Pro V1 vs Chrome Soft

[GoGoErky]

Except they don’t. Look at the Usga conforming list. Titleist has tour only balls like the left dash, left dog, star with the left dash bring recently offered to the general public. Phil has played numerous drivers that weren’t available at retail and until Callaway released the csx triple track he never played a CS that was offered at retail. TM has lofts on the tour van for the m5 that aren’t available at retail.

[Ben Berube]

Yeah man called prototypes or its a new ball. All products have to be tested. Still come from the exact same line retail gear spits out of all day 24x7. I have seen it with my own eyes. I worked with Acushnet on testing 2 polymers to go inside the cavities of these new T series irons.

Same manufacturing lines with a slight change in the process. They have to shut down, swap molds and run prototypes and then go through everything with a fine tooth comb so the different balls can be tested and offered to which specs the Pro likes.

There is no Tour Issue plant in some far off land making things we cannot play.

 

[GoGoErky]

they aren’t prototypes per day because they are on the conforming list and are used in pga tour events. They have different characteristics from the retail versions of Prov1 and Prov1x same with the chrome soft ball. When it came out it was too soft for Phil and Callaway made him another ball that and that continued with each iteration until the csx triple track came out.

there are plenty of clubs that pros get that aren’t retail. Look at the current mavrik driver. There are 9’doffernt versions on the conforming list and not all 9 will make it to retail and are going to be tour use only.

whether you accept it or not the pros have gear the rest of us won’t ever see

[Chip2win]

Chromesoft feels way better and flies farther. It's better all the way around. If you want to pretend you're a "player" use the Pro V1. The range balls at our club are Pro V1's. Mis hit one slightly and it HURTS!

[GolfiNut]

CS player here...Rocking the yellow/Black truvis because they are so much easier to find this time of year. Can I game a ProV? Sure but I like the feel off the putter & driver better with the Callaway. Its all preference really but at the end of the day, go with the one you can putt the best with because that where it saves you the most strokes.

[DZ973]

Two things:

1.) Soft = Slow

2.) Calloway has had QC problems with their balls

 

it was widely circulated via the social media hashtag #finditcutit

Titleist produces some of the most consistent balls out there

[atmorrow13]

If we're talking purely the Chrome Soft vs. ProV1, I prefer the ProV1. I lose about 3-5 yards per iron and 7-10 yards off the drive with the Chrome Soft.

However...I love the Chrome Soft X Triple Track. It performs the same as the ProV1 to me, and it's a bit cheaper. Plus, the Triple Track probably saves me 2-3 strokes per round with the putter.

Regarding Callaway's quality control concerns, the issue is more with my swing than the golf ball.

[Pepperturbo]

You need to get out more, and play with the pros before you make generalizations. Look up the word prototype and what it means to sponsorship contracts. What happens on the production line has little to nothing to do with prototype products which are typically developed in stages sometimes in separate areas. I've played with a few pros that were testing products and I've actually played with prototype products that were not destine for retail and others that were. Some prototype are built for touring pros others for mass market. You'd be surprised how often a touring pro has a developing product in his bag during a tournament, one that YOU and others may not be able to benefit from.

[schmidtlein7]

I would really recommend find a source to do a ball fitting with a monitor. I recently did this and found that for my swing the ProV1x generated the decent angle I was looking for when hitting into greens. The ChromeSoft had similar distance, but lower angles and ball flight height so it would come in a little faster. The Srixon had the best distance by far for me, but it also had the lowest ball flight and most roll out. The session lasted an hour and only cost $25.

[Itsjustagame]

As has been suggested by others I actually prefer the TP5 to either ball, but I did have some nice putting success recently with the triple track.

[phil75070]

Soft is slow but not necessarily short. Check out the ball test by Today's Golfer. The Callaway ERC was the softest ball tested at around 76 compression but finished as long or longer in distance than either of the ProV's at driver swing speeds of 85 and 100mph and was only 1 yard shorter at 115mph.

Callaway did some testing on balls with cores off center and any difference from those perfectly balanced was negligible to undetectable. Of course, some will say Callaway isn't telling the truth.....

 

[tbowles411]

That test didn't hold water for me. The ERC was shorter than the ProV1 for me. Shockingly short, by at least a club shorter. I tested every Callaway ball against the Titleist counterpart last year. The Chrome Soft was a few yards shorter, but enough to make a difference for me. That was one of the reasons I went back to Titleist.

[GoGoErky]

Not true for all golfers. Cs is shorter on all clubs for me. Also others have posted similar findings.

[arbeck]

Soft also means less spin, and sometimes less spin will give you more distance even with less ball speed. However, a good fitter can optimize your driver to give you the best launch conditions for distance, and the fastest ball will then always win. And knocking off spin to get distance can often get you into trouble with your irons.

[bward]

I've recently started playing the newer CSX with triple track. I honestly don't like the quite ball as much as Pro V1X or MTB-X, but have noticed my scores being 1-2 shots lower due to putting performance and I'll always go with what let's me shoot the lowest.

[jmoney3hundo]

Truly the only tour issue equipment now is loft options, a handful of golf balls and equipment in the proto stages. There are obvious things like the Circle T. At the end of the day with how low spinning the golf ball is the average golfer doesn’t need an 8°. 9/10 in my fittings I am adding loft for numerous reasons.

 

as far the ball goes it’s CSx with triple track all day.

[wfrogge1]

Every golf OEM admits that softer balls do not go as far as harder balls.... its science. Far as off center cores not causing balls to fly offline that's crazy talk.

[8602081]

Pro V1 for me..

 

Don't know why, but I definitely play better with Pro V1..

 

[phil75070]

I think it is proven and acknowledged that softer balls are slower but not necessarily shorter. There is more than ball speed that goes into distance if that is all one is looking for. The Snell MTB-X, per MGS and most who have put it into play say, is the longest ball out there but is softer in compression that the ProV1-X. If it were just compression it should be just the opposite. One of the reasons the ERC Soft, a very low compression ball does so well in distance off the driver is because it is so low in spin.

[GSDriver]

I find CS-X to be just perfectly fine for me. CS feels like a marshmallow, but fine for winter/cold temps. Pro V1 is pretty much equivalent perf wise, CSX durability is better IMO.

[strug'-a-ling]

I would have thought that I might prefer the Chrome Soft over the Pro V1x because Callaway purchased the old Spalding technology when Spalding dropped out of the golf business.

I was a devotee of Spalding golf balls.

The truth is, however, that the wound, balata-covered Spalding Dot wasn't particularly soft and the Spalding Top Flite, which I played (original, not XL) was quite hard.

I don't notice a huge difference in my game using any quality brand name ball, but I definitely lean toward the Pro V1s for the combination of distance and short game spin.

[arbeck]

The MTB-X is definitely not softer than the ProV1x. It might have a lower compression based on what Snell reports vs what Titleist reports, but independent tests have shown the total compression of the MTB-X to be higher. It's one of if not the most firm ball there is.

And yes, it is possible to have a soft ball with lower ball speed go further than a hard ball with higher ball speed due to spin. This is especially the case with irons. However, off the driver, the faster ball is almost always going to win. The softer ball is never going to have so much less spin that a good fitter can't adjust the equipment being used to optimize the launch conditions of the faster ball. That's not really the case with irons, but I'd argue that with irons most of us don't want to trade spin for distance.

[nsxguy]

On 1/30/2021 at 10:07 AM, arafat03 said:

First, the Pro V1 is a three-piece ball, while the Chrome Soft is four-piece construction. Second, Pro V1 has a higher compression rate, 90 to 75, than the Chrome Soft. Both these differences manifest themselves in two places on the course, off the tee and on the green. Read more...

 

That article is ridiculous. Written at 6th grade level. "Putting green refers to the area around the hole" Really ?

 

Putting distance based on number of dimples ?

 

"The Titleist Pro V1 offers greater control, and thus, is clearly better for putting. It can easily gauge the putting speed as the ball is firm enough for the purpose. Needless to say, the ball has 352 dimples that provide greater friction." 

 

"That said, the overall winner between the Callaway Chrome Soft vs Titleist Pro V1 battle is undoubtedly the latter. The best part is that it gives you reasonable spin control, high speed, and still has a low price"

 

"And still has a low price" ? 

 

Now, that said, I've been playing the regular CS for a year now and like it all over again. But, just about out of them and with the new ProVs out, I just the other day bought a sleeve of each the V and the V1x.

 

Tried both versions yesterday in a scramble. Not nearly enough "evidence" but both of them worked fairly well and certainly deserve some more extensive "test time". 👍