My Golf Spy Ball Test - General Discussion

[nsxguy]

> @cmatthews77 said:

> Thanks. Yeah, I get that but I thought the spin had to drop under 2,000 or so to get the "drop out of the air" effect. I would have guessed 2300 spin vs 2500 spin with the launch and ball speed difference would have virtually guaranteed more carry for the CSX but obviously I'm wrong.

>

> > @dlygrisse said:

> > > @cmatthews77 said:

> > > I'm still hoping someone can explain something about this test for me? Comparing the CS vs CSX, how can the CS carry further despite less ball speed, less launch and more spin? How is that possible??? Here's the raw data for ball speed, launch/spin and carry (with Driver and both 85 and 115 selected although I also did it for both individually and it's even more separation with just high speed):

> > >

> > > Compression Avg. / Ballspeed:

> > > Chrome Soft (86.46 / 146.38)

> > > Chrome Soft X (100.04 / 147.41)

> > >

> > > Launch / Spin

> > > Chrome Soft (13.51 / 2,550)

> > > Chrome Soft X (13.65 / 2,362)

> > >

> > > Carry Distance

> > > Chrome Soft (237.96)

> > > Chrome Soft X (236.61)

> > >

> > > How is that possible?!? How does the slower ball with more spin and less launch carry further? Yes, I know it's only 1 yard and that's nothing but how is it even close? It jumps to 3 yards at 115. Again I just don't understand this but maybe I'm missing something or just don't understand fitting after all.

> >

> > Sometimes lower launch and higher spin stays in the air longer, more carry. Which I believe the distances here are carry distances. You might get more rollout with the X. Check the descent angles.

>

 

When flightscope.com allowed unlimited "testing" I tried all sorts of combinations. It seemed as though the 17* launch and 1700 rpms (sound familiar ? LOL) shots derived the best combination of carry and roll out. Didn't mean of course that a low non-spinner couldn't carry less and roll out more of course,,,,,,

 

But I'm thinking that at lower launch angles in your example, (lower than optimum(?)) might benefit slightly in carry due to its slightly higher spin rate. The angle of descent being very close as well it might not roll out quite as much as the lower spinning ball but roll out is a different story.

 

Tests such as these lead to all sorts of "hair splitting", no ? LOL

 

 

[Nessism]

> @cmatthews77 said:

> Yesterday I took my daughter to the course to play 9 holes so I could play around with golf balls... Been playing the CS Truvis all year and I'm very used to the feel. I had a couple of ProV1's in my bag but honestly don't know if they're the '18 or '19 version. I didn't notice a huge difference in distance off the tee but I'd need to test a lot more. What I did notice though is just how much I've gotten used to that marshmallow feel of the Chrome Soft. I LOVE the way that ball feels off my irons. The ProV1 (not even the X) felt like I was hitting a rock- especially if the ball wasn't flushed. I played the ProV1 for years so I'm sure I'd get used to it but man it was noticeable.

>

> I gotta say on the feel matters vs doesn't matter discussion I'm right in the middle. I DEFINITELY say it matters in terms of you get used to the way something feels and when that changes it can effect you negatively performance aside. With that said, if you just pick a ball and stick with it for a period of time you'll get used to just about anything I suppose.

 

I'm with you on this: feel differences between different balls is way more noticeable than performance differences, at least at my skill level.

A few years back I was out on the course as a single playing after work so I took the opportunity to play three different balls on a few of the holes so a comparison could be made (Pro V1, a Maxfli U4, and some other ball I can't remember.) On a couple of the holes I was stunned when all three balls wound up within a few yards of each other. I laughed and thought of this place where people are regularly proclaiming such and such a ball is so much longer/shorter than others. I was also proud of myself for hitting three shots in a row (two different times) so constantly. Trust me, that was more surprising than the ball results.

[cxx]

Anyone know what the order of testing was. I imagine they ran all the balls of a particular model one after the other rather than the first ball of each model followed by the second of each model... It would be easier to perform the test but variation of conditions over time would skew the comparison between models.

[Wesquire]

> @mmack067 said:

> > @Wesquire said:

> > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > @Wesquire said:

> > > > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > > > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > > > > @Wesquire said:

> > > > > > > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > > > > > > @Wesquire said:

> > > > > > > > > > @mmack067 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @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.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > There are plenty of devices that measure wind direction and speed.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Aren't all their published numbers from Trackman ?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Why would that matter?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > For the same reason launch monitors are used for indoor fittings. Because Trackman wouldn't/shouldn't care about wind speed or direction. It should work off the numbers.

> > > > >

> > > > > Correct me if I'm wrong but when used outdoors, doesn't Trackman's radar actually *track* the ball all the way until it hits the ground? Isn't it measuring the actual flight of the ball? Height, direction, actual distance?

> > > > >

> > > > > I personally have zero interest in an indoor simulation where they use a Trackman or other LM to guess how far a ball would have flown based on measured launch parameters. If the indoor Trackman measures 155mph ball speed launching at 12.5 degrees with 3,200rpm of spin then that's the results of the test. Extrapolating that out to say it woulda, coulda, shoulda fly about 263 yards using some assumptions about aerodynamics and so forth is just guesswork. Not actual data.

> > > > >

> > > > > I'm pretty sure when the golf-ball companies (the ones who do design and testing in-house) test their balls, they do it outdoors with launch monitors and they literally wait until they can find brief periods of absolutely still, windless conditions. Even if it means only doing their testing for 40 minutes at 6:30am one day out of every five.

> > > >

> > > > Exactly right.

> > > >

> > > > I'd prefer indoor tests to an outdoor test where wind isnt accounted for.

> > >

> > > OK, I'll take you word for how Trackman works.

> > >

> > > But IF these results are wind ~~"aided" (for lack of a better term)~~ affected AT ALL, how can ANY of these results be trusted.

> > >

> > > How can ANY scientific/objective conclusions be arrived at if the results are skewed by "outside" factors ?

> >

> > They cant. That's my point.

>

> The thing is you're going to have some sort of issue one way or another. If you normalize or use GCQuad then you take aerodynamics out and rely on an algorithm for carry and offline. If you use TM and go outdoors then you're subject to wind. There are drawbacks with either approach.

 

The obvious answer is to actually account for wind and be transparent about the limitations of outside testing. They have to stop pretending their data is definitive.

[c50sooner]

> @Wesquire said:

> Because wind could easily account for all of the dispersion differences and almost all of the distance differences.

+1. Don't get me wrong, I'm really glad they published all this, it's substantially more than what we had to look at before. But that said, it's almost comical to come to earth shattering conclusions about 5% differences in carry distance and offline, when unknown/unstated/uncontrolled variations in wind could easily make a 10 or more percent difference in those results. I know they basically boil down their results for us into general recommendations, so maybe they felt they satisfactorily controlled for wind in coming to their personal conclusions. But to yell conclusions about performance numbers that hinge largely on aero effects without a sound approach for wind is a pretty big omission.

 

[radiman]

> @Wesquire said:

> > @mmack067 said:

> > > @Wesquire said:

> > > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > > @Wesquire said:

> > > > > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > > > > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > > > > > @Wesquire said:

> > > > > > > > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Wesquire said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @mmack067 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @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.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > There are plenty of devices that measure wind direction and speed.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Aren't all their published numbers from Trackman ?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Why would that matter?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > For the same reason launch monitors are used for indoor fittings. Because Trackman wouldn't/shouldn't care about wind speed or direction. It should work off the numbers.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Correct me if I'm wrong but when used outdoors, doesn't Trackman's radar actually *track* the ball all the way until it hits the ground? Isn't it measuring the actual flight of the ball? Height, direction, actual distance?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I personally have zero interest in an indoor simulation where they use a Trackman or other LM to guess how far a ball would have flown based on measured launch parameters. If the indoor Trackman measures 155mph ball speed launching at 12.5 degrees with 3,200rpm of spin then that's the results of the test. Extrapolating that out to say it woulda, coulda, shoulda fly about 263 yards using some assumptions about aerodynamics and so forth is just guesswork. Not actual data.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I'm pretty sure when the golf-ball companies (the ones who do design and testing in-house) test their balls, they do it outdoors with launch monitors and they literally wait until they can find brief periods of absolutely still, windless conditions. Even if it means only doing their testing for 40 minutes at 6:30am one day out of every five.

> > > > >

> > > > > Exactly right.

> > > > >

> > > > > I'd prefer indoor tests to an outdoor test where wind isnt accounted for.

> > > >

> > > > OK, I'll take you word for how Trackman works.

> > > >

> > > > But IF these results are wind ~~"aided" (for lack of a better term)~~ affected AT ALL, how can ANY of these results be trusted.

> > > >

> > > > How can ANY scientific/objective conclusions be arrived at if the results are skewed by "outside" factors ?

> > >

> > > They cant. That's my point.

> >

> > The thing is you're going to have some sort of issue one way or another. If you normalize or use GCQuad then you take aerodynamics out and rely on an algorithm for carry and offline. If you use TM and go outdoors then you're subject to wind. There are drawbacks with either approach.

>

> The obvious answer is to actually account for wind and be transparent about the limitations of outside testing. They have to stop pretending their data is definitive.

 

I am just waiting for another site or publication to do a test that gives results that go against theirs. Then I get to see another video statement whining about being targeted. I enjoy some of their content, but too often do they act like confrontational babies on social media. They take everything personal and try to paint themselves as the white knight of the golfing industry and any OEM that doesn't bow down to them doesn't support unbiased testing or gets called out in some way shape of form.

[jamie]

> @c50sooner said:

> > @Wesquire said:

> > Because wind could easily account for all of the dispersion differences and almost all of the distance differences.

> +1. Don't get me wrong, I'm really glad they published all this, it's substantially more than what we had to look at before. But that said, it's almost comical to come to earth shattering conclusions about 5% differences in carry distance and offline, when unknown/unstated/uncontrolled variations in wind could easily make a 10 or more percent difference in those results. I know they basically boil down their results for us into general recommendations, so maybe they felt they satisfactorily controlled for wind in coming to their personal conclusions. But to yell conclusions about performance numbers that hinge largely on aero effects without a sound approach for wind is a pretty big omission.

>

 

I agree! I read somewhere that the testing was done on multiple days...I'd like to see which days what balls were tested and the wind/weather.

[Nessism]

> @radiman said:

 

> I am just waiting for another site or publication to do a test that gives results that go against theirs. Then I get to see another video statement whining about being targeted. I enjoy some of their content, but too often do they act like confrontational babies on social media. They take everything personal and try to paint themselves as the white knight of the golfing industry and any OEM that doesn't bow down to them doesn't support unbiased testing or gets called out in some way shape of form.

 

You are going to be waiting a long time. Manufacturers, and the press who gets money from manufacturers, don't want factual data out in the public domain unless it shows, or is tuned, to favor their products.

[GoGoErky]

> @Wesquire said:

> > @Nessism said:

> > > @Wesquire said:

> > > Because wind could easily account for all of the dispersion differences and almost all of the distance differences.

> >

> > I definitely think there are some takeaways from this study but I also think testing variables like wind can skew the results.

> >

> > One of the main takeaways from this study for me are that most balls are pretty similar but there clearly are a few outliers. Ksig3 launching low and spinning high off the driver for example. MTB-X is abnormally long off the high speed driver. I'd love to see the sample MTB-X balls compared to the USGA standard method; I wouldn't be surprised if they are non conforming.

> >

> > And for what it's worth, the charts list Wilson's ball as the Duo U, only it's not. It's the Duo Professional, which is a different ball.

> >

> > And for what it's worth 2: I love techy studies such as this one and the Driver CG data posted by the (unspeakable name) website in question. I donated a few bucks in thanks. We need more data based studies like this. Can't wait for the "blade vs. GI cavity back" robot hitting study!;)

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> If they weren't going to measure wind they should have just used closed data from a GC Quad.

 

Iirc the bottom of the report said wind was minimal about 2mph

[bbfifas]

Seems to me the B Stone TOUR RX is one of the better all around balls for all swing speeds along with the Pro V1x. Seems to make sense to what I have experienced. The older 330 RX balls I always thought were great tee to green. Pro V1x is a solid ball but a bit firm on the feel which turns some off but the consistency numbers showed why they are popular.

 

Going to get a dozen Tour RX and try them and give some to my FIL who swings about 85 mph. Will report back.

[Wesquire]

> @GoGoErky said:

> > @Wesquire said:

> > > @Nessism said:

> > > > @Wesquire said:

> > > > Because wind could easily account for all of the dispersion differences and almost all of the distance differences.

> > >

> > > I definitely think there are some takeaways from this study but I also think testing variables like wind can skew the results.

> > >

> > > One of the main takeaways from this study for me are that most balls are pretty similar but there clearly are a few outliers. Ksig3 launching low and spinning high off the driver for example. MTB-X is abnormally long off the high speed driver. I'd love to see the sample MTB-X balls compared to the USGA standard method; I wouldn't be surprised if they are non conforming.

> > >

> > > And for what it's worth, the charts list Wilson's ball as the Duo U, only it's not. It's the Duo Professional, which is a different ball.

> > >

> > > And for what it's worth 2: I love techy studies such as this one and the Driver CG data posted by the (unspeakable name) website in question. I donated a few bucks in thanks. We need more data based studies like this. Can't wait for the "blade vs. GI cavity back" robot hitting study!;)

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > If they weren't going to measure wind they should have just used closed data from a GC Quad.

>

> Iirc the bottom of the report said wind was minimal about 2mph

 

All 3 days on an open range it was an extreme outlier of calmness? Sure guys.

[tsecor]

what is your swing speed? 150???> @rybo said:

> > @tsecor said:

> > this is crazy. me thinks this is not real > @cristphoto said:

> > > > @rybo said:

> > > > 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.

> > >

> > > I've never seen this happen to quality balls. I have seen the cheap balls have this occur however. Were these purchased as water balls? I know balls soaked in ponds for a few days get internally soaked.

> >

> >

>

> All of these balls were fresh out of the box, most played less then 18 holes. I was on staff with Srixon when they cracked. Have had a few other Titleist do this and the Taylormade was a single ball, played TP5's for over year. Switched to Chrome Soft's in October. First ball cracked in November, the rest have been about 1 a month. The CS Truvis ball popped in 3 holes.

>

> I do have a high swing speed and it is possible to over compress the core. When this happens, the cores rupture and essentially the ball explodes from the inside out cracking the cover. Spoke with the local Cally rep about this, one of their staff fitters and also happen to be friends with a former employee of Achusnet who explained in detail what was occurring.

>

> Did some extensive ball testing Friday and decided to put the new TP5 ball into play on Saturday. Had a great round and the new TP5 performed better then expected. One thing that was definitely apparent when testing all of the different balls is the fragile cover on the Chrome Soft's. The CS's look like they have been through a war after just a few holes while the TP5, ProV1 and B XS looked like brand new all the way to the end. Putting performance, distance control specifically, was much improved with all of the balls. Will say the Chrome Soft is still the longest ball off the driver FOR ME, but not so much more to overcome the cracking and putting issues. The ProV1 and especially B XS spun way too much off the driver and fairway woods. The TP5 was nearly as long as the CS off the woods, it had more spin on short pitch shots and was much better when putting.

>

 

 

[Dysfunkshun]

> @ROH1 said:

> Any real world experiences with the Maxfli Tour balls?

 

Just picked up a dozen of each last week to try out, in short, I'm impressed. I ended up ordering 6dz of the Tour X, worked a lil better for me than the Tour. I typically miss right, but these held up against my normal fade. Great spin on wedges, felt good off the putter, I'm gonna stick with these for a bit

[Nessism]

> @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

 

Your fanboyism of Chromesoft is showing. It's not just the Callaway that shows lower performance off the high speed driver, it's other soft balls as well. Mind you I am NOT saying that soft balls are bad. I prefer them in fact. I just think this test does show some pretty clear evidence. And frankly this is the most surprising aspect of this entire study in my opinion. I never would have guessed this.

[TarheelTH50]

> @cxx said:

> Anyone know what the order of testing was. I imagine they ran all the balls of a particular model one after the other rather than the first ball of each model followed by the second of each model... It would be easier to perform the test but variation of conditions over time would skew the comparison between models.

 

In their lengthy post test video I think I remember them saying they switched balls/brands out frequently. I don't recall for certain though as that vid drug out, and definitely couldn't hold my attention. Maybe someone else could confirm.

[Joker91]

> @Nessism said:

> > @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

>

> Your fanboyism of Chromesoft is showing. It's not just the Callaway that shows lower performance off the high speed driver, it's other soft balls as well. Mind you I am NOT saying that soft balls are bad. I prefer them in fact. I just think this test does show some pretty clear evidence. And frankly this is the most surprising aspect of this entire study in my opinion. I never would have guessed this.

The only Chromesofts I own are the 'Merica ones, so you're wrong. Keep trying to make s*** up.

[rybo]

> @tsecor said:

> what is your swing speed? 150???> @rybo said:

>

lol!! No! My current normal average is around 118 mph and can get into the low 120's when stepping on a drive. My fastest ever recorded speed was 132mph but that was years ago and with a swing I'd never use on a course.

 

 

[tsecor]

That's crazy....lol....you should unleash the 132mph swing a few times on the course just for kicks..> @rybo said:

> > @tsecor said:

> > what is your swing speed? 150???> @rybo said:

> >

> lol!! No! My current normal average is around 118 mph and can get into the low 120's when stepping on a drive. My fastest ever recorded speed was 132mph but that was years ago and with a swing I'd never use on a course.

>

>

 

 

[J13]

For reference I'm a +1 hcp. I've been playing the Srixon Zstar XV for about 3 years but every year I like to grab a sleeve of new balls to compare and see if i should switch (usually titleist, cally, TM). Anyway, last year I did a ball test ON COURSE and CSX was one of the balls tested. Being at a private i club i have the luxury of jumping around from hole to hole and hitting 12-15 shots off each tee if i want.

 

Long story short I hit balls side by side and I know when i flush a drive and when i don't. CSX was neck and neck distance wise with every other ball i tested including the Prov1x and XV (my ball). The reason I didn't make the switch was the feel being too soft. Now believe me when I say I would love nothing more than to find a ball that spins around the green and gives me another 10-15yds but it's never happened.

 

So my point to this rambling is I would love to see Robot testing then player testing with scratch/ + hcp players to compare results.

 

 

[gioguy21]

hate to say it -- i played last night to try the bridgstone tour xs 2019...and loved it compared to my TP5. had a heavier type feel due to the compression but, i actually prefer that. around the greens it was actually better.

[mmack067]

+cap here. I've played the TP5x almost exclusively since it came out with a little bit of time in the TP5. I've been looking for a couple of specific things in a new ball 1) a bit lower launch with irons, don't mind if apex is the same I just want it to get there a bit differently and 2) a bit more spin around the greens.

Played 36 this weekend with the Tour BX and it is exactly what I've been looking for. The flight on my irons is improved (a little less floaty if that makes sense) and I drove it great all weekend on top of that. Definitely as long or longer than the TM balls.

One last thing is that I have always struggled to flight my wedges lower with the TM balls but I could bring the flight down better with the Tour BX, which I'm assuming is related to increased spin so it pulls the launch down a bit.

I'll play a few more rounds to test but I think the Tour BX is going to be my ball for the year.

[golfnhack]

Curious if anyone else did not see the performance gain from the Snell MTB X. In on-course testing, it was 10-15 yards behind the 2017 TP5x for me. Good news is I sold them on eBay for more than I paid, so no real loss.

[Mahamilto]

The Tour BX is an outstanding product.

 

The thing that surprised me the most is how soft it feels and how much less clicky it is compared to the other “X” balls.

 

Crazy low driver spin for me, and it spins like a top from 50 and under.

 

Like the espionage test or not, do yourself a favor and give it a shot.

[gioguy21]

> @mmack067 said:

> +cap here. I've played the TP5x almost exclusively since it came out with a little bit of time in the TP5. I've been looking for a couple of specific things in a new ball 1) a bit lower launch with irons, don't mind if apex is the same I just want it to get there a bit differently and 2) a bit more spin around the greens.

> Played 36 this weekend with the Tour BX and it is exactly what I've been looking for. The flight on my irons is improved (a little less floaty if that makes sense) and I drove it great all weekend on top of that. Definitely as long or longer than the TM balls.

> One last thing is that I have always struggled to flight my wedges lower with the TM balls but I could bring the flight down better with the Tour BX, which I'm assuming is related to increased spin so it pulls the launch down a bit.

> I'll play a few more rounds to test but I think the Tour BX is going to be my ball for the year.

 

how's your spin on the BX? i ask b/c the XS was great -- but if i can get similar out of the BX i'm all for it.

 

did you get anything coming back or just, one hop-stop type shots?

[mmack067]

> @gioguy21 said:

>

> how's your spin on the BX? i ask b/c the XS was great -- but if i can get similar out of the BX i'm all for it.

>

> did you get anything coming back or just, one hop-stop type shots?

Full and partial wedges were basically one hop and stop. Didn't have anything come back at me, at least not by an annoying amount.

 

[gioguy21]

> @mmack067 said:

> > @gioguy21 said:

> >

> > how's your spin on the BX? i ask b/c the XS was great -- but if i can get similar out of the BX i'm all for it.

> >

> > did you get anything coming back or just, one hop-stop type shots?

> Full and partial wedges were basically one hop and stop. Didn't have anything come back at me, at least not by an annoying amount.

>

 

good, i'll be buyin a box of these now too lol

[Godfather]

More info on their methodology would be nice.

 

For example, did they do a batch of the same balls together (experimental design no-no) or did they randomize the balls throughout the test?

 

They definitely should have recorded data from multiple sources on wind speed and direction for each shot. Just to list the mean and standard deviation with the data.

 

We all know there is measurement error with any instrument so a confidence interval would’ve been appropriate. This article may be interesting reading for some: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steph_Forrester/publication/319147118/inline/jsViewer/5b3f29d4aca27207851c73ba

[cpeck]

> @gioguy21 said:

> > @mmack067 said:

> > > @gioguy21 said:

> > >

> > > how's your spin on the BX? i ask b/c the XS was great -- but if i can get similar out of the BX i'm all for it.

> > >

> > > did you get anything coming back or just, one hop-stop type shots?

> > Full and partial wedges were basically one hop and stop. Didn't have anything come back at me, at least not by an annoying amount.

> >

>

> good, i'll be buyin a box of these now too lol

 

did you get a distance gain with your irons? the putter feel for each of those balls was a lot different for me. have been playing the tour bxs for about 2-3 weeks and am in love with it. great deals on ebay for 30$

 

 

[gioguy21]

> @cpeck said:

> > @gioguy21 said:

> > > @mmack067 said:

> > > > @gioguy21 said:

> > > >

> > > > how's your spin on the BX? i ask b/c the XS was great -- but if i can get similar out of the BX i'm all for it.

> > > >

> > > > did you get anything coming back or just, one hop-stop type shots?

> > > Full and partial wedges were basically one hop and stop. Didn't have anything come back at me, at least not by an annoying amount.

> > >

> >

> > good, i'll be buyin a box of these now too lol

>

> did you get a distance gain with your irons? the putter feel for each of those balls was a lot different for me. have been playing the tour bxs for about 2-3 weeks and am in love with it. great deals on ebay for 30$

>

>

 

i actually DID gain a few yards with the B XS over the TP5. i actually LIKE the heavier ball feel on the putting greens b/c we play very quick greens.

[Mahamilto]

I could pull the BX back some with PW/GW/SW but not absurdly so. I pulled a PW off the green last week, but felt it was the slope of the green as much or more than the spin. Short irons stopped on a dime. Mid irons stopped within 3’. Distances off irons were 2-4yards longer than the ProV1.

 

Hop and stop with 1/2 wedges. Ball really just sticks like Velcro. In other words, it plays a lot like the ProV1 around the green (which is a good thing).

 

Biggest difference vs the Standard ProV1 was driver. Ball was much longer due to a bit more carry and a lot less spin.

 

It also felt a bit softer than the ProV1; and much softer than the V1x.