We've launched the new forums! Read more here

How much concern should this cause..?

SuperStroke
JDax said:
My biggest point of contention is that when questioned about anomalies in their studies (the Srixon White v. Yellow as an example), they just sorta , rather than research the anomalies with a harder focus....


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

I'm with you, and maybe this is the beginning of their answers.

A lot of people took the approach that MGS and their test was faulty, when I believe it's just as possible that they did everything right and some golf balls just didn't perform. I like to quote JB when he wrote something along the lines of "nobody wants to hear their girlfriend is ugly." I think that brand loyalty distorts some peoples perceptions.

I'm definitely brand agnostic, but will stay away from under-performers or companies with quality control issues if proven. I've got all one brand in the bag because I got such a good deal for them, and I know that I can find something from any club OEM's lineup that plays well enough for me and my abilities (or lack-there-of).
 
-CRW- said:
I like getting all the information I can, so that I can make the best decision on golf equipment purchases that I can.

In this case, I don't play Chrome Soft and they perform poorly for me in the spin and distance categories, so it's not going to make or break me buying Chrome Softs. I haven't tried the Chrome Soft X, at least not that I can recall, and haven't purchased them because the original Chrome Soft performed so poorly for me. It's not an anti-Callaway issue with me because I thought their SR3 balls performed really well for me.
Click to expand...

And I totally understand and agree with your approach and statement. My (perhaps inarticulate) point is that the information presented by the singular picture doesn't really, in my opinion, add anything to my information analysis. I need the second part of the equation which is this is possible one out of every so many golf balls. Without that second part of the information, I am not sure I learned anything, except that at the time that specific golf ball was made, there was something less that 100% accuracy in manufacturing, which I presumed before I saw the picture.
 
mikeg_74 said:
It’s a non issue and from a source who has an ax to grind for whatever reason.
Click to expand...

I know the reason. And no, I will not disclose it with anyone.

But you are correct that there is some personal vendetta going on. Quite sad honestly.
 
DataDude said:
I've played 100's of Chrome Softs and never had a problem. Unless he is willing to go buy a dozen balls in 3 or 4 states from 20-30 different stores and get a real sample to see if there is a problem than this is BS self promotion IMO.
Click to expand...

I just realized we are talking about My Golf Spy. I am doubling my comments now because they know better than to use a 2 ball sample and draw conclusions from it. IMO given they are holding themselves up as a bastion of truth and science this use of bad science damages their reputation more than Callaway's imo.
 
PKorf said:
As a matter of formality....I think it’s frankly bad business for Elliott to even comment on it, from this “source”. MGS history defines what people think about them in the general public. Not sure I’d be aligning myself and my company with that mantra hanging out there. I’m about as middle of the road as I can be with this.

Did I just get awed all weekend by Bridgestone golf at an amazing event where they laid out the red carpet? Sure did. Did they win me over by the numbers they showed me inside and outside of a hitting bay all weekend. Sure did. But I am in absolutely no way suckling up to the teat because Elliott made a comment on an erroneous and questionable source to begin with. I’m guessing that’s going to be the topic of some internal discussions on their end.

I’m astonished that would even be insinuated in here frankly and goes to prove my point of the fact that if there were no logo on that ball, the reaction would be totally different whomever the oem was or wasn’t. I don’t want to have any golf balls in my bag, that by no fault of my own cause or could cause me to play worse. Bstone Titleist Callaway...doesn’t matter. I guess we will all be sitting and waiting to see where and if it goes anywhere. My guess is, it’s a non story that no one of any clout at any ball manufacturer should have commented on.
Breed is entitled to his opinion but that’s a more appropriate response than Elliot or even Finley commenting on it.
Click to expand...

honestly I expected Adam to jump in the discussion before elliot would but I'm guessing just like you said, it will be internally discussed before Adam says anything.
 
YAAAAAYYYYYY!!!!!

Another excuse at why I'm bad at golf!

It's not my stuck inside swing causing my 2-way miss, it's the lazy QC process at the manufacturer! I love excuses.
 
This will be the thread that keeps on giving haha
I am eating my popcorn while I read this thread


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
PKorf said:
if there were no logo on that ball, the reaction would be totally different whomever the oem was or wasn’t
Click to expand...

so initially i disagreed with this, but as i thought about it, i think there is some truth to what you're saying.

if the ball was a prov1, i think a lot of people would be surprised, but then chalk it up to qc because so many people (supported by sales numbers) believe the prov1 is the gold standard in golf balls. so resolving the cognitive dissonance is achieved by writing it off as a small qc issue. but i think there would be people who would smile and say, "see, told you those balls are overpriced trash." swap callaway for titleist, and that's pretty much what has happened in the thread.

but if the ball was a srixon ball, or a mizuno ball, or a taylormade ball, i don't think we would be almost 150 posts into the thread. it would be interesting, but i think most people would fall into the qc camp. a blimp in qc, probably within tolerances, but not a big deal.

because it's callaway, and because it's mgs, we are 150 posts into the thread and hotheads and agendas are on display (on both sides). i'm sorry you got called out for bias; knowing you, nothing could be further from the truth. it's an interesting topic, but quite frankly doesn't affect me one iota because it only proves that 1 ball was bad. it doesn't prove how that bad ball performs; it doesn't prove how many bad balls there are; it doesn't prove when the ball was purchased or from where; and it doesn't prove anything apart from this one singular example.
 
McLovin said:
so initially i disagreed with this, but as i thought about it, i think there is some truth to what you're saying.

if the ball was a prov1, i think a lot of people would be surprised, but then chalk it up to qc because so many people (supported by sales numbers) believe the prov1 is the gold standard in golf balls. so resolving the cognitive dissonance is achieved by writing it off as a small qc issue. but i think there would be people who would smile and say, "see, told you those balls are overpriced trash." swap callaway for titleist, and that's pretty much what has happened in the thread.

but if the ball was a srixon ball, or a mizuno ball, or a taylormade ball, i don't think we would be almost 150 posts into the thread. it would be interesting, but i think most people would fall into the qc camp. a blimp in qc, probably within tolerances, but not a big deal.

because it's callaway, and because it's mgs, we are 150 posts into the thread and hotheads and agendas are on display (on both sides). i'm sorry you got called out for bias; knowing you, nothing could be further from the truth. it's an interesting topic, but quite frankly doesn't affect me one iota because it only proves that 1 ball was bad. it doesn't prove how that bad ball performs; it doesn't prove how many bad balls there are; it doesn't prove when the ball was purchased or from where; and it doesn't prove anything apart from this one singular example.
Click to expand...

Truth and thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I’m kind of crying inside a little bit right now over all the golf balls that are being destroyed right now over this...when all it would take to find an out of balance golf ball is a little epsom salt and water. So I’m in no way surprised that they only had to cut open one ball to find a bad one, but how many went for a rinse?
 
I just read thru this thread....headed to my garage to cut a chrome soft in half out of curiosity. I'm 99.9999% sure it will be perfect and I will be wasting a perfectly good ball.
 
Whew. Finally reached the end of this topic (as of the beginning of this post).

I can't be the only one here who thinks this is actually a fiendish plot by Callaway to get people to start cutting open their Chrome Softs so they see there's nothing wrong with them and have to go by more. Can I?

If you need me I'll be busy taking my tin foil hat off. :alien2:
 
I threw a formerly white yet then tan Chrome Soft in the water this weekend after 18 holes.

Kind of wish I kept it to chop in half for pure entertainment sake.
 
JB said:
I believe @GolfUnfiltered day job is working on this type of data.
Click to expand...

Master Black Belt here, ready to answer any questions on this topic.
 
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.


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

This is accurate. "6 Sigma", which refers to six standard deviations, equates to about 3.4 defects per million opportunities. Or, 3.4 defective golf balls out of a million. Most businesses in most industries operate around 3 sigma (if they're lucky). I work in healthcare, and let's just say it is much worse than that.

Achieving 6 Sigma is not impossible, just highly expensive. Believe it or not: some companies operate at 10 sigma, such as aviation or nuclear power plants. Which, you know, is probably a good thing.
 
TYork said:
I just read thru this thread....headed to my garage to cut a chrome soft in half out of curiosity. I'm 99.9999% sure it will be perfect and I will be wasting a perfectly good ball.
Click to expand...

aee5bfa17bbed129d17f1be15fe0e506.jpg


Based on my “less than 2” cut balls, Callaway balls are all perfect.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Here's some context to help the conversation along. Using fake data, I plotted a scenario where an OEM who makes roughly 5 million golf balls a year is experiencing some level of defects in their process. Meaning, bad golf balls are produced (which happens all the time). 5 million balls a year is about 104,166 golf balls a week.

GolfChart.png

That graph, a "P-Chart", shows proportion of defective units.

The red lines = control limits (3 standard deviations above and below the mean, or the green line in the middle)

Blue lines = % defective that day, which is labeled on the x-axis on the bottom.

We want to look for data points that fall above, or below, the control limits. Those are called special cause variance, or signals. A signal suggests something needs further investigation.

EVERY process in the word has some level of variance, btw.

In this example, assumed around 5000 defective golf balls are produced each week. If those make it to customers, with regularity, there's an issue. However, only TWO instances did higher than expected defects occur (2/5 and 3/19).

One way to interpret: something happened on 2/5 that caused significantly higher defects to be produced. Does this mean we need to completely alter the way we manufacture? Is there a systemic problem? What about all the other days that are in control?
 
golfunfiltered said:
This is accurate. "6 Sigma", which refers to six standard deviations, equates to about 3.4 defects per million opportunities. Or, 3.4 defective golf balls out of a million. Most businesses in most industries operate around 3 sigma (if they're lucky). I work in healthcare, and let's just say it is much worse than that.

Achieving 6 Sigma is not impossible, just highly expensive. Believe it or not: some companies operate at 10 sigma, such as aviation or nuclear power plants. Which, you know, is probably a good thing.
Click to expand...

Good to see another probability/stats person chime in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
TYork said:
aee5bfa17bbed129d17f1be15fe0e506.jpg


Based on my “less than 2” cut balls, Callaway balls are all perfect.




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

The ball in the OP is pink inside, yours is blue. Are you sure they are the same model ball ?
 
TYork said:
aee5bfa17bbed129d17f1be15fe0e506.jpg


Based on my “less than 2” cut balls, Callaway balls are all perfect.




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

Now super glue them together and tell us how they perform
 
MGS is getting people to voluntarily destroy perfectly good golf balls. Sure the ones you open might be good... but what about the ones you are playing with? Ah now it's in your head!

Out of sight, out of mind IMO
 
SlightDraw said:
MGS is getting people to voluntarily destroy perfectly good golf balls. Sure the ones you open might be good... but what about the ones you are playing with? Ah now it's in your head!

Out of sight, out of mind IMO
Click to expand...
I played a CS on Sunday and it's pretty beat up. Hit some trees, hit 2 cart paths. How do I slice mine open without the device?

Butter knife?
 
Exactly why I don't pay full boat for golf balls. Did not read all responses did anyone from Cally respond?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 
Now they have talked to callaway and they stated that the ceo of callaway is going to improve their ball plants??

Having toured the ball plant courtesy of thp and callaway for the hype event I am 100000% confident in the balls i buy.

I run a warehouse.....we run lean and am big into Lean six sigma and others ( APICS ) and I am positive that like Adam was saying there is variance no matter what. Wont deter me from buying Callaway
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top