SNELL GOLF BALLS??? anyone???

[Celeras]

Same. And CarlsGolfland has the yellow MTB-X and Black in stock if anyone is currently waiting out the backorder.

[flushem]

Dean, you gotta admit this. Whether positive or negative, you got some publicity.

 

As a big supporter of your business, I am stoked and happy for you. I can't wait to see your new project.

[lopey986]

> @TnJohn said:

> > @lopey986 said:

> > > @Sixcat said:

> > > > @lopey986 said:

> > > > > @flushem said:

> > > > > I would like to hear from Dean about the result.

> > > > >

> > > > > The "X" sales will skyrocket with the publicity from ****.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > I'd like to hear his thoughts on the dispersion part of the testing, because the snell was way right off the driver compared to basically every other ball tested, can't imagine any fader/slicers would want to play that ball even with the extra distance.

> > >

> > > The MTB-Black was 5.38 yards right on average. The MTB-X was 8.57 yards left.

> >

> > Oops, correct. The X tested out great all around. The black was the one that was way right. Thanks for correcting me.

> >

> > Also, anyone who has ordered under 5 doz (i'm going to grab 3 doz.) it says in the free shipping selection that it is 2 days on orders of less than 5 doz. Has that held true for everyone? Would REALLY like to get them in hand before I play 72 holes this weekend.

>

> I placed an order for 1 doz of MTB-X late yesterday with the free 2 day shipping. Got a shipping notification today from FedEx that they will be delivered on Thursday.

 

I placed my order around 9 am central time yesterday (4/30) but it appears i didn't get it in on time and i got sucked into the backorder. Bummer.

[gvogel]

> @flushem said:

> Dean, you gotta admit this. Whether positive or negative, you got some publicity.

>

> As a big supporter of your business, I am stoked and happy for you. I can't wait to see your new project.

 

Dean is so busy filling orders that he hasn't had a chance to comment! He may also wait until he has a handle on interpreting the results.

[cpeck]

he’s to busy signing all them order forms!

[flushem]

That means we shall more brothers on board. Looking forward to new converts' testimonials

[Snell Golf]

> @cpeck said:

> he’s to busy signing all them order forms!

 

Hello... wow.. been a crazy two days for us here... sorry for not getting back to everyone.. been signing packing slips and packing A LOT of golf balls.. I will certainly try to answer the questions, but I do need to take a look a few things with regards to the testing, results, etc.. we only knew the report was coming out this week, but did not know any info on the testing or the results. I am happy to see that the testing did in fact validate the performance of both MTB X and MTB BLACK.. So I promise to check back in after I have time to review everything.. appreciate the patience..

[lopey986]

> @lopey986 said:

> > @TnJohn said:

> > > @lopey986 said:

> > > > @Sixcat said:

> > > > > @lopey986 said:

> > > > > > @flushem said:

> > > > > > I would like to hear from Dean about the result.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The "X" sales will skyrocket with the publicity from ****.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I'd like to hear his thoughts on the dispersion part of the testing, because the snell was way right off the driver compared to basically every other ball tested, can't imagine any fader/slicers would want to play that ball even with the extra distance.

> > > >

> > > > The MTB-Black was 5.38 yards right on average. The MTB-X was 8.57 yards left.

> > >

> > > Oops, correct. The X tested out great all around. The black was the one that was way right. Thanks for correcting me.

> > >

> > > Also, anyone who has ordered under 5 doz (i'm going to grab 3 doz.) it says in the free shipping selection that it is 2 days on orders of less than 5 doz. Has that held true for everyone? Would REALLY like to get them in hand before I play 72 holes this weekend.

> >

> > I placed an order for 1 doz of MTB-X late yesterday with the free 2 day shipping. Got a shipping notification today from FedEx that they will be delivered on Thursday.

>

> I placed my order around 9 am central time yesterday (4/30) but it appears i didn't get it in on time and i got sucked into the backorder. Bummer.

 

got my shipping notification this afternoon, expected delivery by Friday, lucky to have beat the rush!

[Wesquire]

> @"Snell Golf" said:

> > @cpeck said:

> > he’s to busy signing all them order forms!

>

> Hello... wow.. been a crazy two days for us here... sorry for not getting back to everyone.. been signing packing slips and packing A LOT of golf balls.. I will certainly try to answer the questions, but I do need to take a look a few things with regards to the testing, results, etc.. we only knew the report was coming out this week, but did not know any info on the testing or the results. I am happy to see that the testing did in fact validate the performance of both MTB X and MTB BLACK.. So I promise to check back in after I have time to review everything.. appreciate the patience..

 

I know that due to the positive publicity you maybe shouldn't reply to this, but how valid do you think the distance and offline differences are? It seems very VERY dubious that X would be draw/pull bias and Black would be fade/push bias.

[QuigleyDU]

the yellow was backordered already, before the results came out. just pushed it out a bit.

[crazygolfnut]

> @Wesquire said:

> > @"Snell Golf" said:

> > > @cpeck said:

> > > he’s to busy signing all them order forms!

> >

> > Hello... wow.. been a crazy two days for us here... sorry for not getting back to everyone.. been signing packing slips and packing A LOT of golf balls.. I will certainly try to answer the questions, but I do need to take a look a few things with regards to the testing, results, etc.. we only knew the report was coming out this week, but did not know any info on the testing or the results. I am happy to see that the testing did in fact validate the performance of both MTB X and MTB BLACK.. So I promise to check back in after I have time to review everything.. appreciate the patience..

>

> I know that due to the positive publicity you maybe shouldn't reply to this, but how valid do you think the distance and offline differences are? It seems very VERY dubious that X would be draw/pull bias and Black would be fade/push bias.

 

Good question.

[flushem]

Does this mean that I could sell a dozen of MTB B for $60 like OG Ksig4? :p

[Philomathesq]

So, let me preface my comments with this (so as to be completely transparent): I love Snell golf balls and currently play the MTB-Black, and my comments are not meant to be an indictment, in any way, of the MTB-X or Snell in general.

 

Having said that, while I am stoked that the MTB-X is rated as the longest ball, as well as the MTB-Black being rated "Good," I think everyone would be well-served to analyze the data more deeply when determining which ball to test out, be it the Black or X (or hell, any other ball). For example, while the X plays nine yards longer with a driver than the Black (on average), it also has a much larger shot dispersion (the "Shot Area" for the X is 266% larger than the "Shot Area" for the Black). So, while you may be getting nine extra yards, you also have a much higher probability of hitting a shot that goes somewhere you don't want it. For some, the extra nine yards may be more important that dispersion, and for others, the opposite may be true. For the 7 iron, the Black plays about two yards longer, but its shot dispersion is about 50% more than the shot dispersion for the X.

 

I'd also recommend looking at the standard deviations from the test. Depending on where you want consistency (e.g. speed, spin, height), you may find one ball to be better.

 

Ultimately, though, playability for _you_ is what matters most. Congrats, Mr. Snell, on creating a product that clearly can compete with, and beat, much higher priced balls.

[Zakers23]

> @Philomathesq said:

> So, let me preface my comments with this (so as to be completely transparent): I love Snell golf balls and currently play the MTB-Black, and my comments are not meant to be an indictment, in any way, of the MTB-X or Snell in general.

>

> Having said that, while I am stoked that the MTB-X is rated as the longest ball, as well as the MTB-Black being rated "Good," I think everyone would be well-served to analyze the data more deeply when determining which ball to test out, be it the Black or X (or ****, any other ball). For example, while the X plays nine yards longer with a driver than the Black (on average), it also has a much larger shot dispersion (the "Shot Area" for the X is 266% larger than the "Shot Area" for the Black). So, while you may be getting nine extra yards, you also have a much higher probability of hitting a shot that goes somewhere you don't want it. For some, the extra nine yards may be more important that dispersion, and for others, the opposite may be true. For the 7 iron, the Black plays about two yards longer, but its shot dispersion is about 50% more than the shot dispersion for the X.

>

> I'd also recommend looking at the standard deviations from the test. Depending on where you want consistency (e.g. speed, spin, height), you may find one ball to be better.

>

> Ultimately, though, playability for _you_ is what matters most. Congrats, Mr. Snell, on creating a product that clearly can compete with, and beat, much higher priced balls.

 

 

MTB-X was 8 yds Offline, the Bridgestone BX was 4yds offline.. where is this crazy dispersion difference that I missed

 

[Philomathesq]

@Zakers23, you are confusing offline and shot dispersion. Offline = how far the ball deviates from the centerline, on average. Shot dispersion = total area in which all balls landed. In very simplistic terms, offline is akin to accuracy and dispersion is akin to precision.

[flushem]

> @Philomathesq said:

> @Zakers23, you are confusing offline and shot dispersion. Offline = how far the ball deviates from the centerline, on average. Shot dispersion = total area in which all balls landed. In very simplistic terms, offline is akin to accuracy and dispersion is akin to precision.

 

so we should focus more on shot dispersion than offline since ball may have consistent offline. But I think they are somewhat correlated.

[Philomathesq]

> @flushem said:

> so we should focus more on shot dispersion than offline since ball may have consistent offline. But I think they are somewhat correlated.

 

I don't have the raw data, so I can't say that there is a correlation between offline and shot dispersion. But, in a general sense, there is no presumption of correlation. For example, you could have 100 balls that all land at exactly the same spot, which is 8 yards offline. This ball would be offline, but perfectly precise and with zero shot dispersion (same exact landing spot for every ball). You could also have 100 balls that all land exactly on the centerline, but at different distances. This would be a perfectly straight flight ball, but very imprecise and dispersed because of the varying distances.

 

It would be great if the results showed the medians for each of the tests. That would shed some light.

 

ETA: I'm not saying that anyone should value dispersion over offline or any other data point. I'm simply saying there is more to the results than any single data point.

[trackcoach13]

I believe the MTB-X had one ball that was crazy offline. That would produce a huge shot area.

[Philomathesq]

> @trackcoach13 said:

> I believe the MTB-X had one ball that was crazy offline. That would produce a huge shot area.

 

While that is possible, it seems unlikely given the data that the testers have provided. Unless the single errant ball was 100+ yards offline.

[mogc60]

I have played the x about 5 rounds now and it is a fantastic golf ball. I am a plus something handicap and it does everything I want in a golf ball

[trackcoach13]

> @Philomathesq said:

> > @trackcoach13 said:

> > I believe the MTB-X had one ball that was crazy offline. That would produce a huge shot area.

>

> While that is possible, it seems unlikely given the data that the testers have provided. Unless the single errant ball was 100+ yards offline.

 

Not true. Shot area represents the grid where shots finished. One shot 30 yards left and long with 9 others 5 yards right and hole high makes a HUGE area.

[Philomathesq]

> @trackcoach13 said:

> Not true. Shot area represents the grid where shots finished. One shot 30 yards left and long with 9 others 5 yards right and hole high makes a HUGE area.

 

In a vacuum, you are 100% correct. However, this isn't a vacuum; we have lots of data. For instance, look at the SD for the offline calculations for all the balls that had at least one shot that was 20+ yards offline. Those data, in conjunction with the offline averages, indicate that if it were a single offline ball, it would need to be much more severely offline than 20 yards.

 

However, it seems my musings have taken this thread way off course. I'm a math/stats freak, so I get carried away when the opportunity to discuss math/stats come up. I like the MTB-X, more than most other balls. I think it is a great ball, though I prefer the MTB-Black.

 

[Wesquire]

Why are you guys arguing about dispersion? As far as I can tell, dispersion differences say more about the inaccuracy of the test than the ball. There's just simply no way it isn't almost exclusively due to environmental factors. The distances also seem to be nonsense. The X and the Black had pretty much the same spin and launch, but the X had 1.5 mph more ball speed. That should not translate to 9 yards. Plugging it into flightscope trajectory optimizer indicates a 3 yard difference.

[Celeras]

> @Wesquire said:

> Why are you guys arguing about dispersion? As far as I can tell, dispersion differences say more about the inaccuracy of the test than the ball. There's just simply no way it isn't almost exclusively due to environmental factors.

 

This is a reasonably ignorant take. I can't link to specific posts here without it being censored, but I'd suggest you give Tony's replies a once over as he goes into this multiple times. Here is one example:

 

 

Not really relevant to the thread though as even some of the big boys like Titleist experienced balls with larger shot areas than Snell did.

[Wesquire]

> @Celeras said:

> > @Wesquire said:

> > Why are you guys arguing about dispersion? As far as I can tell, dispersion differences say more about the inaccuracy of the test than the ball. There's just simply no way it isn't almost exclusively due to environmental factors.

>

> This is a reasonably ignorant take. I can't link to specific posts here without it being censored, but I'd suggest you give Tony's replies a once over as he goes into this multiple times. Here is one example:

>

>

>

> Not really relevant to the thread though as even some of the big boys like Titleist experienced balls with larger shot areas than Snell did.

 

Sorry, no. Not a chance. Sounds like they were just eyeballing wind. I actually have experience with 1000y rifle competitions (which is essentially a glorified wind reading competition). It is not abnormal at all to have wind blowing in 3 different directions over the distance of a few hundred yards. The wind speed and direction at ground level are also almost useless for the height these balls are at. No doubt there are inconsistencies from ball to ball, but that wouldnt explain why some balls would miss left and others miss right. It is pretty clear that there were just different wind conditions. God help them if they actually believe that balls of this level are going to curve against the wind because of irregularities. "General direction of the wind" how are we supposed to take them seriously if they cant quantify the most important variable?

[Celeras]

> @Wesquire said:

> > @Celeras said:

> > > @Wesquire said:

> > > Why are you guys arguing about dispersion? As far as I can tell, dispersion differences say more about the inaccuracy of the test than the ball. There's just simply no way it isn't almost exclusively due to environmental factors.

> >

> > This is a reasonably ignorant take. I can't link to specific posts here without it being censored, but I'd suggest you give Tony's replies a once over as he goes into this multiple times. Here is one example:

> >

> >

> >

> > Not really relevant to the thread though as even some of the big boys like Titleist experienced balls with larger shot areas than Snell did.

>

> Sorry, no. Not a chance. Sounds like they were just eyeballing wind. I actually have experience with 1000y rifle competitions (which is essentially a glorified wind reading competition). It is not abnormal at all to have wind blowing in 3 different directions over the distance of a few hundred yards. The wind speed and direction at ground level are also almost useless for the height these balls are at. No doubt there are inconsistencies from ball to ball, but that wouldnt explain why some balls would miss left and others miss right. It is pretty clear that there were just different wind conditions. God help them if they actually believe that balls of this level are going to curve against the wind because of irregularities. "General direction of the wind" how are we supposed to take them seriously if they cant quantify the most important variable?

 

You're entitled to your opinion, it's not my data I can't speak about anything but what is presented. But if you think golf ball irregularities can't cause the ball to go against the wind, I can't help you.

 

Titleist puts out great videos where they purposefully engineered irregularities to show the results. There's a really long in depth one if you can stomach crossfield, but this shorter one also does the job with a less polarizing personality:

[Wesquire]

> @Celeras said:

> > @Wesquire said:

> > > @Celeras said:

> > > > @Wesquire said:

> > > > Why are you guys arguing about dispersion? As far as I can tell, dispersion differences say more about the inaccuracy of the test than the ball. There's just simply no way it isn't almost exclusively due to environmental factors.

> > >

> > > This is a reasonably ignorant take. I can't link to specific posts here without it being censored, but I'd suggest you give Tony's replies a once over as he goes into this multiple times. Here is one example:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Not really relevant to the thread though as even some of the big boys like Titleist experienced balls with larger shot areas than Snell did.

> >

> > Sorry, no. Not a chance. Sounds like they were just eyeballing wind. I actually have experience with 1000y rifle competitions (which is essentially a glorified wind reading competition). It is not abnormal at all to have wind blowing in 3 different directions over the distance of a few hundred yards. The wind speed and direction at ground level are also almost useless for the height these balls are at. No doubt there are inconsistencies from ball to ball, but that wouldnt explain why some balls would miss left and others miss right. It is pretty clear that there were just different wind conditions. God help them if they actually believe that balls of this level are going to curve against the wind because of irregularities. "General direction of the wind" how are we supposed to take them seriously if they cant quantify the most important variable?

>

> You're entitled to your opinion, it's not my data I can't speak about anything but what is presented. But if you think golf ball irregularities can't cause the ball to go against the wind, I can't help you.

>

> Titleist puts out great videos where they purposefully engineered irregularities to show the results. There's a really long in depth one if you can stomach crossfield, but this shorter one also does the job with a less polarizing personality:

 

That's a ball that was purposely designed to get this result, and it was lined up in a way to maximize the effect. They do some slight of hand by talking about "just a few thousandths of an inch" when the relative difference is what matters. There was a 20%+ difference in dimple depth between the sides. Thats about the same as if an ammunition company made a bullet that was .45 on one side an 9mm on the other. Obviously dimples are going to have differences from tolerances, but the variations are going to spread out across the ball...not all on one side. And even in this extreme case the difference was ~30y offline. How much do you honestly believe a real ball is going to be affected? 1 yard? 2?

[Celeras]

> @Wesquire said:

> > @Celeras said:

> > > @Wesquire said:

> > > > @Celeras said:

> > > > > @Wesquire said:

> > > > > Why are you guys arguing about dispersion? As far as I can tell, dispersion differences say more about the inaccuracy of the test than the ball. There's just simply no way it isn't almost exclusively due to environmental factors.

> > > >

> > > > This is a reasonably ignorant take. I can't link to specific posts here without it being censored, but I'd suggest you give Tony's replies a once over as he goes into this multiple times. Here is one example:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Not really relevant to the thread though as even some of the big boys like Titleist experienced balls with larger shot areas than Snell did.

> > >

> > > Sorry, no. Not a chance. Sounds like they were just eyeballing wind. I actually have experience with 1000y rifle competitions (which is essentially a glorified wind reading competition). It is not abnormal at all to have wind blowing in 3 different directions over the distance of a few hundred yards. The wind speed and direction at ground level are also almost useless for the height these balls are at. No doubt there are inconsistencies from ball to ball, but that wouldnt explain why some balls would miss left and others miss right. It is pretty clear that there were just different wind conditions. God help them if they actually believe that balls of this level are going to curve against the wind because of irregularities. "General direction of the wind" how are we supposed to take them seriously if they cant quantify the most important variable?

> >

> > You're entitled to your opinion, it's not my data I can't speak about anything but what is presented. But if you think golf ball irregularities can't cause the ball to go against the wind, I can't help you.

> >

> > Titleist puts out great videos where they purposefully engineered irregularities to show the results. There's a really long in depth one if you can stomach crossfield, but this shorter one also does the job with a less polarizing personality:

>

> That's a ball that was purposely designed to get this result, and it was lined up in a way to maximize the effect. They do some slight of hand by talking about "just a few thousandths of an inch" when the relative difference is what matters. There was a 20%+ difference in dimple depth between the sides. Obviously dimples are going to have differences from tolerances, but the variations are going to spread out across the ball...not all on one side. And even in this extreme case the difference was ~30y offline. How much do you honestly believe a real ball is going to be affected? 1 yard? 2?

 

Well the test in question specifically mentions, for example, that they found a Taylormade ball with a visibly raised seam. If that ball were hit, I'd reckon the results could be equally bad if not worse than the indistinguishable differences engineered in the video.

 

I don't think it's unreasonable at all, and based on Tony's commentary it's probably more common than you think. Maybe Dean can chime in later when he's settled.

[Wesquire]

> @Celeras said:

> > @Wesquire said:

> > > @Celeras said:

> > > > @Wesquire said:

> > > > > @Celeras said:

> > > > > > @Wesquire said:

> > > > > > Why are you guys arguing about dispersion? As far as I can tell, dispersion differences say more about the inaccuracy of the test than the ball. There's just simply no way it isn't almost exclusively due to environmental factors.

> > > > >

> > > > > This is a reasonably ignorant take. I can't link to specific posts here without it being censored, but I'd suggest you give Tony's replies a once over as he goes into this multiple times. Here is one example:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Not really relevant to the thread though as even some of the big boys like Titleist experienced balls with larger shot areas than Snell did.

> > > >

> > > > Sorry, no. Not a chance. Sounds like they were just eyeballing wind. I actually have experience with 1000y rifle competitions (which is essentially a glorified wind reading competition). It is not abnormal at all to have wind blowing in 3 different directions over the distance of a few hundred yards. The wind speed and direction at ground level are also almost useless for the height these balls are at. No doubt there are inconsistencies from ball to ball, but that wouldnt explain why some balls would miss left and others miss right. It is pretty clear that there were just different wind conditions. God help them if they actually believe that balls of this level are going to curve against the wind because of irregularities. "General direction of the wind" how are we supposed to take them seriously if they cant quantify the most important variable?

> > >

> > > You're entitled to your opinion, it's not my data I can't speak about anything but what is presented. But if you think golf ball irregularities can't cause the ball to go against the wind, I can't help you.

> > >

> > > Titleist puts out great videos where they purposefully engineered irregularities to show the results. There's a really long in depth one if you can stomach crossfield, but this shorter one also does the job with a less polarizing personality:

> >

> > That's a ball that was purposely designed to get this result, and it was lined up in a way to maximize the effect. They do some slight of hand by talking about "just a few thousandths of an inch" when the relative difference is what matters. There was a 20%+ difference in dimple depth between the sides. Obviously dimples are going to have differences from tolerances, but the variations are going to spread out across the ball...not all on one side. And even in this extreme case the difference was ~30y offline. How much do you honestly believe a real ball is going to be affected? 1 yard? 2?

>

> Well the test in question specifically mentions, for example, that they found a Taylormade ball with a visibly raised seam. If that ball were hit, I'd reckon the results could be equally bad if not worse than the indistinguishable differences engineered in the video.

>

> I don't think it's unreasonable at all, and based on Tony's commentary it's probably more common than you think. Maybe Dean can chime in later when he's settled.

 

If this were an actual thing, itd be THE biggest thing in golf equipment. Imagine the marketing. "You are doing everything right, that banana slice is just your ball!". Spieth and Bryson would blame it for every bad shot. 20% is far from indistinguishable. As I added to my comment, thats the difference between a 9mm and a .45.

[GolfTurkey]

Question for Dean: is it possible for two balls that spin a similar amount to exhibit different performance into the wind due to dimple pattern (or any other factor)?

 

According to the **** test, the MTB x and ProV1x spin similarly off the irons. I had trouble with the ProV1x ballooning into the wind and was wondering if a ball with a similar spin rate could penetrate the wind better.