- Thread starter
- #26
How much concern should this cause..?
- Thread starter
- #27
2 out of 10--- raise an eybrow. 2 out of 100 I'd take notice, 2 out of 1000 I'd pass it off. I'm not fully knowledgeable of the tolerance's in ball making to say whether or not it's a huge issue.
- Thread starter
- #29
To be clear on my end, I’m not saying this is an emergency for Callaway. Not am I saying that every ball company doesn’t have their own QC issues. I think everyone has some sort of brand bias and this wouldn’t change anyone’s mind in that. But it does open your eyes 
to if there was NO logo on that ball.....would anyone’s viewpoint or opinion vary. What if it were a Kirkland ball? Or a CUT brand.....or any brand honestly. It’s still eye opening nonetheless
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
to if there was NO logo on that ball.....would anyone’s viewpoint or opinion vary. What if it were a Kirkland ball? Or a CUT brand.....or any brand honestly. It’s still eye opening nonetheless Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Thread starter
- #30
I think 2 out 2000 would be a problem to inspect the process and X-ray machines capabilities
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
how do you know how that ball will perform?
no qc can guarantee 100% effectiveness. there will always be issues. it’s no more problematic than a thousand other issues every oem deals with.
and i don’t say this because of the grandaddy. i say it because it’s just not an issue. and the guys who keep trying to poke the bear are really grasping at straws.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
It'd be like an offset weight block in a bowling ball. It'll still go straight as long as the spin rotation is straight. But will either spin more or less when the spin axis shifts depending on what side of the ball the offset is on. That's what I think anyway. With the amount of mass that's in a golf ball, I doubt it would be much difference, if any.
- Staff
- #33
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
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
- Thread starter
- #34
Lol.....if “that” ball is proven to be completely balanced than I guess it wouldn’t. I’d find it impossible that the ball is balanced. Those materials all have different weights and it’s visually obvious the core is off center. If all of their balls had this characteristic it wouldn’t need to be cut in half to find out if it were off center. There’s a reason why every ball Company centers the sphere inside the cover. It’s for balancing purposes. Centriphical force blah blah blah haha. I’m out over my skis here
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
CobraX51
F-ck Yeah Baby!
A product mishap? Doesn't that happen with golf clubs lie/loft angle? Cars getting recalled due to some sort of seatbelt glitch or error? Computers or Phones having some sort of issue?
It's a one-off. I think Callaway takes the golf ball department very serious and proud of their ball plant and manufacturing.
I've switched off of the ChromeSoft but that's for my own reasons, not the source of this.
It's a one-off. I think Callaway takes the golf ball department very serious and proud of their ball plant and manufacturing.
I've switched off of the ChromeSoft but that's for my own reasons, not the source of this.
- Thread starter
- #36
Totally agree. But it’s still a Callaway ball that was cut open to be sold to us as consumers. The name on it is irrelevant to me.the outcome is not however
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They all have a set tolerance, and they all have issues with a ball here and there slipping through the cracks. Whether this one was within tolerance or not would be a question for them to take up with Callaway. As someone who is personally not a worshipper of the Chev or any other specific brand for that matter, this is a non issue for me. If it flies a little funny, I'll chuck it in the woods, grab another one and get on with my life without ever thinking about it again.
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."
eace2:
eace2:
- Thread starter
- #39
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."
Hahah maybe all companies should
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2018
- Messages
- 33,203
- Reaction score
- 47,434
- Location
- Oxford, Mississippi
- Handicap
- 10.4
Yesterday a member of twitter (who shall remain nameless) cut open a Golf ball. Literally right in half......this is what he found.
(I don’t feel it’s appropriate to link the tweet to this but I will say that he mentioned it was a Callaway Chromesoft Golf ball
I’m not saying this is an epidemic but it is certainly a problem of quality control for the consumer. Is this the “tip of the iceberg” as he says it might be?
Curious what everyone else’s thoughts or concerns are? Let’s discuss..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Did he tweet other pictures or video establishing that the ball with the lop-sided core was a Callaway? Those 2 pictures only imply, and want the viewer to infer, that the ball is a Callaway.
- Moderator
- #42
Right. I won’t deny that. Based on the axe that particular company seems to have with Callaway though, and the fact this company really seems to have some interesting issues during their tests they run, everything they say and do is taken with a grain of salt IMO.
Being that I have never gone to a ball producing facility, I can’t tell you how their QC is conducted. I have been in a shaft producing facility though, and I know they do QC tests prior to everything cosmetic.
That being said, I’m pretty certain a core that lobsided where it would affect ball flight, would also be noticed pretty quick in QC testing (would it even roll or spin without wobbling?) and therefore discarded really fast. I could be wrong, but these companies spend millions making products for consumers. That certainly has to get seen right?
- Thread starter
- #43
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2011
- Messages
- 25,455
- Reaction score
- 1,662
I don't understand why it's so hard for them to provide details or answer questions on their twitter.............
If your opinion changes on a brand because of one defective product (and it's not life or death), then you are reacting hastily to something that happens in every industry, everywhere.
If we were talking about hospitals, for example, this is a different conversation.
If we were talking about hospitals, for example, this is a different conversation.
I saw it as a poster looking for attention for his company and again going at a company that is at the top of their game.
Personally the only thing it impacts is me thinking that company is a bunch of slime balls. They pick different targets (was Callaway and the 100 yards shorter than another ball, then it was all DTC balls are the same, yet their previous winner of best ball ever was a DTC ball....) and try to stir it up on social media.
It is 100% click bait trying to get people talking about them and how they and their readers are smarter than everyone else.
Personally the only thing it impacts is me thinking that company is a bunch of slime balls. They pick different targets (was Callaway and the 100 yards shorter than another ball, then it was all DTC balls are the same, yet their previous winner of best ball ever was a DTC ball....) and try to stir it up on social media.
It is 100% click bait trying to get people talking about them and how they and their readers are smarter than everyone else.
Sensationalism 101.
Lol.....if “that” ball is proven to be completely balanced than I guess it wouldn’t. I’d find it impossible that the ball is balanced. Those materials all have different weights and it’s visually obvious the core is off center. If all of their balls had this characteristic it wouldn’t need to be cut in half to find out if it were off center. There’s a reason why every ball Company centers the sphere inside the cover. It’s for balancing purposes. Centriphical force blah blah blah haha. I’m out over my skis here
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
you’re probably right, but you don’t know you’re right until you test and confirm your results. and it’s my big problem with this whole stupid trend. nobody is testing and proving anything. they’re just drawing conclusions straight from their hypothesis. the scientific method has been completely abandoned for clickbait drive-by sensationalism. it’s irresponsible and unfortunately without consequence.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Just looking at pictures it looks bad but......
If you gave an average customer a sleeve of balls to test and 1 or 2 was bad, do you really think they would be able to tell the difference in performance? I ask because I don't know. What is the tolerance of swing speed needed to see a difference in flight on different shots? How would greenside speed differ on a clean strike?
If Callaway has done tests and show that amateurs can find no difference then why wouldn't they have a loose tolerance and sell as much product as they can make. Their tolerance for balls sent to the tour I am sure are much tighter.
There are no answers to any of that so I see the picture and I say, so what. I can guarantee that the core being off center would be pretty far down my list of excuses for that garbage shot I just hit.
If you gave an average customer a sleeve of balls to test and 1 or 2 was bad, do you really think they would be able to tell the difference in performance? I ask because I don't know. What is the tolerance of swing speed needed to see a difference in flight on different shots? How would greenside speed differ on a clean strike?
If Callaway has done tests and show that amateurs can find no difference then why wouldn't they have a loose tolerance and sell as much product as they can make. Their tolerance for balls sent to the tour I am sure are much tighter.
There are no answers to any of that so I see the picture and I say, so what. I can guarantee that the core being off center would be pretty far down my list of excuses for that garbage shot I just hit.
