Callaway Chrome Soft

[Toxic]

Does make me want to cut a couple of balls in half

[Captain Nemo]

https://youtu.be/6343krKzROc

**** me, no wonder I’ve been missing so many putts!

[benno_r]

**** me, no wonder I’ve been missing so many putts!

It's better to not balance them. If you eliminate that excuse, the results lie squarely on you!

[Captain Nemo]

Bwahahaha.

[Jazz18]

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?

You're missing the point. They are using data relevant to the subject. If you are trying to work out what works for you for golf, only ur data is of any use to you and only you can capture it. Anyone else's data is useless. Just as it would be if the ABS used data from Japan's tax department for tax related analysis of Australian citizens or business. It would be useless.

[benno_r]

You're missing the point. They are using data relevant to the subject. If you are trying to work out what works for you for golf, only ur data is of any use to you and only you can capture it. Anyone else's data is useless. Just as it would be if the ABS used data from Japan's tax department for tax related analysis of Australian citizens or business. It would be useless.

I think you are moving the goal posts here.

They are saying here are the result of us using the most repeatable unbiased methodology of testing in the golf industry. They are then drawing the conclusions based on this data.

This data centric methodology is far better than youtube reviewers (who may or may not be having a good day, may or may not be sponsored etc), golf digest (the most $$ gets the most gold medals) etc.

As a starting point for the non savvy golf punter, it serves far better starting point then anything else available, including randomly buying golf balls to hit yourself until you find something that works. But it's not the be all/end all either, and I, or they, never claimed it to be.

The only common theme I see is "don't trust golf ball marketing". Which seems quite valid to me.

[Jazz18]

I think you are moving the goal posts here.

They are saying here are the result of us using the most repeatable unbiased methodology of testing in the golf industry. They are then drawing the conclusions based on this data.

This data centric methodology is far better than youtube reviewers (who may or may not be having a good day, may or may not be sponsored etc), golf digest (the most $$ gets the most gold medals) etc.

As a starting point for the non savvy golf punter, it serves far better starting point then anything else available, including randomly buying golf balls to hit yourself until you find something that works. But it's not the be all/end all either, and I, or they, never claimed it to be.

The only common theme I see is "don't trust golf ball marketing". Which seems quite valid to me.

No not moving the goal posts.

They might be drawing conclusions based on that data but they are also adding their own opinions on golf equipment choices and how they should be made which means there is bias. Add to that their obvious distaste for Callaway and particularly the chrome soft and it's not that squeaky clean. So to me, I disagree. I don't think it serves as the best starting point for the non savvy golfer.

Besides, the non savvy golfer isn't going to give a shit about the ball they play. They're likely going to play the cheapest rock they can find so the people looking at an MGS ball test are likely keen, data driven golfers. And, like I said before, if you're a golfer wanting to assess the best gear for your OWN game, the only data relevant is ur own.

[Yossarian]

You gotta be strategic in your choice of data.

[benno_r]

No not moving the goal posts.

They might be drawing conclusions based on that data but they are also adding their own opinions on golf equipment choices and how they should be made which means there is bias. Add to that their obvious distaste for Callaway and particularly the chrome soft and it's not that squeaky clean. So to me, I disagree. I don't think it serves as the best starting point for the non savvy golfer.

Besides, the non savvy golfer isn't going to give a shit about the ball they play. They're likely going to play the cheapest rock they can find so the people looking at an MGS ball test are likely keen, data driven golfers. And, like I said before, if you're a golfer wanting to assess the best gear for your OWN game, the only data relevant is ur own.

You are moving the goal posts. They have not once said "this is the ball you should use", nor are they saying "look at this chart and we will fit you into a ball"

The point of the test is to get past marketing hype, and look at real facts.

The facts as stated by them (amongst others):
1. The future is ball fittings.
2. Softer balls are slower.
3. Certain balls were more consistent than others.

You might try argue that may not be the case for you (or me), and that may be true. But then I doubt you or I are as consistent as a swing robot, therefore we are adding additional variables that further dilute the usefulness of the data. If nothing else, the golf punter should use this as a tool to:
1. Educate themselves on golf ball marketing bs, and;
2. Be able to get a general idea of balls they should test first.

Furthermore, there is not a single reference in the entire piece to Callaway outside observations of data that are made for many other brands at the same time. In fact there doesnt appear to be any opinionated comment towards any ball in the entire article. Only factual observations based on data gathered. You are entering tin foil hat territory if you think they are fudging numbers, or designing this test as a tool to make Chrome Softs look bad.

[JoeS]

I was having this same convo with someone last week.In manufacturing their has to be a tolerance of acceptance.So with CNC turning and milling their is a very low acceptable tolerance,bit with building a house or pouring a concrete slab the tolerances change,and it's the same with the ball.Even the top premium balls will have an acceptable tolerance.I don't think the core of the ball though will be the deciding factor in flight,trajectory or dispersion,the dimples will have greater effect.But human error and a poor swing can't be helped by anything

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[Jazz18]

You are moving the goal posts. They have not once said "this is the ball you should use", nor are they saying "look at this chart and we will fit you into a ball"

The point of the test is to get past marketing hype, and look at real facts.

The facts as stated by them (amongst others):
1. The future is ball fittings.
2. Softer balls are slower.
3. Certain balls were more consistent than others.

You might try argue that may not be the case for you (or me), and that may be true. But then I doubt you or I are as consistent as a swing robot, therefore we are adding additional variables that further dilute the usefulness of the data. If nothing else, the golf punter should use this as a tool to:
1. Educate themselves on golf ball marketing bs, and;
2. Be able to get a general idea of balls they should test first.

Furthermore, there is not a single reference in the entire piece to Callaway outside observations of data that are made for many other brands at the same time. In fact there doesnt appear to be any opinionated comment towards any ball in the entire article. Only factual observations based on data gathered. You are entering tin foil hat territory if you think they are fudging numbers, or designing this test as a tool to make Chrome Softs look bad.

I never said they did.

You have a bit of knowledge and are able to read through the issues I'm talking about. Most people won't do that.

If you read the ball test without all the other social media stuff they've carried on with, maybe you could say they are not biased. But if you've only seen half of what they put on IG alone, you can't say they don't have an axe to grind with the chrome soft.

Repeating the slogan soft is slow over and over again on the back of a ball test that they say is the best and most comprehensive ever done is diluting any of the other aspects of the test that might have been valid. People like you and me understand that "soft is slow" doesn't always mean soft is shorter. That's where I think they are actually misleading people and not being unbiased and data driven as they say they are. Most people will believe that "soft is slow" means they are losing distance with a soft ball which is not necessarily the case and the only way to find out is to test for yourself.

[benno_r]

I never said they did.

You have a bit of knowledge and are able to read through the issues I'm talking about. Most people won't do that.

If you read the ball test without all the other social media stuff they've carried on with, maybe you could say they are not biased. But if you've only seen half of what they put on IG alone, you can't say they don't have an axe to grind with the chrome soft.

Repeating the slogan soft is slow over and over again on the back of a ball test that they say is the best and most comprehensive ever done is diluting any of the other aspects of the test that might have been valid. People like you and me understand that "soft is slow" doesn't always mean soft is shorter. That's where I think they are actually misleading people and not being unbiased and data driven as they say they are. Most people will believe that "soft is slow" means they are losing distance with a soft ball which is not necessarily the case and the only way to find out is to test for yourself.

I dont have IG, so I can only comment on what I see in the buyers guide. Looking at that as a standalone data set and article, i cant perceive any bias. I think it is an excellent test, and the data is as bias free as possible. I actually got a lot out of it, and also makes me want to test mtb-x even more.

[Jazz18]

I dont have IG, so I can only comment on what I see in the buyers guide. Looking at that as a standalone data set and article, i cant perceive any bias. I think it is an excellent test, and the data is as bias free as possible. I actually got a lot out of it, and also makes me want to test mtb-x even more.

Fair enough. I do see some bias in the article alone (ie they said that golfers should ignore feel and just play the ball that gives them the best numbers - that's opinion not data based, therefore biased) but it's minor compared to the IG stuff and the aggression they displayed there.

[3Puttpete]

they said that golfers should ignore feel and just play the ball that gives them the best numbers

Jebus! If you have a problem with that statement you’re in trouble. It’s the most sensible thing anyone’s said on a golf website since the beginning of time.

[3oneday]

Crikeys, I’m lucky to use the same ball two weeks in a row, yet you guys can write an essay about it

[Jazz18]

Jebus! If you have a problem with that statement you’re in trouble. It’s the most sensible thing anyone’s said on a golf website since the beginning of time.

I couldn't give a shit if a ball goes 5m further off driver if it feels like a rock off the putter.

[3Puttpete]

I couldn't give a shit if a ball goes 5m further off driver if it feels like a rock off the putter.

Because that’s what they meant.

[Jazz18]

Because that’s what they meant.

OK, what did they mean by that statement then? How did you interpret it?

[Dcanto]

**** me, no wonder I’ve been missing so many putts!

People sneezing while you're putting doesn't help.

[Captain Nemo]

People sneezing while you're putting doesn't help.

Bwahahaha

[Dotty]

Agree with the terrible QC.

I bought a dozen earlier this year and all 12 had no chrome on them.

[JoeS]

Agree with the terrible QC.

I bought a dozen earlier this year and all 12 had no chrome on them.

Mine didn't go 300 yards,crap

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[wazamac]

Is this why they give them when the Holden (now VW) cheatball was on.

[Steve57]

Is this why they give them when the Holden (now VW) cheatball was on.

That was the Supersoft not the Chrome Soft!

[Stuart]

OK, so the other day I cracked a ChromeSoft. I gather this is not a problem unique to me, and others have also reported it.

IMG_1312[1].jpg

So naturally, I cut it up to see if the centre was off. This is what I found:

IMG_1313[1].jpg

Can someone explain to me what this shows? There is no 'centre' that I can discern, at all. As far as I know, this was a current version of the ChromeSoft, but perhaps I picked up an older version by mistake?

In terms of disclosure, I love the ChromeSoft balls and will continue to use them. They spin less (which is great for me), and on course anyway, go just as far as any of their competitors. I have also never noticed any dramas with their flight that cannot totally be explained by my own lack of talent.