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

[McLovin]

There's no point in making this any more than it should be. Both MGS and THP provide a place to talk golf, and everyone is free to pick one (or both really) to have their conversations about the game we love. I speak for probably more than just myself when i say that I couldn't care less what they are doing over there, and if I did, I'd probably have an account. It's not dislike, it's a total lack of interest.

the opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference

I'd rather read about what THPers are doing with the balls, not what some other golf forum is doing.

#sendmeyourballpics

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

None of these "tests" (and the TXG stuff is not really a test at all but just a demo) use nearly enough balls being hit to tease out the difference between "18 yards" vs. "4 yards" vs. no difference at all.

The MSG robot one at least hit enough balls that you can see broad, suggestive trends among similar balls. But not enough to say with any certainty at all that one model ball averaging "264" is actually longer than a competitor averaging "262" or whatever.

 

[Canadan]

#sendmeyourballpics

I need to get a sleeve of these MTB-X which are rocking the world.

Honestly though, nearly 120 compression is terrifying to me for a chance at some more ball speed. I've been going the opposite way of playing a ball like the B330 from Bridgestone to something softer as I'm looking for straighter and less spin. On paper, these bad boys would seem like they'd spin like a top and go off the planet when I missed them.

 

[GolfFest]

When I was playing the CF16s I tested a lot of golf balls, I struggled with the Snell MTB to hold a green while the Cut Blue, which was one of the tests overall worst balls, was probably the best when it came to stopping power. I know the MGS testing uses newer models than when I tested them but the takeaway from me is that I need to test for myself.

I should probably test the MTBX at some point, but I wouldn't consider switching for 4 yards carry or 1 yard total with the driver unless the ball was as good or better with the irons or wedges where performance to me is more important. I want to do a more thorough testing at some point but for now I am all in on triple track which is legitimately improving my putting.

 

[DonJuan]

When I was playing the CF16s I tested a lot of golf balls, I struggled with the Snell MTB to hold a green while the Cut Blue, which was one of the tests overall worst balls, was probably the best when it came to stopping power. I know the MGS testing uses newer models than when I tested them but the takeaway from me is that I need to test for myself.

The original Cut Blue was notoriously high spinning. I loved that thing around the greens. Anyway, they dinged the Blue for QC and durability.

 

[golfinnut]

I need to get a sleeve of these MTB-X which are rocking the world.

Honestly though, nearly 120 compression is terrifying to me for a chance at some more ball speed. I've been going the opposite way of playing a ball like the B330 from Bridgestone to something softer as I'm looking for straighter and less spin. On paper, these bad boys would seem like they'd spin like a top and go off the planet when I missed them.

I played the MTB-X over the weekend & you're right ... the spin factor was ridiculous on mis-hits. I had one of my worst driving days ever since I've had the TS2 (& it's very accurate with other balls like my gamer) but wow. I had some drives that were hard to locate they were so far off target. Grant it there were other conditions (rainy, wet clubface & ball) but a few days before I had a great day driving the ball. Incidentally, in all of your testing, does a wet ball AND clubface have influence on accuracy? I'm sure there have been tests done. I've seen one with the wet ball but not with both.

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

I need to get a sleeve of these MTB-X which are rocking the world.

Honestly though, nearly 120 compression is terrifying to me for a chance at some more ball speed. I've been going the opposite way of playing a ball like the B330 from Bridgestone to something softer as I'm looking for straighter and less spin. On paper, these bad boys would seem like they'd spin like a top and go off the planet when I missed them.

I'm most familiar with Titleist balls and their two most extreme "Tour" balls are the AVX and ProV1x, in terms of low versus high spin. For most people, the difference is about 20% less spin off irons for the AVX and at the very most 10% less spin off the driver.

You're just not going to find any two urethane balls to compare where one of them you can hit straight and the other one slices or hooks into another ZIP code. It's not that kind of difference. Certainly not that kind of difference just because one has a firmer core than the other.

That robot test has Bridgestone B RX at 2,163rpm off the driver versus Snell MTB X at 2,206. That's no difference at all. For 7-iron B RX is 5,188 and MTB X is 6,134. That's only a 20% difference. And that's a 99 vs. 114 compression comparison.

Go all the way down to the 86 compression Chrome Soft. It actually spins less than MTB X off a 7-iron (5,451) and the driver spin is all the way up to 2,387. Which is still in practical terms meaningless compared to the firmer MTB X.

And those comparisons are at 115mph. If you swing slower than that the difference in spin will be proportionally less.

The very firmest balls versus very softest balls (if we're comparing urethane to urethane) all have, in practical terms, extremely similar driver spin. With the firmer ones being maybe 1,000rpm more off a 7-iron. Small potatoes.

If you hit the ball off the planet it's the swing, not the ball and certainly not the compression of the ball.

 

[JB]

The very firmest balls versus very softest balls (if we're comparing urethane to urethane) all have, in practical terms, extremely similar driver spin. With the firmer ones being maybe 1,000rpm more off a 7-iron. Small potatoes.

This is accurate only when hit with center contact. With less than solid contact, where compression can matter for golfers, the spin difference can vary significantly more.

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

This is accurate only when hit with center contact. With less than solid contact, where compression can matter for golfers, the spin difference can vary significantly more.

Yes, I've heard that one before.

 

[-CRW-]

This is accurate only when hit with center contact. With less than solid contact, where compression can matter for golfers, the spin difference can vary significantly more.

While I know what you are saying is correct due to fitting experiences I've had, it didn't translate to scoring on the course for me. A bad hit way off the toe/heel still found the woods with softer balls. I've even played Wilson Duo's and had the same thing happen.

Maybe it helps more with slower speeds, because at higher speeds the golfer is still going to generate too much spin. Stiffer, lower torque rated shafts were a decent band-aid for me at the cost of carry and total distance. The only thing that really improved my results and scores was improving my contact and face/path relationship averages.

 

[Alez367]

Yes, I've heard that one before.

but he's not wrong. Off center hits vs center face create a difference.

 

[JB]

While I know what you are saying is correct due to fitting experiences I've had, it didn't translate to scoring on the course for me. A bad hit way off the toe/heel still found the woods with softer balls. I've even played Wilson Duo's and had the same thing happen.

Maybe it helps more with slower speeds, because at higher speeds the golfer is still going to generate too much spin. Stiffer, lower torque rated shafts were a decent band-aid for me at the cost of carry and total distance. The only thing that really improved my results and scores was improving my contact and face/path relationship averages.

The direction one hits it is a path issue.
Spin happens and can accentuate or help depending on a person needing it. The idea that testing any product and only focusing on dead center contact is incredibly flawed when it pertains to actual performance golfers will see. It is why fitting is important and why THP continues to show this with data in Range Days where we discuss and show ball impact location and how it impacts golfers data.

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

While I know what you are saying is correct due to fitting experiences I've had, it didn't translate to scoring on the course for me. A bad hit way off the toe/heel still found the woods with softer balls. I've even played Wilson Duo's and had the same thing happen.

Maybe it helps more with slower speeds, because at higher speeds the golfer is still going to generate too much spin. Stiffer, lower torque rated shafts were a decent band-aid for me at the cost of carry and total distance. The only thing that really improved my results and scores was improving my contact and face/path relationship averages.

I don't think it's a high speed or low speed thing. It's just one of those plausible sounding ideas that are hard to prove or disprove in practice. You'd have to nail down just what sort of combination of off-center contact and/or face angle discrepancy and/or path error it is that creates the "firmer balls slice or hook more" and then test the theory. Too many permutations to ever get a solid answer.

 

[Iceman!]

I did a 2 day test - I used 2019 ProV's on a Saturday and TourB RX on a Sunday.
The difference was so striking I couldn't believe it.
Now I'm in 92MPH swing range however I just could not tame the ProV off the tee, the spin was just too much and the wrong way.
As JB mentions above, I don't probably hit it "Dead Center" and that's where the RX just shined.
Less Compression gave me less spin and straighter drives.

My argument with the MGS report was that it's just numbers, you have to find the ball that fits your game, that fits your swing.
I just didn't read that in the report, except for the comment about find one model that fits your game and then stick with it.
A report from robot testing is not going to correlate with what happens on a golf course.

And the ERC Soft took a beating on the report however if you are a high spin player - a ball that can take away that spin is a real value.

Got to find what fits your game no matter what a report or finding states.

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

I did a 2 day test - I used 2019 ProV's on a Saturday and TourB RX on a Sunday.
The difference was so striking I couldn't believe it.
Now I'm in 92MPH swing range however I just could not tame the ProV off the tee, the spin was just too much and the wrong way.
As JB mentions above, I don't probably hit it "Dead Center" and that's where the RX just shined.
Less Compression gave me less spin and straighter drives.

My argument with the MGS report was that it's just numbers, you have to find the ball that fits your game, that fits your swing.
I just didn't read that in the report, except for the comment about find one model that fits your game and then stick with it.
A report from robot testing is not going to correlate with what happens on a golf course.

And the ERC Soft took a beating on the report however if you are a high spin player - a ball that can take away that spin is a real value.

Got to find what fits your game no matter what a report or finding states.

Or it's possible you just hit it better on Sunday than on Saturday.

We're talking, what, 14 drives with one ball versus 14 drives with another? What if you go out tomorrow and hit the B RX into the woods half a dozen times, does that mean the compression got higher overnight?

We all have to find a ball that works for our game. And no, we can't tell that by reading swing robot reports. But you're making highly technical arguments about how one ball characteristic (compression) determines what happens when you hit different models of ball. That's not saying it works for your game, that's saying you know exactly why in ball-design terms in works for your game. You don't.

 

[-CRW-]

The direction one hits it is a path issue.
Spin happens and can accentuate or help depending on a person needing it. The idea that testing any product and only focusing on dead center contact is incredibly flawed when it pertains to actual performance golfers will see. It is why fitting is important and why THP continues to show this with data in Range Days where we discuss and show ball impact location and how it impacts golfers data.

Uh, no. Direction is roughly 85% determined by face angle with a driver. The path is going to contribute to the curvature after the initial start line. That one is a confirmed fact that I don't think anyone still disagrees with.

What you posted falls under the "old ball flight laws" (old = wrong, before we knew better). Unless you meant to write face angle.

 

[Canadan]

I'm most familiar with Titleist balls and their two most extreme "Tour" balls are the AVX and ProV1x, in terms of low versus high spin. For most people, the difference is about 20% less spin off irons for the AVX and at the very most 10% less spin off the driver.

You're just not going to find any two urethane balls to compare where one of them you can hit straight and the other one slices or hooks into another ZIP code. It's not that kind of difference. Certainly not that kind of difference just because one has a firmer core than the other.

That robot test has Bridgestone B RX at 2,163rpm off the driver versus Snell MTB X at 2,206. That's no difference at all. For 7-iron B RX is 5,188 and MTB X is 6,134. That's only a 20% difference. And that's a 99 vs. 114 compression comparison.

Go all the way down to the 86 compression Chrome Soft. It actually spins less than MTB X off a 7-iron (5,451) and the driver spin is all the way up to 2,387. Which is still in practical terms meaningless compared to the firmer MTB X.

And those comparisons are at 115mph. If you swing slower than that the difference in spin will be proportionally less.

The very firmest balls versus very softest balls (if we're comparing urethane to urethane) all have, in practical terms, extremely similar driver spin. With the firmer ones being maybe 1,000rpm more off a 7-iron. Small potatoes.

If you hit the ball off the planet it's the swing, not the ball and certainly not the compression of the ball.

If these are all head on impacts, it means very little to me (as a golfer who has flaws). The benefits of a softer ball (kind of like Bridgestone's e series back when there was 5/6/7), the benefits of the 6 vs the 7 were heavily on the quality of contact (and in slower swing speeds, better activation).

That's why when I look at a company like Titleist, I'll lean towards AVX over ProV1 despite the potential ball speed gains. I'll accept slightly less spin around the green for notably lower spin everywhere else. But I am unique, where I've got the ball speed to trade for my excessive spin numbers due to swing profile.

 

[JB]

Uh, no. Direction is roughly 85% determined by face angle with a driver. The path is going to contribute to the curvature after the initial start line. That one is a confirmed fact that I don't think anyone still disagrees with.

What you posted falls under the "old ball flight laws" (old = wrong, before we knew better). Unless you meant to write face angle.

Path can alter face angle of driver. Just as hands can (as well as clubs). Face angle of club head, doesn't just happen without the swing.

 

[noodle3872]

I look at MSG’s results with curious eyes. There sure is something going on that is unaccounted for. But the test was done in an uncontrolled environment as such, I look at ball speed, launch and spin since these numbers are more likely the most accurate of the numbers presented. I appreciate the work done on the ball testing. It is helpful as a starting point. Balls that seem to fit my game’s needs get tested on course.

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

If these are all head on impacts, it means very little to me (as a golfer who has flaws). The benefits of a softer ball (kind of like Bridgestone's e series back when there was 5/6/7), the benefits of the 6 vs the 7 were heavily on the quality of contact (and in slower swing speeds, better activation).

That's why when I look at a company like Titleist, I'll lean towards AVX over ProV1 despite the potential ball speed gains. I'll accept slightly less spin around the green for notably lower spin everywhere else. But I am unique, where I've got the ball speed to trade for my excessive spin numbers due to swing profile.

That "better activation" or the similar can't compress the ball is marketing gobbledegook that you happen to have fallen for. It is not supported by ANY sort of objective testing or by the actual physics of ball/club contact. It's just a pitch from someone trying to sell golf balls.

 

[JB]

If these are all head on impacts, it means very little to me (as a golfer who has flaws). The benefits of a softer ball (kind of like Bridgestone's e series back when there was 5/6/7), the benefits of the 6 vs the 7 were heavily on the quality of contact (and in slower swing speeds, better activation).

That's why when I look at a company like Titleist, I'll lean towards AVX over ProV1 despite the potential ball speed gains. I'll accept slightly less spin around the green for notably lower spin everywhere else. But I am unique, where I've got the ball speed to trade for my excessive spin numbers due to swing profile.

If distance were solely based on speed only, all of the stuff being discussed here and around social makes sense. Sadly in terms of actual performance that is not the case.

 

[Canadan]

While I know what you are saying is correct due to fitting experiences I've had, it didn't translate to scoring on the course for me. A bad hit way off the toe/heel still found the woods with softer balls. I've even played Wilson Duo's and had the same thing happen.

Maybe it helps more with slower speeds, because at higher speeds the golfer is still going to generate too much spin. Stiffer, lower torque rated shafts were a decent band-aid for me at the cost of carry and total distance. The only thing that really improved my results and scores was improving my contact and face/path relationship averages.

I would bet decent money than any ball hit off the extreme with a bad face angle is going to result in a bad finishing location. Golf balls will never solve for that.

But, if you're steep into the ball with an open face without an extreme miss on the face (just one example), a softer ball is going to help with things like spin by design, is it not?

 

[Canadan]

That "better activation" or the similar can't compress the ball is marketing gobbledegook that you happen to have fallen for. It is not supported by ANY sort of objective testing or by the actual physics of ball/club contact. It's just a pitch from someone trying to sell golf balls.

So, my personal experiences over let's call it a conservative 500 rounds over the last five seasons, alongside launch monitor data and direct ball to ball comparisons, alongside actual ball fittings from companies (one of which who preferred a ball I did not get fit into) is "gobbledegook"? hahaha I love that word.

If my own experiences, as persistent as I've been to experience the golf ball, are outweighed by something I've read or heard on the internet, I'll take a massive dose of it every day for the next thirty years haha

 

[JB]

I would bet decent money than any ball hit off the extreme with a bad face angle is going to result in a bad finishing location. Golf balls will never solve for that.

But, if you're steep into the ball with an open face without an extreme miss on the face (just one example), a softer ball is going to help with things like spin by design, is it not?

If compression didn’t change anything, a firmer ball would t be faster

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

I would bet decent money than any ball hit off the extreme with a bad face angle is going to result in a bad finishing location. Golf balls will never solve for that.

But, if you're steep into the ball with an open face without an extreme miss on the face (just one example), a softer ball is going to help with things like spin by design, is it not?

Why do you think that?

The softer ball is designed to offer a more pleasing sound that is preferred by a large number of golfers. There is no design principle that says a lower compression will somehow mitigate the effects of extremely poor contact. That's simply not possible.