directional and distance variance. For all the excellent work they did in collected and publishing the data, the stuff about "shot area" and "dispersion" was total overreach.

[Evilduckhunter]

I’ve played the ball since it came out and I have not had any issues with dispersion. The ball does exactly what I need it to. If I hit one offline it was a bad swing on my part and not a ball issue. Since I’ve been playing the ball I have had 8 rounds in the 60s and no round higher than 77. I guess you could say I like this ball. Well done Dean for making not one but two great balls with the MTB Black being the other.

[GolfTurkey]

No issues with the ball doing anything weird

[jjfcpa]

I've not experienced anything like errant shots other than those that I mishit. The ball flat out performs. Played the Black for about a year, then switched to the X when it came out. Love the spin I can get on the X when chipping into the green.

[Pingfitz]

I have played the ball for five weeks now, no issues in any way, the ball flat performs as stated by Dean, this is the best ball I have used.

[Celeras]

There will always be variances. All models will have outliers, the only question is how frequent they are as a result of poor quality control.

 

It's not really something you can quantify with anecdotes here. If there was an outlier for a normal player, how often do you think they even would get that ball back to be able to confirm the issue?

 

If it's something you're that worried about, learn how to perform the balance test with epsom salt.

[arbeck]

Even if it was a big enough QC problem to actually effect scores, it probably wouldn't be a big enough problem to notice anecdotally. If even one ball a dozen has a core aligned off enough to cause a large shift in the spin axis, there's a good chance you only hit that ball once. How many of us are going to blame the ball in that case?

[North Butte]

And the core alignment thing isn't the only QC issue that can affect balls. Paint variations, worn-out molds for the dimples, inconsistency in the curing of the innards, there's all sorts of things can go wrong with a multipiece golf ball. > @arbeck said:

> Even if it was a big enough QC problem to actually effect scores, it probably wouldn't be a big enough problem to notice anecdotally. If even one ball a dozen has a core aligned off enough to cause a large shift in the spin axis, there's a good chance you only hit that ball once. How many of us are going to blame the ball in that case?

 

And the core alignment thing isn't the only QC issue that can affect balls. Paint variations, worn-out molds for the dimples, inconsistency in the curing of the innards, there's all sorts of things can go wrong with a multipiece golf ball. Not all of that stuff shows up in a salt-water test.

 

The problem is, none of this stuff is common enough to establish a reliable estimate of how often and how bad QC problems affect the performance on a given model of ball. The social media crowd wants to basically treat it as if anyone, anywhere finding a flawed Chrome Soft "proves" that Chrome Soft balls should be avoided. Without knowing the denominator of a "test" a small number of flaws doesn't translate into anything useful.

[Myherobobhope]

> @jjfcpa said:

> I've not experienced anything like errant shots other than those that I mishit. The ball flat out performs. Played the Black for about a year, then switched to the X when it came out. Love the spin I can get on the X when chipping into the green.

 

I might need to give the x another run... love the blacks but they roll out more than I like on short chips. I’ve adjusted to it, but would love more check.

 

[kejoal11]

No issues for me. The ball performs as advertised. Anything offline is a bad swing on my part. MTB-X is a great ball alongside the MTB Black. Love the yellow version as well.

[foreleft2008]

I've been playing the MTB-X since I got back the end of July, and its performed magically. Great distance, impeccable feel on and around the greens. No issues here.

[COmedic]

I felt like slices would slice extra hard with it, but that was when I put a slice swing on it. Haven’t personally noticed any irregularities with the balls other than questionable paint on a green ball. Good price and enjoy cycling these balls through with my other favorite, the Z-Star.

[monks66]

just got a sleeve of these to try....lotta good chatter about it

[Milosh11]

I've played these for about 8 rounds now & I think performance-wise, they are as good as anything out there. I haven't had any dispersion or distance control issues. The only problem I have encountered is in relation durability. I have found myself discarding an inordinate number of MTB-X balls due to scuffs & cover blemishes.

[c50sooner]

Have played a couple rounds with them so far. I play TP5x and BX, comparing to them, main difference is just feel, with the MTBX feeling noticeably firmer than either of those. Haven't noticed any wildly offline shots on balls I hit well, however I have noticed some shots spinning up on me with driver, more so than with the other two. Evidenced just in the ball flight and distance, not launch monitor. If I don't stick with them, will be for sound/feel. Like the yellow option.