Callaway Chrome Soft

[Jono]

I just watched My Golf Spy on YouTube where they have shown a cut Chrome Soft ball with the core way off center. Way off.

How can a premium ball have such bad tolerances? Raises questions about the other brands as well... I think I’ll go back to the Snell balls. 😏

[Jazz18]

How can you be sure the Snell will he better?

Don't pay any attention to MGS. Yes the chrome soft core is bad but MGS are just a bunch of guys (and I've heard the owner of MGS doesn't even play/like golf???) that are trying to support their own opinions on golf gear using data. I've seen a lot of they're stuff and the ball test was the last thing from them I'll ever read. Their summations were total rubbish.

And from the amount they've been dumping on Callaway the last few months, I wouldn't be surprised if there is more to it than just their ball test. It seems like they've got a personal vendetta against Callaway the way they've been acting.

[Stuart]

How can you be sure the Snell will he better?

Don't pay any attention to MGS. Yes the chrome soft core is bad but MGS are just a bunch of guys (and I've heard the owner of MGS doesn't even play/like golf???) that are trying to support their own opinions on golf gear using data. I've seen a lot of they're stuff and the ball test was the last thing from them I'll ever read. Their summations were total rubbish.

And from the amount they've been dumping on Callaway the last few months, I wouldn't be surprised if there is more to it than just their ball test. It seems like they've got a personal vendetta against Callaway the way they've been acting.

That pretty much sums it up perfectly. I used to read MGS occasionally, but have completely given up on them. Their attempts to do "scientific" evaluations is laughable, and their responses are incredibly aggressive if anyone calls out the problems with their primary school level statistical analysis. It is telling that companies who refuse to send them free stuff (like Callaway) mysteriously end up the subject of these type of 'gotcha' click-bait articles.

[Jazz18]

That pretty much sums it up perfectly. I used to read MGS occasionally, but have completely given up on them. Their attempts to do "scientific" evaluations is laughable, and their responses are incredibly aggressive if anyone calls out the problems with their primary school level statistical analysis. It is telling that companies who refuse to send them free stuff (like Callaway) mysteriously end up the subject of these type of 'gotcha' click-bait articles.

Yep and what's worse is they're always saying they are only in it for the consumer. BS they are.....

[Jono]

Snell balls may have the same problem but at least they are 2/3 of the price...

With regards to MGS, they did seem a bit aggressive towards Callaway but I didn’t realise they had a vendetta against them?

[Jazz18]

Snell balls may have the same problem but at least they are 2/3 of the price...

With regards to MGS, they did seem a bit aggressive towards Callaway but I didn’t realise they had a vendetta against them?

Not saying they definitely do but it seems like they do. Their instagram feed was banging on and on and on about "soft=slow" for so long and it was clearly directed at Callaway if you saw it all and they're still going on about Callaway balls now. I asked a couple of questions about a couple of things in Instagram at the time of the ball test and not once did I get anything but rude and arrogant responses to my questions, even though I wasn't casting any doubts over their numbers. They were very defensive from the outset. Just cowboys with a louder voice than they should have. I unfollowed them.

[Captain Nemo]

Big ****ing deal, like most amateur golfers would notice if a ball wasn’t made properly anyway, ffs.

[Jono]

Big ****ing deal, like most amateur golfers would notice if a ball wasn’t made properly anyway, ffs.

So why are we amateurs spending $7 a ball instead of $3?If I am willing to spend the extra $$ for a good quality ball, shouldn’t I expect tight manufacturing tolerances?

[Jono]

This is the cut Chrome Soft that was shown on MGS.

image1.jpg

[Captain Nemo]

So why are we amateurs spending $7 a ball instead of $3?If I am willing to spend the extra $$ for a good quality ball, shouldn’t I expect tight manufacturing tolerances?

Who pays that, you must be crazy.....seriously.

[3Puttpete]

So why are we amateurs spending $7 a ball instead of $3?If I am willing to spend the extra $$ for a good quality ball, shouldn’t I expect tight manufacturing tolerances?

One might ask whether you think you need a $7 ball instead of a $3 ball.

[Jono]

Who pays that, you must be crazy.....seriously.

So what is your point? You get premium balls at discounted rate so you don’t care about the quality?

[Jono]

One might ask whether you think you need a $7 ball instead of a $3 ball.

One might also ask whether you think you need a Lexus over a Hyundai... but if you choose to spend more for better quality then is it fair to expect tighter manufacturing tolerances?

[Captain Nemo]

So what is your point? You get premium balls at discounted rate so you don’t care about the quality?

Pretty much yes!
I’m not that good so the couldn’t tell the difference anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jazz18]

Pretty much yes!
I’m not that good so the couldn’t tell the difference anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think you'd be surprised. If the density of the inner core is significantly different to the rest of the ball, it would make a fair bit of difference. The problem lies in the flight. If you see a ball curving one way or another significantly, you'd assume it's your swing. With that ball with the off centre core, it may not be as bad if the core was centred properly.

[benno_r]

Surely you can draw your own conclusions from the raw data, regardless of any spin they supposedly add (which I don't see from my limited viewing).

Is there anyone else out there who presents this much unbiased data (note i said data not opinions)?

[Jono]

I think you'd be surprised. If the density of the inner core is significantly different to the rest of the ball, it would make a fair bit of difference. The problem lies in the flight. If you see a ball curving one way or another significantly, you'd assume it's your swing. With that ball with the off centre core, it may not be as bad if the core was centred properly.

Exactly. I was shocked to see the picture of the Chrome Soft ball with the inner core way off center. It’s supposed to be a premium ball. Whether MGS had anything against Callaway or not, this has made me question the whole premium ball market.

[Captain Nemo]

I think you'd be surprised. If the density of the inner core is significantly different to the rest of the ball, it would make a fair bit of difference. The problem lies in the flight. If you see a ball curving one way or another significantly, you'd assume it's your swing. With that ball with the off centre core, it may not be as bad if the core was centred properly.

Well all my shots go right, so maybe every ball I’ve used has the core not in the middle, ffs....

[Jazz18]

Well all my shots go right, so maybe every ball I’ve used has the core not in the middle, ffs....

No that's definitely you then

[Jazz18]

Surely you can draw your own conclusions from the raw data, regardless of any spin they supposedly add (which I don't see from my limited viewing).

Is there anyone else out there who presents this much unbiased data (note i said data not opinions)?

Data means sweet FA if ur not the one generating it.

[benno_r]

Data means sweet FA if ur not the one generating it.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics might not agree with that.

[Johnny Canuck]

https://youtu.be/6343krKzROc

[Jazz18]

The Australian Bureau of Statistics might not agree with that.

Their name already suggest they do. Relying on golf data generated by anyone other than yourself is as useful as the Australian Bureau of statistics taking a census in Ecuador and applying it in Australia.

[benno_r]

Exactly. I was shocked to see the picture of the Chrome Soft ball with the inner core way off center. It’s supposed to be a premium ball. Whether MGS had anything against Callaway or not, this has made me question the whole premium ball market.

I wouldn't get too worked up over it Jono. There are literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions of the balls made. I don't know Cally's qc levels, but i would be surprised if they were operating on <1% rejection rate (using multi stage quality assurance). Most of these will be captured, but not all.

If you are truely worried, grab a box and cut them all in quarters (2 axis cuts to confirm eccentricity in 2 planes). To me if you found 1, then yes be worried. If not, just play them. Not the ones you cut of course....

[benno_r]

Their name already suggest they do. Relying on golf data generated by anyone other than yourself is as useful as the Australian Bureau of statistics taking a census in Ecuador and applying it in Australia.

They use plenty of data they dont generate. You think the ABS captures the data of the revenue of imports / exports into this country? Like maybe customs would. Or they don't use ATO data for tax related analysis? Or welfare data that comes from centerlink?