What’s New: 2020 Callaway Chrome Soft Hits Retail

[MattyD-MPLS]

It has been a great ball for me. I can definitely say that it is every bit as good as ProV1x if not better for me. I played the regular CS in the early months of the season. The CSX definitely gave me more stopping power on irons and wedges. And, it's longer off the driver. Only one complaint about the ball. I cannot find it locally. The most I had ever seen in stock in one location is 2 dozen. Never found the Triple Track version. I would go in looking for a dozen balls and walk out with Z Star XV's because the CSX was nowhere to be found. I meant to order online a few times. But, I never thought of it until I was low on balls. Then, I couldn't wait for shipping so I would gamble and hope I could find them. Even the regular Chrome Soft didn't seem to be well stocked.

If you ever need them in a pinch, I should be able to get them to you in a day or 2. They usually have them at PGATSS.

 

[radiman]

If you ever need them in a pinch, I should be able to get them to you in a day or 2. They usually have them at PGATSS.

Sadly, my days of needing golf balls are over for at least the next 6 months

But, appreciate the offer

 

[OldandStiff]

i agree with @ArmyGolf this is probably better for a different thread, but both matt and ian have said matt is changing his game to be less about power and more about control. that could definitely mean a need for new equipment.

as to the ball, the txg guys made some pretty bold claims about just how good the 2020 csx is. great spin into the greens. fast off irons but with elevated spin. fast and consistent off driver but with perfect spin to hit the correct window and stay there. i know our grandaddy team has all seen extremely impressive performance out of the 2020 csx. it's absolutely the best ball i have ever played.

Yeah, I almost stopped reading because this tried to completely subvert my point. The ball they had just finished deciding he would play for this year from studio tests is the one that didn't work. There were no changes made then. They didn't spin any into greens yesterday, hit any real world windows either, or into any wind, or anything else, which is what I was saying. He hasn't actually played it yet and it took one weekend doing that last time around for him need to change balls. Not a strike on the ball necessarily, just on indoor numbers. Just an imperfect crossover.

I'm glad it's been a good fit for you. If it held up better for me, I would play it some. On one course especially.

 

[radiman]

I do like some things about the CSX, personally, and don't doubt that it fits you well. I don't think it deserves anywhere near the loyalty it receives though either. People want to like it, even when it's a bad fit for them, in the same weird way the always have from my perspective. I'll never understand it, especially at the price.

Curious about this statement. Have you witnessed this first hand? Anyone that I have talked to that has it in play seems to think it's a great fit for them. I am not foolish enough to say it will work for or fit everyone. But, I can't write off the buzz that it has received.

 

[McLovin]

Yeah, I almost stopped reading because this tried to completely subvert my point. The ball they had just finished deciding he would play for this year from studio tests is the one that didn't work. There were no changes made then. They didn't spin any into greens yesterday, hit any real world windows either, or into any wind, or anything else, which is what I was saying. He hasn't actually played it yet and it took one weekend doing that last time around for him need to change balls. Not a strike on the ball necessarily, just on indoor numbers. Just an imperfect crossover.

I'm glad it's been a good fit for you. If it held up better for me, I would play it some. On one course especially.

i'm not sure if you're saying i'm trying to subvert your point? i'm honestly not even sure what your point is. you don't like the ball, and that's completely understandable. your game is much more dialed in than mine, and your feedback is super helpful for anyone thinking about trying it. because as you say, it's a very expensive product, so more information is always good as people decide what to test. you always give great feedback and detailed analysis, which is awesome for the forum!

 

[mikeg_74]

I do like some things about the CSX, personally, and don't doubt that it fits you well. I don't think it deserves anywhere near the loyalty it receives though either. People want to like it, even when it's a bad fit for them, in the same weird way the always have from my perspective. I'll never understand it, especially at the price.

To the bolded I will disagree. Ever since the Chrome Soft line came out I have tried each version and have gone away for some reason or the other. Too soft, too firm, or something was just off and I couldn't pinpoint it. I played other balls that gave me more consistency. Even the 2018 CS line I liked and played, but left myself wanting more spin.

Fast forward to the 2020 CS and I didn't like the CS. It was not what I wanted off the tee or my irons. Having sat and listened to why the 2020 CSX was not the ball for me, I tried it on a whim and it blew me away. I put it up against a Bstone, Prov1x and ZStar....it wasn't close for ME. So for me it's not about deserving loyalty, it's about finding the right ball to help me maximize my inconsistent swing every shot. The price itself is not out of line with the others I have mentioned and you can find deals on them to bring the cost closer to $40 a dz versus $50.

 

[MattyD-MPLS]

Yeah, I almost stopped reading because this tried to completely subvert my point. The ball they had just finished deciding he would play for this year from studio tests is the one that didn't work. There were no changes made then. They didn't spin any into greens yesterday, hit any real world windows either, or into any wind, or anything else, which is what I was saying. He hasn't actually played it yet and it took one weekend doing that last time around for him need to change balls. Not a strike on the ball necessarily, just on indoor numbers. Just an imperfect crossover.

I'm glad it's been a good fit for you. If it held up better for me, I would play it some. On one course especially.

You absolutely need to be open minded in both settings. If you aren't seeing the results, it is time to go back to the drawing board.

 

[JMB3]

To the bolded I will disagree. Ever since the Chrome Soft line came out I have tried each version and have gone away for some reason or the other. Too soft, too firm, or something was just off and I couldn't pinpoint it. I played other balls that gave me more consistency. Even the 2018 CS line I liked and played, but left myself wanting more spin.

Fast forward to the 2020 CS and I didn't like the CS. It was not what I wanted off the tee or my irons. Having sat and listened to why the 2020 CSX was not the ball for me, I tried it on a whim and it blew me away. I put it up against a Bstone, Prov1x and ZStar....it wasn't close for ME. So for me it's not about deserving loyalty, it's about finding the right ball to help me maximize my inconsistent swing every shot. The price itself is not out of line with the others I have mentioned and you can find deals on them to bring the cost closer to $40 a dz versus $50.

After the ball presentation, I didn’t think the CSX would make any sense for me. Just didn’t think I had the speed. But then I randomly put a sleeve in play, and on three straight holes I stopped 8 irons on a dime, which is NOT something I normally do. So I was pretty sold then.

As to durability, I’m probably the worst person to opine on that because (a) I tend to lose several balls per round , and (b) I can rough up any ball with all the trees, cart paths, rocky areas, etc. I hit each round.

 

[JB]

Curious about this statement. Have you witnessed this first hand? Anyone that I have talked to that has it in play seems to think it's a great fit for them. I am not foolish enough to say it will work for or fit everyone. But, I can't write off the buzz that it has received.

Without speaking on the performance or the ball, it is the #2 selling golf ball line on the market. That is going to generate buzz.

 

[MattyD-MPLS]

Without speaking on the performance or the ball, it is the #2 selling golf ball line on the market. That is going to generate buzz.

By line, do you mean ProV1 and ProV1X umbrella and then the CS and CSX umbrella?

 

[OldandStiff]

Oh, came in to say it had the best looking box design in the biz imo, but struck a nerve with the loyalty thing.

Yes, @radiman . I've seen a bunch of people play them despite them being a poor fit. Which is definitely not unique to any one ball. It seems way easier to talk sometime off a ProV1x than it is a CSX though. Now and historically from my observation. I know this version is different and it played differently for me, there has always just been a confusing loyalty to the line from my observation. I like this ball better. The last ones were crap in my opinion, but people bought the **** out of them anyway. There's a loyalty. Like how Chris (not picking on ya, just a recent example) immediately made a production excuse for the durability when mentioned. What other ball would people try to look past that without issue? Baffles me is all.

Damn. Got this thread running..

 

[JB]

By line, do you mean ProV1 and ProV1X umbrella and then the CS and CSX umbrella?

Correct.

 

[JB]

What other ball would people look past that without issue? Baffles me is all.

The number one ball in golf had absolutely **** durability for a decade before changing.
Its not a singular brand thing...And its certainly not absolute about golf balls. Take a look at the Ping iron finish issues. Or TaylorMade iron breakage numbers over the last two years.

 

[OldandStiff]

The number one ball in golf had absolutely **** durability for a decade before changing.
Its not a singular brand thing...And its certainly not absolute about golf balls. Take a look at the Ping iron finish issues. Or TaylorMade iron breakage numbers over the last two years.

That's a really good point.

 

[HarryPotter]

I am seeing absolutely astounding results on course with the csx, even in the cooler temps. Based on Finley’s presentation, I wasn’t even considering trying this ball. Glad I did.


I’ve fallen in love with TT, felt naked without it the other day.

the durability is a major concern, however. I am not in the sand often and don’t tend to hit trees, yet I’m seeing major gouging unlike I’ve seen in any other tour ball. As we’ve said, this is an expensive product, so it sucks to see them beat up so easily. Question going forward is whether I just suck it up and pay the price for it and live with the lack of durability, or move on. The ball is so damn good, I don’t think I can leave it behind.

photo Below is 1-2 bunkers per ball.

 

[tequila4kapp]

Curious about this statement. Have you witnessed this first hand? Anyone that I have talked to that has it in play seems to think it's a great fit for them. I am not foolish enough to say it will work for or fit everyone. But, I can't write off the buzz that it has received.

I want to like it but through 2 sleeves just haven’t seen the benefits others are talking about (low/mid 90s SS). I did see minor scuffing - not quite enough for me to take a ball out of play, but definitely more than I see with other balls. I’m taking my last 2 sleeves down to the Bay Area in a couple of weeks and will play them until gone. I suspect I’ll move on to my other regular ball - the CSx will really need to shine for me to pay full asking price for the ball.

 

[McLovin]

I want to like it but through 2 sleeves just haven’t seen the benefits others are talking about (low/mid 90s SS). I did see minor scuffing - not quite enough for me to take a ball out of play, but definitely more than I see with other balls. I’m taking my last 2 sleeves down to the Bay Area in a couple of weeks and will play them until gone. I suspect I’ll move on to my other regular ball - the CSx will really need to shine for me to pay full asking price for the ball.

i do wish it was $5-$7 cheaper

 

[MattyD-MPLS]

Correct.

That really surprises me with as much buzz that came with the Bridgestone Tour line.

 

[OldandStiff]

i'm not sure if you're saying i'm trying to subvert your point? i'm honestly not even sure what your point is. you don't like the ball, and that's completely understandable. your game is much more dialed in than mine, and your feedback is super helpful for anyone thinking about trying it. because as you say, it's a very expensive product, so more information is always good as people decide what to test. you always give great feedback and detailed analysis, which is awesome for the forum!

That they thought they had the right ball for him based on those tests, and he immediately realized they missed. Indoor vs. outdoor. Like @ArmyGolf said, best for another thread. This one's on the hop! Lol

 

[JB]

I want to like it but through 2 sleeves just haven’t seen the benefits others are talking about (low/mid 90s SS). I did see minor scuffing - not quite enough for me to take a ball out of play, but definitely more than I see with other balls. I’m taking my last 2 sleeves down to the Bay Area in a couple of weeks and will play them until gone. I suspect I’ll move on to my other regular ball - the CSx will really need to shine for me to pay full asking price for the ball.

I will also add that cover durability is not a manufacturing issue necessarily.
There is a fine line between thinnest cover possible and the performance benefits that come with that, along with imperfections that happen from impact. This was what Titleist said for years before going thicker and removing some of the benefits (to some people).

The last two releases from Srixon showed similar and it is definitely a trade off in higher end golf balls.

 

[HarryPotter]

That really surprises me with as much buzz that came with the Bridgestone Tour line.

I think they had a lot of ground to make up after the previous iteration. Still an awesome ball, and didn’t see the durability issues there. Csx outperformed for me, tho.

 

[McLovin]

Like how Chris (not picking on ya, just a recent example) immediately made a production excuse for the durability when mentioned. What other ball would people try to look past that without issue? Baffles me is all.

i think this is has a few reasons, most of which are just conjecture. with the core issue, and callaway admitting they needed to do better and also talking about how much they invested in the plant and production processes, it seemed reasonable to me that there were qc issues. in a perfect world those would all go away, but not likely. so if we're seeing inconsistent wear from one golfer to the next, it seems like there could be bad runs.

another thing that makes me wonder about production issues is 1) csx was not available to us at the grandaddy even though cs was, 2) iirc csx was delayed in its release, and 3) csx was not widely available upon release (and apparently still isn't widely available). so when one ball is ready but the other isn't, then that ball gets delayed further, then that ball doesn't see mass distribution, it just makes me wonder about production issues.

again, that is 100% conjecture. what i do know is it's a great performer for me, and i'll keep buying it. that is not because of the grandaddy, that is just because it's working so well.

 

[radiman]

I will also add that cover durability is not a manufacturing issue necessarily.
There is a fine line between thinnest cover possible and the performance benefits that come with that, along with imperfections that happen from impact. This was what Titleist said for years before going thicker and removing some of the benefits (to some people).

The last two releases from Srixon showed similar and it is definitely a trade off in higher end golf balls.

Along those lines. I haven't seen any significant wear on the cover like others have. At least not any worse than other brands. In fact, it's light years better than the Srixons I had been playing. But, I am not a high spin player either. So, I would assume there is less friction being applied to the cover. Would that account for the different results from player to player?

 

[radiman]

Oh, came in to say it had the best looking box design in the biz imo, but struck a nerve with the loyalty thing.

Yes, @radiman . I've seen a bunch of people play them despite them being a poor fit. Which is definitely not unique to any one ball. It seems way easier to talk sometime off a ProV1x than it is a CSX though. Now and historically from my observation. I know this version is different and it played differently for me, there has always just been a confusing loyalty to the line from my observation. I like this ball better. The last ones were crap in my opinion, but people bought the **** out of them anyway. There's a loyalty. Like how Chris (not picking on ya, just a recent example) immediately made a production excuse for the durability when mentioned. What other ball would people try to look past that without issue? Baffles me is all.

Damn. Got this thread running..

Then that is on them for making a poor choice I suppose. Like I said, it won't work for everyone. I know @Snickerdog tried the CSX and it just wasn't a fit for him. As far as the last version, they performed fine for me. I played some of my best golf with those balls. I interchanged them with Srixon with no problems. So, I had no issue spending my money on them. That was pre-Grandaddy selection. I won't say that there isn't customer loyalty. Just take a walk through the tall grass just ahead of the tee box and see how many ProV1's you can find.

 

[tequila4kapp]

Along those lines. I haven't seen any significant wear on the cover like others have. At least not any worse than other brands. In fact, it's light years better than the Srixons I had been playing. But, I am not a high spin player either. So, I would assume there is less friction being applied to the cover. Would that account for the different results from player to player?

That...and you 5 indexes don’t hit as many trees, sand traps and cart paths as us higher handicap guys