My Golf Spy Ball Test - General Discussion

[backhill]

This by no means tells you the end-all be all golf ball, but rather shows how the balls perform relative to one another. It's the most comprehensive set of data I've been able to come across. With information taken with a grain or two of salt, now anyone can understand where to begin looking for ball solutions based on their needs.

 

Need higher launch and more spin? There's data to show where to start fitting/testing. Want less spin and more distance off the tee? There's data to show where to start looking.

 

Personally, I struggle holding greens with my 4i and 5i, so it's interesting to see how balls stack up on the 7i chart regarding spin. While I understand it's not a direct indication to show what the 4i or 5i will do, I can understand they will spin less than the numbers indicate on the 7i. What I can do though is look at the chart and see that the MTB-X will spin similarly (exactly 100 revs difference) to a ProV1x with a 7i, and more than a TP5x (my current gamer) by ~500 rpms (when choosing both 115 and 85 mph speeds for 7i). Maybe the 500 rpm difference isn't as high in the longer irons, but there is enough there for me to reason that they will spin more and in theory, stop a bit better on approaches. Now I have two balls I will take out on a nice date to the course to see how I like them.

 

[TheCityGame]

They did not report their sample sizes in the text of the document, or the video. And, they were asked in the comments about sample sizes and didn't answer.

 

Now, it's possible they tested every ball 10 times (for instance) and sometimes they threw out 3 results and sometimes they threw out 0 results so they don't have a pat answer. But, this, in no way, would invalidate the data. It just makes certain hypothesis tests more difficult for an outsider.

 

A little bit of GEEK SPEAK coming, but there's no way around it in this discussion. . .

 

They did report their standard deviations (second page of their tables. You can click on the tabs at the top). I assume these are "Sample Standard Deviations" (estimates of the "true" std devs based on the sample)

 

BUT, not knowing the sample size can make a difference. For instance, I tested the "NULL HYPOTHESIS" : "Speed of MTB-X" is equal to "Speed of Pro V1x". (generally in statistics, you set up your tests under the assumption that two things are equal and see if you can disprove that.)

 

**Or in the common tongue, "is there a significant difference between the MTB-X and the Pro V1x?"**

 

To be VERY loose with the statistical language here. . .

 

If the sample sizes are 10 for each ball, we can be about 98% sure the MTB-X has higher speed than the Pro V1x.

 

If the sample sizes are 2 for each ball, we can be about 64% sure the MTB-X has higher speeds. (2 is the lowest number you can use and still estimate a standard deviation, so they definitely used at least 2).

 

For the 2 highest balls, MTB-X vs Mizuno RB Tour X, the numbers are similar (98% sure if the sample sizes are 10). The reason this doesn't change much is that the balls are closer in speed, but the SD of the mizuno is smaller.

 

To test this yourself, go to

 

https://www.medcalc.org/calc/comparison_of_means.php (for instance)

 

put in the average ball speed and std deviation for each ball you want to compare and 'make up' your sample size.

 

Last thought : it's kind of interesting to sort by standard deviation. For instance, you can sort by "standard deviation" on carry distance and offline distance for a 7 iron at either speed. Gives an idea of which balls perform more consistently (of course, this factor is completely overwhelmed by the variability in the input of the human).

[DannyNoonin]

> @"Joe V." said:

> As someone who plays the Z-Star I was really interested in the fact that they tested both the White and Yellow versions. There were some differences as noted (this is the 115 mph driver data).

> Ball Speed Launch Peak height Spin Carry

> Yellow: 169.51 12.32 124 2246 275.97

> White: 168.65 12.18 116 2307 281.41

>

> I found it curious that the Yellow was that much shorter considering the higher ball speed, higher peak height, lower spin and nearly identical launch. That's a significant difference in peak height in particular. It could speak to manufacturing tolerances, as I can't imagine the cover color would make that big a difference.

>

> Tony Covey did reply to a question from someone who didn't realize they tested both a yellow and white version of the same ball:

>

> _Purely a curiosity. We figured since this isn’t something we have the opportunity to do all the time, why not take a look. There were some differences at 115 MPH of the driver that I’m going to look at more closely when I have some time, but as we’d expect, most everything else was margin of error/manufacturing tolerances worth of difference._

 

Plugged both into flightscope optimizer and the yellow should have been longer in carry and total. My best guess is environmental factors.

[North Texas]

> @arbeck said:

> > @bigeasy said:

> > This test is just a guide, your mileage may vary. The robot is supposedly hitting the same shot over and over, except the mph. How many of us, hit the ball the same way the robot does? Angle of attack being the most indicator of launch and spin, which can skew results every time you swing.

>

> Yes angle of attack will change launch and spin. However if ball A spins more than ball B in this test, it will spin more no matter what your angle of attack. If you swing down and generate more spin, both balls will spin more for you. But ball A will still spin more than ball B. There isn't a magic ball that will somehow spin less than other balls on a negative AoA.

>

> The fact that we don't hit the ball the same way over and over is why you need the robot in this case. The differences between balls here is fairly minute. Usually less than 2MPH of ball speed, less than a degree of launch, and a few hundred RPM of spin at most. How many shots would a human have to take before you could really see differences that small? Variations in strike would overwhelm the numbers unless you took a ton of swings with each ball.

 

I'm just not totally convinced that what you say in the first paragraph is 100% true. In fact, I think it's entirely possible that someone else could perform these same kind of tests with another robot and get different results.

[dhartmann34]

That'd be a question for them. Could have been availability when they actually started testing. I've read some companies don't provide a product to be tested and if the ball wasn't available at the time retail, they wouldn't have been able to test it. I know they had some other parameters as well, so I'm not sure if it fell into it. But if you ask, I'm sure they'd tell you why.

 

In regards to balls being different for players, there are plenty of articles out there about the changes and such for their own balls compared to what is available to the consumer....including one not too long ago about one on Phil Mickelson and what he plays.

 

I think the whole discussion comes down to the point of all these tests that we see, hear about, and read, are in reality just to help us narrow things down. Our individual swing characteristics and preferences are going to change how anything performs for us. It's incredible how many golfers take these 'tests' as gospel, when in reality, it should only be opening a discussion and giving them the opportunity to go try it out for themselves. I've had plenty of top drivers, irons, wedges and balls not fall into my realm of being best for me. That's why Club Champion is doing so well. You get to try it all and find what is best for you.

 

 

I think it's also important to note that while the test said the MTB-X is long and performs well, it's more the 'value' part that makes it stand out most. If it were the $45-$50 range of a Pro V, then I don't think there'd be any discussion really. But the MTB-X can be had for as little as $28 a dozen... which is about $7 less a dozen than the Pro V, when they have their 3 for 4 special. And obviously, when buying one dozen, $7 isn't much, but I'm guessing most avid golfers are going through some here around 15-20 dozen a year? Especially those lucky folks that live in warmer climates. Heck, I saw one guy mention he goes through a dozen a round.... That's a lot of cash out of the pocket. At that rate, your round (at best dozen prices) just went from $40 (average round of golf cost) to $67 if playing the MTB-X or $74 with the Pro-V.

 

Overall, I absolutely love the discussion. And different forums may be 'meh' about discussing it, but I'm glad the discussion continues here at WRX. I think open discussion and less jumping down ones throat to say you're wrong could benefit a lot of aspects of life these days.

 

> @"Josh L." said:

> > @dhartmann34 said:

> > **I thought this comment and reply from the testing site was QUITE telling for the callaway results.....Especially how Callaway staffers aren't playing the true ball itself...which I've always known. But if it's literally almost none...That's telling. **

> >

> > ****HUMZA 5 HOURS AGO

> > In all of this, I am truly astonished to see how poorly you have shown Callaway, the established #2 in the ball market, to have performed. They have been a runaway retail success since the original Chrome Soft came out and people of all abilities play them regularly. However in all your metrics, they seem to be slower/shorter/wilder/less consistent than the competition. I have tested them against the TP5 and Pro V1 from time to time and haven’t noticed any significant difference. If anything, I have preferred them on short game shots, where they feel very responsive and have great spin control. I don’t understand how they are so popular if there is such a performance drop off compared to others. Surely their success can’t be all down to marketing!?

> >

> > REPLY

> > TONY COVEY 5 HOURS AGO

> > It’s almost entirely marketing driven and relies heavily on the idea that golfers will identify with a brand and a product and often see what they want to see because of it. The CS is short. Everybody in the industry knows it’s short (and that it doesn’t spin around the green). Callaway knows its’s short. IMO, the compression vs. ball speed chart illustrates one of the most eye-opening things we’ve ever uncovered in testing. Soft is slow and soft doesn’t spin.

> >

> > Consider this: a significant number of Titleist PGA Tour guys play the retail ball. Tiger plays the retail version of the Bridgestone ball. Until Callaway released the new CSX Triple Track (a ball that’s significantly different from the non-TT CSX), next to none of its PGA Tour staff played the retail ball. Tour guys aren’t big on giving up distance or greenside spin for feel. Consumers will. The reality is that over the last few years, several Callaway staffers have broken contract to play a non-Callaway ball.

> > So yeah, a lot of marketing driven by an awareness that once consumers decide they like a product, they’ll be inclined to accept responsibility for the deficiencies…things like “I guess I didn’t catch that one as good as I thought”. Sometimes it really is the ball. ****

> >

> So has it been confirmed the TT CSX is actually a different ball than the standard CSX? If so why didn't they test it?

>

>

 

 

[mmack067]

> @dhartmann34 said:

> That'd be a question for them. Could have been availability when they actually started testing. I've read some companies don't provide a product to be tested and if the ball wasn't available at the time retail, they wouldn't have been able to test it. I know they had some other parameters as well, so I'm not sure if it fell into it. But if you ask, I'm sure they'd tell you why.

>

> In regards to balls being different for players, there are plenty of articles out there about the changes and such for their own balls compared to what is available to the consumer....including one not too long ago about one on Phil Mickelson and what he plays.

>

> I think the whole discussion comes down to the point of all these tests that we see, hear about, and read, are in reality just to help us narrow things down. Our individual swing characteristics and preferences are going to change how anything performs for us. It's incredible how many golfers take these 'tests' as gospel, when in reality, it should only be opening a discussion and giving them the opportunity to go try it out for themselves. I've had plenty of top drivers, irons, wedges and balls not fall into my realm of being best for me. That's why Club Champion is doing so well. You get to try it all and find what is best for you.

>

>

> I think it's also important to note that while the test said the MTB-X is long and performs well, it's more the 'value' part that makes it stand out most. If it were the $45-$50 range of a Pro V, then I don't think there'd be any discussion really. But the MTB-X can be had for as little as $28 a dozen... which is about $7 less a dozen than the Pro V, when they have their 3 for 4 special. And obviously, when buying one dozen, $7 isn't much, but I'm guessing most avid golfers are going through some here around 15-20 dozen a year? Especially those lucky folks that live in warmer climates. Heck, I saw one guy mention he goes through a dozen a round.... That's a lot of cash out of the pocket. At that rate, your round (at best dozen prices) just went from $40 (average round of golf cost) to $67 if playing the MTB-X or $74 with the Pro-V.

>

> Overall, I absolutely love the discussion. And different forums may be 'meh' about discussing it, but I'm glad the discussion continues here at WRX. I think open discussion and less jumping down ones throat to say you're wrong could benefit a lot of aspects of life these days.

>

> > @"Josh L." said:

> > > @dhartmann34 said:

> > > **I thought this comment and reply from the testing site was QUITE telling for the callaway results.....Especially how Callaway staffers aren't playing the true ball itself...which I've always known. But if it's literally almost none...That's telling. **

> > >

> > > ****HUMZA 5 HOURS AGO

> > > In all of this, I am truly astonished to see how poorly you have shown Callaway, the established #2 in the ball market, to have performed. They have been a runaway retail success since the original Chrome Soft came out and people of all abilities play them regularly. However in all your metrics, they seem to be slower/shorter/wilder/less consistent than the competition. I have tested them against the TP5 and Pro V1 from time to time and haven’t noticed any significant difference. If anything, I have preferred them on short game shots, where they feel very responsive and have great spin control. I don’t understand how they are so popular if there is such a performance drop off compared to others. Surely their success can’t be all down to marketing!?

> > >

> > > REPLY

> > > TONY COVEY 5 HOURS AGO

> > > It’s almost entirely marketing driven and relies heavily on the idea that golfers will identify with a brand and a product and often see what they want to see because of it. The CS is short. Everybody in the industry knows it’s short (and that it doesn’t spin around the green). Callaway knows its’s short. IMO, the compression vs. ball speed chart illustrates one of the most eye-opening things we’ve ever uncovered in testing. Soft is slow and soft doesn’t spin.

> > >

> > > Consider this: a significant number of Titleist PGA Tour guys play the retail ball. Tiger plays the retail version of the Bridgestone ball. Until Callaway released the new CSX Triple Track (a ball that’s significantly different from the non-TT CSX), next to none of its PGA Tour staff played the retail ball. Tour guys aren’t big on giving up distance or greenside spin for feel. Consumers will. The reality is that over the last few years, several Callaway staffers have broken contract to play a non-Callaway ball.

> > > So yeah, a lot of marketing driven by an awareness that once consumers decide they like a product, they’ll be inclined to accept responsibility for the deficiencies…things like “I guess I didn’t catch that one as good as I thought”. Sometimes it really is the ball. ****

> > >

> > So has it been confirmed the TT CSX is actually a different ball than the standard CSX? If so why didn't they test it?

> >

> >

>

>

 

Hold up. People go through 15-20 dozen balls a year? I play about 3 times week 8 months of the year and I'd be hard pressed to go through 4-5 dozen in a year.

[GoGoErky]

> @tsecor said:

> I think the test was awesome and eye opening. Callaway is like "WTH"!!! the soft ball market just imploded and the test pretty much confirms Dean Snells stance on golf balls.....its no shocker the Snell ball is on top of the list along with the pro v 1's...seems like Snell is on top of the golf ball mountain given his design dominance.

 

Harry had a reply in one of the mgs tweets talking about their share has tripled in the last 4 years since The cs release and their nps scores.

[GDTBATH]

> @GoGoErky said:

> > @tsecor said:

> > I think the test was awesome and eye opening. Callaway is like "WTH"!!! the soft ball market just imploded and the test pretty much confirms Dean Snells stance on golf balls.....its no shocker the Snell ball is on top of the list along with the pro v 1's...seems like Snell is on top of the golf ball mountain given his design dominance.

>

> Harry had a reply in one of the **** tweets talking about their share has tripled in the last 4 years since The cs release and their nps scores.

 

Yea, I had sent a Tweet noting I would love to get some feedback from Callaway on that and his answer was basically that people bought lots of balls so the ball must be great. I understand Twitter isn't the venue to get into long explanations but I'd love to hear a blog post, or something from them discussing these results. They got killed. I've primarily played Snell for a couple of years now, because of the value for cost issue, but I have enjoyed the feel of the Chrome Soft when I've played them. I won't be playing them again after that study. Even if the numbers look good for me, it will be in my head now. Maybe that's unfair, but golf is nothing, if not mental.

[battlewagon]

> @Krt22 said:

> Yes they are great, but pretty happy with my zstar XV durability. The test also confirmed that the Cut Blue is garbage. I ordered a sleeve to test and cut every single one with wedge shots. Was wondering if that is why they named the company cut lol

 

It's really funny you say that and your results have lined up with the test. However, I've been playing Cut Blue for over a year exclusively and have never once cut one of them with a wedge. I just lost a ball I had played with for at least 2.5 rounds and it had not a blemish on it. Now, that being said I'm a pretty slow-swing kind of guy, and maybe that impacts the results a little. But for the price I'll take the Cut Blue every single time.

 

That is the key point here with these kind of tests. It really is completely up to the individual and people shouldn't put so much stock in these tests. It's input sure...but it's just one of dozens of inputs that you should review and not be taken as the be-all end-all.

[tsecor]

i used the chromesoft a bit last year and I thought it was great. Golf is completely mental for me and when I played last night I was basically in panic mode looking for a ball that was highly ranked on that list!! I found a new Mizuno Tour to use but all my wilsons and taylormade A's looked like junk sitting in my bag. lol...im buying some bridgestones today!! lol. > @GDTBATH said:

> > @GoGoErky said:

> > > @tsecor said:

> > > I think the test was awesome and eye opening. Callaway is like "WTH"!!! the soft ball market just imploded and the test pretty much confirms Dean Snells stance on golf balls.....its no shocker the Snell ball is on top of the list along with the pro v 1's...seems like Snell is on top of the golf ball mountain given his design dominance.

> >

> > Harry had a reply in one of the **** tweets talking about their share has tripled in the last 4 years since The cs release and their nps scores.

>

> Yea, I had sent a Tweet noting I would love to get some feedback from Callaway on that and his answer was basically that people bought lots of balls so the ball must be great. I understand Twitter isn't the venue to get into long explanations but I'd love to hear a blog post, or something from them discussing these results. They got killed. I've primarily played Snell for a couple of years now, because of the value for cost issue, but I have enjoyed the feel of the Chrome Soft when I've played them. I won't be playing them again after that study. Even if the numbers look good for me, it will be in my head now. Maybe that's unfair, but golf is nothing, if not mental.

 

 

[arbeck]

> @"North Texas" said:

> > @arbeck said:

> > > @bigeasy said:

> > > This test is just a guide, your mileage may vary. The robot is supposedly hitting the same shot over and over, except the mph. How many of us, hit the ball the same way the robot does? Angle of attack being the most indicator of launch and spin, which can skew results every time you swing.

> >

> > Yes angle of attack will change launch and spin. However if ball A spins more than ball B in this test, it will spin more no matter what your angle of attack. If you swing down and generate more spin, both balls will spin more for you. But ball A will still spin more than ball B. There isn't a magic ball that will somehow spin less than other balls on a negative AoA.

> >

> > The fact that we don't hit the ball the same way over and over is why you need the robot in this case. The differences between balls here is fairly minute. Usually less than 2MPH of ball speed, less than a degree of launch, and a few hundred RPM of spin at most. How many shots would a human have to take before you could really see differences that small? Variations in strike would overwhelm the numbers unless you took a ton of swings with each ball.

>

> I'm just not totally convinced that what you say in the first paragraph is 100% true. In fact, I think it's entirely possible that someone else could perform these same kind of tests with another robot and get different results.

 

You could get slightly different results because there are manufacturing tolerances on the balls. When you're talking 1MPH and 100RPM of spin, tolerances could change the order of the balls on ones that are really close. You could also get slightly different results if you changed the delivery characteristics of the robot. But you can't design a ball that reacts differently to different delivery characteristics. You can't design a ball that somehow spins less when more spin loft is applied and more when less spin loft is applied. The fastest balls will be the fastest balls. The spinniest balls will be the spinniest balls. Always.

 

Now I could use a different robot and driver head and get totally different results with carry distances. That's because if you know how the ball reacts, you can design a swing and a club to optimize for that ball. For instance the Mizuno RB Tour X has more ball speed than the Bridgestone Tour B X. But the Bridgestone carried 8 yards further (mostly due to the spin). But if I set up the robot to take spin off (switching to a low spin head, decreasing spin loft, etc). I could probably drop the Mizuno down to the low 2000's in spin while the Bridgestone would drop into the high 1000's. At that spin rate, with equivalent launches, the Mizuno will start going further. But I haven't changed the characteristics of the ball. The Mizuno is still the faster ball and the Bridgestone is still the lower spinning ball.

[arbeck]

> @battlewagon said:

> > @Krt22 said:

> > Yes they are great, but pretty happy with my zstar XV durability. The test also confirmed that the Cut Blue is garbage. I ordered a sleeve to test and cut every single one with wedge shots. Was wondering if that is why they named the company cut lol

>

> It's really funny you say that and your results have lined up with the test. However, I've been playing Cut Blue for over a year exclusively and have never once cut one of them with a wedge. I just lost a ball I had played with for at least 2.5 rounds and it had not a blemish on it. Now, that being said I'm a pretty slow-swing kind of guy, and maybe that impacts the results a little. But for the price I'll take the Cut Blue every single time.

>

> That is the key point here with these kind of tests. It really is completely up to the individual and people shouldn't put so much stock in these tests. It's input sure...but it's just one of dozens of inputs that you should review and not be taken as the be-all end-all.

 

It's quite possible they tested a different Cut Blue than you have. TXG just compared the new Cut Blue to the old one, and it's a totally different ball.

[kylesilk]

> @arbeck said:

> > @bigeasy said:

> > This test is just a guide, your mileage may vary. The robot is supposedly hitting the same shot over and over, except the mph. How many of us, hit the ball the same way the robot does? Angle of attack being the most indicator of launch and spin, which can skew results every time you swing.

>

> Yes angle of attack will change launch and spin. However if ball A spins more than ball B in this test, it will spin more no matter what your angle of attack. If you swing down and generate more spin, both balls will spin more for you. But ball A will still spin more than ball B. There isn't a magic ball that will somehow spin less than other balls on a negative AoA.

>

> The fact that we don't hit the ball the same way over and over is why you need the robot in this case. The differences between balls here is fairly minute. Usually less than 2MPH of ball speed, less than a degree of launch, and a few hundred RPM of spin at most. How many shots would a human have to take before you could really see differences that small? Variations in strike would overwhelm the numbers unless you took a ton of swings with each ball.

 

Exactly....what is so hard to understand about this?

[Xdmike20]

Snell balls are now backordered til May 15th after the review came out!

I do wish they had used the new Wilson Duo Professional as opposed to the Urethane

[GoGoErky]

> @GDTBATH said:

> > @GoGoErky said:

> > > @tsecor said:

> > > I think the test was awesome and eye opening. Callaway is like "WTH"!!! the soft ball market just imploded and the test pretty much confirms Dean Snells stance on golf balls.....its no shocker the Snell ball is on top of the list along with the pro v 1's...seems like Snell is on top of the golf ball mountain given his design dominance.

> >

> > Harry had a reply in one of the **** tweets talking about their share has tripled in the last 4 years since The cs release and their nps scores.

>

> Yea, I had sent a Tweet noting I would love to get some feedback from Callaway on that and his answer was basically that people bought lots of balls so the ball must be great. I understand Twitter isn't the venue to get into long explanations but I'd love to hear a blog post, or something from them discussing these results. They got killed. I've primarily played Snell for a couple of years now, because of the value for cost issue, but I have enjoyed the feel of the Chrome Soft when I've played them. I won't be playing them again after that study. Even if the numbers look good for me, it will be in my head now. Maybe that's unfair, but golf is nothing, if not mental.

 

Especially after the comments that were posted yesterday that came from the blog comments were Tony Covey said the industry and also Callaway knows cs is slow. Harry is great at marketing and boasting about their products. He also imo cherry picks what he will get into over Twitter and what he won’t.

 

 

[GDTBATH]

> @GoGoErky said:

> > @GDTBATH said:

> > > @GoGoErky said:

> > > > @tsecor said:

> > > > I think the test was awesome and eye opening. Callaway is like "WTH"!!! the soft ball market just imploded and the test pretty much confirms Dean Snells stance on golf balls.....its no shocker the Snell ball is on top of the list along with the pro v 1's...seems like Snell is on top of the golf ball mountain given his design dominance.

> > >

> > > Harry had a reply in one of the **** tweets talking about their share has tripled in the last 4 years since The cs release and their nps scores.

> >

> > Yea, I had sent a Tweet noting I would love to get some feedback from Callaway on that and his answer was basically that people bought lots of balls so the ball must be great. I understand Twitter isn't the venue to get into long explanations but I'd love to hear a blog post, or something from them discussing these results. They got killed. I've primarily played Snell for a couple of years now, because of the value for cost issue, but I have enjoyed the feel of the Chrome Soft when I've played them. I won't be playing them again after that study. Even if the numbers look good for me, it will be in my head now. Maybe that's unfair, but golf is nothing, if not mental.

>

> Especially after the comments that were posted yesterday that came from the blog comments were Tony Covey said the industry and also Callaway knows cs is slow. Harry is great at marketing and boasting about their products. He also imo cherry picks what he will get into over Twitter and what he won’t.

>

>

 

Yea and I have no issues with them not getting into that on Twitter b/c the discussion is likely far too complicated. I do think in some sort of blog post, interview, etc., they need to address those findings with something substantive. Otherwise, they’ll get killed.

[Krt22]

I wonder if that was just environmental influences. > @battlewagon said:

> > @Krt22 said:

> > Yes they are great, but pretty happy with my zstar XV durability. The test also confirmed that the Cut Blue is garbage. I ordered a sleeve to test and cut every single one with wedge shots. Was wondering if that is why they named the company cut lol

>

> It's really funny you say that and your results have lined up with the test. However, I've been playing Cut Blue for over a year exclusively and have never once cut one of them with a wedge. I just lost a ball I had played with for at least 2.5 rounds and it had not a blemish on it. Now, that being said I'm a pretty slow-swing kind of guy, and maybe that impacts the results a little. But for the price I'll take the Cut Blue every single time.

>

> That is the key point here with these kind of tests. It really is completely up to the individual and people shouldn't put so much stock in these tests. It's input sure...but it's just one of dozens of inputs that you should review and not be taken as the be-all end-all.

 

Yeah I am a higher speed player (Driver peaks at 115ish mph). I don't even typically take full wedge shots but I cut every single ball in the sleeve within one round. They would end up being more expensive for me since the cuts were large enough to go right into the shag bag. I had the same issue with the original TP5X, so far the Z-star and Pro V1 hold are holding up the best

[GoGoErky]

> @GDTBATH said:

> > @GoGoErky said:

> > > @GDTBATH said:

> > > > @GoGoErky said:

> > > > > @tsecor said:

> > > > > I think the test was awesome and eye opening. Callaway is like "WTH"!!! the soft ball market just imploded and the test pretty much confirms Dean Snells stance on golf balls.....its no shocker the Snell ball is on top of the list along with the pro v 1's...seems like Snell is on top of the golf ball mountain given his design dominance.

> > > >

> > > > Harry had a reply in one of the **** tweets talking about their share has tripled in the last 4 years since The cs release and their nps scores.

> > >

> > > Yea, I had sent a Tweet noting I would love to get some feedback from Callaway on that and his answer was basically that people bought lots of balls so the ball must be great. I understand Twitter isn't the venue to get into long explanations but I'd love to hear a blog post, or something from them discussing these results. They got killed. I've primarily played Snell for a couple of years now, because of the value for cost issue, but I have enjoyed the feel of the Chrome Soft when I've played them. I won't be playing them again after that study. Even if the numbers look good for me, it will be in my head now. Maybe that's unfair, but golf is nothing, if not mental.

> >

> > Especially after the comments that were posted yesterday that came from the blog comments were Tony Covey said the industry and also Callaway knows cs is slow. Harry is great at marketing and boasting about their products. He also imo cherry picks what he will get into over Twitter and what he won’t.

> >

> >

>

> Yea and I have no issues with them not getting into that on Twitter b/c the discussion is likely far too complicated. I do think in some sort of blog post, interview, etc., they need to address those findings with something substantive. Otherwise, they’ll get killed.

 

Agree. One thing with their sales that I’m curious about is how much is related to the truvis and how much is the plain ball. Also curious to see what impact the TM pix ball has on the sales of chrome soft

[NJpatbee]

Based on this thread I did read the test results. I am a 67 year old high handicap (16) with a slower swing speed and none of my regular balls were included in the tests since I am not currently playing urethene. If their results are accurate my swing speed must be less than 85 mph because I do hit the softer surlyn balls (Softfli, Supersoft, DT Trusoft, etc.) longer than the firmer balls. It was interesting how highly ranked the Maxfli Tour was and the bad ratings for Cut golf balls. And perhaos it was my browser, but I did get a number of pop-ups for Snell balls. I have tried some new release urethene balls for the fun of it and the Maxfli U/3 was the best fit for my swing so I would consider trying the Maxfli Tour ball after I deplete my supply of soft balls. Interesting even though I am not the target audience for the study.

[dhartmann34]

If you lose 4 balls a round for one reason or another...15 dozen only lasts 45 rounds a year. I know plenty of guys that go through 4 balls a round...heck some go through 4 balls for 9 holes!

And you're a +1 handicap according to your profile. You shouldn't go through that many balls....

Most guys that play golf are shooting 85+ and many are much higher than that...and they play 3+ times a week.

> @mmack067 said:

> > @dhartmann34 said:

> > That'd be a question for them. Could have been availability when they actually started testing. I've read some companies don't provide a product to be tested and if the ball wasn't available at the time retail, they wouldn't have been able to test it. I know they had some other parameters as well, so I'm not sure if it fell into it. But if you ask, I'm sure they'd tell you why.

> >

> > In regards to balls being different for players, there are plenty of articles out there about the changes and such for their own balls compared to what is available to the consumer....including one not too long ago about one on Phil Mickelson and what he plays.

> >

> > I think the whole discussion comes down to the point of all these tests that we see, hear about, and read, are in reality just to help us narrow things down. Our individual swing characteristics and preferences are going to change how anything performs for us. It's incredible how many golfers take these 'tests' as gospel, when in reality, it should only be opening a discussion and giving them the opportunity to go try it out for themselves. I've had plenty of top drivers, irons, wedges and balls not fall into my realm of being best for me. That's why Club Champion is doing so well. You get to try it all and find what is best for you.

> >

> >

> > I think it's also important to note that while the test said the MTB-X is long and performs well, it's more the 'value' part that makes it stand out most. If it were the $45-$50 range of a Pro V, then I don't think there'd be any discussion really. But the MTB-X can be had for as little as $28 a dozen... which is about $7 less a dozen than the Pro V, when they have their 3 for 4 special. And obviously, when buying one dozen, $7 isn't much, but I'm guessing most avid golfers are going through some here around 15-20 dozen a year? Especially those lucky folks that live in warmer climates. Heck, I saw one guy mention he goes through a dozen a round.... That's a lot of cash out of the pocket. At that rate, your round (at best dozen prices) just went from $40 (average round of golf cost) to $67 if playing the MTB-X or $74 with the Pro-V.

> >

> > Overall, I absolutely love the discussion. And different forums may be 'meh' about discussing it, but I'm glad the discussion continues here at WRX. I think open discussion and less jumping down ones throat to say you're wrong could benefit a lot of aspects of life these days.

> >

> > > @"Josh L." said:

> > > > @dhartmann34 said:

> > > > **I thought this comment and reply from the testing site was QUITE telling for the callaway results.....Especially how Callaway staffers aren't playing the true ball itself...which I've always known. But if it's literally almost none...That's telling. **

> > > >

> > > > ****HUMZA 5 HOURS AGO

> > > > In all of this, I am truly astonished to see how poorly you have shown Callaway, the established #2 in the ball market, to have performed. They have been a runaway retail success since the original Chrome Soft came out and people of all abilities play them regularly. However in all your metrics, they seem to be slower/shorter/wilder/less consistent than the competition. I have tested them against the TP5 and Pro V1 from time to time and haven’t noticed any significant difference. If anything, I have preferred them on short game shots, where they feel very responsive and have great spin control. I don’t understand how they are so popular if there is such a performance drop off compared to others. Surely their success can’t be all down to marketing!?

> > > >

> > > > REPLY

> > > > TONY COVEY 5 HOURS AGO

> > > > It’s almost entirely marketing driven and relies heavily on the idea that golfers will identify with a brand and a product and often see what they want to see because of it. The CS is short. Everybody in the industry knows it’s short (and that it doesn’t spin around the green). Callaway knows its’s short. IMO, the compression vs. ball speed chart illustrates one of the most eye-opening things we’ve ever uncovered in testing. Soft is slow and soft doesn’t spin.

> > > >

> > > > Consider this: a significant number of Titleist PGA Tour guys play the retail ball. Tiger plays the retail version of the Bridgestone ball. Until Callaway released the new CSX Triple Track (a ball that’s significantly different from the non-TT CSX), next to none of its PGA Tour staff played the retail ball. Tour guys aren’t big on giving up distance or greenside spin for feel. Consumers will. The reality is that over the last few years, several Callaway staffers have broken contract to play a non-Callaway ball.

> > > > So yeah, a lot of marketing driven by an awareness that once consumers decide they like a product, they’ll be inclined to accept responsibility for the deficiencies…things like “I guess I didn’t catch that one as good as I thought”. Sometimes it really is the ball. ****

> > > >

> > > So has it been confirmed the TT CSX is actually a different ball than the standard CSX? If so why didn't they test it?

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

>

> Hold up. People go through 15-20 dozen balls a year? I play about 3 times week 8 months of the year and I'd be hard pressed to go through 4-5 dozen in a year.

 

 

[crazygolfnut]

I must admit that Snell has good pricing compared to other balls on the market. The Black and Black-X came out good on the testing but besides price what do you consider important. Distant, spin, off line, shot area? How the heck do you pick a ball?

[Krt22]

I honestly am largely ignoring the offline data, hard to say if that is QC induced or environmental. If they included some repeat ability data that would be nice (ie the ball from a few different lots). I also agree the normalized GCX data would have made the comparison even better as well. I mainly looked at ball speed and spin.

[North Butte]

A dozen balls lasts me, on average, one month. That's anywhere from 11-14 rounds typically.

 

I have played some courses (for instance most every resort course you'll find at Myrtle Beach) where a dozen balls would probably last three or four round, at best. If I played 125+ rounds per year on some OB and water hazard riddled course built through wetlands in a housing development I'd go through way more than 15 dozen/year.

[QuigleyDU]

I am very impressed by this ball test. Is it perfect? probably not. But there is some very good info to digest in it.

[bogeypro]

New drinking game every time arbeck mentions an aerodynamic package.

[Wesquire]

They didn't quantify the biggest variable (wind). This test is absolutely useless for anything other than spin and launch without wind properly accounted for.

[T-MAC]

I love it when they suggest that people need to forget about FEEL!

Forget about feel? In Golf?? LOL!

I've tried just about every ball out there. I used to be a ProV1 guy for years. Then I switched over to the Bridgestone B330S, then went to the RX when they came out (I prefer a softer feel). A couple years ago I switched to the Chrome Soft and love them. Every year I go out and buy the "new" models of several manufacturers to give them a try. This year I've been playing the new Bridgestone RX and RXS along with the Taylormade TP5. I keep going back to the Chrome Soft because I prefer the feel and the way it performs around the green. My swing speed is in the low 100's with the driver and I haven't noticed a heck of a lot of difference in distance with any of the balls that I try.

Sorry, but I'm not going to let the "test" change my mind about what golf ball I play and I think it is utterly ridiculous that these "golf guys" are suggesting we golfers forget about "feel".

They said the same thing when I told them I thought the putter they chose as the "best" felt like a brick and I couldn't putt with it.

I guess the guys at MGS have hands of brick.

[Mahamilto]

Reality is the ball test is a great starting point to pick a ball. Not a finishing point, but a starting point.

 

I’m 115 on driver, and to be honest, the AVX has been the longest off the tee, but I’m wanting more spin on my wedge game.

 

I’ve tried the Tour BX, V1 and V1x, and TP5x and never found what I wanted. Possibly I didn’t give them enough time. But the test gives me a plan to try the BX again first, as the TP5X is too close to the AVX in iron and wedge spin to warrant the change, where the BX is very long and has significantly more wedge spin with the iron spin I’m seeking.

 

A great starting place. I’ll try the new V1x too. And we will see where I end up.

[nsxguy]

> @TheCityGame said:

 

> For the record, my process is basically this : Even as a low single digit, I don't think that with my 102mph swing speed and the variability of my swing that a ball amounts to much of an effect on my score. I generally hit my approach shots high enough and play on soft greens that spin doesn't make a big difference on approaches. On green side shots, I'm also more likely to rely on trajectory than spin to control my run-out. But, I rely on spin enough that I don't care for a 2-piece surlyn ball.

>

> **Given all that, I'm just not going to spend $45+ a dozen on golf balls. Just like I don't buy new clubs each year.**

 

How much do you generally pay for a round of golf ?

 

[Godfather]

Spin axis differences between balls are interesting as that can only be the strike and not the ball.