My Golf Spy Ball Test - General Discussion

[dlygrisse]

> @"North Butte" said:

> They don't come right out and say it but they might as well have said, "If you care more about how a ball 'feels' than about how it performs, just skip this test and go hit a lot of balls until you find the one that 'feels' right".

 

True. I am also pretty sure the worst balls on this test are way better than anything Ben Hogan, Bobby Jones or Jack used during their prime. They figured out how to bat it around under par more than a few times.

 

That being said if you are competing against anyone who really has their equipment dialed in and you don't then you are at a disadvantage relative to the field.

 

The same could be said for playing blades vs. cavity backs I am sure, yet people still play blades. Maybe the difference for a good ball striker is so small that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages...however no one plays persimmon either on tour. So where do you draw the line in terms of tech?

[Joker91]

> @dlygrisse said:

> > @Bad9 said:

> > > @dlygrisse said:

> > > I wonder if there will be any fallout on tour and who plays what ball now that this is released?

> > >

> > I think its laughable to think that anyone on tour will be concerned by one iota with the results of the **** ball test. I would guess that 99% of them will never know its was conducted or what its results were.

> >

>

> Phil-"I know you make me a special ball that's not retail, so thanks!"

> > @lopey986 said:

> > > @niscur24 said:

> > > So I dunno how I feel about this....I play the Q-Star Tour right now...the results below aren't that bad with the exception of dispersion.

> > > Off of driver/7 iron....

> > > Lowest Ball Speed, Lowest Compression, Lowest Spin, Longest Carry, Lowest Offline.......BUT LARGEST SHOT AREA? If its the longest average carry and lowest offline then why is the dispersion number so high?

> > > So is this why they listed the ball as fair because of the shot area? I have played all of the other balls in this list to compare the Q to and it supports that I like the TP5/Lethal balls and the Zstar as much as the Q but the Q can be found much cheaper especially 5A minty fresh.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > because it can literally take 1 or 2 balls to completely **** the shot area chart. it's pointless data without being able to see each shot on a chart.

>

> How would knowing that 1 or 2 balls in the box have poor QC be pointless? More than likely the cores were off center or they were otherwise defective. Which I believe is what they believe is the problem with a lot of the direct ship brands such as Snell. Let's say you pull one of those out of the bag on a hole with water down the left, you make a perfect swing but the ball veers left quickly and goes splash because of poor QC. Is that pointless?

 

Where is the proof it's bad QC or any issue with the ball? Could be a bad reading on the Trackman or an inconsistency with the robot. The test isn't good enough to only blame the ball on an offline shot

[niscur24]

I'm not taking anything as gospel....more trying to understand the "logic" in grading best -> poor based on the data they are showing. Current ball's raw data shows its pretty damn good ball, within the constraints of the same hitting environment, but the dispersion numbers don't jive with the rest. I agree with lopey986 that without showing the actual data points the dispersion data is pointless. For instance the Zstar XV is 12.5 yards average offline but isn't the largest shot spread? My brain says the larger the average offline number gets the more the shot area should be because obviously to get the average up higher there HAS to be even larger offline data points to bring that average higher.

 

I'm not changing balls at all. If anything when I run out of my Q's I may move onto the Zstar but that probably would have happened anyways.

[North Butte]

> @dlygrisse said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > They don't come right out and say it but they might as well have said, "If you care more about how a ball 'feels' than about how it performs, just skip this test and go hit a lot of balls until you find the one that 'feels' right".

>

> True. I am also pretty sure the worst balls on this test are way better than anything Ben Hogan, Bobby Jones or Jack used during their prime. They figured out how to bat it around under par more than a few times.

>

> That being said if you are competing against anyone who really has their equipment dialed in and you don't then you are at a disadvantage relative to the field.

>

> The same could be said for playing blades vs. cavity backs I am sure, yet people still play blades. Maybe the difference for a good ball striker is so small that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages...however no one plays persimmon either on tour. So where do you draw the line in terms of tech?

 

Well I think someone earning a living from their playing performance draws the line at one extreme. They're going to use whatever performs best, even by a slight margin. No touring pro is going to play blades if he scores better with cavity backs or play a ball he likes the feel of if he scores better using one that feels bad.

 

If you're just playing recreational golf it's totally individual. I use the stuff I like and don't really worry much about whether optimizing something or another might knock my handicap down from 17.2 to 16.4 or whatever. I might in the long run (if I could stand to use it long enough) putt better with some high MOI starship-shaped ginormous putter and a grip the size of paper towel roll. But I'd rather take my chances with a normal-looking putter, even if it means shooting 86 instead of 85 because I missed one extra 4-footer.

[arbeck]

> @niscur24 said:

> So I dunno how I feel about this....I play the Q-Star Tour right now...the results below aren't that bad with the exception of dispersion.

> Off of driver/7 iron....

> Lowest Ball Speed, Lowest Compression, Lowest Spin, Longest Carry, Lowest Offline.......BUT LARGEST SHOT AREA? If its the longest average carry and lowest offline then why is the dispersion number so high?

> So is this why they listed the ball as fair because of the shot area? I have played all of the other balls in this list to compare the Q to and it supports that I like the TP5/Lethal balls and the Zstar as much as the Q but the Q can be found much cheaper especially 5A minty fresh.

>

>

>

 

Here's my guess on the Q-Star Tour. There really shouldn't be any reason it's cheaper than the Z-Star. They use the same cover. They are both 3 piece. I can't imagine the materials in the core and mantle are so much more expensive that the price of a dozen balls goes up by $10. What I believe is that they have wider tolerances for the Q-Star Tour. The standard deviation for offline was greater than the Z-Star. The standard deviation for distance was greater than the Z-Star. The standard deviation for compression was worse. That all says to me that the QC for that ball isn't as good.

 

Another thing to keep in mind. If 1 out of 100 balls (or whatever the number is) are bad enough to fly 20 to 30 yards offline on a good strike, what do you think the number is in the balls that are 5A used? I'm assuming a great many of those balls were balls that were lost and found. It might be 1 in 50 in those balls.

[North Texas]

Surely everyone realizes the chance that your result with a particular ball will be anything like what the results are for a robot are not all that great. I'm not saying these results are completely worthless but I am saying if these results match your personal results, it is more coincidence than anything else.

[rkelso184]

I think the overall summary from this test is every golf ball manufacturer will have a spike in sales as this test is making alot of people buy and try. I tried the Pro V1 on Thursday (coming from chrome soft) and I def noticed more spin and noticed the length on the drives. Yes it helped but I like the visual look of my soccer ball as this helps with focus points on the ball for me personally. However I'm trying the Bridgestone X next as I used to play Bridgestone balls and did like them just didn't find the one for me. Done there online fitting thing and it recommend the X so will give that chance then decide.

[trackcoach13]

@niscur24 said:

> For instance the Zstar XV is 12.5 yards average offline but isn't the largest shot spread? My brain says the larger the average offline number gets the more the shot area should be because obviously to get the average up higher there HAS to be even larger offline data points to bring that average higher.

>

 

I will use a hypothetical to help understand:

 

Ball A - Distance yds, offline yds

150, -12

150, -13

149, -11

151, -12

 

Avg offline -12 and the shot area is tiny since all 4 shots were within a few yards of each other

 

 

 

Ball B

142, +10

148, -6

151, +9

157, -16

 

Avg offline less than 1 yard yet the shot area is much larger to encompass balls missing left, right, short and long

 

[Wesquire]

Again, why is anybody putting ANY stock in this test when they didnt even account for wind? Anything other than launch and spin numbers are 100% meaningless without wind accounted for.

[Wesquire]

> @niscur24 said:

> I'm not taking anything as gospel....more trying to understand the "logic" in grading best -> poor based on the data they are showing. Current ball's raw data shows its pretty **** good ball, within the constraints of the same hitting environment, but the dispersion numbers don't jive with the rest. I agree with lopey986 that without showing the actual data points the dispersion data is pointless. For instance the Zstar XV is 12.5 yards average offline but isn't the largest shot spread? My brain says the larger the average offline number gets the more the shot area should be because obviously to get the average up higher there HAS to be even larger offline data points to bring that average higher.

>

> I'm not changing balls at all. If anything when I run out of my Q's I may move onto the Zstar but that probably would have happened anyways.

 

It would be a lower shot area if it was consistently 12.5 yards left. Obviously a ball isnt going to be draw biased. They just didnt account for wind and that's why you have stupid results like this.

[mmack067]

> @Wesquire said:

> Again, why is anybody putting ANY stock in this test when they didnt even account for wind? Anything other than launch and spin numbers are 100% meaningless without wind accounted for.

 

How do you account for wind other than hitting in a dome? If you normalize the trackman numbers then you lose insight into the aerodynamics packages.

 

 

[Bad9]

> @dlygrisse said:

> > @Bad9 said:

> > > @dlygrisse said:

> > > I wonder if there will be any fallout on tour and who plays what ball now that this is released?

> > >

> > I think its laughable to think that anyone on tour will be concerned by one iota with the results of the **** ball test. I would guess that 99% of them will never know its was conducted or what its results were.

> >

> @dlygrisse said:

> > @Bad9 said:

> > > @dlygrisse said:

> > > I wonder if there will be any fallout on tour and who plays what ball now that this is released?

> > >

> > I think its laughable to think that anyone on tour will be concerned by one iota with the results of the **** ball test. I would guess that 99% of them will never know its was conducted or what its results were.

> >

>

> Phil-"I know you make me a special ball that's not retail, so thanks!"

 

So you think Phil got Callaway to make him a special ball based on the MGS test.

 

 

[burritos4breakfast]

looks like ill stick with my RZN blacks

[Mahamilto]

So... despite the rabble about the validity of a test done by robots (the most consistent thing you could find to do a test like this), I gave the Bridgestone Tour BX another shot today for a full round. I had only tested it previously playing it with the TP5X (2018) and AVX and ProV1(2017).

 

Lemme just say this. Whoa.

 

It was a bit warmer today and my god was this ball everything I was looking for and more. I had been diehard AVX because it’s so straight off the driver and I picked up some yardage due to roll and I like a softer feeling ball. I have been demoing the ‘19 V1 (not X) and it hasn’t impressed me other than around the greens.

 

The Tour BX was insane good today. So long. So straight. So much drop and stop around the greens. No doubt my new ball. It killed the ProV1 and AVX, and it wasn’t just a good ball striking day.

 

Significantly longer off driver than the V1 and just as straight as the AVX. Same bite as the V1 from 50 and in. Feels crazy soft too given it’s compression. Way less clicky than the V1 even.

 

I found my new ball for sure and couldn’t be more thrilled. Shot even on the front and +5 on the back.

 

Hate the test. Love the test. Blah blah blah. If ur a high speed player and looking for a legit tour ball, go try this thing. Shock and awe a company that makes great soft composition tires can make a golf ball out of rubber too.

 

Just outstanding.

[Joker91]

https://callawaypresscenter.com/company-statement/?fbclid=IwAR1yojLxo1A5WZRTtEBj-Svr73SXwl4X-aVXN0NqgzDsY_waQ_6WnVSWmS8

[GDTBATH]

> @Joker91 said:

> https://callawaypresscenter.com/company-statement/?fbclid=IwAR1yojLxo1A5WZRTtEBj-Svr73SXwl4X-aVXN0NqgzDsY_waQ_6WnVSWmS8

 

Yikes. That’s the worst non-denial I’ve ever seen. Pretty much confirms I’ll never buy Callaway balls again. Coming out and saying, “Well, try it for yourself,” isn’t going to get the job done.

[kiw1982]

> @Joker91 said:

> https://callawaypresscenter.com/company-statement/?fbclid=IwAR1yojLxo1A5WZRTtEBj-Svr73SXwl4X-aVXN0NqgzDsY_waQ_6WnVSWmS8

 

English is not my first language, but I did my master degree in US.

This is the hardest writing to understand. lol

[rybo]

An issue I have been having with some of these softer balls is the cores rupturing and cracking the covers. While over the years some have cracked here and there, all of the Chrome Softs ruptured/cracked in the last 5 months.

 

The Srixon’s are at least two generations ago and the TP5 and Pro V1 are last years.

 

 

 

On a different note, confirmed this morning Titleist has various tour balls and uses a • system for spin and a + for launch. A • to the left of the Pro V = lower spin and a • to the right = higher spin. A + to left = lower launch and to the right = higher launch. These ‘tour’ variations seem to be the norm among all of the ball manufactures.

[GDTBATH]

> @kiw1982 said:

> > @Joker91 said:

> > https://callawaypresscenter.com/company-statement/?fbclid=IwAR1yojLxo1A5WZRTtEBj-Svr73SXwl4X-aVXN0NqgzDsY_waQ_6WnVSWmS8

>

> English is not my first language, but I did my master degree in US.

> This is the hardest writing to understand. lol

 

It’s a non-denial denial...basically l, they’re responding to numbers by saying, “We disagree and lots of people have purchased our product,” instead of pointing out specifics about the flaws in any methodology, problems with sample size, what might cause this, etc etc. It’s a terrible look.

[Joker91]

> @GDTBATH said:

> > @kiw1982 said:

> > > @Joker91 said:

> > > https://callawaypresscenter.com/company-statement/?fbclid=IwAR1yojLxo1A5WZRTtEBj-Svr73SXwl4X-aVXN0NqgzDsY_waQ_6WnVSWmS8

> >

> > English is not my first language, but I did my master degree in US.

> > This is the hardest writing to understand. lol

>

> It’s a non-denial denial...basically l, they’re responding to numbers by saying, “We disagree and lots of people have purchased our product,” instead of pointing out specifics about the flaws in any methodology, problems with sample size, what might cause this, etc etc. It’s a terrible look.

 

They do say they are going to be releasing their own info if you read all the way down to the bottom

[Mahamilto]

Callaway didn’t seem as upset when they rated the Flash Sub Zero #1... lol

 

Reminds me of the line from “The Rock”: your best? Losers always whine about their best. Winners go home and...

[rkelso184]

My opinion here. Rick done a longest company thing with a driver and matching ball. TaylorMade won by 5 yards. I feel this is as the TaylorMade combo of ball and driver were great.

 

Titlest and Callaway tied second. Both had the same ball speed and both were the lower spin setups. Now there are so many test out there showing the epic flash SZ as being a quicker driver then then titlest so I honestly do think that although in this test both balls came off at the same speed on average an epic flash SZ with the titlesit ball would have been a higher gain. I don't think there is any denying that the Callaway is a slower ball.

 

My simple question here is how many players on tour that are not paid ball players choose the Callaway over the others?

[rkelso184]

Also Callaway has honestly set them selves up for the worse here. By making the comment they "ignore" MGS test results this means moving forward they will never be able advertise "most wanted" or any positive results put forward by the MGS team!

[Celeras]

[edit] nvm I am blind as a bat, it was already posted

[Lodestone]

> @rkelso184 said:

> My opinion here. Rick done a longest company thing with a driver and matching ball. TaylorMade won by 5 yards. I feel this is as the TaylorMade combo of ball and driver were great.

>

> Titlest and Callaway tied second. Both had the same ball speed and both were the lower spin setups. Now there are so many test out there showing the epic flash SZ as being a quicker driver then then titlest so I honestly do think that although in this test both balls came off at the same speed on average an epic flash SZ with the titlesit ball would have been a higher gain. I don't think there is any denying that the Callaway is a slower ball.

>

> My simple question here is how many players on tour that are not paid ball players choose the Callaway over the others?

 

in English?

[rkelso184]

> @Lodestone said:

> > @rkelso184 said:

> > My opinion here. Rick done a longest company thing with a driver and matching ball. TaylorMade won by 5 yards. I feel this is as the TaylorMade combo of ball and driver were great.

> >

> > Titlest and Callaway tied second. Both had the same ball speed and both were the lower spin setups. Now there are so many test out there showing the epic flash SZ as being a quicker driver then then titlest so I honestly do think that although in this test both balls came off at the same speed on average an epic flash SZ with the titlesit ball would have been a higher gain. I don't think there is any denying that the Callaway is a slower ball.

> >

> > My simple question here is how many players on tour that are not paid ball players choose the Callaway over the others?

>

> in English?

 

It is. Sorry if it has to many sentences for you....

[golfgirlrobin]

> @Joker91 said:

> > @GDTBATH said:

> > > @kiw1982 said:

> > > > @Joker91 said:

> > > > https://callawaypresscenter.com/company-statement/?fbclid=IwAR1yojLxo1A5WZRTtEBj-Svr73SXwl4X-aVXN0NqgzDsY_waQ_6WnVSWmS8

> > >

> > > English is not my first language, but I did my master degree in US.

> > > This is the hardest writing to understand. lol

> >

> > It’s a non-denial denial...basically l, they’re responding to numbers by saying, “We disagree and lots of people have purchased our product,” instead of pointing out specifics about the flaws in any methodology, problems with sample size, what might cause this, etc etc. It’s a terrible look.

>

> They do say they are going to be releasing their own info if you read all the way down to the bottom

 

It’ll be interesting to see if that ever happens or if they just wait a month till this blows over and move on.

 

I’m currently the proud owner of six dozen Chrome Soft balls and have always loved the feel of the softer ball, especially off the irons. Purchased a sleeve of ProV1x’s this morning and, while I did get some extra yardage, what surprised me was how much better my distance control was off the putter. I’ve been fighting the no feel off the putter issue for some time and never really considered that that might be a byproduct of the softer ball. Played 36 holes today with no three putts and substantially better speed. If I make the switch permanently, putting will be the reason.

 

 

[jjfcpa]

I'm sure every ball manufacturer does lots of comparison testing to other balls and they know the strengths and weaknesses of their brand, as well as the competition. I find it odd that Callaway was the only one that came out to cry foul. I personally have played the Chrome Soft and their ERC ball and moved on because I did not think they performed as some other balls that i tested. They weren't bad by any stretch of the imagination, but there were others that just seemed to give me more distance and better results into the green. If they have data to the contrary of the MGS testing, then they should bring it out.

[Holy Moses]

> @kcd38 said:

> > @"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?

>

> Goes to show that those who love Callway will love any ball Callaway makes and believe anything they are told that the ball will do. Callaway knows this, and knows that if they say the chrome soft will have faster ball speeds and more greenside spin than anyone their loyalists will believe it and 'verify' however they want. The bigger promises you make via marketing, the harder you fall when a test like this goes to show that your messaging doesn't hold weight.

>

> I think that is what this test is going to do more than anything. Give consumers the information that all of these companies don't want you to have because they allow you to objectively draw your own conclusions about the performance of their ball.

 

I hadn't heard that the Chrome Soft was short and spinny. Was that common knowledge?

[North Butte]

> @"Holy Moses" said:

> I hadn't heard that the Chrome Soft was short and spinny. Was that common knowledge?

 

I thought the first generation Chrome Soft was slightly lacking in approach shot stopping power when I used it for a year or so. I played Pro V1x before and B330 after the Chrome Soft and both stopped more reliably on firm greens. I hit irons low and without much spin and need all the help I can get.

 

So no, I never considered it "spinny" at all. More the opposite. Not the longest ball I've ever played but I wouldn't say short.