Golf Balls

Ball Lab – 2020 Callaway Chrome Soft

BY Tony Covey
Sep 2nd 2020
Read all comments

Support our Mission. We independently test each product we recommend. When you buy through our links, we may earn a commission.

MyGolfSpy Ball Lab is where we quantify the quality and consistency of the golf balls on the market to help you find the best ball for your money. An overview of the equipment we use can be found here. To learn more about our test process, how we define “bad” balls and our True Price metric, check out our About MyGolfSpy Ball Lab page.

Callaway calls Chrome Soft “the ball that changed the ball.” Given what we witnessed during last season’s robot ball test and what we found subsequently, it’s fair to say that Chrome Soft is the ball that changed the way we think about golf balls. It’s a large part of why we decided to build the MyGolfSpy Ball Lab. So it only makes sense to kick off Ball Lab with the 2020 Chrome Soft.

In this report, we’ll give you the rundown on what we found in the lab and let you know how it stacks up against other golf balls on the market. Finally, we’ll give you the True Price – how much it costs to get a dozen good golf balls.

About the 2020 Callaway Chrome Soft

With a thin injected urethane cover, the Chrome Soft fits loosely into what’s generally called the “tour ball” category. It’s a four-piece design with a mid-sized inner core. On full shots, the 2020 Chrome Soft is classified as a high-launch, low-spin ball, which makes sense given where it falls on the compression scale. As you would expect from a urethane-covered ball, Callaway claims high green-side spin. All Callaway Chrome Soft golf balls are made at the company’s plant in Chicopee, Mass.

2020 Callaway Chrome Soft – Compression

On our gauge, the average compression of the 2020 Callaway Chrome Soft is 75.

Across the ball market as a whole, the Chrome Soft can be considered a mid-compression ball. However, it should be noted that it is among the softest in the urethane category and significantly softer than what is likely to be played on the PGA TOUR.

Compression Consistency

The overall compression consistency of the 2020 Chrome Soft is squarely in the average range. None of the balls in our sample varied significantly from the median compression measurement.

Likewise, consistency across the three points measured on each ball showed only minimal variation with 100 percent of the sample set falling within the acceptable range.

While not among the absolutely most consistent balls on the market for compression, we have no major concerns.

2020 Callaway Chrome Soft – Diameter

Relative to the market average, the diameter of the Callaway Chrome Soft is on the smaller side, making it ideal for a tour ball.

That said, with its new models, Callaway appears to be flirting with the USGA size limit and a single sample failed the ball track test.

We deem individual balls under the size limit as “bad”; however, the lot itself would be conforming under USGA rules.

Consistency and Roundness

While the overall diameter consistency of the 2020 Callaway Chrome Soft falls within the average range, there was a single ball that did not meet our standard of roundness.

2020 Callaway Chrome Soft – Weight

None of the balls in our 2020 Callaway Chrome Soft sample exceeded the USGA weight limit of 1.620 ounces.

Consistency across our Chrome Soft sample set was on the higher end of the average range. That’s a good thing.

2020 Callaway Chrome Soft – Inspection

While we found some measure of off-center cores in just over 20 percent of our samples, only one was significantly off-center to the degree that it would likely have performance implications.

The larger concern is what we describe as layer concentricity issues – uneven thickness of the layers (including the mantle and cover) surrounding the core.

Eleven percent of the balls we cut showed enough variation in layer thickness that performance implications should be a concern.

Core Mixture

Core coloring was generally consistent with no swirls or abnormal color patterns that would suggest poorly mixed materials.

It is notable that we found cores in two distinct colors (dark and light gray). Typically, we would expect cores of the same model to be the same color. That said, we found no quantifiable differences between the two colors in our measurements.

Cover

While cover 2020 Chrome Soft covers are generally clean and free of tool marks, we did disqualify a single ball for a deep, fingernail-like impression that spanned multiple dimples.

General Observations

The 2020 Callaway Chrome Soft has a medium-size inner core. Mantle and cover layers are thin. The cover is soft. There’s nothing to suggest that green-side performance of the ball wouldn’t meet expectations for the category.

True Price

True Price is how we quantify the quality of a golf ball. It's a projection of what you'd have to spend to ensure you get 12 good balls.

The True Price will always be equal to or greater than the retail price. The greater the difference between the retail price and the True Price, the more you should be concerned about the quality of the ball.

2020 Callaway Chrome Soft Summary Report

To learn more about our test process, how we define “bad” balls and our True Price metric, check out our About MyGolfSpy Ball Lab page.

In general, the consistency of the Callaway Chrome Soft is AVERAGE for the metrics we measure with our gauges.

Our visual inspection found reasons for concern around core centering and layer concentricity, though these areas appear to have improved significantly from the previous model.

With a bit more than 22 percent of our 2020 Callaway Chrome Soft sample set flagged as “bad” for one reason or another, there is room for improvement.

Callaway has been upfront about the fact that its quality improvements are ongoing so there’s reason to believe that quality will continue to improve.

Ball Lab Top Performers

Want to know which balls have performed best in Ball Lab testing so far?

Check out:

Support Unbiased Testing.

DID YOU KNOW: If only 1% of MyGolfSpy readers donated $25, we would be able to become completely independent in 12-months. With every donation, you create change.

Would you be willing to help by giving a donation? Every dollar will help. Make a donation to support our independent and expert golf equipment research. A PayPal account is not required in order to donate.

comments

Join The Discussion

Tim

4 years ago

This doesnt really bode well for the investment Callaway put into this plant. The QC team needs to be upgraded it seems.

Mike

At our course, someone dives for balls out of our water gazards. One thing we did notice is that chrome soft’s “turn color” (yellowish tint) much faster than any other ball. Of course, no one can tell when a ball went into the water. But just from just pulling up balls and separating them, more chrome softs will have that yellowish tint vs any other ball. Is the cover made differently so that water seeps through quicker?

Jorge Vela

Great initiative and information Tony.

I will not take any ball decisions moving forward without checking the results of Ball Lab.

Congratulations for the amazing work.

Mike Billings

Here’s why quality control matters. An avid Truvis player I am a 13 handicap, usually hit about 250 off the tee. Playing a local course last year and on he 1st tee rocket a ball 320! Through the fairway and into he trees, I find the ball, punch out and bogey. Next hole, boom! 305 down the middle. I’m thinking, what did I have for breakfast this morning?? Next hole, lose it left into the trees again and the miracle ball is gone. I pull another Truvis out of the sleeve and never hit a tee ball over 240 the rest of the day. Even switched to the third ball in he sleeve around midway through he back nine, and no difference. Could not figure out why my irons kept on coming up short all day. After reading about the issues Callaway had the last few years, I suspect I had a ‘hot’ ball and a couple duds in he sleeve. Was no an isolated incident either having the same thing happen a couple months later. The gap in distance however was not a shocking 70 yards, but some head scratching thirty yards shorter than expected tees shots and 3w shots.

Steven M.

Please note that the “tour” players sponsoring golf balls play with balls that have been factory inspected and tested for the highest quality control standards. Occasionally you can get your hands on these balls, but not very often.

Art

Yes! And we can pick out the good ones from our off-the-shelf stock with this simple test:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypiL9ao90NM

Carolyn

Played today with a 7 handicapper who used a PROV1, I play off a 16 and use the 3 piece Kirkland…He shot 78, I shot 83. I out drove him when we both used driver every time (8 times) would our scores been different if we switched balls…highly unlikely. Point is use the ball you want and can afford that helps make your game yours….having played just about every ball out there I would say the ProV1 is diffidently the best but it does not improve my game.

Paul

Like any of this really matters when the ball gets sliced into a hazard 210 yards off the tee anyway.

TOM

Tony you stated that “Eleven percent of the balls we cut showed enough variation in layer thickness that performance implications should be a concern.” you have counted them as dud balls- you haven’t explained how this variation affected performance if at all? So we should just throw out 11% of them based upon zero metrics? Just because their is a variation does that mean it goes 1% longer/shorter or higher/lower launch, 3% 10%?

Marq

Lots of research and testing in the article, but what does all this mean in terms of how much my ball will be affected by these imperfections. Reminds me of a tire commercial I saw years ago that said that brand X tires stopped 50% better on ice. Regular tires barely (if at all) stop on ice so does that mean that that brand X stops 50% better than nothing? Compare this ball to a bunch of other premium ones & let’s look at the results. Then I’m all in. Otherwise this just looks like a continuation of the Chrome Soft vendetta. Meanwhile, sales (& market share) of the ball keep increasing..

Ryan O'Keefe

You don’t need to compare a ball to anything when you’re stating the factual findings. At no point did MGS say “this ball is 20% better than other balls”. MGS did say X% of balls had this defect.
That is factual findings.. Not even close to hypothetical comparisons.
As for variations in layer thickness; it doesn’t take much thought to realise that a ball with this issue will compress/react differently depending on which side of the ball you are hitting. This could mean the ball will be hotter on one side than the other, it could mean that the ball spins more on one side than the other.

Tom – The article clearly states “11% of the balls have variations and performance implications should be a CONCERN”.

Lets go hypothetical here – You’re in a store buying balls from a barrel (unboxed balls). Now; Let’s imagine that you can somehow see inside the balls without cutting them open. You see that some of the balls that you’re picking up having variations in the alignment/shape of the internal layers…. Do you buy those balls with those issues? or do you leave them in the barrel and only take ones that look fine?
I’m sure you’d leave them in the barrel!.. Why? Because you’d be concerned that they would not perform consistently. Perform in which way? Well, we aren’t sure are we.. it’s just a CONCERN.

Joe T.

Again awesome report. I have been reading it over and another question popped up. In the comments you mentioned that ball can bad for multiple reasons (poor cover and off center for example).

Is there a significant correlation (mathematically speaking) – does a bad cover – the only visual cue purchasers have – give a good indicator of a ball that is otherwise bad?

Mark Davis

Thank you, sir. Very interesting and most informative. Now, just for fun and given the current advertising on every golf tournament I see, can you possibly find the time to do the current model Pro-V1 next? That would be good. Anyway, much appreciated.

Obviously a lot of work went into this but, compared to what??? I think it’s premature when you have nothing to compare this ball to. I get this thread has somewhat become the Callaway-haters thread sounding board, but if the balls suck so much, the chrome soft brand wouldn’t have made the inroads that it had made over the past two or three years (& it definitely has made inroads). Show me a good variety of both premium / other balls & then I’ll make my purchasing playing/decisions.

Can anyone quantify exactly what a “bad” ball will do? Sounds very incriminating on paper but does being bad make it fly 1 or 2 yards shorter, or left, or right, or is it a 15 yard difference? If it’s the former, no one but a PGA Pro should care. If it’s the latter, then that’s a huge difference.

mizuno29

Fabulous job as always! The consumer reports of golf!

Cody

Very well done.. I would love to see this test on an “above average” ball and compare the numbers..

I would also love to see this done on the Chrome Soft X. That ball was delayed, had production issues, etc. I wonder how it will test..

VanTrago

For TONEY COVEY:

What ASTM standard scales is the MGS’ new ball laboratory’s compression tester calibrated to use?

If it’s design and construction doesn’t conform to ASTM standards, would you please explain how it works and how it is calibrated? Perhaps you could add a bit on why those metrics were chosen?

Stevegp

Once again, Tony, I appreciate all of the effort you put in to provide us with this information. Thank you. Like many, I am eagerly awaiting more ball tests as they are completed and especially as their “quality” profile eventually gets combined with their performance data.

Tank

Very good write-up and a good presentation. The only think I would change is the true value segment. You are assuming that you will get “X” amount of bad balls which may or may not be true. Everything else you presented is not an assumption but a measured /visual fact. I say stick with the facts and not assumptions.

scott

So your message is, you get what you pay for. Unless you slice, hook or pull your drives losing more ball then holes you play. then $15.00 a dozen is perfect. for your game.

NCDuffer

Appreciate what you’ve done and are doing. Thanks for helping duffers make better decisions on our purchases. Only problem is that you’re removing all of my excuses!

John Burnsworth

Another fantastic and comprehensive test. You guys got me on board a couple of years ago and I couldn’t be happier. Thanks for all the info you furnish

Pman

Awesome review. Keep it up Tony!

Lloyd Davis

Your previous testing changed the balls that I’m buying and while this one is encouraging in some areas, it’s not encouraging enough for me to put Callaway balls on my shopping list. Thanks for the investment in time and equipment that make this information possible.

pineneedlespro

Great article. MGS “Ball Lab” is the best information to date. Maybe other golf ball companies will take notice and improve on their quality control.
I also believe in “spin balancing” of golf balls. I can tee off with the line on top for alignment, and go to my ball in the fairway to see that the line is still pointing in the direction of my target.
I am curious to see if ball spin degradation rates in flight is really 4% per second and does that change from different ball brands/construction and different club head swing speeds?

Kansas King

It’s interesting you as about spin degradation as I was just thinking about that the other day. I was wondering how much spin decreases over the course of the ball’s flight path. Assuming all balls weigh about the same I doubt there is much variance but I suppose their could be if there was a variance in weight distribution from the cover to the core between manufacturers.

Sam Carson

All balls will spin considerably less at the end of their flight as speed slows.

Dennis

How about ball balancing on putting would it have a true roll?

Craig

Not sure if you are being serious, but if the line on your ball on the fairway is still pointing to target it is pure luck.

Largechris

And not much use on a dogleg either lol

Michael J Woodruff

I appreciate the review process, but I hope you get into some lower priced urethane balls soon. I would love to see some Oncore, or Vice, or better yet, at $20/dozen, I’d love to see how the MG C4 stacks up for value….

Peter Drew

I would love to see the OnCore ELIXR or VERO X1 tested!

John

The difference in color is because the color is different. Perfect. Some people will never get it. Never change MGS!!

John J.

Purely anecdotal on my part, but I couldn’t wait for the new 2020 CS and immediately purchased 4 dozen and started playing them. Strangely, I ran into some outliers while playing it and decided to switch to the Maxfli Tour which seemed much better.

Just seems like the 2020 CS is not consistent enough for me and not quite ready for primetime. It’s a good ball, but just too many shots that seemed to be going the wrong way and not because of my swing. Also, some just felt different than others. The Maxfli Tour just doesn’t seem to exhibit these issues. I’ll be interested to see how they do in the Ball Lab and if my impressions are valid.

Mike R.

I recently picked up a couple boxes of the Maxfli Tour balls as well. They were on sale 2 boxes for $50. I don’t recall ever being more impressed with a golf ball. I switched from the Pro V1x and for my game it seems like the Maxfli Tour is on par if not better than the Pro V1x at half the price!

Steve

First, appreciate what you guys do. I guess I must be missing something but “true cost” is kind of useless information. .How in the world are you supposed to detect something like this (a bad ball) in real life? What’s the functional purpose of that? Although when I hit my next drive into the street I will be sure to claim that was one of the “bad balls”.

I agree with your sentiment regarding true cost. However, I think they came up with it to better illustrate to the readers how many balls are “bad”. It’s one thing to tell people that 20% of the balls are bad but it may better resonate with people if for every dozen balls you get $11 – $12 in bad balls.

Chris Nickel

Think of it as a measurement to quantify value. It’s not a perfect analogy, but when you look at the cost of ownership for a specific vehicle, your individual experience may or may not mirror the experience of those whose information contributed to that set of data.

Also, in this case we felt golfers would relate better to an actual price as opposed to a simple percentage.

Storm319

Couple of questions Tony,

1) I noticed the 2018 Chrome Soft from the 2019 test article measured ~86 compression vs this test of the 2020 Chrome Soft being ~75. So did Callaway lower the compression with this new version or are you measuring compression differently vs last year? I see that you are using an OK Automation ATTI tester for this ball test which is as close to a standard that the industry has ever had, but did not see anything listed in the 2019 test regarding the method used.

2) Any plans to consolidate all of these measurements into a single Tableau table for ease of comparison in the future?

Thanks for your work on this!

Tony Covey

Regarding point 1. Yes, the equipment used was different. The native scale is a bit different and the conversions, from what we can tell anyway, aren’t perfect. We find that our machine is generally close to manufacturer’s stated numbers.

At some point, we’ll consolidate some of these measurements into a table. I’m also looking to offer a subscription product where you’d get more detailed data and well as info on new balls as soon as they’re measured.

Matt

Would love to see this data for the “entry level” Urethane balls, such as the Q-Star Tour and the Taylormade Tour Response. Seeing the True Price metric comparing between these offerings with the top end premium ball would be fascinating.

We’ll have reports across all prices ranges, including many popular DTC offerings.

Excellent! Looking forward to it.

saveva

awesome stuff. can’t wait for more test releases. very interested in snell mtb-x
I’ll just stick with my pro-v1x for now… I’m thinking the true price will come pretty close to MSRP.

Peter

Curious about the decision to make the Chromesoft the first ball out of the gate for the Ball Lab?

It’s clearly most controversial ball in the lot. No one asked my opinion, but I feel that was a mistake given the comments here. It would have been good to adopt all the new measurements and criteria using some balls that were more down middle, and then we the readers would have some benchmarks to compare the CS to. My 2 cents…

So, I left out something critical in my post, which all the good stuff! I absolutely love this format. Can’t wait to see other brands published. Amazingly in depth.

Daryl

Man lands on the moon.

Tony and MGS land on the moon of another galaxy.

Internet comments “Tony could have built his spacecraft with less rivets!!”

This is the best ball data we have ever had. Let’s not lose sight of that :)

TR1PTIK

This^^^

MG

Does any PGA or LPGA player play the chrome soft or do they all play the X?

JP

Loved the format of this new Ball Lab results. will be really interesting to see how manufacturers and ball models come out of this test.

Tony, would you be able to give an example or two of how a “bad ball” could effect game play for a low single digit handicapper vs an average mid teens handicaper? I think it might resonate well with taking the new “True Price” concept into account!

Thanks!

What I can say is that manufacturers are working to quantify this in absolute terms along the lines of “If a core is x mm off-center, it can be expected to fly x-yards offline at 150 MPH speed”…something like that anyway.

In less concrete terms, we know that off-center cores lead to greater spin axis tilt. Depending on how the ball is oriented at impact, that can produce more curvature and impact spin numbers.

With the layer issues, inconsistent spin is the big concern – the ball will behave differently depending on whether you hit it thick side or thin side.

Depending on the severity – small defects can be no big deal, while larger ones can be the difference between hitting a fairway and being OB.

To try and put some numbers on it…in the higher swing speed portion of our robot test, the spin axis number was typically between -1.5 and 1.5 degrees. With the balls that flew significantly offline, that number was above -10 (big hook). Delivery of the club and other key variables all within normal limits, but the spin axis…crazy different.

Joe T

How did you conclude that the Callaway is average in certain respects? I assume that means you have completed testing of at least two different balls. If so rather than posting individual reports on ball how about a consolidated report covering the overall findings instead of one ball at a time, or at the very least provide a reference in the individual reports stating what the average is for different characteristics.. Thanks and great job. Looking forward to the Snell report which I see is next.. Based on your report last year I have been playing only one ball because you recommended doing so for consistency. I may change my brand to buy the most consistent ball possible.

Consistency metrics are relative to the other samples in our database.

I look forward to seeing the whole database. Based on the vidcast last month, I knew the testing was ongoing, Have you completed all of the testing at this point? Are you just working on the individual write-ups, or are there still more brands remaining to be tested?

The thing I like about this is that this information is purely objective. While this testing may not address which ball is best for a certain play under certain conditions, is does address which manufacturer is doing the best job of making a ball to the advertised specs., and how that may affect overall cost.

I wonder how this type of testing might apply to clubs?

Andrew Han

I like the TrueCost Metric, and it gives me my true cost to a round.. I am curious with Kirkland Sig. Is it really $24 for 24 or is it $48?

Just read all the comment’s Tony, and it seems most pay attention to what you’ve written. But alas, some just appear as clueless about what your trying to accomplish for us laymen golfers. Loved your way of commenting back to some of them, but if they had read and understood what you said in the test as well as selecting the ball lab process, most would have already known the answer to their questions. You have talked about
a comprehensive up coming ball review for months, and you hit the nail on the head, as I assumed you would. Again, great job Tony, and look forward to all the future ball reviews.

This guy gets it!

Rob

It’s amazing isn’t it? People won’t take the time actually read an article and get all the facts, they look at a couple charts or pictures and make incorrect or at best incomplete statements based on that.

It’s really sad these days, the number of people that don’t read or watch things in it’s entirety, and comment on it.

Mark M

Tony, this is an excellent report and just the kind of info we need to see. Can’t wait for more!

Robin

I would like to see a hot or not so hot driver test.
Hit 5 of the same driver and see if all go the same distance and or dispersion.

Joe Golfer

Robin, I’d like to see something like that too.
I’d also like to see consistency of shafts tested.
And not so much the super high end shafts that cost $300 each, as I’d expect good consistency in those. I’d like to see the consistency of stock shafts in many of the top of the line drivers, since many use a shaft that is similar to but not quite the same as the aftermarket shafts, though the name branding may be the same.

hartrick11

Great work, and interesting analysis – look forward to reading the whole series!

I am a Snell user and have never gamed Chromesoft so this is not a defense of Callaway or a bashing of your article, but one constructive comment is that it would be helpful to understand the category grades a bit better. Chromesoft meets “average” description basically across the board, but what does that mean? Average for other tour-use balls like ProV, Bridgestone and TP5 (that would be pretty good, no)? Average for every ball you tested, including DTC, Top Flite 2000, and random range balls ordered off Ebay (that would be decidedly less good)? What metrics define good & excellent (or whatever the other two green bars represent) and how many golf ball tests achieved those categories (could be shown without giving away names if you’d prefer to space out the articles for marketing purposes)?

I also read through the “about MGS Ball lab testing” link and I didn’t see anything that would explain there. I think without that context you’re leaving yourself open to the criticism of “another Callaway bash” until the rest of the series comes out (even though I personally have no doubts about the testing process employed by MGS!).

Just friendly food for thought.

The consistency values represent a range based on the standard deviations across all of the models we’ve tested.

Inside 1 standard deviation is average. Greater than 1 standard deviation is good or fair depending on which way you go. More than 2 is Excellent or Poor. Distribution is relatively normal. Don’t think we have anything that hit excellent, but I do have some poors in the database.

We don’t yet have scale for the Visual stuff or True Price. We felt it was more important to start publishing reports than to try and get everything cut and graded. Eventually, we’ll be able to classify those metrics as well.

Thanks for your response and keep up the fascinating work.

Tim R

Suggest you use a laser or hot knife when cutting balls in half – you will not see the discoloration that is being presented with the current method of splitting the balls. The color variance you see is really stress whitening of the material because of the mechanical way in which you are splitting the ball. Having worked with plastics in a lab very familiar with this condition.

The color different is because the color is different. It’s really that simple.

Jairo

Tim, reread the section about the two colors of the core. It’s not saying that same ball had different color cores, but that the same model shouldn’t have a variation of colors. A good example would be like, you ordering the same 2 model cars and you click blue for color, but when they both come in one is blue and the other is sky blue. The probable cause was that the mix on one batch had more coloring than the other. It also stated that even though the colors aren’t the same, they couldn’t find any evidence that they performed differently.

Jairo, Tim isn’t talking about the different colors between cores, but the smearing and striations within a core. Often when you cut an object, the physical interaction between the instrument and the material can be seen in the resultant objects. It’s really that simple.

Bart

I think what you are doing is great, but you are misleading people by saying 16.67% of balls are bad when your sample size is 36 balls.

You can’t go to the hundredths place when the actual number could be anywhere from 4% and 29% with such a low sample size.

That doesn’t invalidate your findings. But it puts your findings in a more realistic perspective.

I suppose we could round, but the reason why we display as we do is that it’s possible we recheck certain models over the course of a year. This way we can be consistent in how we present the information.

Every manufacturer we’ve spoken with is comfortable with the sample size.

JasonA

Actually useful sample size is highly dependant on the shape of the probability curve. Manufacturers would (and golfers should!) expect the curve to be HUGELY skewed to the “pass” category. This is far from a normal distribution, this tightens the actual deviations. Which is why 36 balls is statistically significant, to a relatively tight confidence interval. e.g. more like 12-22% bad with 95% confidence

For above example I used online tool where you can project the needed sample size with a given a non-normal probability curve and a target significance.

brian wallace

Very informative , thanks! Looking forward to many more ball tests! I currently play the 2020 Bridgestone B Tour RX and use a Technasonic Check-Go to spin balance these. I have actually returned balls to Bridgestone that were inconsistent and received replacements. What is your opinion regarding spin balancing?

Luis L

Outstanding job! The ‘true price’ designation is a game changer for me – thank you. I’m incredibly interested to see more lab results. Incidentally, were Snell MTBX balls part of this test round?

Yup. Snell MTB-X is scheduled to be published near the end of the month.

Don

How many chrome softs were tested (ball sample size)?

Ben

36, it’s in the process description link at the beginning.

Chris

I like the article format but the math does not add up. If you add all the percentages of “bad” balls (2.78+2.78.+11.11.+2.78= 19.45) and multiply 1.1945 and the MSRP the “true cost” is $57.32. I could not see where ” a bit more than 22 percent” figure was obtained in reading the article. Should there be a correction, or am I missing something?

Balls can be flagged as bad for multiple reasons. For example, it’s possible to be too small and have an off-center core. Each of those would be noted individually, but against the total, it’s still one bad ball.

From your reply it would seem the total percent “bad” would be lower, not higher if there was a ball with multiple defects. Therefore the “true cost” would be a lower figure than I had calculated. Could you reply with the calculation method for “True Cost”? Could you explain why my calculation differs from the article? I know you are busy answering comments, but it would be helpful to all your readers to be able to read the article and be able to see clearly how “True Cost” is determined.

Never mind Tony, I figured it out. You would have to buy 72 boxes to get 58 “good” boxes of balls. Just a division and multiplication with the MSRP and Voila! You’ve got the “True Cost”! The Ball Lab is great and I can’t wait for more :)

The figure I got ($59.57) is off a bit ($0.22) from your calculation, but close enough for horse shoes and hand grenades!

Tony,

how many 2020 ChromeSofts were analyzed? I can’t seem to find the sample size you used anywhere in the report.

Thanks.

http://mygolfspy.com/about-mygolfspy-ball-lab/ It’s in the process explanation.

Andrew

I love the “true price” explanation. Its a brilliant way to identify the best ball for the buck. I typically skip the $40-$50 per dozen balls but they might actually be a “better deal” when considering the quality and the true price. Great job and keep the articles coming!

Eric Z bar

The thing is those the true price does not take into account performance. For example you could have a $19.99 per box ball test out perfectly making it a $19.99 true value ball. That doesn’t mean it will perform better than a $29.99 ball with a true value price of $35,99

This is going to sound a bit odd coming from a guy who is obsessed with golf balls, but I think the performance aspect of the golf ball is greatly overvalued relative to the quality aspect.

As I’ve said countless times now, nearly anybody can spec a ball that, when manufactured to that specification, will perform similarly to a Pro V1. Likewise, anyone with reasonable R&D horsepower can develop a ball that offers similar performance attributes to the Chrome Soft. Pick a ball and nearly anyone can replicate the design to a reasonable enough level that a healthy percentage of golfers will say they can’t tell the difference. You can attribute this to USGA golf ball regs, which are much harder to work around than driver regs, for example.

This is why the quality and consistency aspect is so important. If you have two balls with similar performance specs (and in the market you’ll find several options for any given spec), the bigger difference is going to be found in how often a given manufacturer is able to achieve that spec (our consistency metrics), and how often what we classify as a bad ball makes it to a store shelf. No matter what the spec of the ball is supposed to be, if it can’t be delivered consistently than, much like mamma’s box of chocolates, you don’t actually know what you’re going to get (from one ball to the next).

It’s true that manufacturers sometimes leave details out of the marketing message – I don’t recall anyone being entirely transparent about low compression balls being inherently slower, for example. Instead, that becomes messaging around playing the right ball for your swing speed and misnomers like Soft Fast cores (it’s all relative, I suppose). It’s also true that as soon as the cover is urethane, everybody claims high greenside spin. There will be some variance there, and we can’t quantify it in absolute terms, but by cutting a ball and looking at the composition, we can easily tell whether those claims are likely to be true or not.

That said, for the most part, everyone is reasonably honest about launch and spin characteristics within their own lineup. There’s no benefit to saying a ball is high launch and low spin if it’s low launch and high spin, because when a company wants to sell a low launch, high spin ball, they know how to make it, so they’ll make it. No need to lie about it.

There’s no single right answer for launch and spin and we’ll certainly do another robot test down the road, but if you’re looking for a high launch, low spin ball for example, the are several of those on the market, and they’re all advertised as such. So my advice would be to first narrow the selection to a quality specification you’re comfortable with, and then try a sleeve of each on the course to find thee one that delivers what you’re looking for.

BRIAN DOYLE

thanks never enjoy the callaway ball for whatever reason? But tell me why the Taylor 5x? is as good if no longer than anything else? or what do u feel is the longest of the high end balls. Old 95 swing speed AVX seem pretty goood?

Jay

It will be interesting to see how this ball measures up against the other premium balls that I assume they will test – specifically Titleist and Bridgestone

Maybe I missed it in the article, but based on the math, it appears that the test consisted of 3 dozen or 36 golf balls. This is based on the percentages shown and some of the comments in the article. Example -” While we found some measure of off-center cores in just over 20 percent of our samples, only one was significantly off-center to the degree that it would likely have performance implications.” The percentage for the off-center issue is shown as 2.78%, and since there was only a single ball with that issue, the math works out to be 1/36 = 2.78%. The same math works for the cut cover percentage and comment. I think the items tested here are great, but if only 36 balls were tested, I question if that is large enough to be a representative sample that provides statistically significant findings. For example, the article says that there was 11.11% of golf balls with significant concentricity issues, which would be a total of 4 balls. out of 36. The percentage is potentially high because the sample size is small. Since golf balls come in boxes of a dozen, it would be important to know how those 4 “bad” balls spread between the 3 dozen tested. If all 4 were from the same box, then that box would appear to be an outlier that is skewing the data. Same would be true if the mix was 3 from one box, 1 from another and 0 from the last – it would appear that the 3 from the single box may be an outlier, which then brings in the question of were they all from the same batch and that was just a bad batch that is now skewing the data negative. I know testing more golf balls would mean it would be more expensive, and I know the MyGolfSpy unbiased stance and appreciate it, but as a CPA by trade, small samples in audits always lead me to be a little skeptical of the results.

Johnny P

I think Tony mentioned in another comment that the manufacturers are on board with the sample size. It would be interesting to see if it was the bad ones were all part of a bad box, though, but the possibility of getting a box with a third of the balls being bad would also greatly deter me from buying them, especially at $48/dz.

I hadn’t seen the comment on the sample size – I think my comment was posted before Tony made clarified that point. Frankly I am a little surprised that the manufacturers would agree to that small of a sample, but if they are on board so be it.

It just seems interesting to me that the testing isn’t broken down by box, since that is another variable in the test that doesn’t seem to be accounted for. For example, if you had been told that of the 3 dozen balls tested, 2 boxes had no bad balls but one box had 4 bad balls, would that change your view on the quality of the balls. Knowing that, I would probably argue that it seems the one box was a bad batch, and another should be tested since the majority of the small sample (2 out 3 boxes), had 0 issues.

The other thing that is interesting is that the data doesn’t tell us if the “bad” balls had multiple issues. So was of the total 4 balls that had concentricity issues, was one of those also one that had the significant off-center core or the one that had the cut on the cover or one that was too small? In that case, that is a total of just 4 bad balls out of 36 or 11% of balls that are bad. So does the data show that a ball with one manufacturing flaw tends to have multiple flaws? Or was a defect found on what would be 7 distinct golf balls, so 1 was too small with no other issues, 1 was cut with no other issues, 1 had an off-center core with no other issues, and 4 had concentricity issues? that would get to the 22% of “bad balls” listed, but I don’t remember seeing anywhere in the “how we test” or write up that clarifies that point. And if it was 7 balls with one issue each, then it would be interesting to know the breakdown between the boxes, since that would also provide insight of a potential outlier that may need to be removed from the sample and retested. It also goes the other way as well – so if you got another box and then that box had 4 bad balls in it, then maybe the two perfect boxes were the outliers so those should be removed and really the percentages are worse than what the results show here.

That also has a bearing on your statement of “1/3” of a box being bad and not wanting to pay $48 per dozen. Well if only 1 box had all the bad apples in the test, or if two boxes only had 1 bad ball each and the rest were in another single box, then you potentially are going to choose to not buy a box thinking a third will be bad, when actually there is a pretty good chance that maybe only 1 out of 12 balls may have a problem. 1 out of 12 is only 8%, which is way less than 33%. And also, since golf balls are most commonly sold in boxes of a dozen and not sold individually, the information per box is also relevant since that is most likely how you are purchasing your golf balls.

All this to still say, I like the idea of the ball lab and I like the testing, but I just think there are some potential areas that may need some more consideration or explanation in future write ups. And, full disclosure, I am not a Callaway guy either, so hopefully no one thinks I am a Callaway troll here. I actually started using the Maxfli Tour CG golf balls from Dick’s since they finished as “Very Good” in the Golf Ball buying guide MSG did last year and they are forever on sale of 2 for $50, which makes them a value steal.

One of the things we’re looking at is a subscription product for ball reports. The level of detail in those would be greater, and part of what we might include is a per box breakdown. In this case, we had bad balls in each of the three boxes, though I believe they were slightly more prevalent in one for the boxes.

Regarding the math to get to our bad ball percentage and ultimately the True Price metric, we note each issue individually, so if you can imagine a sample set that’s good with the exception of a single really bad ball…

It has a cover defect, an off-center core, layer concentricity issues, and for good measure, it’s not round. Each of those would count towards the bad ball percentage for the individual metric. However, when we do the total percentage/True Price calculation, it becomes entirely binary. A ball is bad or it isn’t. So even if it were to be flagged as bad for all of the reasons we would flag a ball, it would only count once against the total.

Peter McDivot

How easy is it to find the ball in 4″ rough where I normally play?

Fozcycle

Great review Tony. I was a bit shocked as to the outcomes, especially since their prior year product was so bad.

Kirby Laughlin

Let’s see how Callaway reacts to this, they won’t be happy is my guess. Good stuff, keep up the great work!

Clint C

Great work!
I am eager to have you test the Titleist TruFeel. and especially for medium to low swing speeds like mine. I’ve been getting great distance with it but would love to see if lab tests would uncover anythng special about it compared to others. At $22 it bears a good look.

Frank

Another MSG “report” going after Callaway. Shocking, I say. Just shocking.

I know, right.

If by going after them, you mean stayed in touch with them throughout the process, providing info, and even discussing individual balls, then yes…that’s what we did.

Frank loves callaway balls

Tony, god forbid you test a product and give the results. How dare you be so unbiased!

Walter

Well said Tony. ??

TheBrad

Uh-oh. Frank got his Callaway panties in a wad. Keep playing the Soccer ball. Frank. It probably wont matter for you anyway.

Bill

Great work Tony! I’ve been playing different balls all season to find “my” ball and have been eagerly awaiting the ball lab results. The way you laid everything out is superb, can’t wait for the next installment!!

CalGolfer

Great report T! I like the new format as well….but as others suggested, I’m sure the guys @CallawayGolf will be less than thrilled with this report, despite your acknowledgement that they are improving…and they probably snorted their Starbucks through their collective noses when they saw your “True” price of $57.99!

Unless you are a huge Cally fanboy, is there really any reason to NOT play Titliest, Srixon, Bridgestone, or Snell? Your landmark ball test convinced me that I’d rather play new and even refurb’ed ProV1’s instead of ever playing Chrome Soft again….

Steve C

Great review – very thorough. How about photos showing layer and cover issues? Are they a micron less than perfect or something easily seen with the naked eye? That would be helpful.

We’ll look to add photos in the future. Any inspection issue is strictly naked eye. We built some things to get a more detailed picture, but ultimately decided not to go down the road of counting millimeters. If there’s an issue we make not of it, but we only flag balls when it’s obviously bad.

Good job Tony. Very curious to see what your findings are in the DTC space!

Clay N

Great article, and great testing! I do have a question regarding “True Price”, though.

If the True Price is higher primarily due to inconsistencies in core layers and centering, the only way a purchaser could know that is by cutting all the balls in half. Otherwise, there is no way to know whether the inner layers are consistent or not. Doesn’t seem logical to make that determination a purchase-related point, when the purchaser has no way of determining which ball, if any, in a given box is bad.

That’s the ripple. Unless there’s a cover defect, golfers will likely never know which balls are bad. That’s true of inconsistent compression, diameter issues (including roundness), and everything that can go wrong on the inside of the ball.

Evan

Great article, have been looking forward to the results of the ball lab coming. Very interesting and concise results. I think the price for a dozen good golf balls is the most salient metric that people can relate to. How much is it costing you to get a dozen balls you can play with. Looking forward to seeing the results from other balls in the future.

robert earl

Does cutting a ball open create any inconsistency in the shape of the layers? How would you know?

John Ahn

I’m sure if the method they used to cut balls open caused damage to the shape of the layers, then it would be apparent in every ball they cut across all brands consistently. Since that is not happening, you have to conclude any defect in the layers was from the manufacturing, not the ball cutting.

Bradford

Curious if you have contacted Callaway and they had any response? Consumers appear to be getting ripped off, paying a premium price with a chance 2 balls out of every 12 are bad.

We’ve worked with Callaway quite a bit as we were building this out, taking measurements, etc.. Callaway describes the upgrades at the factory as a bit like changing the tires on a moving car. Will be interesting to see how CSX compares given that it was produced several months later.

Marty

Impressive work! I found it interesting that you thought the undersized golf balls were a bad thing,. a smaller golf ball will generally fly farther and the wind won’t affect it as much. Not necessarily a bad thing!

Small can be good for the reasons you described. Too small means we believe it would fail the USGA Ball Track test (which we replicate in our lab).

As usual , great write up. Geez, you’d think after spending 50mil that they wouldn’t need more time to get it right. What, the 50mil wasn’t enough to get it right on the xth# of runs. I doubt they will get any better.
I read your ball lab testing page, interesting that you don’t do a balance test on the balls, why not?

I’m guessing there won’t be a big ball test(like last years) this year.

vincent schiavo

In all fairness to Callaway, it’s likely they haven’t implemented all their planned process improvements yet, nor spent all their $50M.

Well that may be true, which would say they have no problem still selling a bad/inferior product, just like before. So their modo is please keep buying our inferior flawed product as some day we may actually get it right, ha-ha, great.

Dave

Nice report. More please.

Adam Flowers

Great in-depth analysis.

One has to question the format of publishing one ball’s data at a time AND specifically starting with Callaway: I know everyone is keen to see any improvements in Callaway’s ball production, but by publishing their data first without any competitor context, I can’t help but feel this leads readers to conclude that Callaway has barely improved, despite being roundly “average”.

You say that a true price of $59.99 Is average, but, without context of a Pro V or TP5 line true price, it SEEMS exorbitant. As the only data point, I think it’s a bit unfair to single out Callaway instead of releasing all data at once.

More to come with the next report publishing next week. We started with the Chrome Soft because it’s, for better or worse, the ball that started us down the path to creating ball lab.

Thanks for the reply. Look forward to reading it!

Gotta see the Maxfli Tour ball. I worked at Golf Galaxy and got a dozen to test and I thought some were very inconsistent.

bob

Excellent stuff here. I would be interested in looking at four or five balls at once using the lab analysis. Callaway is not even an option and never has been for me as a golfer. Too many better balls at better prices out there. Great work.

greg p

This is great. Seems like the QC on the Callaway product still lags.
Have you done similar reports on other balls? I’m curious to see how Cally compares to Titleist, Bridgestone, Srixon, et. al.

My first thought was “Wow, a MyGolfSpy Ball Lab? How cool is that.” Another in-depth, informative, and well-written piece from you all. My second thought was “Wait. 16.67% of balls inspected are considered ‘bad balls’?! That’s 2 out every dozen!” That seems like a high number to me but this being the first test from your lab I don’t have anything to compare it to. I look forward to results from other balls and see how that 16.67% compares to others. While not in the regular rotation at the moment I do like the Chrome Soft and would have no problem playing it, but results like this do make you think. Appreciate your articles!

Lou

Chrome Soft is still not a ball you want to play for consistency issues. It’s nice of MGS to have a ball lab but the average consumer wants to know performance characteristics. Distance, dispersion, spin, feel, etc. Without those measurements, taken in a controlled setting, your ball lab consistency data doesn’t mean much to the average consumer. MGS seems to have an aversion to going out and machine testing balls as it’s either too hard or too costly. If you are going to have credibility this must be done. Cutting golf balls in half is only a half assed ball test.

Walter Hagen's Ghost

Uhhh, Lou….

http://mygolfspy.com/most-wanted-golf-ball/

MGS released a ball test just last year. It is significantly difficult for an operation that is supported so heavily by donors to cover the cost of either purchasing or renting a robot for testing every year. This has been discussed previously. If you’ve got the money burning a hole in your pocket feel free to click that “Donate” link at the top of the page.

Ryan

Do you look at the ball report from last year? They literally did exactly what you said and tested balls with an iron Byron I believe.

Hans

If I understand the data correctly, basically two balls per dozen should not be played.. The problem is , which two.

Any data on how the Callaway Chrome Soft compares to the Titleist Pro V1 and Pro V1x on these measures?

When can we see test results for Bridgestone E12 and the RXS balls

ian

Cant wait to see the full ball test results, had higher expectations for
Callaway this year , Can see why direct to consumer brands get business, they can get the price down to a point the average joe can afford to loose a few , now to see now good a job they do of production, there has to be a decent priced ball for the not minted golfer. With an affordable True Price, the big companys are all trying to get players back with a not quite the most expensive offerings , Game on ;-)

Rich

Great article. I love that you are keeping the industry honest. I have been playing MTBX based on your 2019 ball test. I really like them and their cost.

Kurt W

My only concern is such a low sample size. Is there any way to determine how old the ball was that you tested? Specifically these Callaway balls, who we know made some low quality balls last year.

All purchased by us from 3 different retailers on a single day.

MIGregB

Tony, I’m sure you would know this: Are the Chrome Soft balls that tour players use simply 100% inspected balls so that they know they are all good, or are they manufactured differently somehow. Perhaps produced on another line from the consumer production line, etc.. Thanks,

Jason Phelps

Love the way you-all’s minds work! This data is so fun. I look forward to the comparisons with the other balls. Keep up the good work!

Tom Bomb

This can’t be great for Chrome Soft sales.

I can say that I do not know a single person who chooses to play these balls. I am not sure if its because of the quality issues or what, but even dating back to when they first released, I dont know anyone who has ever played these, other than just finding one and “trying” it. With direct-to-consumer options out there at lower cost and I would guess decent quality (cant wait for you guys to test those) and the size of Titleist and their well known quality control mega plant, I dont see Chrome Soft’s selling well.

Based on an unscientific study of balls we found on our course (& there have been thousands found), the MGS articles about Callaway don’t seem to have heard sales a bit. When Callaway got smart and finally stopped changing the name of their premium ball every year (& kept the chrome soft name), they have definitely made inroads in the market and seem to have grabbed a larger share than a previous years. No offense but, how many golfers are there just in the US, tens of millions? How many are basing their ball choice solely on an MGS article?

Mark

I can say that other than the issue of getting chrome soft X balls, our chrome soft sales are up from last year which were up from the year before, we are a midsize retailer, and callaway has been #1 ball sales in our store for 3 straight years.

BN

LOL You must not sell any Titleist

Stephen Hoffman

Love this format – concise and packed with quick-hitting, meaningful information! Can’t wait for more!

Michael Turner

So if the True Price is higher than the MSRP does that mean you’d need to buy more than a dozen to get a dozen good balls, or that the value of the balls is higher than what they are selling for?

Michael – good question. The “True Price” represents the amount you would need to spend in order to get 12 good balls.

So, let’s say a ball sells for $40/dozen, but 6 of the 12 balls are bad. Therefore, I would need to purchase two dozen balls in order to receive 12 good ones. Therefore, my true cost of a dozen good balls is $80, not $40.

Yes, but it’s largely a useless metric. You may have ended up with 1 dozen good balls in your example, but since you will not be able to tell, you are going to play with all 24…. It’s interesting no doubt, but doesn’t help you make sure you have a good ball on the tee….

Jeffrey Smith

Callaway balls are still crap. Thats what I’m getting from the article. Anyone else??

I getting that they’re less crap than in the past, and possibly getting better once the full implementation of the $50 mill investment in QC is completed.

Jake

I am with ya. I walked away from Cally ever since bunch of faulty balls found. Is this what we get after 50M investment? this is a joke. what does Cally think of us? Fools?

I love to support US businesses but I gotta #BoycottCallaway

Paulo

Fantastic. Well worth the wait. Can’t wait to see the others. Please tell me you did a yellow pro v against a white pro v too ? There’s a lot of chatter of differences despite the feedback from Titleist

Yes, I too would like to see the results of the yellow versions of the top balls(Ptov1, Zstar, Tour B xs).

Hmmmm were being ignored. Why is nobody testing yellow v white pro v’s? Is Titleist not allowing it ? :) look on line. Nobody has tested them side by side

ex007

Love the new reporting and its formatting. Absolutely brilliant.

Can’t say the same for Callaway quality control. Yikes….

Looking forward to the other reports.

ryebread

+1 to all of this. Really nice job by the MGS team.

I would LOVE to see the same for not just premium balls, but some of the “better” 2 and 3 piece balls. I suspect you are far more MGS readers than one might realize playing balls from the lesser categories.

luis

Hi Tony. One paragraph starts with “Our visual inspection…”. I was under the impression all measurements would be machine derived. Can you explain a bit?

They explain this on the “about my golf spy golf ball lab” page.

If you see a cut in the cover of a golf ball or a core that is off-center, do you really need a machine to tell you that or do you call it visual inspection and move on?

Steve S

So….Titleist is still the better ball overall. Not surprising. Never found a bad one since I do my own ”balance” test floating them in salt water. And I don’t like saying it since I think Titleist is a bit arrogant.

I’ve seen plenty of Titleist with crooked stamping but thats about it.

Well I wouldn’t go as far as saying they are perfect. I tested a dozen prov1x and only 3 out of the 12 would I consider balanced. Now that was only one box, but to me that’s not very impressive. I had better results testing the Zstar, out of 5 boxes I had about 6 or so out of balance balls. I was using the salt water and the high speed pro spinner “check go” to test them.

TxKevin

Nice “ball description” write-up. It includes a lot of useful into and some that is not so useful to me for my game level….ie Not a pro and someone who can care less about USGA compliance. The review is lacking the most critical into….how it performs. I am only interested in a few things…1. Ball Quality….are they consistently balanced and durability. 2. Ball Characteristics…. compression and feel. 2. Performance…how it performs ie…the numbers so I can see if it fits my game and my goals. 4. Finally, Value…. how it compares to other balls. I am personally not looking for the very best ball at the highest cost. I always look for the best ball I can find within a price range. My ideal is to find a $30 ball that performs almost as good as a $45 ball.

For that level of performance, you have to look at 3 or 4 piece balls with urethane covers (no Surlyn or Ionomer) at $30. Your best options are Snell or Taylormade Tour Response (you can find 15 ball packs at $35). I had a great experience with Maxfli Tour X as well.

I agree TxK… $30 for a ball with high performance characteristics is a great deal. You might want to look at Oncore Elixr balls (usually can get 2 for $50) or my next test, the MG C4 balls (*which at $20) did exceptionally well in last years ball test.

Shane FitzGerald

Wow, so much more detail than I was expecting. So much work. Thanks for your efforts. This is going to be such fun watching all these reports roll in! And so helpful in allowing us to select what balls we should be thinking of paying for.

This is everything! Keep up the great work!!

DaveyD

Great analysis and summary. Will be interesting to see how the Ball Lab results tie into the performance results. to determine which ball(s) are best.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Driver Titleist TSi3	3-Wood Titleist TSi2 13.5°
5-Wood Titleist TSi2 18°	7-Wood Titleist TSi2 21°
Irons (5-9) PXG 0311 GEN5 T	Wedges Vokey SM9 (46° F, 50° F, 54° D, 60° T)
Putter PXG Blackbird	Ball Titleist Pro V1x Left Dash

Golf Balls

Ball Lab – 2020 Callaway Chrome Soft

About the 2020 Callaway Chrome Soft

2020 Callaway Chrome Soft – Compression

Compression Consistency

2020 Callaway Chrome Soft – Diameter

Consistency and Roundness

2020 Callaway Chrome Soft – Weight

2020 Callaway Chrome Soft – Inspection

Core Mixture

Cover

General Observations

True Price

2020 Callaway Chrome Soft Summary Report

Ball Lab Top Performers

Support Unbiased Testing.

Donate to MGS

For You

For You

News

Apr 22, 2024

Strength Training for Golfers: Building a Strong and Stable Core

Golf Balls

Apr 22, 2024

Callaway Supersoft Mother’s Day Bouquet

Golf Technology

Apr 21, 2024

Testers Wanted: Shot Scope V5

Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony Covey

comments

Tim

Mike

Jorge Vela

Mike Billings

Steven M.

Art

Carolyn

Paul

TOM

Marq

Ryan O'Keefe

Ryan O'Keefe

Joe T.

Marq

Cody

VanTrago

Stevegp

Tank

scott

NCDuffer

John Burnsworth

Pman

Lloyd Davis

pineneedlespro

Kansas King

Craig

Largechris

Michael J Woodruff

John

John J.

Mike R.

Steve

Kansas King

Storm319

Matt

Matt

saveva

Peter

Peter

TR1PTIK

MG

JP

Joe T