My Golf Spy Ball Test - General Discussion

[J13]

> @Godfather said:

> 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

 

Good article and there is definitely room for improvement with the ball test. It's a good first attempt and provides a lot of data which is always nice to see. When testing outdoors though you have to measure wind, humidity, ect... The people doing the testing saying "there was virutally no wind" isn't scientific that's for sure.

[jonsnow]

How did they measure compression in the tests? The compression numbers in the chart seem to be considerably higher in most cases than the stated compression by the manufacturers. Sorry if this question has been asked & I missed it.

[arbeck]

> @jonsnow said:

> How did they measure compression in the tests? The compression numbers in the chart seem to be considerably higher in most cases than the stated compression by the manufacturers. Sorry if this question has been asked & I missed it.

 

They used a device to measure compression. Compression reported by the manufacturers is usually close to meaningless because they aren't telling you the compression of the same thing. For instance Wilson reports the compression of just their core.

[jonsnow]

> @arbeck said:

> > @jonsnow said:

> > How did they measure compression in the tests? The compression numbers in the chart seem to be considerably higher in most cases than the stated compression by the manufacturers. Sorry if this question has been asked & I missed it.

>

> They used a device to measure compression. Compression reported by the manufacturers is usually close to meaningless because they aren't telling you the compression of the same thing. For instance Wilson reports the compression of just their core.

 

Thanks for the clarification, arbeck!

[nsxguy]

> @J13 said:

> > @Godfather said:

> > 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

>

> Good article and there is definitely room for improvement with the ball test. It's a good first attempt and provides a lot of data which is always nice to see. When testing outdoors though you have to measure wind, humidity, ect... The people doing the testing **saying "there was virutally no wind" isn't scientific that's for sure.

**

 

Brother, you (and @Wesquire) ain't lying. All that trouble to hit with a robot and there's wind. Sheesh.

 

The test has some useful info though. For example, (especially) with the driver, if I was a high spin player at least the test would point me to balls that spin a bit less. Same thing with launch. It can steer me to a ball that launches a bit lower.

 

Spin rates ? Same-same.

 

Soft is slow ? OK, fine. And I agree that golf ball fitting is the future,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but to relegate "feel" to irrelevant status ? "_It’s evident that the industry as a whole needs to focus less on marketing (**feel**), and more on fitting golfers for balls that will actually help us shoot lower scores_" - Big nope there.

[tungstenplug]

.

 

 

Edited February 26, 2023 by tungstenplug

[Bad9]

> @kevinscott22 said:

> The big winner in all of this: the consumer

> A lot of people are complaining about the accuracy of the test and its variables. Sure, some of your points could be valid. The best part about this test is that it has caused a bit of buzz in the industry and will likely lead to a bigger company with a bigger budget and greater resources to do an even more comprehensive ball test. That's ideal for us. Companies will be held accountable for the products and claims they are making because they know the tests will expose them

> At the end of the day I just want as much relevant information as I can get before I decide what ball to tee up

>

>

 

What company would you expect to do this and publish the actual results? It won't be any of the ball or club companies. It won't be one of the golf publications or the Golf Channel. All that leaves you is places like MGS and Wrx. And who is going to hold companies accountable(whatever that means) and what I just listed applies on that issue as well.

[95124hacker]

Played a round Sunday alternating between these 5. I’m ~ 85mph SS.

Tour B XS

Volvik S4

Maxfli Tour

Older Pro V1x

Older B330 RX

 

Notes:

Maxfli Tour is a bargain urethane at 2 doz for $50 at GG right now. However the cover scuffs easily but I like the matte white. Seemed to fly straight. Maybe it’s a placebo effect with the CG thing. I have 23 more of them to verify.

 

Volvik S4 is the firmest feeling hands down. Good wind ball. Chips seem to run out a lot more than the rest. Hardest to control around the greens. Probably going to rule it out.

 

Tour B XS may be my ball if I had to choose just 1. Need to play more rounds to validate initial conclusions.

 

Pro V1x used to be my preferred ball but I gave in to all the marketing that it was only for high SS players. Still a great ball but the most expensive.

 

B330 RX seemed shortest. Need to try latest Tour B RX to be fair. Was never an RX fan even though it was designed for my SS.

 

 

 

[North Butte]

> @95124hacker said:

 

> Pro V1x used to be my preferred ball but I gave in to all the marketing that it was only for high SS players. Still a great ball but the most expensive.

 

By "marketing" do you mean hackers pontificating on Internet forums?

 

Titleist has never marketed any golf balls as being for "high swing speed players". In fact for many years their marketing has specifically claimed that the best ball for a player has nothing to do with clubhead speed. They claim every ball they make works well at any clubhead speed.

 

Bridgestone is the one with the separate product ranges for different (driver) clubhead speeds. And Srixon. Not Titleist.

[tsecor]

the bridgestone online fitting tool mainly goes off what you are currently playing and tries to match it to that. I put in many parameters and the type of ball recommended changed mainly after I changed what my original ball was....I said I played a pro v and it points you towards the BX. I said I played the Wilson duo with the same exact parameters and it gave me the E6 speed......its weird

[Celeras]

 

TXG confirms the ball speed gap, and points to aerodynamics for the additional yardage variation.

[GoGoErky]

> @tsecor said:

> the bridgestone online fitting tool mainly goes off what you are currently playing and tries to match it to that. I put in many parameters and the type of ball recommended changed mainly after I changed what my original ball was....I said I played a pro v and it points you towards the BX. I said I played the Wilson duo with the same exact parameters and it gave me the E6 speed......its weird

 

I was told all their in person ball fitting data is in a database. So based on your starting ball it’s uses the data from those who came in with that ball as their starting ball people were fit too

[Pittknife]

> @Celeras said:

>

>

> TXG confirms the ball speed gap, and points to aerodynamics for the additional yardage variation.

 

They confirmed the difference is not close to 18 yds, it’s not even 5 yds difference, total avg distance was 1yd, ball speed 2mph.

 

Testing is very complicated and inconsistent, tests using the scientific method require replication by other external testers to confirm a result.

 

I have nothing against them or dean (I worked with him for 5 years at tmag), he was one of the smartest and nicest guys. But there was no way there is a 18 yd distance between those balls.

[Stanks]

Can i get an MTB in Truvis or a "hi vis" pattern?!

[Joker91]

So this TXG video shows the MGS test was flawed

[dlygrisse]

> @Pittknife said:

> > @Celeras said:

> >

> >

> > TXG confirms the ball speed gap, and points to aerodynamics for the additional yardage variation.

>

> They confirmed the difference is not close to 18 yds, it’s not even 5 yds difference, total avg distance was 1yd, ball speed 2mph.

>

> Testing is very complicated and inconsistent, tests using the scientific method require replication by other external testers to confirm a result.

>

> I have nothing against them or dean (I worked with him for 5 years at tmag), he was one of the smartest and nicest guys. But there was no way there is a 18 yd distance between those balls.

 

Maybe. But the tests were conducted totally differently. Outdoor vs. indoor. MGS was testing actual aerodynamics. With Trackman.

[cmatthews77]

And normalcy and common sense have returned to me and the community. Deep sigh...

 

__> @Pittknife said:

> > @Celeras said:

> >

> >

> > TXG confirms the ball speed gap, and points to aerodynamics for the additional yardage variation.

>

> They confirmed the difference is not close to 18 yds, it’s not even 5 yds difference, total avg distance was 1yd, ball speed 2mph.

>

> Testing is very complicated and inconsistent, tests using the scientific method require replication by other external testers to confirm a result.

>

> I have nothing against them or dean (I worked with him for 5 years at tmag), he was one of the smartest and nicest guys. But there was no way there is a 18 yd distance between those balls.

 

 

[ThunderBuzzworth]

I read the data thoroughly in every category, it definitely made me dig deeper into what I wanted in my ball. I have been playing a few seasons with strictly 2017 Srixon XV yellows. With them being harder to find nearby and the new version phasing them out I decided to try something new based entirely on the data. I switched to Bridgestone TourBx this past weekend and I plan on using it for the upcoming tournament this week. I even bought another dozen after 2 rounds. So far it has done everything I was hoping it would do, in comparison to the ‘17 XV. Lower overall trajectory, wedges launching lower - more in my window with TourBx and seem to have all the same stopping power I get out of ‘17 XV . TourBx has a very crisp yet soft feel off the irons and has a really nice sound off the face. As far as the driver goes... I have hit some serious all-time monster drives with the TourBx in only 2 rounds. I have all the confidence in the world right now in this ball.

 

As far as the 2019 Srixon XV... I figured this would be an easy transition into but I find them to scuff a bit too easy and every shot has too much of a floaty flight compared to the heavy flight of the 17 version. SERM cover seems intriguing but if the durability suffers this bad I can’t say it is worth it. They are really nice off the wedges and around the greens but I would have to say I still prefer the 17 version. So for now it is either TourBx or 2017 XV .

No Ragrets

[KGrinols]

> @Joker91 said:

> So this TXG video shows the **** test was flawed

 

Both tests are flawed in their own way.

While it may not be 'scientific' to have outside factors like wind/temp/humidity in play on the MGS test, it's also not 'scientific' to ignore the actual aerodynamics of dimple patterns by testing indoors on GCQuad like TXG did. How the dimple patterns are designed, how the balls flies/cuts through the air that we WILL play in for every single round of our life, is absolutely relevant information.

 

Realistically the only way to get the 'perfect' answer, is a full size 'indoor' driving range if that exists.

 

Ultimately it doesn't really matter, because both tests confirmed that the Chromesoft is slower. If you are willing to sacrifice that speed for feel, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that and I won't argue with you at all. But at least now you have the knowledge and data to understand your trade off. Perhaps there's an equal feeling ball, that doesn't sacrifice the speed worth looking into for you.

[Pittknife]

> @dlygrisse said:

> > @Pittknife said:

> > > @Celeras said:

> > >

> > >

> > > TXG confirms the ball speed gap, and points to aerodynamics for the additional yardage variation.

> >

> > They confirmed the difference is not close to 18 yds, it’s not even 5 yds difference, total avg distance was 1yd, ball speed 2mph.

> >

> > Testing is very complicated and inconsistent, tests using the scientific method require replication by other external testers to confirm a result.

> >

> > I have nothing against them or dean (I worked with him for 5 years at tmag), he was one of the smartest and nicest guys. But there was no way there is a 18 yd distance between those balls.

>

> Maybe. But the tests were conducted totally differently. Outdoor vs. indoor. **** was testing actual aerodynamics. With Trackman.

 

I’m pretty sure Callaway has CFD experts, so does Snell because he is one. Having been involved with the taylormade ball design from 2002-2005 and helping to create the CAD model of the balls including the dimple pattern there isn’t as much effect as the ball companies claim. My point is their testing can easily have outlying data points. How where the balls confirmed, what was the moisture content of the balls, what was the control experiment of their equipment.

 

I can setup a test that will have a bias to certain equipment, not saying bias was on purpose.

 

When you test something you need more samples and data points, ball tests are tan on multiple lots from different tooling mold/dies from different resin blends. This was not done.

 

My base point is that their data does not support 18 yard difference, once you have that kind of discrepancy the rest of the data needs to be re-evaluated. I’ve done thousands of cfd (computational fluid dynamic) analysis with things much more complicated than a golf ball, aerodynamics doesn’t explain the yardage difference.

[Joker91]

> @KGrinols said:

> > @Joker91 said:

> > So this TXG video shows the **** test was flawed

>

> Both tests are flawed in their own way.

> While it may not be 'scientific' to have outside factors like wind/temp/humidity in play on the **** test, it's also not 'scientific' to ignore the actual aerodynamics of dimple patterns by testing indoors on GCQuad like TXG did. How the dimple patterns are designed, how the balls flies/cuts through the air that we WILL play in for every single round of our life, is absolutely relevant information.

>

> Realistically the only way to get the 'perfect' answer, is a full size 'indoor' driving range if that exists.

>

> Ultimately it doesn't really matter, because both tests confirmed that the Chromesoft is slower. If you are willing to sacrifice that speed for feel, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that and I won't argue with you at all. But at least now you have the knowledge and data to understand your trade off. Perhaps there's an equal feeling ball, that doesn't sacrifice the speed worth looking into for you.

 

Not 1mph and 4 yards carry /1 yard total. Such a huge trade off. 18 yards was clearly inaccurate and shows how flawed the MGS test was

[GolfTurkey]

> @Joker91 said:

> > @KGrinols said:

> > > @Joker91 said:

> > > So this TXG video shows the **** test was flawed

> >

> > Both tests are flawed in their own way.

> > While it may not be 'scientific' to have outside factors like wind/temp/humidity in play on the **** test, it's also not 'scientific' to ignore the actual aerodynamics of dimple patterns by testing indoors on GCQuad like TXG did. How the dimple patterns are designed, how the balls flies/cuts through the air that we WILL play in for every single round of our life, is absolutely relevant information.

> >

> > Realistically the only way to get the 'perfect' answer, is a full size 'indoor' driving range if that exists.

> >

> > Ultimately it doesn't really matter, because both tests confirmed that the Chromesoft is slower. If you are willing to sacrifice that speed for feel, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that and I won't argue with you at all. But at least now you have the knowledge and data to understand your trade off. Perhaps there's an equal feeling ball, that doesn't sacrifice the speed worth looking into for you.

>

> Not 1mph and 4 yards carry /1 yard total. Such a huge trade off. 18 yards was clearly inaccurate and shows how flawed the **** test was

Ribbit

[GolfTurkey]

> @Pittknife said:

> > @dlygrisse said:

> > > @Pittknife said:

> > > > @Celeras said:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > TXG confirms the ball speed gap, and points to aerodynamics for the additional yardage variation.

> > >

> > > They confirmed the difference is not close to 18 yds, it’s not even 5 yds difference, total avg distance was 1yd, ball speed 2mph.

> > >

> > > Testing is very complicated and inconsistent, tests using the scientific method require replication by other external testers to confirm a result.

> > >

> > > I have nothing against them or dean (I worked with him for 5 years at tmag), he was one of the smartest and nicest guys. But there was no way there is a 18 yd distance between those balls.

> >

> > Maybe. But the tests were conducted totally differently. Outdoor vs. indoor. **** was testing actual aerodynamics. With Trackman.

>

> I’m pretty sure Callaway has CFD experts, so does Snell because he is one. Having been involved with the taylormade ball design from 2002-2005 and helping to create the CAD model of the balls including the dimple pattern there isn’t as much effect as the ball companies claim. My point is their testing can easily have outlying data points. How where the balls confirmed, what was the moisture content of the balls, what was the control experiment of their equipment.

>

> I can setup a test that will have a bias to certain equipment, not saying bias was on purpose.

>

> When you test something you need more samples and data points, ball tests are tan on multiple lots from different tooling mold/dies from different resin blends. This was not done.

>

> My base point is that their data does not support 18 yard difference, once you have that kind of discrepancy the rest of the data needs to be re-evaluated. I’ve done thousands of cfd (computational fluid dynamic) analysis with things much more complicated than a golf ball, aerodynamics doesn’t explain the yardage difference.

Either way I think that the publicity that this test has generated is invaluable. I think that it is drawing more attention to the ball plus shining a critical light on some of the manufacturer's claims.

I am sure that **** will get input/feedback from experts from several manufacturers and this will help them to control more of the variables the next time that they perform this test.

[Doyouevenblade]

> @Joker91 said:

> > @KGrinols said:

> > > @Joker91 said:

> > > So this TXG video shows the **** test was flawed

> >

> > Both tests are flawed in their own way.

> > While it may not be 'scientific' to have outside factors like wind/temp/humidity in play on the **** test, it's also not 'scientific' to ignore the actual aerodynamics of dimple patterns by testing indoors on GCQuad like TXG did. How the dimple patterns are designed, how the balls flies/cuts through the air that we WILL play in for every single round of our life, is absolutely relevant information.

> >

> > Realistically the only way to get the 'perfect' answer, is a full size 'indoor' driving range if that exists.

> >

> > Ultimately it doesn't really matter, because both tests confirmed that the Chromesoft is slower. If you are willing to sacrifice that speed for feel, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that and I won't argue with you at all. But at least now you have the knowledge and data to understand your trade off. Perhaps there's an equal feeling ball, that doesn't sacrifice the speed worth looking into for you.

>

> Not 1mph and 4 yards carry /1 yard total. Such a huge trade off. 18 yards was clearly inaccurate and shows how flawed the **** test was

 

We get it. You play chromesofts.

[Nick6771]

Like a number of other posters on this thread the test results have created a bit of a paradigm shift for me. For info Ive just got down to 12 h/c and my driver speed is a very average (for this site) c100mph.

I’ve played the RXS as my “summer ball” for years and love the feel of it. However for the last couple of rounds I switched to a Pro V1x. Initial results are encouraging, the ball flies a little bit lower and seems to be straighter as well. Yes it’s a lot firmer but I can get used to that.

Does it mean the RXS is a naff ball? Absolutely not! I’ve been presented with some data which has opened my mind to trying different things. Maybe it will work for you, maybe it won’t. No harm in trying is there?

 

[Pittknife]

> @GolfTurkey said:

> > @Pittknife said:

> > > @dlygrisse said:

> > > > @Pittknife said:

> > > > > @Celeras said:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > TXG confirms the ball speed gap, and points to aerodynamics for the additional yardage variation.

> > > >

> > > > They confirmed the difference is not close to 18 yds, it’s not even 5 yds difference, total avg distance was 1yd, ball speed 2mph.

> > > >

> > > > Testing is very complicated and inconsistent, tests using the scientific method require replication by other external testers to confirm a result.

> > > >

> > > > I have nothing against them or dean (I worked with him for 5 years at tmag), he was one of the smartest and nicest guys. But there was no way there is a 18 yd distance between those balls.

> > >

> > > Maybe. But the tests were conducted totally differently. Outdoor vs. indoor. **** was testing actual aerodynamics. With Trackman.

> >

> > I’m pretty sure Callaway has CFD experts, so does Snell because he is one. Having been involved with the taylormade ball design from 2002-2005 and helping to create the CAD model of the balls including the dimple pattern there isn’t as much effect as the ball companies claim. My point is their testing can easily have outlying data points. How where the balls confirmed, what was the moisture content of the balls, what was the control experiment of their equipment.

> >

> > I can setup a test that will have a bias to certain equipment, not saying bias was on purpose.

> >

> > When you test something you need more samples and data points, ball tests are tan on multiple lots from different tooling mold/dies from different resin blends. This was not done.

> >

> > My base point is that their data does not support 18 yard difference, once you have that kind of discrepancy the rest of the data needs to be re-evaluated. I’ve done thousands of cfd (computational fluid dynamic) analysis with things much more complicated than a golf ball, aerodynamics doesn’t explain the yardage difference.

> Either way I think that the publicity that this test has generated is invaluable. I think that it is drawing more attention to the ball plus shining a critical light on some of the manufacturer's claims.

> I am sure that **** will get input/feedback from experts from several manufacturers and this will help them to control more of the variables the next time that they perform this test.

 

That is a great point. I can tell you that testing in golf is an art form, pseudo-scientific when I was doing it. We tested everyone’s claims on their clubs and balls and rarely did they achieve what they claim. That’s what the asterisk they put in everything is for. Each test center has their own equipment, setup and environmental conditions as added variables.

[J13]

> @Pittknife said:

> > @dlygrisse said:

> > > @Pittknife said:

> > > > @Celeras said:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > TXG confirms the ball speed gap, and points to aerodynamics for the additional yardage variation.

> > >

> > > They confirmed the difference is not close to 18 yds, it’s not even 5 yds difference, total avg distance was 1yd, ball speed 2mph.

> > >

> > > Testing is very complicated and inconsistent, tests using the scientific method require replication by other external testers to confirm a result.

> > >

> > > I have nothing against them or dean (I worked with him for 5 years at tmag), he was one of the smartest and nicest guys. But there was no way there is a 18 yd distance between those balls.

> >

> > Maybe. But the tests were conducted totally differently. Outdoor vs. indoor. **** was testing actual aerodynamics. With Trackman.

>

> I’m pretty sure Callaway has CFD experts, so does Snell because he is one. Having been involved with the taylormade ball design from 2002-2005 and helping to create the CAD model of the balls including the dimple pattern there isn’t as much effect as the ball companies claim. My point is their testing can easily have outlying data points. How where the balls confirmed, what was the moisture content of the balls, what was the control experiment of their equipment.

>

> I can setup a test that will have a bias to certain equipment, not saying bias was on purpose.

>

> When you test something you need more samples and data points, ball tests are tan on multiple lots from different tooling mold/dies from different resin blends. This was not done.

>

> My base point is that their data does not support 18 yard difference, once you have that kind of discrepancy the rest of the data needs to be re-evaluated. I’ve done thousands of cfd (computational fluid dynamic) analysis with things much more complicated than a golf ball, aerodynamics doesn’t explain the yardage difference.

 

Exactly this. I'm not a robot but I'm a + hcp player and have tested these balls on course side by side and I've NEVER seen that kind of discrepancy especially with a major OEM's product. For reference i play the XV because I love performance and price I get them for.

[Joker91]

> @Doyouevenblade said:

> > @Joker91 said:

> > > @KGrinols said:

> > > > @Joker91 said:

> > > > So this TXG video shows the **** test was flawed

> > >

> > > Both tests are flawed in their own way.

> > > While it may not be 'scientific' to have outside factors like wind/temp/humidity in play on the **** test, it's also not 'scientific' to ignore the actual aerodynamics of dimple patterns by testing indoors on GCQuad like TXG did. How the dimple patterns are designed, how the balls flies/cuts through the air that we WILL play in for every single round of our life, is absolutely relevant information.

> > >

> > > Realistically the only way to get the 'perfect' answer, is a full size 'indoor' driving range if that exists.

> > >

> > > Ultimately it doesn't really matter, because both tests confirmed that the Chromesoft is slower. If you are willing to sacrifice that speed for feel, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that and I won't argue with you at all. But at least now you have the knowledge and data to understand your trade off. Perhaps there's an equal feeling ball, that doesn't sacrifice the speed worth looking into for you.

> >

> > Not 1mph and 4 yards carry /1 yard total. Such a huge trade off. 18 yards was clearly inaccurate and shows how flawed the **** test was

>

> We get it. You play chromesofts.

 

Except I don't. Try again

[arbeck]

Was the test perfect? No. Was the test really good? Yes. They could have done the test all with GC Quad. If so, they would have received similar results to TXG. However, that wouldn't tell them anything about aerodynamic differences in the ball and/or manufacturing defects that the balls had. Those two things are important and you need full radar testing to do that. Of course then you have the elements affecting the balls. You can minimize this by doing the test on the calmest day possible, randomizing the shot order, and taking enough shots that the environmental effects normalize across the sample of shots.

 

All that being said, no test is going to be perfect, and unless you are doing this test in a glass bubble, you are going to have to deal with the elements. And even then, isn't how the ball deals with wind a valid part of the test?

 

That being said, lets talk about the Chrome Soft X specifically. Nothing in it's numbers suggest it losing 18 yards of carry distance to the MTB-X. But there's some interesting things about the ball. Not only is the Chrome Soft X shorter than the MTB-X at high swing speeds. It's shorter than the regular Chrome Soft at both high and low swing speeds. Assuming they didn't just test all the Chrome Soft X balls back to back at both swing speeds, something weird is up with that ball. It could be that it just got really unlucky and had more shots into a puff of wind than other balls. It could be that it's aerodynamics don't handle shots into the wind as other balls as well and those two things combine to make it drop off in distance. It could be manufacturing flaws in the dimple pattern of a few balls that were hurting distance.

 

If you take a look at all the X balls you'll see that their launch conditions are all almost identical. The Chrome Soft X does have the lowest ball speed but everything is within 3 miles an hour. All the spin numbers are very close save the Mizuno RB Tour X which is a few hundred RPM higher. Still, all these balls should be landing fairly close to each other. I'd expect maybe 5-6 yards of carry distance between the best and worst just based on launch conditions. There are three basic outliers though. The Snell MTB-X, Taylormade TP5X, and Chrome Soft X. The Taylormade and Chrome Soft are both shorter than you would expect given launch conditions, and the Snell was longer. If you look closely, those three balls also have the largest land area. So again, this points to either something environmental effecting these balls more or some flaws in the manufacturing of these three. It could also be a combination of these things. We know that the Snell had at least some defects (as shown by the ball that went way offline). It's not crazy to think that the other two balls had some defects as well. It also could be that the Snell on average got a couple of puffs of wind more behind it and the Taylormade and Chrome Soft had a couple of puffs of wind into.

 

Ideally you'd want to do another test of just those balls to figure out what caused the outliers. I'd probably hit 100 shots which each ball from at least 4 or 5 boxes of balls. I'd randomize the shot order. Any ball that showed up as an outlier would be marked and the shot would be noted. On subsequent shots with that ball you'd check to see if it behaved the same. That would hopefully normalize the environmental conditions and let you find any flawed balls.

 

None of that of course means the test was flawed. It could have done better to drill down to find why those outliers existed. But that's not usually how studies like this work. Big studies like this expect outliers and further work should be done to dig into why they are there. What people seem to be missing (and the authors are guilty of publicizing the number too much) is that carry distance with the driver is probably the least important thing in the test. Balls speed, launch angle, and spin are all more important things with the driver. 7i spin is probably a more important number than those. And wedge spin is probably more important than that. If it was just driver distance problems with the Chrome Soft balls you wouldn't dock them that much. But they have worse ball speed with the driver. They all have less 7i spin than their competitors. They have less wedge spin than their competitors. That doesn't mean it is a bad ball for everyone, but it doesn't compare great to the other balls in it's class.

[Xdmike20]

I was surprised with the TaylorMade TP results. It shows the TP5 being longer and straighter than the X which I thought it was the other way around. I know the X spins less but supposedly it is supposed to be the longer straighter of the two but according to the test it was the other way around