My Golf Spy Ball Test - General Discussion

[Drudersh]

> @GoGoErky said:

> > @T-MAC said:

> > I love it when they suggest that people need to forget about FEEL!

> > Forget about feel? In Golf?? LOL!

> > I've tried just about every ball out there. I used to be a ProV1 guy for years. Then I switched over to the Bridgestone B330S, then went to the RX when they came out (I prefer a softer feel). A couple years ago I switched to the Chrome Soft and love them. Every year I go out and buy the "new" models of several manufacturers to give them a try. This year I've been playing the new Bridgestone RX and RXS along with the Taylormade TP5. I keep going back to the Chrome Soft because I prefer the feel and the way it performs around the green. My swing speed is in the low 100's with the driver and I haven't noticed a heck of a lot of difference in distance with any of the balls that I try.

> > Sorry, but I'm not going to let the "test" change my mind about what golf ball I play and I think it is utterly ridiculous that these "golf guys" are suggesting we golfers forget about "feel".

> > They said the same thing when I told them I thought the putter they chose as the "best" felt like a brick and I couldn't putt with it.

> > I guess the guys at **** have hands of brick.

>

> Most golfers associate feel with sound.

 

A couple of weeks before this study came out I started playing around with the Tour B X and was a little shocked by how much distance I was picking up with the driver and woods, and found it to be very straight. The downside was I thought it felt awful, especially off the putter and wedges. I stuck with it and have played some great golf despite still not getting used to the feel. I switched back to my old B330S for a couple of rounds and it felt miles better, but I was right back to where I started with distance and accuracy off the tee. Last night I went back to Tour B X and it was right back to longer, straighter tee shots and crappy feeling putts and chips but the score also improved. When I read the study it helped push me towards sacrificing feel for results. I'm sure I'll get used to the harder feeling ball after a few weeks of playing it exclusively but it hasn't been an easy transition thus far and if the results hadn't been significantly better I would be back to my old ball.

[1992joeshmoe]

Has anyone successfully downloaded the raw data from the MGS study? I'm putting together a spreadsheet that will interpret the data for various swing speeds. I've already got a handful of balls done by hand (uh.. phrasing) but would be quicker if i had the raw data.

[Holy Moses]

A few questions and comments:

1. Why are they using weird compression numbers instead of the ones that we are most used to? I was a little shocked that some balls which I thought were very hard had fairly low compression.

2. Do we know what brand and model of wedge, 7-iron, and driver the test used? And the shafts? Wish they could use a robot to hit off grass or wood tees and let us know the AoA.

3. How many shots with each ball did they test? How many different balls for each model?

4. Callaway looks real bad.

 

Great test though. Most thorough I've ever seen by far.

[GolfTurkey]

> @TheCityGame said:

> > @GolfTurkey said:

> > I have three takeaways from the test other than the ball data / rankings:

> > 1. It shows that it's absolutely nuts to aim straight at the flag, even for a robot, so I certainly won't be doing it in future. I'm signing up with DEKADE tonight!

> I can't imagine a more wrong thing to take away from that study.

>

I thought it was pretty obvious. There is a not insignificant dispersion of shots hit by the robot, especially with certain balls. It doesn't matter whether it is due to balls not being uniform or not being able to 100% accurately account for environmental factors like the wind, but there is innate variability in performance even for a robot. A human's dispersion is only going to be larger.

 

Imagine that you could take the robot around the course with you and it hit the full shots and you chipped and putted. Would you aim the robot straight at the pin if it was cut close to water on the left or just over water on the front?

[Sixcat]

Confirmation bias!> @"Holy Moses" said:

> A few questions and comments:

> 1. Why are they using weird compression numbers instead of the ones that we are most used to? I was a little shocked that some balls which I thought were very hard had fairly low compression.

> 2. Do we know what brand and model of wedge, 7-iron, and driver the test used? And the shafts? Wish they could use a robot to hit off grass or wood tees and let us know the AoA.

> 3. How many shots with each ball did they test? How many different balls for each model?

> 4. Callaway looks real bad.

>

> Great test though. Most thorough I've ever seen by far.

 

Go watch the Youtube replay of yesterday's "Live Chat" with the 4 guys that conducted the test. It answers these questions and a WHOLE lot more.

[arbeck]

> @"Holy Moses" said:

> A few questions and comments:

> 1. Why are they using weird compression numbers instead of the ones that we are most used to? I was a little shocked that some balls which I thought were very hard had fairly low compression.

> 2. Do we know what brand and model of wedge, 7-iron, and driver the test used? And the shafts? Wish they could use a robot to hit off grass or wood tees and let us know the AoA.

> 3. How many shots with each ball did they test? How many different balls for each model?

> 4. Callaway looks real bad.

>

> Great test though. Most thorough I've ever seen by far.

 

1) There is no industry standard for reporting compression. Some companies report the compression of the core. Some the core plus mantle. Some the entire ball. They actually tested the compression of the full balls here.

 

2) It really doesn't matter. If you used a blade 7i, you might see more spin. But you'd see more spin on every ball. The order of the balls isn't going to change. Same thing with the shaft. Specific balls aren't going to react differently to specific clubs. The AoA is also not important. It would change the spin loft, so the spin numbers would change, but it would change the same for every ball. I don't think a wood tee would have made any difference. Hitting of grass would make a difference, but it would be nearly impossible to make it consistent for all the shots. It would just add noise to the numbers.

[cpeck]

@Drudersh try the bxs, it has an amazing softened feel off the putter. it was longer for me off the tee then the bx maybe by default but none the less it was. into the greens it’s going almost a consistent 5-8 yards sometimes 10. once i get my new yardages right this ball will be amazing. i’m hoping i’m going to settle somewhere around 5 yards longer once the weather is consistent but i will gladly take 10 if the shots start trending that way when i finally get a warm spring.

[Holy Moses]

> @Sixcat said:

> Confirmation bias!> @"Holy Moses" said:

> > A few questions and comments:

> > 1. Why are they using weird compression numbers instead of the ones that we are most used to? I was a little shocked that some balls which I thought were very hard had fairly low compression.

> > 2. Do we know what brand and model of wedge, 7-iron, and driver the test used? And the shafts? Wish they could use a robot to hit off grass or wood tees and let us know the AoA.

> > 3. How many shots with each ball did they test? How many different balls for each model?

> > 4. Callaway looks real bad.

> >

> > Great test though. Most thorough I've ever seen by far.

>

> Go watch the Youtube replay of yesterday's "Live Chat" with the 4 guys that conducted the test. It answers these questions and a WHOLE lot more.

 

I got through 30 minutes and had to pause. I'll go back.

[Holy Moses]

> @arbeck said:

> > @"Holy Moses" said:

> > A few questions and comments:

> > 1. Why are they using weird compression numbers instead of the ones that we are most used to? I was a little shocked that some balls which I thought were very hard had fairly low compression.

> > 2. Do we know what brand and model of wedge, 7-iron, and driver the test used? And the shafts? Wish they could use a robot to hit off grass or wood tees and let us know the AoA.

> > 3. How many shots with each ball did they test? How many different balls for each model?

> > 4. Callaway looks real bad.

> >

> > Great test though. Most thorough I've ever seen by far.

>

> 1) There is no industry standard for reporting compression. Some companies report the compression of the core. Some the core plus mantle. Some the entire ball. They actually tested the compression of the full balls here.

>

> 2) It really doesn't matter. If you used a blade 7i, you might see more spin. But you'd see more spin on every ball. The order of the balls isn't going to change. Same thing with the shaft. Specific balls aren't going to react differently to specific clubs. The AoA is also not important. It would change the spin loft, so the spin numbers would change, but it would change the same for every ball. I don't think a wood tee would have made any difference. Hitting of grass would make a difference, but it would be nearly impossible to make it consistent for all the shots. It would just add noise to the numbers.

 

I know it doesn't matter and it would create problems for people because they'd say, "You should have used ____ club," but I still want to know!

[Holy Moses]

> @arbeck said:

> > @"Holy Moses" said:

> > A few questions and comments:

> > 1. Why are they using weird compression numbers instead of the ones that we are most used to? I was a little shocked that some balls which I thought were very hard had fairly low compression.

> > 2. Do we know what brand and model of wedge, 7-iron, and driver the test used? And the shafts? Wish they could use a robot to hit off grass or wood tees and let us know the AoA.

> > 3. How many shots with each ball did they test? How many different balls for each model?

> > 4. Callaway looks real bad.

> >

> > Great test though. Most thorough I've ever seen by far.

>

> 1) There is no industry standard for reporting compression. Some companies report the compression of the core. Some the core plus mantle. Some the entire ball. They actually tested the compression of the full balls here.

>

> 2) It really doesn't matter. If you used a blade 7i, you might see more spin. But you'd see more spin on every ball. The order of the balls isn't going to change. Same thing with the shaft. Specific balls aren't going to react differently to specific clubs. The AoA is also not important. It would change the spin loft, so the spin numbers would change, but it would change the same for every ball. I don't think a wood tee would have made any difference. Hitting of grass would make a difference, but it would be nearly impossible to make it consistent for all the shots. It would just add noise to the numbers.

 

 

There is no issue with hitting a wedge off a tee when no one uses a wedge to hit off a tee for the majority of wedge shots and none that are 85 yards long?

[Holy Moses]

> @dhartmann34 said:

> **I thought this comment and reply from the testing site was QUITE telling for the callaway results.....Especially how Callaway staffers aren't playing the true ball itself...which I've always known. But if it's literally almost none...That's telling. **

>

> ****HUMZA 5 HOURS AGO

> In all of this, I am truly astonished to see how poorly you have shown Callaway, the established #2 in the ball market, to have performed. They have been a runaway retail success since the original Chrome Soft came out and people of all abilities play them regularly. However in all your metrics, they seem to be slower/shorter/wilder/less consistent than the competition. I have tested them against the TP5 and Pro V1 from time to time and haven’t noticed any significant difference. If anything, I have preferred them on short game shots, where they feel very responsive and have great spin control. I don’t understand how they are so popular if there is such a performance drop off compared to others. Surely their success can’t be all down to marketing!?

>

> REPLY

> TONY COVEY 5 HOURS AGO

> It’s almost entirely marketing driven and relies heavily on the idea that golfers will identify with a brand and a product and often see what they want to see because of it. The CS is short. Everybody in the industry knows it’s short (and that it doesn’t spin around the green). Callaway knows its’s short. IMO, the compression vs. ball speed chart illustrates one of the most eye-opening things we’ve ever uncovered in testing. Soft is slow and soft doesn’t spin.

>

> Consider this: a significant number of Titleist PGA Tour guys play the retail ball. Tiger plays the retail version of the Bridgestone ball. Until Callaway released the new CSX Triple Track (a ball that’s significantly different from the non-TT CSX), next to none of its PGA Tour staff played the retail ball. Tour guys aren’t big on giving up distance or greenside spin for feel. Consumers will. The reality is that over the last few years, several Callaway staffers have broken contract to play a non-Callaway ball.

> So yeah, a lot of marketing driven by an awareness that once consumers decide they like a product, they’ll be inclined to accept responsibility for the deficiencies…things like “I guess I didn’t catch that one as good as I thought”. Sometimes it really is the ball. ****

>

> > @Oldboy said:

> > it wasnt really soft ball = bad it was soft ball = slow ballspeeds and no greenside spin .. this is a great read with very interesting results imo .. yes callaway took it in the balls .. literally with this one .. in the comment section its stated that callaway is all marketing not performance driven .. ouch

>

>

 

I commented that Callaway should just dump the retail ball and sell the Tour ball. Why would they not do this? Admitting past failure?

[joker2]

 

I don't think spy guys' testing was thorough enough.

[Lodestone]

The testing got me off my duff about trying the Snells. Just for general information, I ordered the "Test Pack" , which has 6 of the MTB Black and 6 of the MTB-X, expecting a back-order date, but evidently they have those boxed up and ready, because they shipped later in the day.

[cpeck]

that poor poor watermelon. @joker2

[Lodestone]

> @joker2 said:

>

>

> I don't think spy guys' testing was thorough enough.

 

this has convinced me that I should stop going to the gym to increase my clubhead speed. I don't want to exceed the limits of my equipment. (or get "too big").

 

[Drudersh]

> @cpeck said:

> @Drudersh try the bxs, it has an amazing softened feel off the putter. it was longer for me off the tee then the bx maybe by default but none the less it was. into the greens it’s going almost a consistent 5-8 yards sometimes 10. once i get my new yardages right this ball will be amazing. i’m hoping i’m going to settle somewhere around 5 yards longer once the weather is consistent but i will gladly take 10 if the shots start trending that way when i finally get a warm spring.

 

Tried it when it first came out. Dead opposite of the B X for me. Loved it off the putter, lost noticeable distance off the tee vs B330S and ended up going back to the 330S after a couple of months.

[munichop]

I have written at length my struggle to replace my beloved gamer soft and after trying 14 different models I settled on the e12 soft. I too have embraced lower compression balls and while all the data is helpful until you hit a shot that counts on a course you aren’t sure if the ball will work for you. My first 2 tourney rounds are 66 and 70 with the new ball.

I differ a little on the idea that lower compression or soft feel is a myth for players. I played tennis when I was younger and you could get your racquet strung at different tensions which would change the feel of the shots even though the ball stayed the same. No one I knew had their equipment tuned for max speed on the serve alone. Golf is similar in that the overall feel of your strikes from all your shots is what creates the confidence you need to repeat the shots when required. The scorecard is the final measure.

The good news is that MGS has provided enough info that a person who knows their priorities can get a short list of balls to try before they commit to one.

 

[GooseHook]

If anything, the data has turned my perception upside down regarding the "low spin" and "high spin" balls. It seems to match up to what I've started to notice between the Z-Star and XV on the course.

[dhartmann34]

> @"Holy Moses" said:

> > @dhartmann34 said:

> > **I thought this comment and reply from the testing site was QUITE telling for the callaway results.....Especially how Callaway staffers aren't playing the true ball itself...which I've always known. But if it's literally almost none...That's telling. **

> >

> > ****HUMZA 5 HOURS AGO

> > In all of this, I am truly astonished to see how poorly you have shown Callaway, the established #2 in the ball market, to have performed. They have been a runaway retail success since the original Chrome Soft came out and people of all abilities play them regularly. However in all your metrics, they seem to be slower/shorter/wilder/less consistent than the competition. I have tested them against the TP5 and Pro V1 from time to time and haven’t noticed any significant difference. If anything, I have preferred them on short game shots, where they feel very responsive and have great spin control. I don’t understand how they are so popular if there is such a performance drop off compared to others. Surely their success can’t be all down to marketing!?

> >

> > REPLY

> > TONY COVEY 5 HOURS AGO

> > It’s almost entirely marketing driven and relies heavily on the idea that golfers will identify with a brand and a product and often see what they want to see because of it. The CS is short. Everybody in the industry knows it’s short (and that it doesn’t spin around the green). Callaway knows its’s short. IMO, the compression vs. ball speed chart illustrates one of the most eye-opening things we’ve ever uncovered in testing. Soft is slow and soft doesn’t spin.

> >

> > Consider this: a significant number of Titleist PGA Tour guys play the retail ball. Tiger plays the retail version of the Bridgestone ball. Until Callaway released the new CSX Triple Track (a ball that’s significantly different from the non-TT CSX), next to none of its PGA Tour staff played the retail ball. Tour guys aren’t big on giving up distance or greenside spin for feel. Consumers will. The reality is that over the last few years, several Callaway staffers have broken contract to play a non-Callaway ball.

> > So yeah, a lot of marketing driven by an awareness that once consumers decide they like a product, they’ll be inclined to accept responsibility for the deficiencies…things like “I guess I didn’t catch that one as good as I thought”. Sometimes it really is the ball. ****

> >

> > > @Oldboy said:

> > > it wasnt really soft ball = bad it was soft ball = slow ballspeeds and no greenside spin .. this is a great read with very interesting results imo .. yes callaway took it in the balls .. literally with this one .. in the comment section its stated that callaway is all marketing not performance driven .. ouch

> >

> >

>

> I commented that Callaway should just dump the retail ball and sell the Tour ball. Why would they not do this? Admitting past failure?

 

They've been on a huge role the past 5+ years. Not sure they'll admit the product is a failure, especially since I'm assuming they have large quantities out there. But I'm guessing we'll see it disappear or at least turn into something else.... Or heck, people are buying it... they're #2 in ball sales. Maybe they'll continue with it. The study is huge, but there are plenty of folks out there that don't follow anything on golf forums.... We'll see what happens I guess!

[bellairemi]

Tried the Snell MTB-X today for the first time and was pretty surprised at the results as they matched the MGS test results almost exactly. Usual ball of choice is the ProV1x although I never buy new (my supply always come from those found by myself or playing partners). Temperature today was in the low 40s with drizzle while I played so did not expect to learn much about the ball. However, I hit, even in those conditions, 3 of my longest tee shots ever on three holes with the MTB-X. It was stunning. The mid irons were a few yards shorter than the Titleists (I hit 2-3 Snells each hole and 1-2 ProV1x also) but similar trajectory and spin. Full shots with the short irons were a little lower with the Snells with spin again being similar. Partial wedges were notably lower with the Snells, which meant more roll out even though the spin was similar. I am curious to see how the Snell fares in the wind, which has been my only bone of contention with the ProV1x.

[chadly643]

 

> 2) It really doesn't matter. If you used a blade 7i, you might see more spin. But you'd see more spin on every ball. The order of the balls isn't going to change. Same thing with the shaft. Specific balls aren't going to react differently to specific clubs. The AoA is also not important. It would change the spin loft, so the spin numbers would change, but it would change the same for every ball. I don't think a wood tee would have made any difference. Hitting of grass would make a difference, but it would be nearly impossible to make it consistent for all the shots. It would just add noise to the numbers.

 

This idea has been reiterated multiple times in this thread as well as by the guys that did this test. How do we know this to be true? What data do we have that shows what the balls will or will not react to in relation to each other? I’m not trying to throw shade on the test because I actually find it to be one of the most compelling tests of any golf equipment ever, however some absolutes have been thrown out there by these guys that I just don’t know can be definitively said based on this single limited test. The order of the balls change going from high speed to low speed, how do we know they wouldn’t change going from steep to shallow or from blade to cavity back or from stiff flex to regular flex? These balls really are designed to react differently to different clubs, that’s why a ball can be low spin off the driver and high spin off a wedge. If there is a result of this test that is indisputable it is that it is very important to value ball fitting just as much as club fitting.

[T-MAC]

> @"North Butte" said:

> And yet when they take a dozen people like yourself, give them blank golf balls and block their ears they can't tell one ball from the other. Go figure!

>

> I know from my wasted youth hanging around high end audio shops, if you try hard enough you can hear (or feel) anything that you're convinced is there. Belief is the most powerful force that human being ever encounter.

 

So, are you saying that you can't tell the difference between a 200.00 pair of Pioneer speakers and a 8000.00 pair of B&W's?

I'll bet you have hands of brick to go along with your deafness too then.

[TheCityGame]

> @GolfTurkey said:

> > @TheCityGame said:

> > > @GolfTurkey said:

> > > I have three takeaways from the test other than the ball data / rankings:

> > > 1. It shows that it's absolutely nuts to aim straight at the flag, even for a robot, so I certainly won't be doing it in future. I'm signing up with DEKADE tonight!

> > I can't imagine a more wrong thing to take away from that study.

> >

> I thought it was pretty obvious. There is a not insignificant dispersion of shots hit by the robot, especially with certain balls. It doesn't matter whether it is due to balls not being uniform or not being able to 100% accurately account for environmental factors like the wind, but there is innate variability in performance even for a robot. A human's dispersion is only going to be larger.

>

> Imagine that you could take the robot around the course with you and it hit the full shots and you chipped and putted. Would you aim the robot straight at the pin if it was cut close to water on the left or just over water on the front?

 

Depends on how far from the pin I was, what the actual dispersion of the ball is, what the actual distance to the water is, where my opponent is, where the match stands, my robot's ability to get up and down from being short-sided, my robot's ability to lag putt from spots further from the pin, etc etc etc.

 

Yes, the dispersion due to ball characteristics is minimal compared to the dispersion due to the repeatability of ANY human. That's a factor any skilled golfer considers with every target chosen.

 

Just because there's dispersion in the landing area doesn't mean that "it's absolutely nuts to aim straight at the flag". In many cases, it makes it more sensible to aim right at the flag. In some cases, it indicates you should aim at the center of the green. In some cases, it might mean you aim away from the flag. All these decisions change based on your ability, the design of the course around the target area, your lie, your distance from the target area (which affects the variability of the shot more than anything), the situation of your match, etc etc etc.

 

 

 

 

[rybo]

So thanks to the test I did some testing yesterday. Picked up a dozen each of ProV1's and Tour B XS's to test them against my current ball of choice, the Callaway Chrome Soft. Also had a sleeve of last years TP5's which is the ball I switched from when going to the CS.

My swing speed is a bit north of 115mph and I consider myself to be a high spin generator.

 

Course was wide open yesterday so was able to hit each ball side by side on 7 holes (played 9). FOR ME the CS was the longest off the driver and fairway woods every time. TP5 was always 2nd. The ProV1 and B XS were alternating between a distant third and forth. The Pro V1 and B XS launched considerably higher and were definitely spinning more. The difference in flight of the 4 balls was easily seen.

Off the irons, the launch of the V1 and B XS was higher then CS. Distance for both was a couple yards shorter then the CS.

Off the wedges, there was some additional spin on the little touch shots around the green. Not enough to call it an 'ah ha' moment , more like the ball checked up a foot or so quicker.

Off the putter was more noticeable for sure, I have been trying a new Spider X for the last few weeks and quite honestly the performance has been so so at best. Distance control was sporadic, one crazy long the next crazy short and both putts felt about the same, and seemed to be getting a lot of 'pulls' to the left. Also the ball would launch up in the air on longer putts. Never had any of these issues while using the CS with the Cameron Futura X5R. The match up of the CS and the grooves FOR ME seems to be producing some really odd results. With the V1, B XS, and TP5 the balls rolled considerably straighter and distance control was much improved.

 

So went out to see how much distance I was losing with the CS and found that it was by far the longest ball of the four FOR ME. All four balls seemed to have the same amount of accuracy. There was not a single shot where I said 'what was that?' My good shots did what they were supposed to as did my misses. The eye opener was the improvement in putting when using a putter that has grooves among the 4 balls. I'll do some more putter testing to see what I can find out about this.

[North Butte]

> @rybo said:

> So thanks to the test I did some testing yesterday. Picked up a dozen each of ProV1's and Tour B XS's to test them against my current ball of choice, the Callaway Chrome Soft. Also had a sleeve of last years TP5's which is the ball I switched from when going to the CS.

> My swing speed is a bit north of 115mph and I consider myself to be a high spin generator.

>

> Course was wide open yesterday so was able to hit each ball side by side on 7 holes (played 9). FOR ME the CS was the longest off the driver and fairway woods every time. TP5 was always 2nd. The ProV1 and B XS were alternating between a distant third and forth. The Pro V1 and B XS launched considerably higher and were definitely spinning more. The difference in flight of the 4 balls was easily seen.

> Off the irons, the launch of the V1 and B XS was higher then CS. Distance for both was a couple yards shorter then the CS.

> Off the wedges, there was some additional spin on the little touch shots around the green. Not enough to call it an 'ah ha' moment , more like the ball checked up a foot or so quicker.

> Off the putter was more noticeable for sure, I have been trying a new Spider X for the last few weeks and quite honestly the performance has been so so at best. Distance control was sporadic, one crazy long the next crazy short and both putts felt about the same, and seemed to be getting a lot of 'pulls' to the left. Also the ball would launch up in the air on longer putts. Never had any of these issues while using the CS with the Cameron Futura X5R. The match up of the CS and the grooves FOR ME seems to be producing some really odd results. With the V1, B XS, and TP5 the balls rolled considerably straighter and distance control was much improved.

>

> So went out to see how much distance I was losing with the CS and found that it was by far the longest ball of the four FOR ME. All four balls seemed to have the same amount of accuracy. There was not a single shot where I said 'what was that?' My good shots did what they were supposed to as did my misses. The eye opener was the improvement in putting when using a putter that has grooves among the 4 balls. I'll do some more putter testing to see what I can find out about this.

 

The differences they are reporting from their robot test are smaller than anything you're going to be able to see playing multiple balls on the golf course. It takes hundreds of robot shots to reliably distinguish a 5-yard difference in driver distance. It would take thousands of shots from an amateur golfer to do the same.

 

Play what makes you happy. The Chrome Soft obviously works perfectly well for your game and it's hard to see why you'd need any other ball. None of the differences that test is reporting are big enough to knock strokes off your handicap by switching from a "Good" urethane ball to a "Best" one, or whatever categories they use.

[rybo]

> @"North Butte" said:

> The differences they are reporting from their robot test are smaller than anything you're going to be able to see playing multiple balls on the golf course. It takes hundreds of robot shots to reliably distinguish a 5-yard difference in driver distance. It would take thousands of shots from an amateur golfer to do the same.

>

> Play what makes you happy. The Chrome Soft obviously works perfectly well for your game and it's hard to see why you'd need any other ball. None of the differences that test is reporting are big enough to knock strokes off your handicap by switching from a "Good" urethane ball to a "Best" one, or whatever categories they use.

 

I think their idea of a ball being so much shorter or longer is extremely exaggerated. The Chrome Soft came in at 274.17 yards and the PRO V1X came in at 282.42 yards. A whopping 8 yards. Basically every ball from Titleist, Callaway, Bridgestone and Taylormade is within 8 yards off the driver. The lone exception being the Tour B X which was a 4 yards longer then V1x.

 

Also their data seems to have some issues. For the wedge average yards offline data the Chrome Soft is showing -.05 yards offline and the TP5 is showing .02 yards offline. Damn near perfect, but both have shot areas of 20 & 26. The Tour B XS has an average of .52 yards offline (one of the worst) and a shot area of 8.

[crazygolfnut]

I get the stats in the study such as Avg. Ball Speed, Launch Angle, etc. The one number that stands out for me is the Shot Area wich is the dispersion or grouping of shots. Since I am closer to the 85 MPH Driver Speed, those are the numbers that I am looking at.

 

I find it interesting that the Driver worst number is 9.3 times larger area that the best number.

Driver Best

ProV 1X - 27

 

Driver Worst

Snell MTB Black - 140

Inesis Tour 900 - 145

Snell MTB-X - 157

Callaway ERC Soft - 203

Titleist Tour Soft - 251

 

The 7 iron number has a 11.7 times larger area from the best to the worst.

7 Iron Best

Mizuno RB Tour X - 12

 

7 Iron Worst

Snell MTB Black - 87

Mizuno TB Tour - 89

TaylorMade TP5X – 100

Maxfli Tour - 109

Maxfli Tour X - 140

 

Any thoughts on this?

[Joker91]

> @crazygolfnut said:

> I get the stats in the study such as Avg. Ball Speed, Launch Angle, etc. The one number that stands out for me is the Shot Area wich is the dispersion or grouping of shots. Since I am closer to the 85 MPH Driver Speed, those are the numbers that I am looking at.

>

> I find it interesting that the Driver worst number is 9.3 times larger area that the best number.

> Driver Best

> ProV 1X - 27

>

> Driver Worst

> Snell MTB Black - 140

> Inesis Tour 900 - 145

> Snell MTB-X - 157

> Callaway ERC Soft - 203

> Titleist Tour Soft - 251

>

> The 7 iron number has a 11.7 times larger area from the best to the worst.

> 7 Iron Best

> Mizuno RB Tour X - 12

>

> 7 Iron Worst

> Snell MTB Black - 87

> Mizuno TB Tour - 89

> TaylorMade TP5X – 100

> Maxfli Tour - 109

> Maxfli Tour X - 140

>

> Any thoughts on this?

 

Not even the robot is perfect

[mmack067]

> @crazygolfnut said:

> I get the stats in the study such as Avg. Ball Speed, Launch Angle, etc. The one number that stands out for me is the Shot Area wich is the dispersion or grouping of shots. Since I am closer to the 85 MPH Driver Speed, those are the numbers that I am looking at.

>

> I find it interesting that the Driver worst number is 9.3 times larger area that the best number.

> Driver Best

> ProV 1X - 27

>

> Driver Worst

> Snell MTB Black - 140

> Inesis Tour 900 - 145

> Snell MTB-X - 157

> Callaway ERC Soft - 203

> Titleist Tour Soft - 251

>

> The 7 iron number has a 11.7 times larger area from the best to the worst.

> 7 Iron Best

> Mizuno RB Tour X - 12

>

> 7 Iron Worst

> Snell MTB Black - 87

> Mizuno TB Tour - 89

> TaylorMade TP5X – 100

> Maxfli Tour - 109

> Maxfli Tour X - 140

>

> Any thoughts on this?

 

Tony in the comment section:

TONY COVEY 2 DAYS AGO

First – it’s a little amusing to me that everybody is hyper-focused on the Snell MTB-X. It was one of the longest 3 balls, that was reflected in our Distance, Spin, Value chart. What seems to have been otherwise lost is that we quite literally ranked 4 balls ahead of it while rating 8 others exactly the same.

 

I’d draw a parallel with the TaylorMade TP5 and TP5X. I can’t say it lived up to what’s been said about distance off the irons, but the performance was well within what we think is a good range. Like the Snell, we did observe some wandering with TP5X (same with ZStar XV) and as we noted, we found a single TP5 with a visibly raised seem. Again we didn’t regard either of these factors as entirely disqualifying, but as with the MTB-X, it was enough of concern for us to move it from Excellent to Very Good.

 

We’ve covered this before in driver tests. Shot Area is a good metric, but like most any other, it doesn’t tell the entire story. Even in robot testing, there are variables can inflate dispersion. The robot is extremely consistent, but it’s not PERFECTLY consistent. In fact, when you’re hitting your test balls to make sure impact is where you want it and everything else is what it needs to be, a perfectly straight ball is nice, but you’re trying to strike a decent balance between slight draws and slight fades (most apparent in the spin axis tilt measurement). So if you have two balls that are, for example, not perfectly balanced, and one his hit with a slight fade, and the other with a slide draw, you’re going to get a wider shot area than you would for two balls that are really out of balance, but just happen to be hit with a draw bias (or with the heavy side tilting left). Again, like any other metric, it’s useful, but it doesn’t come close to telling a total performance story.

 

It’s also worth mentioning that we’re using a 2-sigma confidence interval to create what amounts to an ~85% confidence distribution area which results in larger values than the actual dispersion area.

 

Also keep in mind, that since it’s an area metric, it’s easily expanded by one or two shots.

 

So what we looked for were performance characteristics we believe would be beneficial to a wide swath of golfers. We also considered consistency across all clubs. Having said that, we didn’t want to make any broad assumptions, and we didn’t want to over-penalize any single aspect of what we saw during testing and in the data.

 

For the Snell MTB-X (and the TP5X and the ZStar XV) we had some legitimate concerns about balls that wandered offline in high speed testing (and for which that wandering couldn’t be reasonably attributed to other factors). Looking at the totality of it, we believe the performance is appealing (long with low spin off the driver, excellent launch and spin characteristics off the irons, and low-mid launch with higher than average spin off the wedges). By the numbers, that’s the definition of an excellent golf ball. Given the concerns with what we saw (largely in the high spin driver test) we felt dropping it down a level to Very Good was warranted. As I’ve said, there are other examples of balls where this exact scenario played out.

 

In broad terms, the Excellent balls were those for which we think the speed, launch, and spin characteristics would benefit a broad segment of golfers AND for which we also had no significant concerns in other areas.

For the next level (VERY GOOD), the first part holds true, but there were things we saw during testing that raised a red flag or two.

As you move down the list, performance considerations emerge, as do those same type of red flags.

At Fair, we don’t think the performance is competitive AND there are consistency red flags

Poor, performance issues, red flags, and significant durability concerns.

[arbeck]

> @chadly643 said:

>

> > 2) It really doesn't matter. If you used a blade 7i, you might see more spin. But you'd see more spin on every ball. The order of the balls isn't going to change. Same thing with the shaft. Specific balls aren't going to react differently to specific clubs. The AoA is also not important. It would change the spin loft, so the spin numbers would change, but it would change the same for every ball. I don't think a wood tee would have made any difference. Hitting of grass would make a difference, but it would be nearly impossible to make it consistent for all the shots. It would just add noise to the numbers.

>

> This idea has been reiterated multiple times in this thread as well as by the guys that did this test. How do we know this to be true? What data do we have that shows what the balls will or will not react to in relation to each other? I’m not trying to throw shade on the test because I actually find it to be one of the most compelling tests of any golf equipment ever, however some absolutes have been thrown out there by these guys that I just don’t know can be definitively said based on this single limited test. The order of the balls change going from high speed to low speed, how do we know they wouldn’t change going from steep to shallow or from blade to cavity back or from stiff flex to regular flex? These balls really are designed to react differently to different clubs, that’s why a ball can be low spin off the driver and high spin off a wedge. If there is a result of this test that is indisputable it is that it is very important to value ball fitting just as much as club fitting.

 

It's simply the laws of physics. The balls only care about impact forces. They react to the impact forces. That's why you don't see a slow ball become fast when the swing speed changes. It's why the spinny balls are spinny for all swing speeds. Changing AoA isn't going to change the forces applied at impact. It's going to change the spin loft. Spin loft is going to effect all the balls proportionally about the same. There's no way to design a ball to detect spin loft and react differently. Just as there's no way to detect side spin and react differently.

 

Think about it this way. If you had two balls and you hit them both with a 7i and got 6500RPM of spin. Then you moved to a 6i would you expect both to give you around 5500RPM of spin? Or would you expect one ball to spin at 5000 and the other to spin at 6000? If balls reacted differently as the spin loft changed, the amount of spin generated would jump as you changed clubs and wouldn't be linear.