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

-CRW-

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
10,399
Reaction score
1,977
Only 2.5 mph ball speed difference (as expected by TXG), and a few yards carry shorter in the softer ball. NOT the 18 that was stated elsewhere. I wonder what the response will be.

giphy.gif
 
Only 2.5 mph ball speed difference (as expected by TXG), and a few yards carry shorter in the softer ball. NOT the 18 that was stated elsewhere. I wonder what the response will be.

giphy.gif

I'm watching it too. For Matty the difference was even less, 1.2 MPH faster with Snell(171.1 to 169.9), which was 4 yards of carry.
 
MGS did the test outdoors vs TXG doing indoor testing. Still can't see that accounting for 18 yards of difference. The fact that the same ball (Srixon was it?) that tested differently in white vs yellow has to also send up some red flags.
 
Thanks for sharing the video. Both balls perform very well.
 
Honestly, I don't think you can compare the test because they weren't done the same - Human vs. robot, indoors vs. outdoors, etc.
 
The only few things left, that I can think of, are what TXG was saying - weather (methodology), aerodynamics in actual outdoor flight, or (my thought) differences between the two launch monitors.
 
Honestly, I don't think you can compare the test because they weren't done the same - Human vs. robot, indoors vs. outdoors, etc.

my follow up would be this...if that performance is only going to work or be effected by a robot, then why should we care and why should we as humans bother going out there and testing on our own?
 
Honestly, I don't think you can compare the test because they weren't done the same - Human vs. robot, indoors vs. outdoors, etc.

right but when you say a golf ball tested by robots is better for humans, the two collide.
 
Damn, that was a well articulated and broken down video. I do agree that going with the "soft is slower" headline would have been a better descriptor for it but it's their testing and how they presented is their prerogative.
 
right but when you say a golf ball tested by robots is better for humans, the two collide.

This is where I am at as well. I appreciate testing and letting the results fall where they do, but with robot testing I will discount it, but I will not swing perfectly each time like the robot does. I'm not smart enough to get into aerodynamics or indoor vs outdoor, but what I saw was a guy fairly consistent and didn't see the difference the robot saw. For me that says more and holds more weight. golf at his level, 4 yards of carry isn't the end of the world and if he had to chose between the two balls, my guess it will be based on feel (firmness) and how it performs into and around the green.
 
right but when you say a golf ball tested by robots is better for humans, the two collide.

I don't think so. There should be no scientific difference in the testing caused by the robot. It has to be either the conditions, aerodynamics, or even a bad batch of Chrome Soft X balls or exceptional batch of MTB-X balls. All of which would point to methodology issues other than the robot.
 
This is where I am at as well. I appreciate testing and letting the results fall where they do, but with robot testing I will discount it, but I will not swing perfectly each time like the robot does. I'm not smart enough to get into aerodynamics or indoor vs outdoor, but what I saw was a guy fairly consistent and didn't see the difference the robot saw. For me that says more and holds more weight. golf at his level, 4 yards of carry isn't the end of the world and if he had to chose between the two balls, my guess it will be based on feel (firmness) and how it performs into and around the green.

how they mention preference and breakdown what that could mean for each golfer is great.
 
Good stuff, and looking forward to more of these (especially the slower swing speed ones).

So While its not +18 cards, the +4 yards is solid considering the $12 difference (1 dozen vs another).
 
Damn, that was a well articulated and broken down video. I do agree that going with the "soft is slower" headline would have been a better descriptor for it but it's their testing and how they presented is their prerogative.

it's a way that discussing the topic should be handled. No pitchforks to go out there and completely discredit, but go about it in a professional way and try to understand the original results, and the self-tested results.
 
Good stuff, and looking forward to more of these (especially the slower swing speed ones).

So While its not +18 cards, the +4 yards is solid considering the $12 difference (1 dozen vs another).

silly question, would you notice 4 yards on a course?
 
how they mention preference and breakdown what that could mean for each golfer is great.

That's why I really like how they present data in their videos. It's not an "all or nothing" message. They want you to make sure you are playing a ball best suited for your game. I love CS (truvis especially) but my testing found the ERC is longer and straighter than CS and i'm not giving up much in terms of spin into or around the greens. Does that mean CS is a crappy ball and no one should be playing it? Absolutely not, it just means that while I thought it was a good fit, I proved to myself it wasn't.

And for me this is less about Callaway, and more about ball testing in general. There is ego involved and we want to play the "high end" balls we see on tour or tv even if it doesn't fit our game.
 
right but when you say a golf ball tested by robots is better for humans, the two collide.

Well, I think a robot can show you what the ball itself is capable of when removing the human factor. And I don't know that they were saying which ball is better for humans. They said in their testing that there are certain people who would benefit from a softer ball. With that being said, too many variables to suggest that MGS was wrong. Trackman monitors the entire flight of the ball, which is beneficial when testing outdoors. GCQuad is a launch monitor - it takes a snapshot of launch characteristics and draws conclusions. Could it account for that big of a difference? I don't know. I've never even been on a monitor. But I suspect wind and aerodynamic factors are probably more of an influence.

I'm a gun guy and there's always this debate about suppressor decibel numbers because unless you test them at the exact same time on the exact same day, then the atmospheric conditions could vary enough to affect the readings. If MGS tests the CSX in the morning and the MTB-X in the late afternoon, there may be enough of a variance to matter.
 
silly question, would you notice 4 yards on a course?

Wasn’t directed at me but because I like the discussion, only one course in SD do I notice less carry and that’s Torrey because of the set up there. Anywhere else less penalty for off center shots and it’s not noticeable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
silly question, would you notice 4 yards on a course?

Not with driver

Maybe with irons (general statement not saying it would be 4 yards with irons too)

Also no chance with how bad I swing now lol

My guess is if his repeatable swing gets ahold of a bulk of the tour balls the grouping will be pretty tight, whereas a gap like 4 yards kinda stands out.

Also 118 club head speed looks freaking effortless
 
Not with driver

Maybe with irons (general statement not saying it would be 4 yards with irons too)

Also no chance with how bad I swing now lol

My guess is if his repeatable swing gets ahold of a bulk of the tour balls the grouping will be pretty tight, whereas a gap like 4 yards kinda stands out.

Also 118 club head speed looks freaking effortless

yeah that's a smooth 118. Can add ours together and not get that haha
 
Good stuff, and looking forward to more of these (especially the slower swing speed ones).

So While its not +18 cards, the +4 yards is solid considering the $12 difference (1 dozen vs another).

But also, 4 yards at what, 122 mph swing speed? does that equate down the line as 4 yards for everyone or 4 yards for 122, 3 yards for 92? Or at certain swing speeds does it not make a difference? I know for years we have talked about whether a golf ball can be over compressed.... maybe it can or maybe it can't I really don't know.

I remember when it was discussed by ping on turbulators and that it was an increase of X percent of speed, so it is going to be a bigger total jump for Bubba Watson than me. I am wondering if this is the same type of deal. I really hope they do some golf ball testing with the "average" swing speed players they have done some filming with.
 
Also keep in mind that 4 yards is for a very repeatable and consistent swing, something "most" of us cannot achieve
 
But also, 4 yards at what, 122 mph swing speed? does that equate down the line as 4 yards for everyone or 4 yards for 122, 3 yards for 92? Or at certain swing speeds does it not make a difference? I know for years we have talked about whether a golf ball can be over compressed.... maybe it can or maybe it can't I really don't know.

I remember when it was discussed by ping on turbulators and that it was an increase of X percent of speed, so it is going to be a bigger total jump for Bubba Watson than me. I am wondering if this is the same type of deal. I really hope they do some golf ball testing with the "average" swing speed players they have done some filming with.

It sounded like "mortal" ball testing would be coming too, so hopefully its someone around 100 so we can try to relate lol
 
Back
Top