We've launched the new forums! Read more here

How much concern should this cause..?

SuperStroke
Paladin said:
If Callaway sold, say, 50,000,000 golf balls in a year, and they had a .0001 failure rate, there would still be 5,000 imperfect Callaway golf balls floating around out there. Now you and I would hate to end up with one of those 5,000 imperfect balls, because that's potentially $4 we're pumping into the woods despite being well-struck. But the head of any quality control department would love to have a success rate of 99.999% played out over 50,000,000 products.
Click to expand...

That is between 5 and 6 sigma. 6 sigma is the gold standard for manufacturing and extremely difficult to achieve. While 5,000 sounds like a lot, that would be an absolutely phenomenal QC number. 100% perfect is impossible due to cost constraints.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
If I were him I’m sure I’d cut tons of balls. All from top manufacturers and I’m not posting about ones found fine just the ones that aren’t fine. Now if I cut a whole dozen and find 1 issue that’s a huge deal to post about even if I cut 12 dozen finding one is a huge deal to me. If a top company sells premium balls even 1 in a 100 is too many.

Which is why it’s nice to hear Titleist and Bridgestone are the kings of quality. They ain’t finding issues with those premium balls. Only Callaway, taylormade and others. Haven’t heard a major issue with srixon yet either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
wubears71 said:
That is between 5 and 6 sigma. 6 sigma is the gold standard for manufacturing and extremely difficult to achieve. While 5,000 sounds like a lot, that would be an absolutely phenomenal QC number. 100% perfect is impossible due to cost constraints.
Click to expand...

I believe @GolfUnfiltered day job is working on this type of data.
 
Golf Ghost said:
Don't find it odd that there's zero context to the picture and comes from a place who has called out the company who produced the ball for various reasons, such as not participating in their "studies"?
Click to expand...

And yet they’ve rated Callaway at the top of rankings. Bought the clubs on their own and put them in the testing. AND they accept ZERO dollars from Callaway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
JDax said:
To my knowledge Callaway’s QA is very stringent, this example more than likely was a one off that fell outside of there standard deviation.

Doesn’t effect my opinion of the quality of the Chrome Soft as a whole. I’m wondering how many balls were cut open before an error like this was found.

This is from the same testing “organization” that said that the Yellow Srixon Z-Star preformed dramatically differently than the White Z-Star. Noelle confirmed for me that the two balls are exactly the same besides the color.

Believe what you want, but look at the source...


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

What specifically is there about the source for you? They don’t take ANY dollars from major OEMs. None. So, just by that alone, they’re more apt to be TRULY honest. Those that accept money from Callaway would NEVER post a pic like this. Never.... And they would immediately take-up for Callaway, or whatever OEM, to make sure their dollars don’t disappear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Pkielwa said:
And yet they’ve rated Callaway at the top of rankings. Bought the clubs on their own and put them in the testing. AND they accept ZERO dollars from Callaway.


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

I'd hope they would accept zero dollars from any company if it's unbiased?
 
Pkielwa said:
What specifically is there about the source for you? They don’t take ANY dollars from major OEMs. None. So, just by that alone, they’re more apt to be TRULY honest. Those that accept money from Callaway would NEVER post a pic like this. Never.... And they would immediately take-up for Callaway, or whatever OEM, to make sure their dollars don’t disappear.


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

So you're saying because THP has a business relationship with Callaway, they would censor a negative piece of information about a product if it were deemed to be factually accurate? ..... k.
 
NullNomad said:
Although this is disheartening, its kinda like buying a car and worrying about it being a lemon as you drive it off the lot. Anytime you mass produce anything, there's a margin of quality loss.

The cynic in me wonders how many balls he cut in half before he found this one...
Click to expand...

Although this is disheartening, its kinda like buying a Ford and worrying about it being a lemon as you drive it off the lot.

Slight FTFY.

mikeg_74 said:
It’s a non issue and from a source who has an ax to grind for whatever reason. I discount anything they say based on severa posts they’ve made in the past.

The beauty of this game is there are plenty of options for you to play what you are comfortable with.
Click to expand...

Clicks ain't going to click themselves.....

Nate said:
I think Callaway should come out with a money back guarantee: "If you find, that after slicing open any of the golf balls that you purchase from us, has any internal core issues, bring that ball back and we will replace that ball with another ball for free."

:peace2:
Click to expand...

they can resell these sliced golf balls half off....

mikeg_74 said:
and yet we dont know what ball it was. He mentions Chrome Soft, but a newer version? First versions?

I get he found a ball that slipped by the QC process, but if this was a big deal we would hear golfers (myself included) that these balls dont fly straight and have issues in flight. All i've seen online and in this community if how long and straight the Chrome Soft ball is and haven't heard of any with crazy ball flights or not living up to the marketing claims.
Click to expand...

And who knows whether it was a genuine Chromesoft or a knockoff? Or even a rejected ball that someone did pull off the line and was never intended for consumers? Or a ball that was marked as an x-out, but we can't see that? All this photo means to me is that there is a 100% chance that I will blame the next Chromesoft I slice into the water on my ball "having a slightly off-center core" and the one I stripe off the tee being "perfectly internally balanced".
 
Pkielwa said:
What specifically is there about the source for you? They don’t take ANY dollars from major OEMs. None. So, just by that alone, they’re more apt to be TRULY honest. Those that accept money from Callaway would NEVER post a pic like this. Never.... And they would immediately take-up for Callaway, or whatever OEM, to make sure their dollars don’t disappear.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. They have found their little niche and they are running with it. They know they are never going to take OEM money so they have an incentive to be anti-establishment and stick it to the big guy with these "got ya" moment. Just because they (potentially) have a bias that is different from the bias of others doesn't mean they are completely objective.
 
Why is everyone getting bent out of shape? Good gracious. The point of the picture of the lopsided ball was to show that even major OEMs don’t have complete control over QC, and that some DO produce balls that are lopsided, or out of round, etc. That’s it. Take it for what it is, shedding more light on the ball business so the consumer can be aware. Good gracious. No sense in getting one’s panties in a wad over a dang pic! Sheesh. If ball manufacturers take more control, and establish steps and processes that reduce, or eliminate this from happening, WE ALL WIN.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Pkielwa said:
What specifically is there about the source for you? They don’t take ANY dollars from major OEMs. None. So, just by that alone, they’re more apt to be TRULY honest. Those that accept money from Callaway would NEVER post a pic like this. Never.... And they would immediately take-up for Callaway, or whatever OEM, to make sure their dollars don’t disappear.
Click to expand...

If someone wants to debate the merit of the picture or the golf ball cutting on our forum. Fine by us.
If you want to assume you know the business practices of media outlets, get facts straight if you are going to post absolutes on my forum.

Here is a little something to consider when casting a shadow of bias and integrity. How is it different taking ad dollars for a banner ad from a media distribution company (represents Callaway and a number of others) different than taking money directly to pay for travel, lodging, food, golf and drinks? Money is money and every site and publication (that has traffic) out there has done one or the other and that is a fact!

I refuse to speak of another specific outlet's business practices because those are their choices to make, but please stop coming onto this forum with this when it is untrue.
 
MWard said:
So you're saying because THP has a business relationship with Callaway, they would censor a negative piece of information about a product if it were deemed to be factually accurate? ..... k.
Click to expand...
Like this thread....and yet it is still here
 
Interesting that the OP spent the weekend with the Bridgestone Ball marketing manager (tweet screenshots above).

Took tweets (images) from a source who isn't known for click-bait and has absolutely no bias toward Callaway Golf :sarcastic:

Achieving 100% QC is downright impossible, over my golfing lifetime have I played defective balls? Probably, would I be able to tell if it was my swing or the ball? No idea, the odds that it's my swing over the ball is significantly higher.

I've been to the Chicopee ball plant in MA and seen first hand the process for producing golf balls. It's a pretty thorough process with multiple QC checks along the way. As I'm sure every other OEM implements as well.

This was said a few times earlier, if companies were putting out so many defective products people would be complaining and calling it out on social media.

I find no fault with the OEM in this situation.
 
tequila4kapp said:
Not necessarily. They have found their little niche and they are running with it. They know they are never going to take OEM money so they have an incentive to be anti-establishment and stick it to the big guy with these "got ya" moment. Just because they (potentially) have a bias that is different from the bias of others doesn't mean they are completely objective.
Click to expand...

But name another major site that would do a ball test, or cut open random balls.

Stick it to the big guy??? What issue do they have that you can speak to with major OEMs??? TaylorMade just won their driver test.... Mizuno just won their iron tests.... This logic doesn’t work. Name another site that would have the balls to do these tests.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
I found a misshaped M&M one time. Never ate an M&M since.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Pkielwa said:
Why is everyone getting bent out of shape? Good gracious. The point of the picture of the lopsided ball was to show that even major OEMs don’t have complete control over QC, and that some DO produce balls that are lopsided, or out of round, etc. That’s it. Take it for what it is, shedding more light on the ball business so the consumer can be aware. Good gracious. No sense in getting one’s panties in a wad over a dang pic! Sheesh. If ball manufacturers take more control, and establish steps and processes that reduce, or eliminate this from happening, WE ALL WIN.


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

Panties in a wad????

I thought there was a pretty good discussion about testing and QC. Just because we question the source and the testing, we have our panties in a wad?? Cool.
 
JB said:
If someone wants to debate the merit of the picture or the golf ball cutting on our forum. Fine by us.
If you want to assume you know the business practices of media outlets, get facts straight if you are going to post absolutes on my forum.

Here is a little something to consider when casting a shadow of bias and integrity. How is it different taking ad dollars for a banner ad from a media distribution company (represents Callaway and a number of others) different than taking money directly to pay for travel, lodging, food, golf and drinks? Money is money and every site and publication (that has traffic) out there has done one or the other and that is a fact!

I refuse to speak of another specific outlet's business practices because those are their choices to make, but please stop coming onto this forum with this when it is untrue.
Click to expand...

I love it! Thanks!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Golf Ghost said:
Panties in a wad????

I thought there was a pretty good discussion about testing and QC. Just because we question the source and the testing, we have our panties in a wad?? Cool.
Click to expand...

Yep.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Pkielwa said:
But name another major site that would do a ball test, or cut open random balls.

Stick it to the big guy??? What issue do they have that you can speak to with major OEMs??? TaylorMade just won their driver test.... Mizuno just won their iron tests.... This logic doesn’t work. Name another site that would have the balls to do these tests.....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...
I don't visit other golf forums and with life events I barely have time to be on THP all that much these days. But my semi-strong guess is that every single one of them would cut a ball in half. Somewhere in the recesses of my memory I recall golf balls being cut in half right here on THP.

The notion of MSG doing superior scientific tests is interesting. If we accept as fact that the OEMs have smarter people working for them in R&D than what MSG can afford to hire - and I'll say that I 100% believe Callaway's people are smarter than whoever MSG hires - then believing MSG's results means we inherently distrust the OEMs, which means we are inherently more inclined to buy into MSG's spiel.
 
How much concern should this cause..?

Pkielwa said:
What specifically is there about the source for you? They don’t take ANY dollars from major OEMs. None. So, just by that alone, they’re more apt to be TRULY honest. Those that accept money from Callaway would NEVER post a pic like this. Never.... And they would immediately take-up for Callaway, or whatever OEM, to make sure their dollars don’t disappear.


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

Well for one the Z-Star data that I mentioned...
Also, the fact that their “scientific” testing often has flaws in the methodology.

They might not take dollars from OEMs, however, they seem to take offense when they aren’t given gear to test for free. It’s a slippery slope...






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Golf Ghost said:
Panties in a wad????

I thought there was a pretty good discussion about testing and QC. Just because we question the source and the testing, we have our panties in a wad?? Cool.
Click to expand...

I think that it’s a valid question to look at the testing methodology, but some don’t...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top