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. Today, we’re taking a look at the 2022 Callaway Chrome Soft X. To learn more about our test process, how we define “bad” balls, check out our About MyGolfSpy Ball Lab page.
About the Callaway Chrome Soft X
Perhaps the most noteworthy thing I can tell you about the Callaway Chrome Soft X is that it’s the company’s most-played ball across the men’s professional tours. Despite that, it’s dwarfed in the retail market by Callaway Chrome Soft.
We’d classify the previous model as mid-flight, high-spin. Our expectation is the 2022 model will offer similar performance characteristics. Worth noting: the prior-gen Chrome Soft X was one of the longest we tested in 2021.
Chrome Soft X Construction
The 2022 Callaway Chrome Soft X features four-piece construction with a TPU (injection-molded) urethane cover. It’s a dual-mantle design as opposed to a dual-core design like the Titleist Pro V1x or Srixon Z-Star XV.
The Chrome Soft X is manufactured by Callaway at its ball plant in Chicopee, Mass.
Compression
On our gauge, the 2022 Callaway Chrome Soft X has an average compression of 95. At the risk of pummeling the proverbial horse into pulp, by no sensible measure does that make for a “soft” ball.
For the sake of comparison, it has the same compression as the Pinnacle range ball and the 2022 Bridgestone Golf Tour B X (Ball Lab review coming soon). It’s slightly softer than a Titleist Pro V1x and slightly firmer than the 2021 TaylorMade TP5x.
Diameter and Weight
Over the three years of Ball Lab, we’ve run into a few issues with the diameter and weight of Callaway balls. We didn’t find any issues with the 2022 Callaway Chrome Soft X.
All of the balls in the sample met the USGA requirements for size and weight.
Inspection
Centeredness and Concentricity
Callaway’s past issues with concentricity are well documented. As the company continues to roll out improvements to its Chicopee factory, we expect we’ll find fewer (and fewer) issues.
In the case of the Chrome Soft X, we flagged only one singular ball as bad. We noted four discrete areas where the outer mantle had melted into the inner mantle. We also observed an area of the outer mantle that was noticeably thinner in one area.
That’s not ideal. However, it’s worth mentioning that, otherwise, concentricity was excellent throughout the sample.
Core Consistency
Core color was generally consistent (again, something that hasn’t always been the case). We did observe some miscellaneous bits of white material in some cores but not to the degree that warranted any serious concern.
Cover
No cover defects were noted.
Callaway Chrome Soft X – Consistency
In this section, we detail the consistency of the 2022 Callaway Chrome Soft X. Our consistency metrics provide a measure of how similar the balls in our sample were to one another relative to all of the models we’ve tested to date.
Weight Consistency.
- There is a bit of wobble from one box to the next with Box 1 being the most inconsistent.
- With an average weight of 1.611 ounces, we’d classify the Chrome Soft X as an average-weight golf ball.
Diameter Consistency
- Diameter consistency for the 2022 Callaway Chrome Soft X falls within the Average range.
- Despite some hills and valleys, the Chrome Soft X is generally consistent with all balls falling within normal limits.
- The diameter of the balls falls within the average range relative to the market as a whole.
Compression Consistency
- Compression consistency also qualifies as Average.
- As you can see from the chart above, Box 1 was definitely a little squirrelly with the sixth ball in the sample being far enough from the average that we flagged it as bad.
- Across the entire sample, the compression delta was 12 points—higher than we like to see.
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.
Callaway Chrome Soft X – Summary
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.
As we mentioned, Callaway continues to improve its Chicopee ball plant so by no means will this be the final word on the Chrome Soft family. That said, it’s clear the company still has plenty of opportunities for improvement.
The Good
- Average consistency for all of our metrics across the sample.
- All of the balls conformed to the USGA rules.
The Bad
- Two bad balls in the sample
- More wobble in our charts than we see from top-quality brands
At the time of review, the 2022 Callaway Chrome Soft X gets an overall grade of 75.
*We may earn a commission when you buy through links on our site.
G
4 months agoBought a box of these on a whim and I love this ball, best ball of 2022 for me
Matt A
4 months agoSomething is just ‘off’ with any Callaway ball I’ve ever tried. Played 18 holes with an LS the other day to see how spin rates dropped. Had a couple holes where the ball just left the face and kept going…and going…and going. Almost like there was a high-compression spot on the ball and if you hit it just right it acted like a distance ball. One time it made a hard left after traveling straight for 100yards and then flew 20 yards too far. Another time a 7i ended up flying 40 yards too far.
Mike
4 months ago“Every” Callaway ball? Come on, seriously. I can’t understand how you’d hit a 7-iron 40 yards “too far”. Put a 7 iron in an Iron Byron (so that the swing is consistent) & you could hit Pro V1’s & Top Flitess all day long & you wouldn’t have a 40 yd distance difference.
Some of my friends actually believe that MGS has a vendetta against Chrome soft balls. I disagree; MGS just cuts them open _ reports what they find. It’s the Callaway haters that write in that have the venom.
Got news for you folks, at our golf course we find thousands of balls every season. After Pro V1’s, Chrome Softs are the next most numerous premium balls we come across & it’s been that way ever since it was first released.
Bozo the Clown
4 months agoYawn
Jonathan
4 months agoPing Ballnamic, ball recommender program recommended this ball for me. For those not familiar, you put in some of your own data and your preferences/goals for a ball and Ping (a neutral party with LOTS of data) gives you a ball recommendation. I’ve tried about 6 different balls over the last two years. I found this recommendation to be well worth it, as the Chromesoft X has been the best performing ball for me to date.
Mike
4 months agoI thought that Ballnamic was interesting until I got to the $40 charge to tell me which balls fit me best. I’d rather just go to my course when it’s not crowded & test out different balls. Giving that job for such an individual game, I’m always wary about generic online anything. If it worked for you, that’s great, but at my level I tend to stick with a certain type of ball urethane cover but not too much spin. That helps me narrow down my testing.
Steve (the real one, pithy and insufferable)
4 months agoDoes the double chevron to the sides of the CHROME SOFT X indicate the 2022 model?
Tony, could you please add any identifying marks as to mfg. year for reference purposes?
Tony Covey
4 months agoHey Steve, if you look at the comparison chart in the post (the black background with various circles and squares and whatnot), I include the sidestamp for the model being tested as it’s very often the only way to discern the actual vintage of the ball (without cutting it).
Steve (the real one, pithy and insufferable)
4 months agoThanks for the reply. I looked back at the previous test for this ball and it had a single chevron and a single arrow on each end from the photos. So there is way to tell what year you might find. I don’t know if courses rotate there stock – perhaps year end sales?
Vin
4 months agoGreat review. Perhaps it’s time to focus on Bridgestone golf balls. Give them a hurry up as I’m about to change from the Tour X RS to something else once the season finishes. I’d prefer not to.
JEFF WIGGINS
4 months agoDo you ever hit the bad balls with the robot to note what happens ?
Tony Covey
4 months agoHey Jeff – this is something we’re looking into. Obviously, we can’t hit the ones we cut, so the concentricity stuff is tricky. We’re looking at ways to tackle that from another angle. I am also looking at adjusting the workflow a bit to preserve balls that are bad for other reasons. I’m looking at ways to test balls that are, for example, not round or significantly firmer/softer than the sample as a whole, but we’re not there yet.
We may also do some reverse engineering of sorts after the next robot test. If we see something really strange in the performance of the ball, we can bring it back into the lab and see if we can figure out exactly why a ball an individual ball performed poorly.
Ian
4 months agoWhy not hit them, retrieve them, then cut them open?
Dennis Malley
4 months agoTiming is everything..? Just this past Sunday, I tried the Chrome Soft X. My wife bought me some (too many) Wilson Soft Core balls. My scores and slices went up and my distance went down with this ball; so, I walked into the pro shop and the Chrome Soft X was among the recommendations. I chose the Chrome Soft and my results improved tangibly. I liked the improvement but wouldn’t say this is now ‘my ball’. I had been playing a ball gifted to me that I never heard of before – Piper (blue) – and thought this reasonably priced ball available on Amazon provided better distance and a bit more accuracy. Bottom line, I think I’ll play until I drown all the Chrome Soft and then try/compare to something else. In my completely unqualified opinion, there are a number of balls that provide solid results and that there are more that are a mistake than there are that provide a wow or game changing experience.
Tim
4 months agoThe rating of 75 seems a bit harsh and ultimately a subjective #. Did you factor in the historical issues with CS to get to the 75 rating. I love the ball lab and these reports but id like to see a more “scientific” approach to these ratings……like, add up certain categories rated 1-10 for core, cover, compression consistency, core centeredness (is that a word?) ect….. justmy amateurish 2 cents,
Tony Covey
4 months agoTim – I’ve said it before…putting an out of 100 score on something like golf ball quality is kind of a tricky thing, but it helps simplify things for a much broader audience.
To be clear, there’s very little that’s subjective with ball lab. Scores are based on the bad ball% (and the majority of reasons a ball gets flagged as bad boil down to either USGA rules or significant deviation from the other balls in the sample).
As far as the quality ratings, there’s really nothing to factor as far as previous models are concncerned. The issues with other CS versions are only relevant insomuch as our ratings are based on the consistency of each sample relative to every other sample we’ve tested to date and we do have other CS balls in the database, but to be clear the comparison is to the database as a whole. The math is based on standard deviations for each of our metrics. I assure you, it’s a sound approach.
As far as 75 being harsh, I think sometimes people struggle to conceptualize what it means to be average. If you look at the scores over the entirety of our database, they run from 97 on the high end, all the way down to 40 on the low end. Our Chrome Soft X sample was within the average range for compression consistency. It was within the average for weight consistency. It was within the average range for diameter consistency. And, not for nuthin’, the database average for bad balls is between 2 and 3 per sample.
So, this Chrome Soft X was average for absolutely every metric we measure. Frankly, it’s the very definition of average.
The unrounded score (again, based on bad balls and the consistency of the sample relative to the consistency of all the others balls in our database) for the CSX is 75.1. The average score across the entire database is currently 74.5, so yeah…I think…or more accurately, the math suggests that 75 isn’t harsh at all – it’s just average.
Tim
4 months agoGotcha…..i appreciate the follow up and it definitely cleared up some misconceptions I had. I love the ball lab and have used it to purchase high quality balls and figure out what works best for me….to date the LEFT DOT is the best ball i ever hit and hope we see somoe form of testing in the ball lab for this unicorn ball.
So the term “average” is definitely less than stellar when speaking about balls that cost $50 dzn…..it almost turns me off to even consider the ball because I (and I am sure others), see “Average” and immediately think “This ball sucks”…even though it aligns with the rest of the balls in the database.
Its great to see you testing these balls that way you do. For me personally id like to see some tweaks in descriptions. and ratings but I know the data is solid. I truly appreciate the follow up.
John Wood
4 months agoAgree – MSG recent ChromeSoft video/commentary doesn’t come across as “unbiased”. They did an excellent job 3 years ago discovering Callaway’s quality control issues. It seems like that discovery is still impacting their perceptions when reviewing current ChromeSoft production. Full disclosure, I play Pro V1,believe ChromeSoft X should have received more than 75 score.
Tony Covey
4 months agoIt’s not perception, it’s math.
The same formulas are applied to every ball we test. I’m sure a lot of people think the Chrome Soft X should have received more than a 75, but as I said in my response to Tim, across the board, the 2022 CSX tests out as average for all of our ball lab metrics. As it turns out, the average score across the entire database is also very close to 75. So, math working how it does, any ball that’s solidly average across the board, is going to end up with a score of +/- 75.
75 = Average = 75
Incidentally, I think that “average” amounts to acceptable quality. Is it as consistent as some others we test? Definitely not. Could you do worse? Absolutely. You could do way (way, way, worse).
As a fun little exercise for those who are curious about the differences… the chart that we started including in ball lab reports last year shows the ball by ball measurements plotted against the median, I do everything I can to keep those to scale. The only value that changes in each report is the compression number, but even then, I keep ranges consistent at 10 points on either side of the median. The only exception is that when a sample contains balls that are so far removed from the median that I have to change the scale to show them.
The point is, you can go back and look at/download those images and do a side by side comparison to see exactly how much variation there is between an average ball, a really good, ball and a poor ball. As I said, it’s all math, and we actually show you on those charts exactly what the consistency of the sample looks like.