Jump to content
2024 Houston Open WITB Photos ×

My Golf Spy Ball Test - General Discussion


rkelso184

Recommended Posts

> @Xdmike20 said:

> 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

 

The key phrase in your post is "according to the test". You or anyone else who test those 2 balls could easily have the opposite findings that the "robot" test did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @Xdmike20 said:

> 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

 

I wouldn't read anything in to that at all. They were within 2 yards of carry. The TP5X had more ball speed, so it should carry slightly further. However, the TP5X had larger standard deviations on both carry distance and offline. That most likely means that there were some environmental factors at play (wind, temperature, etc) or one of the TP5X balls was a little out of spec. Again, don't worry too much about the differences in carry distance off the driver that's the least important stat in the test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @"North Texas" said:

> > @Xdmike20 said:

> > 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

>

> The key phrase in your post is "according to the test". You or anyone else who test those 2 balls could easily have the opposite findings that the "robot" test did.

 

Even if MSG repeated the precise same test next week, same robot, same protocol, same balls, likely as not many of those "2 yard" type differences would happen to fall in the opposite direction (talking about Type S error in Gelman-speak).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @J13 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.

>

> 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.

 

I can't "like" this post enough. Like you, I've tested a lot of balls and I rolled my eyes when I saw an 18 yard difference between the two balls. There is no way that is correct and they should have retested when they got that result. I also play the XV and it's a great ball, but all of the tour level balls are basically the same except for a little bit of feel here and a little bit of spin there and a few MPH IMHO.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @soregongolfer said:

> > @J13 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.

> >

> > 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.

>

> I can't "like" this post enough. Like you, I've tested a lot of balls and I rolled my eyes when I saw an 18 yard difference between the two balls. There is no way that is correct and they should have retested when they got that result. I also play the XV and it's a great ball, but all of the tour level balls are basically the same except for a little bit of feel here and a little bit of spin there and a few MPH IMHO.

>

>

 

My biggest concern is that people keep saying "aerodynamics" is causing the variation, it is not. If they really wanted to find out it has to be done through the process of elimination by testing each variable. You test aerodynamics in a wind tunnel and also through high speed camera and an air cannon. Side point, different dimples per different launch angle with different airflow will varying results. Either way, the dimple design does not equal 18 yards.

 

You made probably the best observation, they should have retested after getting a result that outlandish. I don't know of a scientific journal that would have accepted these results. When peer review was conducted, it showed the delta was not 18 yds. I'm not saying their effort wasn't good, I'm saying it maybe a little irresponsible to promote something so obviously incorrect. I'm not a Callaway guy, I spent my golf career on the other side, but I still feel it is not right to release findings that people who may not have a good understanding would take as gospel.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @Pittknife said:

> > @soregongolfer said:

> > > @J13 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.

> > >

> > > 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.

> >

> > I can't "like" this post enough. Like you, I've tested a lot of balls and I rolled my eyes when I saw an 18 yard difference between the two balls. There is no way that is correct and they should have retested when they got that result. I also play the XV and it's a great ball, but all of the tour level balls are basically the same except for a little bit of feel here and a little bit of spin there and a few MPH IMHO.

> >

> >

>

> My biggest concern is that people keep saying "aerodynamics" is causing the variation, it is not. If they really wanted to find out it has to be done through the process of elimination by testing each variable. You test aerodynamics in a wind tunnel and also through high speed camera and an air cannon. Side point, different dimples per different launch angle with different airflow will varying results. Either way, the dimple design does not equal 18 yards.

>

> You made probably the best observation, they should have retested after getting a result that outlandish. I don't know of a scientific journal that would have accepted these results. When peer review was conducted, it showed the delta was not 18 yds. I'm not saying their effort wasn't good, I'm saying it maybe a little irresponsible to promote something so obviously incorrect. I'm not a Callaway guy, I spent my golf career on the other side, but I still feel it is not right to release findings that people who may not have a good understanding would take as gospel.

 

Yes, ideally they'd get an air cannon and a wind tunnel. But that's kind of outside the scope of what they were doing. The ball speed between the balls could be 5 yards or so of the difference. The aerodynamics could be another 5 yards. The environmental factors could have been another 5. Manufacturing tolerances could have been another 5. Add it all up and you get the 18 yards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @arbeck said:

> > @Pittknife said:

> > > @soregongolfer said:

> > > > @J13 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.

> > > >

> > > > 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.

> > >

> > > I can't "like" this post enough. Like you, I've tested a lot of balls and I rolled my eyes when I saw an 18 yard difference between the two balls. There is no way that is correct and they should have retested when they got that result. I also play the XV and it's a great ball, but all of the tour level balls are basically the same except for a little bit of feel here and a little bit of spin there and a few MPH IMHO.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > My biggest concern is that people keep saying "aerodynamics" is causing the variation, it is not. If they really wanted to find out it has to be done through the process of elimination by testing each variable. You test aerodynamics in a wind tunnel and also through high speed camera and an air cannon. Side point, different dimples per different launch angle with different airflow will varying results. Either way, the dimple design does not equal 18 yards.

> >

> > You made probably the best observation, they should have retested after getting a result that outlandish. I don't know of a scientific journal that would have accepted these results. When peer review was conducted, it showed the delta was not 18 yds. I'm not saying their effort wasn't good, I'm saying it maybe a little irresponsible to promote something so obviously incorrect. I'm not a Callaway guy, I spent my golf career on the other side, but I still feel it is not right to release findings that people who may not have a good understanding would take as gospel.

>

> Yes, ideally they'd get an air cannon and a wind tunnel. But that's kind of outside the scope of what they were doing. The ball speed between the balls could be 5 yards or so of the difference. The aerodynamics could be another 5 yards. The environmental factors could have been another 5. Manufacturing tolerances could have been another 5. Add it all up and you get the 18 yards.

 

The dimple designs on that premium ball will not have a 5 yard variance, they use cfd programs when designing them. I’ve done those same simulation on dimple design. That’s my issue with the term being used for aerodynamics, it’s not aerodynamics.

 

No testing/evaluator/publishes scientific journal would publish a result like this without repeating the test and a very likely understanding of the variance. Claiming a poor performance like that has real world implications to these companies.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Tuesday i went and watched our local pro play against our local trainee. Pro was using a pro-V1X and the trainee was using a CSX.

 

First 9 holes the trainee decided to use the V1X due to the heckling about having the "slowest golf ball". First, 9 holes drives were all within meters of each other. Hands down neck and neck with each player taking longest drive turns. The trainee HATED the feel of the V1X and commented on nearly every chip and putt how "Crap" the ball felt.

 

10th tee off he then changed back to the CSX. For the next 9 holes, he was not within 5m of the other. On average he was 10m behind. HOWEVER, he shot +2 on the front 9 and -3 on the back 9. His driving was definitely shorter but his chipping and putting were definitely better.

 

The trainee is off +2 Pro is off scratch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @soregongolfer said:

> > @J13 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.

> >

> > 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.

>

> I can't "like" this post enough. Like you, I've tested a lot of balls and I rolled my eyes when I saw an 18 yard difference between the two balls. There is no way that is correct and they should have retested when they got that result. I also play the XV and it's a great ball, but all of the tour level balls are basically the same except for a little bit of feel here and a little bit of spin there and a few MPH IMHO.

>

>

 

How many people would be clicking on MGS if all the balls tested closely to each other? I imagine they included data that gives the wide variances they have so that there are 1000 posts threads at MGS, Golfwrx and other golf equipment discussion/review sites. This is the most exposure MGS has gotten in a couple of years.

Callaway Rogue ST Max 10.5°/Xcaliber SL 45 a flex,Callaway Rogue ST Max Heavenwood/Xcaliber FW a flex, Maltby KE4 ST-H 3h/Rapid Taper a flex, Maltby KE4 ST-H 4h/Rapid Taper a flex, Maltby KE4 Tour TC 5h/Rapid Taper a flex, Maltby KE4 Tour+ 6-G/Xcaliber Rapid Taper a flex, Maltby Max Milled 54° & 58°/Xcaliber Wedge 85 r flex, Mizuno Bettinardi C06

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Play the same ball type all the time. Hope that the manufacturer of your ball has good quality control so that every ball you play is essentially the same. If you hit ball “G” every time, and good swings with your 9 iron go 150 yards...your scores will be lower.

 

That’s all that matters to me. That’s what I take from all of this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @cristphoto said:

> I think the test was a bit “anti-feel”. The prov1 tested at 1 yard shorter than the prov1x and is about 10 points less compression. I prefer the feel of the prov1 and will gladly sacrifice 1 yard which is insignificant to get a softer ball.

 

You mean feel is important? Lol, people seem to forget robots don’t hit golf balls in the real world, people do. Playing equipment that is comfortable for your game and optimizes what you need it to do is more important than just one factor such as distance.

 

Like you I gave up 10 yds on my driver to use one more forgiving. There are also balls I hit a lot further with my irons but I don’t play them because I don’t want to hit 9 iron 165. I want to hit it 155 and with controlled spin. This makes my clubs gap correctly. Way too much focus on a few yards with the driver nowadays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @cristphoto said:

> I think the test was a bit “anti-feel”. The prov1 tested at 1 yard shorter than the prov1x and is about 10 points less compression. I prefer the feel of the prov1 and will gladly sacrifice 1 yard which is insignificant to get a softer ball.

They rated both balls In The excellent category.

Read their comments and watch the video where they explain. You are correct but you are totally missing the conclusions made in the test.

 

Ping G400 Testing G410.  10.5 set at small -
Ping G410 3, 5 and 7 wood

Ping G410 5 hybrid-not much use.  
Mizuno JPX 921 Hot Metal. 5-G
Vokey 54.10, 2009 58.12 M, Testing TM MG2 60* TW grind and MG3 56* TW grind.  Or Ping Glide Stealth, 54,58 SS.  
Odyssey Pro #1 black
Hoofer, Ecco, Bushnell
ProV1x-mostly
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read the comments on IG and over there. It seems, aside from slagging TXG’s test, there seem to be 2 themes now when it comes to the 18 yard fiasco;

 

Soft is slower.

Hex dimple pattern is no good.

 

I always thought the Hex patterned balls were good in the wind.

Ping G430 Max 10K 10.5° driver - Diamana GT 60S

Ping G430 Max 15° #3 fairway - Diamana TB 70S

Ping G430 Max 21° #7 fairway - Diamana TB 80S

Ping G430 Max 26° #5 hybrid - MMTh 90S

Mizuno Pro 243 4-PW irons - MMT 105S

Mizuno T24 Raw 48°-10S wedge - MMT 105S

Mizuno T24 Raw 54°-10S and 60°-06X wedges - MMT Scoring Wedge 105S

Ping PLD Ally Blue 4

Titleist Pro V1x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @arbeck said:

> 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.

 

Really bad take. The methodology was about as bad as it gets. The only reason to not use closed data is so you can see how it handles environmental conditions, but they failed to account for ANY of them.

Titleist TSi3 8° - HZRDUS Smoke Blue RDX 60TX

Titleist TS3 15° - HZRDUS Black (Hand Crafted) 70TX

Titleist 818 H2 19° - Tensei Pro White 100TX

Ping i200 - SteelFiber i125x

Edison - SteelFiber i125s

LAB DF 2.1 Armlock - LAGP

Snell MTB-X

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know Callaway has a lot of support here. They have worked for years settling this support. But the fact both in the study and TXG is that the ball is slower (19yds or 5yds). That is a PR headache as the reputation suffers some. Of course, soon there will be a campaign of some sorts trying to tame those results. It may be a “newer formulation” [the ball changes] or a player’s support campaign, or bringing more golf influencers to Carlsbad, but something is coming. Because it will be hard to scrub from the mind of web readers what has happened.

From the outside, it has been eye opening seeing the moral support of the people that Cally has brought on those tours to the brand (see not only here, but THP). They are raising the spin and other qualities and how they are not far behind other competitors.

While that happens I moved and left the chromes behind

Cobra F9, 8 Hzrdus Yellow
Tee CBX119 13, Tee EX10 Beta 18. Hzrdus Yellow
M2 Hy, 22 with AD DI 85S
M2 Hy, 25 with S+ 90S
P790 6-AW, Nippon 105S
Mizuno 56/14, 60/07
Scotty Cameron Mil Spec 350 Black Oxide
Titleist -ProV1 balls


[url="http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/1152161-linkerpans-wtib-2015-edition/"]WITB Link[/url]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ndd9kegpnjut.jpeg

 

Cobra F9, 8 Hzrdus Yellow
Tee CBX119 13, Tee EX10 Beta 18. Hzrdus Yellow
M2 Hy, 22 with AD DI 85S
M2 Hy, 25 with S+ 90S
P790 6-AW, Nippon 105S
Mizuno 56/14, 60/07
Scotty Cameron Mil Spec 350 Black Oxide
Titleist -ProV1 balls


[url="http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/1152161-linkerpans-wtib-2015-edition/"]WITB Link[/url]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @linkerpan said:

> ndd9kegpnjut.jpeg

>

 

Hopefully this test forces Callaway to improve their ball. I remember when they (****) did their test of the original K-Sig and stated it went further than the Pro V1. Michael Breed was then quoted as saying that everybody knew that year's Pro V1 was short. Hahaha. I didn't know that and it wasn't mentioned on the box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From their results the Srixon QStar Tour is an interesting ball. 86 compression, so very soft, and had an overall distance of 283.03 yards, for 6th overall. Soft may produce slightly slower ball speeds, but that does not necessarily equate to shorter distances. The low spin attributes of some of the softer balls may help overcome the minutely slower ball speeds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's my first post! I have to say there are tons of good, informative posts as well as others contained in this thread.

 

What is "Smash Factor" is something I'm wrestling with regarding the **** Ball Review. If you believe in Smash Factor here's a good read: https://blog.trackmangolf.com/smash-factor/ As explained Smash Factor and Ball speed are directly related, no question here, this seems like fact.

 

Why would the difference in the fastest ball speed (1.49) versus the slowest (1.45) exists, is it the ball, the golfer, the club? Smash Factor was explained to me and read as the "quality" of the strike, true or false?

 

Before you go out there and change balls or have some doubt, realize, the difference between in the highest and lowest ball speed is a mere 2%. That 2% may actually fall into the "margin or error" for this test, margin of error was never listed as far as I can tell.

 

As per "soft ball" discussion, for those that have been golfing for a while remember the Precept MC Lady back in 2001/02, when extra distance was found on the golf course. It's interesting what the use of modern tracking devices has done to a golfers psyche. Here's a link to the Lady Precept: https://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-pga-ball-story.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct. And when it’s people (especially amateurs) hitting these balls with swing flaws and misshits, the spinny ball with add spin much faster than the soft low spin ball. So distances could be the same or even flipped vs. test data for an individual. I think this is where the testing doesn’t reflect real amateur play.

 

That said, the test was meant to show ideal performance and benchmark characteristics. The trend of compression to ballspeed is obvious. Either way, you gotta figure out for yourself where your priorities fall and the test is a guide for where to start. It pointed me towards the TourBX and I couldn’t be happier.

Titleist TSR3 - 9* - Ventus TR Black 6x

Callaway Rogue LS - 15* - Tour ADXC 7x

Callaway Apex UW - 19* - Ventus Black 7x

PXG 0311P Gen6 - 5i-GW - DG x100

Vokey SM9 - 52.12F, 56.14F - KBS Tour 120 Wedge

Vokey SM9 - 60.08M - KBS Hi-Rev 2.0

L.A.B Link.1
Callaway Chrome Soft TruTrack (Winter)
Vessel Player III - Citrine/White/Black (Riding)
Vessel VLS DXR - Grey/Orange (Walking/half-bag)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @Mahamilto said:

> > ...hitting these balls with swing flaws and misshits, the spinny ball with add spin much faster than the soft low spin ball...

>

> You say this as though it is a fact, rather than second-hand internet man-splaining based on marketing claims.

>

 

This thread really has everyone on edge huh?

I’m saying this based on personal experience of playing AVX and supersofts along side ProV1 and TP5x. And reading/watching reviews of various balls over time.

 

That and it shouldn’t be much of a stretch of the imagination that a low-spin ball with a large solid core that is designed for low spin and has a higher MOI won’t spin up as much on a off center strike as the tour ball designed to spin... similar to how it’s harder to work certain balls right and left...

 

I’m not talking about the chrome soft etc, I’m talking more about the categories like Tour Ball vs. AVX type ball vs. supersoft type ball.

 

Everyone is so touchy huh?

  • Like 1

Titleist TSR3 - 9* - Ventus TR Black 6x

Callaway Rogue LS - 15* - Tour ADXC 7x

Callaway Apex UW - 19* - Ventus Black 7x

PXG 0311P Gen6 - 5i-GW - DG x100

Vokey SM9 - 52.12F, 56.14F - KBS Tour 120 Wedge

Vokey SM9 - 60.08M - KBS Hi-Rev 2.0

L.A.B Link.1
Callaway Chrome Soft TruTrack (Winter)
Vessel Player III - Citrine/White/Black (Riding)
Vessel VLS DXR - Grey/Orange (Walking/half-bag)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @Mahamilto said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > > @Mahamilto said:

> > > ...hitting these balls with swing flaws and misshits, the spinny ball with add spin much faster than the soft low spin ball...

> >

> > You say this as though it is a fact, rather than second-hand internet man-splaining based on marketing claims.

> >

>

> This thread really has everyone on edge huh?

> I’m saying this based on personal experience of playing AVX and supersofts along side ProV1 and TP5x. And reading/watching reviews of various balls over time.

>

> That and it shouldn’t be much of a stretch of the imagination that a low-spin ball with a large solid core that is designed for low spin and has a higher MOI won’t spin up as much on a off center strike as the tour ball designed to spin... similar to how it’s harder to work certain balls right and left...

>

> I’m not talking about the chrome soft etc, I’m talking more about the categories like Tour Ball vs. AVX type ball vs. supersoft type ball.

>

> Everyone is so touchy huh?

 

I've played 150+ rounds with AVX and many more rounds than that with 2013 and 2019 versions of Pro V1x. I also played for years with various "soft" or "firm" 2-pc and 3-pc Surlyn balls. Most recently, a couple years ago I play maybe a dozen rounds with Supersoft and 20-30 rounds with Srixon Soft Feel.

 

No way those "soft" balls were any straighter or longer on mishits than AVX or Pro V1x. It just doesn't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @Mahamilto said:

> Everyone is so touchy huh?

 

Well, what do you expect when a man is told his balls aren’t good enough?

 

 

  • Like 1

Driver: TaylorMade SIM 8* (standard setting) with MCA Tensei AV Raw Orange 75TX at 44.5"
3W: TaylorMade M5 15* (standard setting) with Oban Devotion 8 O5 at 42"
Hybrid: PXG Gen 2 0317X 19* (standard setting) with Oban Kiyoshi Purple Hybrid O5 at 39.5"
4i-9i: Callaway '18 Apex MB's with KBS C-Taper 130X at 1/4" long
46: Callaway JAWS MD5 10S
50: Callaway JAWS MD5 10S
54: Callaway JAWS MD5 8C
58: Callaway JAWS MD5 8W
Putter: Kari Lajosi Custom DD201WB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Supersoft is so much longer and straighter on mishits than a ProV1 its not even funny. The supersoft takes effort to hit anything but straight. My playing partner (~20hcp) who fights a nasty slice went from chromesoft (gasp...) to supersoft and his fairways more than doubled. I play off a 9-10HCP and it is virtually impossible to work a draw or fade with a supersoft. Can you hit a duck hook? Sure; but this ball does everything in its power to go straight.

 

The AVX, for me, is also longer and straighter than ProV1 on misses, significantly so, but not as much as the SS.

 

Some balls are designed to go straight, some are designed to be more workable. There is such thing as MOI in a golf ball...

 

Nevertheless... Stupid arguments like this is the exact reason "they who cannot be named" used robots... people vary widely.

 

And man do I wish I had the free time you have. I haven't had 150 rounds since the AVX debuted...

Titleist TSR3 - 9* - Ventus TR Black 6x

Callaway Rogue LS - 15* - Tour ADXC 7x

Callaway Apex UW - 19* - Ventus Black 7x

PXG 0311P Gen6 - 5i-GW - DG x100

Vokey SM9 - 52.12F, 56.14F - KBS Tour 120 Wedge

Vokey SM9 - 60.08M - KBS Hi-Rev 2.0

L.A.B Link.1
Callaway Chrome Soft TruTrack (Winter)
Vessel Player III - Citrine/White/Black (Riding)
Vessel VLS DXR - Grey/Orange (Walking/half-bag)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with this test, and most of what Metal Gear Solid does, is the results are just there. They like to play scientist, but don't know what it means to produce a study and the results of that study. It is sort of strange that they would put all this time into testing and analysis but end up doing half a job. The idea for the test is great. The results are interesting. However, the study is half finished. At this point, they should have sat down and said why are we getting these results that are entirely inconsistent with what we would expect? Why this large gap distance that does not match ballspeed/spin gaps? Are there additional variables that need to be eliminated? Until they can reconcile that with an explanation, the results of the study at that macro level are worthless. Not to say that all data itself is not worthwhile. It is a handy resource for spin and ballspeed #s. It is also interesting to hear about tangible results, such as the Cut balls durability issues.

 

Lastly, I will also say that i question the "QC" results. The suggestion that some balls are flying 20 yards off line and this is because of a misaligned core or a ball that isnt perfectly round seems strange. Were these balls cut to examined to determine what was off about them? If only a handful of balls fall into the excellent or very good category of QC, how can any of the numbers produced by the other balls be reliable (spin, ballspeed, anything). If this is the case, Metal Gear Solid should have basically said we tested 33 balls, but 20+ were of such unreliable quality that the results could not be accepted as demonstrative of their expected performance. But that wasnt the case. The actual numbers must have been repeatable or else the data is useless... how is that reconciled?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Our picks

    • 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Discussion and links to Photos
      Please put any questions or Comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Monday #1
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Monday #2
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #1
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #2
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #3
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Thorbjorn Olesen - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Ben Silverman - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jesse Droemer - SoTX PGA Section POY - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      David Lipsky - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Martin Trainer - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Zac Blair - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jacob Bridgeman - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Trace Crowe - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jimmy Walker - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Daniel Berger - WITB(very mini) - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Chesson Hadley - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Callum McNeill - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Rhein Gibson - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Patrick Fishburn - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Peter Malnati - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Raul Pereda - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Gary Woodland WITB (New driver, iron shafts) – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Padraig Harrington WITB – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      Tom Hoge's custom Cameron - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Piretti putters - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Ping putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Kevin Dougherty's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Bettinardi putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Erik Barnes testing an all-black Axis1 putter – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Tony Finau's new driver shaft – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
       
       
       
       
       
      • 9 replies
    • 2024 Valspar Championship WITB Photos (Thanks to bvmagic)- Discussion & Links to Photos
      This weeks WITB Pics are from member bvmagic (Brian). Brian's first event for WRX was in 2008 at Bayhill while in college. Thanks so much bv.
       
      Please put your comments or question on this thread. Links to all the threads are below...
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 31 replies
    • 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #1
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #2
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #3
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Matt (LFG) Every - WITB - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Sahith Theegala - WITB - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Cameron putters (and new "LD" grip) - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      New Bettinardi MB & CB irons - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Custom Bettinardi API putter cover - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Custom Swag API covers - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      New Golf Pride Reverse Taper grips - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 15 replies
    • 2024 Cognizant Classic - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #1
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #2
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #3
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #4
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Brandt Snedeker - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Max Greyserman - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Eric Cole - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Carl Yuan - WITb - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Russell Henley - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Justin Sun - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Alex Noren - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Shane Lowry - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Taylor Montgomery - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Jake Knapp (KnappTime_ltd) - WITB - - 2024 Cognizant Classic
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Super Stoke Pistol Lock 1.0 & 2.0 grips - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      LA Golf new insert putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      New Garsen Quad Tour 15 grip - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      New Swag covers - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Jacob Bridgeman's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Bud Cauley's custom Cameron putters - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Ryo Hisatsune's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Chris Kirk - new black Callaway Apex CB irons and a few Odyssey putters - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Alejandro Tosti's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 2 replies
    • 2024 Genesis Invitational - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Monday #1
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Monday #2
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #1
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #2
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #3
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #4
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Rory McIlroy - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Sepp Straka - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Patrick Rodgers - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Brendon Todd - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Denny McCarthy - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Corey Conners - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Chase Johnson - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tommy Fleetwood - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Matt Fitzpatrick - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Si Woo Kim - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Viktor Hovland - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Wyndham Clark - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Cam Davis - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Nick Taylor - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Ben Baller WITB update (New putter, driver, hybrid and shafts) – 2024 Genesis Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Vortex Golf rangefinder - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      New Fujikura Ventus shaft - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods & TaylorMade "Sun Day Red" apparel launch event, product photos – 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods Sun Day Red golf shoes - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Aretera shafts - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      New Toulon putters - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods' new white "Sun Day Red" golf shoe prototypes – 2024 Genesis Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      • 22 replies

×
×
  • Create New...