Comparing the e12 Contact vs Snell MTB Black

[jjfcpa]

First, and most importantly, I'm a senior golfer with an admittedly slower swing speed.  I've played the e12 Contact for a few weeks and decided to go back to the Snell MTB Black to do a little comparison.  I've found the MTB Black to be a little shorter off the driver and it does seem to react to my off center hits a bit more so it veers to the right or left more than the e12 Contact.  Perhaps there is some truth to the "straighter" flight of the e12 Contact.

 

The same seems to be true with the irons.  MTB is not quite as long as the e12 Contact.

 

I was of course concerned with holding the greens because I'm not a longer hitter and very often I have to hit a lower lofted iron in order to reach the greens, but the only time I think the MTB excels is when chipping off the fringe and you are trying to get the ball to check up right next to the hole.  The MTB will do this and the e12 doesn't stop as quickly.  For me, I am seldom faced with this situation.

 

From further away, I don't really notice that much difference, but I'm not a high spin player.  In fact, very often, if the ball rolls out a little bit, it's actually better for me than if it checks up right away.

 

I prefer the feel of the MTB off the putter, but I can't say that I make any more putts using it so that's seems to be pretty neutral.

 

MTB seems to be more durable than the e12 Contact.  Doesn't seem to scuff as much and this may be why the e12 performs as well as it does when it comes to spin - a softer and less durable cover.

 

Just wondering if anyone else has compared these two balls and what their results were like.

 

 

Edited June 20, 2021 by jjfcpa

[Jeff58]

To some extent, your post reminds me of a player with 85mph driver speed who demos a dozen X flex shafts, and concludes that they’re all the same.

I’ve demoed a lot of balls this year, and it’s been illuminating. In your case IMO, if most of your chips are bump and runs, the difference between any 2 balls will be minimal. If you’re not not aggressively energizing the ball with your irons, the difference in launch angle and spin rate will also be minimal. If you normally hit the ball fairly straight, the potential advantage of the e6/12 family will be minimal.

For putting, the difference in feel tends to give the impression that one ball is rolling significantly further than another, and it’s an illusion.

[jjfcpa]

2 hours ago, Jeff58 said:

To some extent, your post reminds me of a player with 85mph driver speed who demos a dozen X flex shafts, and concludes that they’re all the same.

I’ve demoed a lot of balls this year, and it’s been illuminating. In your case IMO, if most of your chips are bump and runs, the difference between any 2 balls will be minimal. If you’re not not aggressively energizing the ball with your irons, the difference in launch angle and spin rate will also be minimal. If you normally hit the ball fairly straight, the potential advantage of the e6/12 family will be minimal.

For putting, the difference in feel tends to give the impression that one ball is rolling significantly further than another, and it’s an illusion.

Actually, I seldom play bump and runs.  Unless I'm just off the green in the fringe and have a fairy long distance to the hole, I never play a bump and run.  

 

However, you may be right that I can't really "ergize the ball" with enough swing speed to make much difference.  I do hit the ball fairy straight.  

 

With regards to putting, I don't think one necessarily rolls any further than the other; however, I do detect a real difference on the way the ball comes off the putter head.  I believe the e12 is around 70 compression and the MTB Black is 75-80 so I would expect the higher compression ball to react more off the putter; but I'm not seeing that.  

 

I'm about a 12 hc so I do feel qualified to make a proper evaluation of golf balls and how they work for me.  

 

You mentioned that you demoed a lot of balls this year but didn't share your experience.  I'd be interested in hearing what illuminated you.  

[elwhippy]

These balls have very little in common. One is a distance based ball. The other is tour grade. Nearest comparison to E12 would be an AD333 / Q-Star. 

[Jeff58]

2 hours ago, jjfcpa said:

You mentioned that you demoed a lot of balls this year but didn't share your experience.  I'd be interested in hearing what illuminated you.  

Thanks. I’ve been meaning to do this for a while now, but have struggled a bit on how to make it useful. Will try to work on it today perhaps.

[North Butte]

5 minutes ago, Jeff58 said:

Thanks. I’ve been meaning to do this for a while now, but have struggled a bit on how to make it useful. Will try to work on it today perhaps.

I've posted a lot of my subjective impressions of the (many, many) balls I've tried over the years. But it's all so dependent on my own game, the quirks of my swing and my inevitably skewed perceptions (I mean go figure, when I play well with a ball I think it's the ball and vice versa!) that I kind of lost interest in saying much.

 

Everything someone else says about golf balls I take with such a huge grain of salt, I realize anybody with any sense ought to take my comments with a whole salt shaker full. It's really hard to feel like you're getting a the real nature of a golf ball when you've only got your own experience to base it on. It's a conundrum. 

[Jeff58]

35 minutes ago, North Butte said:

I've posted a lot of my subjective impressions of the (many, many) balls I've tried over the years. But it's all so dependent on my own game, the quirks of my swing and my inevitably skewed perceptions (I mean go figure, when I play well with a ball I think it's the ball and vice versa!) that I kind of lost interest in saying much.

 

Everything someone else says about golf balls I take with such a huge grain of salt, I realize anybody with any sense ought to take my comments with a whole salt shaker full. It's really hard to feel like you're getting a the real nature of a golf ball when you've only got your own experience to base it on. It's a conundrum. 

Completely agree. However, I intend to try anyway. My hope is that by comparing balls in a repeatable manner, that the results (or lack thereof) are potentially significant.

[North Butte]

3 minutes ago, Jeff58 said:

Completely agree. However, I intend to try anyway. My hope is that by comparing balls in a repeatable manner, that the results (or lack thereof) are potentially significant.

I say go for it.

 

If nobody posted things that are subjective, we wouldn't have much to talk about would we?

[rwbloom93]

3 hours ago, Jeff58 said:

Completely agree. However, I intend to try anyway. My hope is that by comparing balls in a repeatable manner, that the results (or lack thereof) are potentially significant.

After the GolfSpyMy robot test (April 2019), I posted a lot of observations from a year long test of balls I completed in 2018. I came to several different conclusions and wanted to share my findings.  I received a mix of likes and laughs but my favorite criticism was "your personal testing is not as valid as robot testing" for my own game.  Good grief, I still laugh at that one.

 

Regards    

Edited June 21, 2021 by rwbloom93

[jjfcpa]

I have a very specific, although subjective, way of testing golf balls.  I have a golf course with a short game area less than a mile away.  When I compare balls, I will go to my short game area and play two balls, chipping, putting, from a variety of distances.  Then I will play the ball for a number of rounds before I switch to the ball I'm comparing it to.  

 

I do not rate a ball based on my score because I know that depends on how well I swing the club, but there are generally enough quality shots with a variety of clubs for me to know which one is performing better than the other.

 

While the e12 Contact and MTB Black are not really comparable as far as the marketing go, they are very comparable to me when it comes to meeting the expectations I have for a ball.  Just like golf clubs "types" have blurred the lines of (game improvement vs players distance vs super game improvement), I think the same could be said of golf balls.  Just because a ball doesn't have a ureathane cover does not exclude it from performing well for most golfers.  If you're a pro, sure you might want to go with a "tour" grade ball, whatever that is, but for about 90% of the golfers on this forum, most are probably wasting a lot of money on a ball that is classified as "tour" when they could by with a much cheaper ball.

 

My game is not good enough to quantify the differences I see, and I'm not sure the ball I play would really affect my score that much, if at all, but what I'm really looking for is a ball that will 1.  maximize my distance 2.  not adversely affect my dispersion  3.  have good feedback  4.  and still provide adequate stopping power on the green.  While there are at least a dozen balls that I could play, it still comes down to 1 or 2 that I've selected to put in the bag.  And that will probably change as time goes on.

 

Right now, my top 3 are:

 

Maxfli Tour

e12 Contact

Snell MTB Black

 

[jjfcpa]

11 minutes ago, rwbloom93 said:

After the GolfSpyMy robot test (April 2019), I posted a lot of observations from a year long test of balls I completed in 2018. I came to several different conclusions and wanted to share my findings.  I received a mix of likes and laughs but my favorite criticism was "your personal testing is not as valid as robot testing" for my own game.  Good grief, I still laugh at that one.

 

Regards    

Personally, I'd much rather hear your opinion, than how the robot did.

[lefthack]

3 hours ago, Jeff58 said:

Completely agree. However, I intend to try anyway. My hope is that by comparing balls in a repeatable manner, that the results (or lack thereof) are potentially significant.

 

I've been trying to tell a difference in almost a 100 rounds now and other than sound and putter feel, they are all about the same.

 

I know part of it is I'm not as consistent as I would like to be. But when I play a round, I am hitting 3+ balls from the same basic spot with the same club. There are slightly different distance numbers, but not enough to notice a pattern.

 

I've decided I will play a quality ball when I get through my stash. But it will likely be the Spalding SD Tour.

[Jeff58]

2 hours ago, rwbloom93 said:

After the GolfSpyMy robot test (April 2019), I posted a lot of observations from a year long test of balls I completed in 2018. I came to several different conclusions and wanted to share my findings.  I received a mix of likes and laughs but my favorite criticism was "your personal testing is not as valid as robot testing" for my own game.  Good grief, I still laugh at that one.

 

Regards    

Can you link your post? I’d like to read it please.
 

My “belief” at this point is that objective testing can and should direct a player towards a specific class of balls, but beyond that, saying that anyone can successfully make an optimal selection based on an unknown 7 iron having a difference of 200 rpm’s and a 0.2 degrees different launch angle at an unknown swing speed and attack angle is unlikely.

[Jeff58]

2 hours ago, lefthack said:

 

I've been trying to tell a difference in almost a 100 rounds now and other than sound and putter feel, they are all about the same.

 

I know part of it is I'm not as consistent as I would like to be. But when I play a round, I am hitting 3+ balls from the same basic spot with the same club. There are slightly different distance numbers, but not enough to notice a pattern.

 

I've decided I will play a quality ball when I get through my stash. But it will likely be the Spalding SD Tour.

Just my experience-

If a “good” player with a high degree of repeatability and appropriate technique alternates grossly different balls, say a V1 and a 2-piece distance ball, they should very quickly experience several easily perceptible differences.

On the other hand, if the same player alternates between a V1 and virtually any other ball in the same category, their shot-to-shot variance will swamp the objective variances. Almost all perceived differences will be due to differences in feel, and result in virtually no advantage to scoring.

[lefthack]

17 hours ago, Jeff58 said:

Just my experience-

If a “good” player with a high degree of repeatability and appropriate technique...

 

That rules me out. I'm good playing used/cheap balls, then.

[jjfcpa]

Hit a few comparison shots in my round the other day and the results were mixed.

 

Par 4 - Snell was about 15 yards longer off the drive than the e12, but I actually got a little better strike with the Snell.

 

However, on the following shot with a 7 iron, I hit both of the ball where they ended off my drive - the Snell 15 years ahead of the e12 - hit both shots well and both balls ended up next to each other.

 

Driver - advantage to Snell

7i - advantage to e12 Contact

 

On one other hole, I hit driver with both balls and they landed within a yard or two of each other.

 

the only other significant shot was a pitch into the green with both balls and both shots ended up checking up on the green about the same.  This underscores the fact that the e12 does have pretty good stopping power for being a non urethane ball.

[jjfcpa]

For anyone interested, here's a positive review on the e12 contact.

 

http://drivingrangeheroes.com/2021-bridgestone-e12-golf-ball-review/?unapproved=4928&moderation-hash=a5e1e237e67e53268ffe690a4871b0e9#comment-4928

[Tanner25]

How does the matte e12 contact compared to the white ball?