My Golf Spy Ball Test - General Discussion

[dcmidnight]

Agreed.

 

I would love to see a Trackman-like dynamic graph where you could click on a particular ball and see all of the shots hit with that particular ball as well as the stats for each shot.

[jimb6golf]

MGS just did a thorough analysis and test of all urethane golf balls and found that the Snell MTX was the top ball available. Pretty amazing for a smaller company and really reinforces all the information that Dean has put out there too. Glad I switched to the Snell ball a few years ago and I'm sticking with my choice. Great ball, great performance and terrific pricing too.

[mmack067]

> @jimb6golf said:

> **** just did a thorough analysis and test of all urethane golf balls and found that the Snell MTX was the top ball available. Pretty amazing for a smaller company and really reinforces all the information that Dean has put out there too. Glad I switched to the Snell ball a few years ago and I'm sticking with my choice. Great ball, great performance and terrific pricing too.

 

That's not really what the article says...

[lopey986]

> @mmack067 said:

> > @jimb6golf said:

> > **** just did a thorough analysis and test of all urethane golf balls and found that the Snell MTX was the top ball available. Pretty amazing for a smaller company and really reinforces all the information that Dean has put out there too. Glad I switched to the Snell ball a few years ago and I'm sticking with my choice. Great ball, great performance and terrific pricing too.

>

> That's not really what the article says...

 

Yeah i'd say it probably said the Bridgestone Tour B X is the best ball available, but i'd say the Snell MTX is the best value for performance ball.

[Joker91]

There is no such thing as the best ball. There is only the best ball for you

[jjfcpa]

I've been playing the Tour B RX based on the Bridgestone online ball fitting guide, but now I want to see how the Tour B X performs. I wonder if some of these online ball fitting guides will be revised to place less emphasis on driver distance (as an indication of swing speed) and focus more on spin characteristics?

[gvogel]

> @jimb6golf said:

> **** just did a thorough analysis and test of all urethane golf balls and found that the Snell MTX was the top ball available. Pretty amazing for a smaller company and really reinforces all the information that Dean has put out there too. Glad I switched to the Snell ball a few years ago and I'm sticking with my choice. Great ball, great performance and terrific pricing too.

 

ON the other hand, for an 85 mph swing speed, the MTB Black is a dud. Too bad, I just bought two boxes.

[Tizod]

Objectively speaking - Callaway took a beating in this test.

Cut as well but that should not be a big surprise. I think everyone has come to the realization that Cut has serious durability issues.

[Joker91]

> @Tizod said:

> Objectively speaking - Callaway took a beating in this test.

> Cut as well but that should not be a big surprise. I think everyone has come to the realization that Cut has serious durability issues.

 

Cause of the "soft ball = bad" thing that they are trying to push for some reason

[dlygrisse]

So Sunday I played a ProVx that I found laying in the rough, hadn;t played one in quite some time, my buddy says you seem to be hitting the ball a bit longer than normal. I had been playing Callaway balls a lot lately, and a TP5X, which at my SS isn't optimal according to this test.....So far I gotta believe what they are showing here.

[lopey986]

> @Joker91 said:

> > @Tizod said:

> > Objectively speaking - Callaway took a beating in this test.

> > Cut as well but that should not be a big surprise. I think everyone has come to the realization that Cut has serious durability issues.

>

> Cause of the "soft ball = bad" thing that they are trying to push for some reason

 

Not really trying to push that, simply saying the data shows a soft ball is a slow ball, off the driver anyway. with the 7 iron it levels out a bit more and you see most of the balls grouped together in distance regardless of their compression though the mtb-x still comes out a little ahead of everyone else.

 

a lot of what shows up here reaffirms what i've felt from the tp5x and kirkland that i've been playing so i scooped up some mtb-x today to see if the data here carries over to my game as well. i don't think anyone should take it as gospel, but i don't see anything on here that I can personally disagree with.

[Tizod]

> @Joker91 said:

> > @Tizod said:

> > Objectively speaking - Callaway took a beating in this test.

> > Cut as well but that should not be a big surprise. I think everyone has come to the realization that Cut has serious durability issues.

>

> Cause of the "soft ball = bad" thing that they are trying to push for some reason

 

I would say it has more to do with the data from the test results.

[Joker91]

> @lopey986 said:

> > @Joker91 said:

> > > @Tizod said:

> > > Objectively speaking - Callaway took a beating in this test.

> > > Cut as well but that should not be a big surprise. I think everyone has come to the realization that Cut has serious durability issues.

> >

> > Cause of the "soft ball = bad" thing that they are trying to push for some reason

>

> Not really trying to push that, simply saying the data shows a soft ball is a slow ball, off the driver anyway. with the 7 iron it levels out a bit more and you see most of the balls grouped together in distance regardless of their compression though the mtb-x still comes out a little ahead of everyone else.

>

> a lot of what shows up here reaffirms what i've felt from the tp5x and kirkland that i've been playing so i scooped up some mtb-x today to see if the data here carries over to my game as well. i don't think anyone should take it as gospel, but i don't see anything on here that I can personally disagree with.

 

And I notice no difference from a soft ball compared to a harder ball. I can disagree with it

[mmack067]

> @Joker91 said:

> > @lopey986 said:

> > > @Joker91 said:

> > > > @Tizod said:

> > > > Objectively speaking - Callaway took a beating in this test.

> > > > Cut as well but that should not be a big surprise. I think everyone has come to the realization that Cut has serious durability issues.

> > >

> > > Cause of the "soft ball = bad" thing that they are trying to push for some reason

> >

> > Not really trying to push that, simply saying the data shows a soft ball is a slow ball, off the driver anyway. with the 7 iron it levels out a bit more and you see most of the balls grouped together in distance regardless of their compression though the mtb-x still comes out a little ahead of everyone else.

> >

> > a lot of what shows up here reaffirms what i've felt from the tp5x and kirkland that i've been playing so i scooped up some mtb-x today to see if the data here carries over to my game as well. i don't think anyone should take it as gospel, but i don't see anything on here that I can personally disagree with.

>

> And I notice no difference from a soft ball compared to a harder ball. I can disagree with it

 

Surely you've hit enough shots on a launch monitor with different compression balls to say there's no difference, right?

[Oldboy]

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

[Joker91]

> @mmack067 said:

> > @Joker91 said:

> > > @lopey986 said:

> > > > @Joker91 said:

> > > > > @Tizod said:

> > > > > Objectively speaking - Callaway took a beating in this test.

> > > > > Cut as well but that should not be a big surprise. I think everyone has come to the realization that Cut has serious durability issues.

> > > >

> > > > Cause of the "soft ball = bad" thing that they are trying to push for some reason

> > >

> > > Not really trying to push that, simply saying the data shows a soft ball is a slow ball, off the driver anyway. with the 7 iron it levels out a bit more and you see most of the balls grouped together in distance regardless of their compression though the mtb-x still comes out a little ahead of everyone else.

> > >

> > > a lot of what shows up here reaffirms what i've felt from the tp5x and kirkland that i've been playing so i scooped up some mtb-x today to see if the data here carries over to my game as well. i don't think anyone should take it as gospel, but i don't see anything on here that I can personally disagree with.

> >

> > And I notice no difference from a soft ball compared to a harder ball. I can disagree with it

>

> Surely you've hit enough shots on a launch monitor with different compression balls to say there's no difference, right?

 

Surely you just blindly follow what's written on the internet and don't look at what happens in the real world

[mmack067]

> @Joker91 said:

> > @mmack067 said:

> > > @Joker91 said:

> > > > @lopey986 said:

> > > > > @Joker91 said:

> > > > > > @Tizod said:

> > > > > > Objectively speaking - Callaway took a beating in this test.

> > > > > > Cut as well but that should not be a big surprise. I think everyone has come to the realization that Cut has serious durability issues.

> > > > >

> > > > > Cause of the "soft ball = bad" thing that they are trying to push for some reason

> > > >

> > > > Not really trying to push that, simply saying the data shows a soft ball is a slow ball, off the driver anyway. with the 7 iron it levels out a bit more and you see most of the balls grouped together in distance regardless of their compression though the mtb-x still comes out a little ahead of everyone else.

> > > >

> > > > a lot of what shows up here reaffirms what i've felt from the tp5x and kirkland that i've been playing so i scooped up some mtb-x today to see if the data here carries over to my game as well. i don't think anyone should take it as gospel, but i don't see anything on here that I can personally disagree with.

> > >

> > > And I notice no difference from a soft ball compared to a harder ball. I can disagree with it

> >

> > Surely you've hit enough shots on a launch monitor with different compression balls to say there's no difference, right?

>

> Surely you just blindly follow what's written on the internet and don't look at what happens in the real world

 

Yep, you got me. Since you didn't address the question I'll just assume you have done no actual testing of your own and don't have any way to quantify the point you're trying to make.

[Oldboy]

if there is data to support your claims please share. otherwise its anecdotal. moving on

[Tizod]

> @Joker91 said:

> > @mmack067 said:

> > > @Joker91 said:

> > > > @lopey986 said:

> > > > > @Joker91 said:

> > > > > > @Tizod said:

> > > > > > Objectively speaking - Callaway took a beating in this test.

> > > > > > Cut as well but that should not be a big surprise. I think everyone has come to the realization that Cut has serious durability issues.

> > > > >

> > > > > Cause of the "soft ball = bad" thing that they are trying to push for some reason

> > > >

> > > > Not really trying to push that, simply saying the data shows a soft ball is a slow ball, off the driver anyway. with the 7 iron it levels out a bit more and you see most of the balls grouped together in distance regardless of their compression though the mtb-x still comes out a little ahead of everyone else.

> > > >

> > > > a lot of what shows up here reaffirms what i've felt from the tp5x and kirkland that i've been playing so i scooped up some mtb-x today to see if the data here carries over to my game as well. i don't think anyone should take it as gospel, but i don't see anything on here that I can personally disagree with.

> > >

> > > And I notice no difference from a soft ball compared to a harder ball. I can disagree with it

> >

> > Surely you've hit enough shots on a launch monitor with different compression balls to say there's no difference, right?

>

> Surely you just blindly follow what's written on the internet and don't look at what happens in the real world

 

Dude - we get it. You think MGS and this test is biased.

[95124hacker]

Like some have stated, take the results as 1 extra set of data that you didn’t have before, generate YOUR own data and draw your own conclusions . I went and bought some Volvik S4’s and will go to GG later this week to grab Maxfli Tours. I would never have tried those before the report was published.

[Joker91]

It's crazy how so many people on here can over-analyze pretty much everything. When it comes to something like this they just take it at face value.

Are they using the same driver with the same shaft for 85mph and 115mph? A shaft that works best for 115mph wouldn't be the best for 85mph and vice versa.

What are the swing angles they are using? What's the AoA for the driver? Are they using a variety of them and using an average? Are they all positive or negative or level?

[Joker91]

> @mmack067 said:

> > @Joker91 said:

> > > @mmack067 said:

> > > > @Joker91 said:

> > > > > @lopey986 said:

> > > > > > @Joker91 said:

> > > > > > > @Tizod said:

> > > > > > > Objectively speaking - Callaway took a beating in this test.

> > > > > > > Cut as well but that should not be a big surprise. I think everyone has come to the realization that Cut has serious durability issues.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Cause of the "soft ball = bad" thing that they are trying to push for some reason

> > > > >

> > > > > Not really trying to push that, simply saying the data shows a soft ball is a slow ball, off the driver anyway. with the 7 iron it levels out a bit more and you see most of the balls grouped together in distance regardless of their compression though the mtb-x still comes out a little ahead of everyone else.

> > > > >

> > > > > a lot of what shows up here reaffirms what i've felt from the tp5x and kirkland that i've been playing so i scooped up some mtb-x today to see if the data here carries over to my game as well. i don't think anyone should take it as gospel, but i don't see anything on here that I can personally disagree with.

> > > >

> > > > And I notice no difference from a soft ball compared to a harder ball. I can disagree with it

> > >

> > > Surely you've hit enough shots on a launch monitor with different compression balls to say there's no difference, right?

> >

> > Surely you just blindly follow what's written on the internet and don't look at what happens in the real world

>

> Yep, you got me. Since you didn't address the question I'll just assume you have done no actual testing of your own and don't have any way to quantify the point you're trying to make.

 

Yes I have. I had access to a Trackman most of the winter and tested a lot of things for myself to find what works well for me.

 

I can also see what happens out on the course with 2 different balls.

[arbeck]

> @gvogel said:

> > @jimb6golf said:

> > **** just did a thorough analysis and test of all urethane golf balls and found that the Snell MTX was the top ball available. Pretty amazing for a smaller company and really reinforces all the information that Dean has put out there too. Glad I switched to the Snell ball a few years ago and I'm sticking with my choice. Great ball, great performance and terrific pricing too.

>

> ON the other hand, for an 85 mph swing speed, the MTB Black is a dud. Too bad, I just bought two boxes.

 

Huh? The MTB Black and the MTB-X are almost identical save for spin off a 7i at 85MPH. Off the driver, there is less than 2MPH of ball speed difference and less than 2 yards of carry distance. With the lower descent angle of the MTB Black, the extra roll will probably put both balls in nearly the same place. Unless you are a pristine ball striker, it would probably take hundreds of rounds before you could tell the difference between the two balls. And even if you did, 2 yards off the driver really isn't going to make a difference in scoring. You're almost always going to be hitting the identical club. The difference between it and the best ball off the driver for 85MPH (the Pro V1X) was less than .5MPH. That means that you could optimize launch conditions with both, they're going to fall almost on top of each other. Depending on the launch conditions you generate and the equipment you use, there's every possibility the MTB Black and the Pro V1X would go the same distance. In fact, for the 85MPH swing speed, I'd argue the driver numbers are almost meaningless. The balls are all close enough (2MPH of ball speed separates low and high).

 

Things are a little different off the 7i. There's as big of a distance gap between the longest and shortest off a 7i at 85MPH as there is with the driver, and almost all of that has to do with spin.

 

So the moral here is, pick a ball that spins enough with the 7i and wedge, and then fit your driver to optimize launch conditions for that ball. The MTB Black spins in a good window for both, and retains plenty of ball speed with the driver.

[Joker91]

> @Oldboy said:

> if there is data to support your claims please share. otherwise its anecdotal. moving on

 

That's my whole point. Go with what works for you and what you see on the course, not what any test tells you. You're not a robot. What works for you is all that matters.

[Tizod]

> @Joker91 said:

> > @Oldboy said:

> > if there is data to support your claims please share. otherwise its anecdotal. moving on

>

> That's my whole point. Go with what works for you and what you see on the course, not what any test tells you. You're not a robot. What works for you is all that matters.

 

And the whole point of the article as well. They basically say get fit, find what works from you starting at the green and moving back and stick with it.

[Joker91]

> @Tizod said:

> > @Joker91 said:

> > > @Oldboy said:

> > > if there is data to support your claims please share. otherwise its anecdotal. moving on

> >

> > That's my whole point. Go with what works for you and what you see on the course, not what any test tells you. You're not a robot. What works for you is all that matters.

>

> And the whole point of the article as well. They basically say get fit, find what works from you starting at the green and moving back and stick with it.

 

People don't read that. They look at the chart and see their ball is "fair" and start panicking.

[arbeck]

> @Joker91 said:

> > @Tizod said:

> > Objectively speaking - Callaway took a beating in this test.

> > Cut as well but that should not be a big surprise. I think everyone has come to the realization that Cut has serious durability issues.

>

> Cause of the "soft ball = bad" thing that they are trying to push for some reason

 

I don't know why you think they are pushing this and that it isn't just something that is true. Dean Snell has said in multiple places that a firmer ball goes further than a softer ball and that high swing speed players will lose a lot of ball speed if they play something soft. He has also said that lower swing speed players don't gain ball speed by going softer. The data seems to back this up.

 

When TXG has done ball testing, Matt (a high swing speed player) has lost ball speed with softer balls off the driver. This loss shrinks or goes away as he uses a 6i or wedge. This is also born out in the MGS data. The difference in ball speed between the top and bottom with an 85MPH driver is only about 2MPH. With a 85MPH 7i, it's less than that. With a 115MPH 7i it's still only about 2MPH. With a 115MPH driver it jumps up to nearly 5MPH.

 

I think this pretty clearly shows that you don't gain anything besides feel from a firm ball at any speed above 85MPH. At 85MPH the soft ball isn't going to hurt you much, but it doesn't help. Once you get below 80MPH, the soft ball probably doesn't hurt you at all.

 

All that being said, if you like a soft ball, play a soft ball. Most golfers like the feeling of a soft ball. If you're a particularly high spin player you may even be better off with the softer ball off the irons. And at worst, you're only giving up 4MPH or so of ball speed off the driver, which is probably less than a club. People give up distance all the time for feel with clubs, so why not do it with the ball too?

[MKPAPA]

I always thought Soft was higher spin and less rollout/total distance..always.

[gvogel]

> @arbeck said:

> > @gvogel said:

> > > @jimb6golf said:

> > > **** just did a thorough analysis and test of all urethane golf balls and found that the Snell MTX was the top ball available. Pretty amazing for a smaller company and really reinforces all the information that Dean has put out there too. Glad I switched to the Snell ball a few years ago and I'm sticking with my choice. Great ball, great performance and terrific pricing too.

> >

> > ON the other hand, for an 85 mph swing speed, the MTB Black is a dud. Too bad, I just bought two boxes.

>

> Huh? The MTB Black and the MTB-X are almost identical save for spin off a 7i at 85MPH. Off the driver, there is less than 2MPH of ball speed difference and less than 2 yards of carry distance. With the lower descent angle of the MTB Black, the extra roll will probably put both balls in nearly the same place. Unless you are a pristine ball striker, it would probably take hundreds of rounds before you could tell the difference between the two balls. And even if you did, 2 yards off the driver really isn't going to make a difference in scoring. You're almost always going to be hitting the identical club. The difference between it and the best ball off the driver for 85MPH (the Pro V1X) was less than .5MPH. That means that you could optimize launch conditions with both, they're going to fall almost on top of each other. Depending on the launch conditions you generate and the equipment you use, there's every possibility the MTB Black and the Pro V1X would go the same distance. In fact, for the 85MPH swing speed, I'd argue the driver numbers are almost meaningless. The balls are all close enough (2MPH of ball speed separates low and high).

>

> Things are a little different off the 7i. There's as big of a distance gap between the longest and shortest off a 7i at 85MPH as there is with the driver, and almost all of that has to do with spin.

>

> So the moral here is, pick a ball that spins enough with the 7i and wedge, and then fit your driver to optimize launch conditions for that ball. The MTB Black spins in a good window for both, and retains plenty of ball speed with the driver.

 

Those are good points, but at 85 mph (mine is more like 92) the Snell MTB black gives up 7 yards of carry distance to the Pro V1x. That could be significant. Particularly on one hole that I play regularly with a stream about 198 from the tee. I get a lot of satisfaction from carrying that sucker.

I'll give them a good try on the course.

[arbeck]

> @Joker91 said:

> It's crazy how so many people on here can over-analyze pretty much everything. When it comes to something like this they just take it at face value.

> Are they using the same driver with the same shaft for 85mph and 115mph? A shaft that works best for 115mph wouldn't be the best for 85mph and vice versa.

> What are the swing angles they are using? What's the AoA for the driver? Are they using a variety of them and using an average? Are they all positive or negative or level?

 

All of that is irrelevant. Though a lot of the numbers they published are irrelevant as well. The only ones that really matter are ball speed, spin, and launch angle. Changing the shaft isn't going to change those three numbers more on ball A than ball B. If ball A spins more and has more ball speed with one shaft, it will with the next shaft.

 

Carry distance would matter (as it would separate the balls on their aerodynamics package), but it can only be relevant if the balls start with the same launch conditions. For instance, you can say that the Chromesoft probably has a better aerodynamics package than the Wilson Duo Urethane. Why? The two balls have nearly identical launch conditions (same balls speed, .02 difference in launch angle, 62RPM spin difference), but the Chromesoft goes 5 feet higher, lands steeper, and carries 1.5 yards further. Unfortunately, not all the balls have such identical launch conditions. You'd need to fire the balls out of an air cannon to really test this.

 

The driver distances are the most meaningless of the numbers as well. For most normal swing speeds the ball speeds are all very close. A good fitter would be able to optimize your equipment to get the best launch conditions for almost any of them. What this test really shows though is that you don't want to go get fit using a Pro V1x and then start playing an AVX on the course.