We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Snell MTB-X Golf Balls

SuperStroke
Carls Golfland has them in stock.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
blakehall said:
Honestly this, plus the differences in white / yellow that showed up with the Srixons have me questioning their methodology.

(not enough to actually get into a tizzy over it though)
Click to expand...

or a number of other confounding variables. it literally makes no sense. in fairness, i didn’t read the article, just reacting to what people are posting here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
The Snell MTX-B is officially back ordered!
 
McLovin said:
or a number of other confounding variables. it literally makes no sense. in fairness, i didn’t read the article, just reacting to what people are posting here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

Drawing conclusions based on data you can’t fully explain sounds like a methodology problem to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
blakehall said:
Drawing conclusions based on data you can’t fully explain sounds like a methodology problem to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

At a minimum, they should have retested a different yellow Srixon to see if the results were repeated. In a perfect world, they would have done the same test with several yellow balls from different manufacturers.

I just can’t believe that the color of paint would make any difference, let alone such a noticeable difference.

That said, I still appreciate the efforts and spirit of the test. I am still cautious about the reliability of the results until the yellow ball conundrum is resolved.
 
BigDill said:
At a minimum, they should have retested a different yellow Srixon to see if the results were repeated. In a perfect world, they would have done the same test with several yellow balls from different manufacturers.

I just can’t believe that the color of paint would make any difference, let alone such a noticeable difference.

That said, I still appreciate the efforts and spirit of the test. I am still cautious about the reliability of the results until the yellow ball conundrum is resolved.
Click to expand...

The data averages could be from multiple yellow balls and still one defective ball could cause the skewed results. If that is the case, than the methodology should be adjusted to remove any gross outliers.
 
-CRW- said:
The data averages could be from multiple yellow balls and still one defective ball could cause the skewed results. If that is the case, than the methodology should be adjusted to remove any gross outliers.
Click to expand...

Right, but you wouldn’t know if it was an outlier unless you had a normalized sample from testing several of the “same” balls.

Also, couldn’t the same thing thing be said about the white balls as well? Did they test just one of each ball, or various versions of the same ball?

I want to be clear that I am not being critical of their effort. I think it’s great. But the results as to the yellow ball raises questions.
 
Minarets said:
That article def makes me want to buy MTB-X and ProV1x now. I was a soft ball guy before yesterday.
Click to expand...

If you end up not liking either, will you blame the ball or yourself?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Alez367 said:
If you end up not liking either, will you blame the ball or yourself?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I blame the robots haha
 
-CRW- said:
I differ in that you should use robots for clubs too. Only, you use the robot at various speeds and impact various parts of the club face to get data that is likely to be more pertinent to the average golfer.
Click to expand...

The reason you don’t use robots for club testing is that robots don’t make adjustments at setup and during the swing based on what they see. We always hear people complain that a club looks open or closed at setup. People will change their swing based on that bias and as a result a club that tests well on a robot may not test well in a persons hands.
Look at driver vs driver. They do robot and simulation testing but until it is in the hands of a golfer you don’t really know how it will perform.
 
BigDill said:
Right, but you wouldn’t know if it was an outlier unless you had a normalized sample from testing several of the “same” balls.

Also, couldn’t the same thing thing be said about the white balls as well? Did they test just one of each ball, or various versions of the same ball?

I want to be clear that I am not being critical of their effort. I think it’s great. But the results as to the yellow ball raises questions.
Click to expand...

I think you could argue that the dispersion results of all makes/models could be different from one box to the next. So I'm not sure how long it would take or how many dozens you'd have to test before knowing what "normal" is. I think there is definitely a variable in what you may receive in any given dozen balls. BUT, I think the testing is probably as close as we can get to normalized values at the moment.

I didn't see much difference between the white and yellow in anything other than dispersion. Did I miss something? And the yellow dispersion, while greater than the white, was still better than the majority of makes/models. Maybe there is something in the yellow paint that Srixon doesn't even know could cause a difference.
 
This is hilarious! Well good for Snell. I'd like to hear Dean's side on all this hype. I'm sure he's cracking jokes about it

snellmtbx.jpg
 
cnosil said:
The reason you don’t use robots for club testing is that robots don’t make adjustments at setup and during the swing based on what they see. We always hear people complain that a club looks open or closed at setup. People will change their swing based on that bias and as a result a club that tests well on a robot may not test well in a persons hands.
Look at driver vs driver. They do robot and simulation testing but until it is in the hands of a golfer you don’t really know how it will perform.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is you may be introducing a variable that one golfer, or even a handful of golfers, do at address when others do not. To me, that is not a club data issue - that's a swing issue that should addressed separate from club purchasing decisions.

Use a robot, test all over the face for forgiveness (direction and ball speed retention) and spin and give me those numbers. Then if I see something weird when I actually test I know it's on me, which would then lead to testing additional options.
 
Molten said:
I dig #1 so hard. Snell provides a lot of value for sure.
Click to expand...
How much difference is there in price in the US.

I just checked Aust , can get MTB-X (About to be released) for $48 aud compared to the $50 I normally pay for Chrome soft. so no big difference for me in price.



Sent from my Lenovo P2a42 using Tapatalk
 
I love the idea of an extremely firm ball being super long, and it makes perfect sense. That said, based on everything I have experienced over the last year or so, I've tended to lean more towards increased compression to support every strike I make that isn't dead nuts neutral and perfect. It's just not a reality any of us should be too concerned about right now.

I'll definitely get my hands on a sleeve of these to compare against the beloved B330, but in the meantime, I'm still trending on playing a ball that reduces my spin a bit and stays straighter. Good thing Snell has a nice variety.
 
I wonder if the results have piqued the interest of any tour pros....

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
 
dhartmann34 said:
I wonder if the results have piqued the interest of any tour pros....
Click to expand...

Not that I want to participate in the conversation about another site and their articles, but I am quite sure that data like this is readily available for tour pros.

During our trip to TPI last year, they had the robot constantly running testing all the major ball designs against the Proto ProV1 and ProV1x. Not that it would make much a difference for a pro because they could simply get a few dozen of each and hit them down a range to determine their preference, but i am confident it's available.
 
-CRW- said:
The problem with that is you may be introducing a variable that one golfer, or even a handful of golfers, do at address when others do not. To me, that is not a club data issue - that's a swing issue that should addressed separate from club purchasing decisions.
.
Click to expand...

This is why you use multiple golfers to establish trends and biases for the players as a group and use statistical analysis to reduce the variables. Robot tests for clubs is meaningless to me.

but as you say, any result for any club has to be validated for you individually because the results of any test may not be relevant to you and you biases.
 
Canadan said:
I love the idea of an extremely firm ball being super long, and it makes perfect sense. That said, based on everything I have experienced over the last year or so, I've tended to lean more towards increased compression to support every strike I make that isn't dead nuts neutral and perfect. It's just not a reality any of us should be too concerned about right now.

I'll definitely get my hands on a sleeve of these to compare against the beloved B330, but in the meantime, I'm still trending on playing a ball that reduces my spin a bit and stays straighter. Good thing Snell has a nice variety.
Click to expand...

The testers argue that compression happens regardless of club head speed, within the ranges they tested. So you'd think that the relationships when it comes to spin/distance/etc. would remain the same on off-center hits. Specifically, longer balls would still be longer and balls with less dispersion would still have less dispersion as this test seems to show that the dispersion is based on manufacturing/golf ball design.

Whether that's correct or not is another story though.

I think it's really hard to rely on experience unless you go out with the specific intent to test (which is something you do more than most of us). For example, I know I have hit the Vice Pro Soft abnormally long compared to most other soft balls on some iron shots. But I never actually tested to see how often to try and determine if those abnormally long shots were because of the ball or because impact was exceptional on those shots.

I think where this study really shines is it gives great reference ranges to help the consumer narrow down their options before attempting to test on course. At least, that is what is has done for me. I still won't pay upwards of $50 for a dozen balls, so I will probably focus on the Snell MTB-X, the Srixon Z-Star, and the Vice Pro. I know the Vice Pro wasn't graded as well as the others, but it's similarly priced to the Snell and in this one test showed better dispersion results.
 
Good for Snell. Super humble guy and great for his brand. I believe some Champions Tour guys play Snell.

Due to the demand and hype I'll definitely be giving these a try once they're ready to order.
 
How am I going to play in my league that starts tonight knowing I have short yellow balls?
 
Kenomikes said:
How am I going to play in my league that starts tonight knowing I have short yellow balls?
Click to expand...

With a longer club into each green than you'd have with the Snell MTB-X???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top