TXG - Snell MTB-X vs. Callaway Chrome Soft X

[Et Tu Brute?]

I can't speak to MGS's reputation or reliabilty. I just got back into golf last year and have been reading everything. Hopefully, other outlets will do outdoor tests with a Trackman and see if they have similar findings.

Their reputation is as something between wind-up merchants and wannabe opinion leaders. In the past their mode of operation was to get some guys together, hit shots into a net with a launch monitor and keep at it until they happened to find some shots that seemed to flout some piece of conventional wisdom or another.

To their credit, they really did make a best-faith effort to do a real test this time around. And they give fairly generous summaries of the data if you're willing to wade through all the tables. Nothing close to raw data and they don't necessarily reveal their definitions of "outliers" and so forth but it's a big step up for them.

But in the end, they still pick some industry big name (was Titleist for years, now it seems to be Callaway) to pick a fight with and the whole thing devolves into a slagging match in the media.

 

[McRock]

what expert has ever confirmed what the report said? what other source has ever confirmed what the report said? it's not confirmation bias at all. to say it for the 1,000th time, when no one has ever found what this report purports in its findings, a reasonable unvested party questions the outlier. and if you want to talk science, i'll defer to those here and elsewhere who have all spoken out against the flawed and unreliable design of the study.

That's cool. But it literally sounds like bias. Like a few have said, the best thing to do is look at multiple tests, that were done differently, maybe notice some trends, make your own choices from there.

It's a good thing Chris Columbus didn't pay attention to the "experts," or else he would have sailed right off the edge of the world.

Cocaine used to be considered beneficial medicine.

Doctors used to be in cigarette advertising.

And my general recollection is that the T-rex was believed to stand on its tail, kind of like a kangaroo, at least until the 80s or 90s I think. But now we know that's not right.

But hey, it's 2019, so when there's a majority of experts, they must be right.

~Rock

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

That's cool. But it literally sounds like bias. Like a few have said, the best thing to do is look at multiple tests, that were done differently, maybe notice some trends, make your own choices from there.

It's a good thing Chris Columbus didn't pay attention to the "experts," or else he would have sailed right off the edge of the world.

Cocaine used to be considered beneficial medicine.

Doctors used to be in cigarette advertising.

And my general recollection is that the T-rex was believed to stand on its tail, kind of like a kangaroo, at least until the 80s or 90s I think. But now we know that's not right.

But hey, it's 2019, so when there's a majority of experts, they must be right.

~Rock

In 2019 the definition of "expert" is "the guy who'll tell you I'm right about this".

 

[MWard]

My point exactly about the source. You have chosen what sources to agree with based on how the information is presented.

So what evidence do you have that indicates the color of the ball doesn’t influence performance. It was acknowledged as in interesting finding that needed more study. Could it be possible that the addition of color to the cover formulation changes the balls performance? I don’t know the answer but how about let’s test the theory. I vaguely recall that Dean Snell has commented on this point and performance differences. ...but i may be mistaken.

.... dude it’s a color.

 

[Bucketsofjoy]

I applaud MGS for their efforts, but they've only scratched the surface. My opinion of their site depends heavily on where they go from here. More testing won't harm anyone that seeks the truth. Personally, I feel like MGS kind of hides behind their first draft and never really puts in the work to make a true final copy. I predict they won't really pursue this much, and we'll never get a chance to see them scrutinize their own numbers.

I'm more inclined to believe the results of the TXG video than the MGS tests, because I was able to witness the process, but both parties now have a great opportunity to really find out what's what with the variables of outside testing and aerodynamics.

I think the ball is in MGS's court, but whatever. We've been told on THP that the CSx is a great ball, and that all premium balls are relatively the same off of the driver (by the guy who seems to be the biggest beneficiary of the MGS tests no less). Someone's not telling the truth/the whole truth.

 

[DonJuan]

Their reputation is as something between wind-up merchants and wannabe opinion leaders. In the past their mode of operation was to get some guys together, hit shots into a net with a launch monitor and keep at it until they happened to find some shots that seemed to flout some piece of conventional wisdom or another.

To their credit, they really did make a best-faith effort to do a real test this time around. And they give fairly generous summaries of the data if you're willing to wade through all the tables. Nothing close to raw data and they don't necessarily reveal their definitions of "outliers" and so forth but it's a big step up for them.

But in the end, they still pick some industry big name (was Titleist for years, now it seems to be Callaway) to pick a fight with and the whole thing devolves into a slagging match in the media.

Oh okay. I figured there was some history there based on this thread and people feigning objectivity when their comments suggest otherwise. Why would they rate Callaway's drivers and irons highly then if they have some ax to grind against them? I thought the test seemed reasonable, while not perfect.

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

Oh okay. I figured there was some history there based on this thread and people feigning objectivity when their comments suggest otherwise. Why would they rate Callaway's drivers and irons highly then if they have some ax to grind against them? I thought the test seemed reasonable, while not perfect.

They don't have an axe to grind with anyone. They used to slag Titleist balls, now they say good things about them. They used to like Callaway clubs, now they disparage their golf balls.

The paradigm is to goad one company or another into publicly disputing their "findings". If you can force a Titleist or Callaway to respond to you, then you are seen as being influential. Or as they would style it, standing up for the consumer against the Big Bad corporations.

Nothing but contrived dreck but it sure plays well on social media.

 

[-CRW-]

yet at a lower compression shouldn't be according to their analysis with other lower compression balls versus higher compression balls.

This isn't a "Callway has a great ball" comment from me. I want people to play whatever they want, but MGS basically summarized that if you are playing a lower compression ball you are leaving yards on the table isn't true based on my real course experience.

To be fair, the ERC probably shouldn't even be included in the discussion due to the cover. It was included in the study because it's designed to compete with "tour" level urethane balls. So the compression probably has much less to do with your distance discrepancies than the cover material (spin) does.

To really be fair, you'd probably need to an ERC "fast" or something invented with the same cover but firmer compression to see if you get more distance. However, it will likely never be made because you get nothing but distance out of it and most people knock "rock" balls all the time.

 

[mpeterson]

My point exactly about the source. You have chosen what sources to agree with based on how the information is presented.

So what evidence do you have that indicates the color of the ball doesn’t influence performance. It was acknowledged as in interesting finding that needed more study. Could it be possible that the addition of color to the cover formulation changes the balls performance? I don’t know the answer but how about let’s test the theory. I vaguely recall that Dean Snell has commented on this point and performance differences. ...but i may be mistaken.

In any type of study, if you end up with results that are well outside expectation (in this case, balls of a different color perform significantly differently), it's on you to show why. At a MINIMUM, they should have run through the same exact protocol with those two balls to show they saw the same thing. Because right now, those two points are the margin of error for me in the study, which pretty much negates a lot of conclusions they draw. I think it's fine to generate a bunch of data and say "here, take a look at this, it might be interesting" but they're talking like this is the end-all-be-all of ball studies. Yes, full flight is great! But, if the conditions change across swings and you didn't normalize your data, your error bars just got a whole lot bigger!

And with regards to their response to the TXG guys - the whole POINT of experimentation/science is for people to come at things different ways, and try to poke holes in studies. That's how knowledge is gained and fields are moved forwards. The fact that these guys are so butthurt over TXG's approach shows they really don't understand how this all works.

 

[mancest]

I am definitely biased. I think one does a fairly thorough but imperfect test and I think the other does big tests and wants headlines to promote their website. Doesn't matter what I think to anyone else, but I just picked up a dozen CSX balls and will be playing them for a while after playing some of the balls that one test said were of higher quality.

 

[-CRW-]

.... dude it’s a color.

I guess it depends on what extra chemicals are added to make it a different color. Does that affect the weight so that it could alter the performance even though the weight would be incredibly minuscule? Does the pigment not mix well enough that it leads to some sort of imbalance leading to the wider dispersion area recorded in the MGS study?

I don't know, but I think you have to do more testing before you completely write it off. But if that testing is hitting it on course and deciding it doesn't perform differently than the white version for you, then great.

 

[mancest]

I guess it depends on what extra chemicals are added to make it a different color. Does that affect the weight so that it could alter the performance even though the weight would be incredibly minuscule? Does the pigment not mix well enough that it leads to some sort of imbalance leading to the wider dispersion area recorded in the MGS study?

I don't know, but I think you have to do more testing before you completely write it off. But if that testing is hitting it on course and deciding it doesn't perform differently than the white version for you, then great.

Funny enough in previous videos Ian from TXG said that the Nike RZN ball in yellow played much differently than the white version. Think it was a live video and they were going to try and find some to do some testing on.

 

[McRock]

I guess it depends on what extra chemicals are added to make it a different color. Does that affect the weight so that it could alter the performance even though the weight would be incredibly minuscule? Does the pigment not mix well enough that it leads to some sort of imbalance leading to the wider dispersion area recorded in the MGS study?

I don't know, but I think you have to do more testing before you completely write it off. But if that testing is hitting it on course and deciding it doesn't perform differently than the white version for you, then great.

I think I read somewhere that matte finished balls absorb moisture at a higher rate. Who knew? I'm not saying that yellow balls are shorter, but I guess I'd be interested to see it looked into, to see if there is something that could cause it.

~Rock

 

[cnosil]

In any type of study, if you end up with results that are well outside expectation (in this case, balls of a different color perform significantly differently), it's on you to show why. At a MINIMUM, they should have run through the same exact protocol with those two balls to show they saw the same thing. Because right now, those two points are the margin of error for me in the study, which pretty much negates a lot of conclusions they draw. I think it's fine to generate a bunch of data and say "here, take a look at this, it might be interesting" but they're talking like this is the end-all-be-all of ball studies. Yes, full flight is great! But, if the conditions change across swings and you didn't normalize your data, your error bars just got a whole lot bigger!

And with regards to their response to the TXG guys - the whole POINT of experimentation/science is for people to come at things different ways, and try to poke holes in studies. That's how knowledge is gained and fields are moved forwards. The fact that these guys are so butthurt over TXG's approach shows they really don't understand how this all works.

Don’t disagree with anything here. I think we are on the same page.

 

[DonJuan]

Funny enough in previous videos Ian from TXG said that the Nike RZN ball in yellow played much differently than the white version. Think it was a live video and they were going to try and find some to do some testing on.

Welp, TXG said it, so we now we know it's true (That snark isn't directed towards you mancest).

 

[mpeterson]

Don’t disagree with anything here. I think we are on the same page.

Yeah, I should have prefaced that with that a lot of my comments weren't directly responding to you - but this is where the last of the color discussion was.

I honestly would be really interested to see someone dig in to the color thing. I know the different color pigments in grips make a big difference in weight - I'm guessing due to USGA regulations the weight can't move that much, but maybe there's something else at play? My gut says it's some kind of confounding factor since they even noted that it only happened in one condition (115mph club speed/Driver), it's probably an artifact, but only one way to find out.

 

[M2Giles]

So I did my little ball test today on the course. Course was dead due to high temps and workday. High temps meant the ball was seriously flying. I played 4 balls.

Prov1x
CSXTT
Tour B X
Tour B XS

The chromesoft and tour B XS were softer B X and prov1x were both firmer.

Around the green I liked the CSXTT the most. TT was kinda a miss since I couldn't read greens today. Though that's not a knock on it. Just really showed me how bad my green reading ability is.

Flight. Off the tee I was shocked to see the flight differences. I was turning the ball over a lot today, but even then there was a noticeable height difference between the balls. The prov1x flew the highest. The Bridgestones were interchangeable and the csxtt was without the doubt the lowest.

Distance. I wont say one was the longest but I will say the CSXTT was never the longest. The prov1x and tour b x would usually be the longest ball. The csx tt would then usually be the second longest. Notice that I say second longest. It wasnt the longest but it was never the shortest. The B XS literally bounced all over the place. It was the longest twice, but usually was around the distance of the csxtt. If this makes no sense I would say I have nothing statistically significant to really say. The csxtt wasnt the longest ball on an individual shot but probably on average did the second best (?).

Wind. The prov1x definitely got hit by the wind the most, but there wasnt enough wind to make me say I wont use the ball in the wind.

Feel. I probably connected most with the tour b x. Not sure why, but it was the one I looked forward to hitting the most.

Spin. All of them had loads and would stop quickly. Even with me basically hitting fall out of the sky hooks they would hit and stop with my irons.

Honestly, I probably could play any of these balls and be happy. The only thing I will note, this was in warm temps where the ball plays softer. Early in the season I had a disappointing time trying out the prov1x. It spun like crazy off the irons and didn't seem to rebound like it was today off the driver. So I wonder if there is something to be said on temps and ball compression.

 

[Shakey]

All I can say is that the MGS test provided a lot of good charts/data points that I probably spent too much time poring over.

In the end, it did cause me to purchase some Tour B RX balls. Something I would have never done without reading the article. I decided to try them because the combined results with the driver & 7i matched up the best for what I think I need out of a ball.

After 2 rounds, I think I'm going to stick with them. I don't like the feel as much as I do the low compression balls, but they appear to be longer & straighter with the driver & as long & as straight with the irons. That's a win in my book. I'll learn to deal with the feel if the results are good.

 

[aslxa]

Good thread overall. I have now tested for myself the MTB-X, which I purchased before the MGS test, against the ProV1x (which I customarily play the most) and the CSx. My driver SS was just clocked on the launch monitor at between 100-102. I will say that for me, the MTB-X is consistently 6-10 yards longer than the ProV1x and a minimum of 10 yards longer than CSx. Off the irons, it was just behind the ProV1x in distance and a few yards ahead of the CSx. I also liked the Snell better around the greens as it was more predictable for me. If you want a ball that feels at all soft, this is not the ball for you. It is the hardest urethane ball I have ever played.

 

[oiler3535]

That's cool. But it literally sounds like bias. Like a few have said, the best thing to do is look at multiple tests, that were done differently, maybe notice some trends, make your own choices from there.

It's a good thing Chris Columbus didn't pay attention to the "experts," or else he would have sailed right off the edge of the world.

Cocaine used to be considered beneficial medicine.

Doctors used to be in cigarette advertising.

And my general recollection is that the T-rex was believed to stand on its tail, kind of like a kangaroo, at least until the 80s or 90s I think. But now we know that's not right.

But hey, it's 2019, so when there's a majority of experts, they must be right.

~Rock

Not arguing anything at all against your point. But....smart people knew the earth was round 2000 years before Columbus. Columbus just thought he was smarter than everybody else and that everybody was overestimating the earth’s circumference. He just got “lucky”.

 

[rallo]

Welp, TXG said it, so we now we know it's true (That snark isn't directed towards you mancest).

Honestly, kind of... but mostly because two different independent tests yielded similar results. I would like to see both groups dive into a colored balls analysis.

 

[DonJuan]

Honestly, kind of... but mostly because two different independent tests yielded similar results. I would like to see both groups dive into a colored balls analysis.

Not the way I meant it, but you're right. They even alluded to the "higher compression balls maybe being better for slower swing speeds" in another video recently. As much as people dislike the MGS test, there still may be valuable data there.

Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk

 

[rallo]

Not the way I meant it, but you're right. They even alluded to the "higher compression balls maybe being better for slower swing speeds" in another video recently. As much as people dislike the MGS test, there still may be valuable data there.

Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk

Perhaps. My comment was mostly towards the idea that the colored balls may perform differently than white balls. Although i think we agree that the more testing, the better

 

[DonJuan]

Perhaps. My comment was mostly towards the idea that the colored balls may perform differently than white balls. Although i think we agree that the more testing, the better

Oh, I know. I was alluding to the more data thing. Since people dont believe what MGS says until TXG says the same thing. I think the color isn't that big of a mystery. I mean, they have to add something to get the color. I often play colored balls because I'm often looking for my ball. I'd like to see more test, too.

Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk