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 Snell MTB-X. 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.
Among an ever-increasing number of direct-to-consumer brands, Snell Golf has the best pedigree. In his years at Titleist and TaylorMade, company founder Dean Snell had a role in some of the most popular designs of their time. Nobody else in the DTC space can match Dean’s resume. Still, without the size of those companies backing him, can Snell match the quality of the leading brands?
In this report, we share what we learned about the 2019 Snell MTB-X 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 Snell MTB-X
Snell classifies the MTB-X as a mid-launch ball. It’s the higher spinning of Snell’s urethane offerings. It’s a three-piece ball with a 360-dimple, cast-urethane cover.
The Snell MTB-X is manufactured by Nassau in South Korea. The factory is among the most reputable in Asia and is notable for having produced TaylorMade’s Tour offerings for a number of years (it does not produce the current TP5). It’s also the factory that manufactured the original Kirkland four-piece ball and continues to produce that ball for other direct-to-consumer brands.
Snell MTB-X – Compression
On our gauge, the average compression of the Snell MTB-X is 96. While launch and spin properties differ, it’s similar to the Srixon Z-Star XV. It’s slightly firmer than a 2020 Chrome Soft X and just a bit softer than the Pro V1x. Compared to the ball market as a whole, it’s not only firm; it’s on the edge of what we classify as extra firm.
Snell MTB-X – Weight and Diameter
- 100 percent of the balls in our MTB-X sample met our standard for roundness.
- None of the balls tested exceeded the USGA weight limit of 1.620 ounces.
While not TaylorMade-small, the Snell MTB-X runs a bit small. However, none of our samples was in danger of failing the USGA ball track/1.680 gauge test. In that respect, it’s reasonable to describe its size as ideal for the Tour Ball category.
Snell MTB-X – Inspection
Centeredness and Concentricity
The Snell MTB-X is a three-piece golf ball. What’s notable in the design is that the mantle is appreciably thicker than other three-piece designs which should help boost spin on shorter shots.
We flagged one ball with a concentricity/centeredness issue we felt was significant enough to be concerned about. Minor concentricity issues were found in roughly 50 percent of the balls.
Core Mixture
Core color consistency was excellent throughout the sample. We found no appreciable color variation. Of greater importance, we found no unexpected material (chunks), swirls or anything else to suggest inconsistent mixing.
Cover
Cover quality is generally excellent. The consistency of the thickness over the entire surface of the ball is among the best we’ve seen to date. We did note a single ball with a small blob of paint. It chipped off easily, leaving behind only a minor blemish.
General Observations
Like the other Tour balls we’ve tested to date, the MTB-X’s cast-urethane cover is thin, soft and consistent in thickness. Paired with the thicker mantle layer, it should meet greenside expectations for the category.
Consistency
In this section, we detail the consistency of the Snell MTB-X. It’s a measure of how similar the balls in our sample are to one another, relative to all of the models we’ve tested to date.
Weight Consistency
- Consistency (of weight) across the sample set was in the middle of the average range.
- None of the balls tested exceeded the USGA weight limit.
Diameter Consistency
- Diameter consistency is again average relative to the other balls in our database.
- The Snell MTB-X runs slightly small – making it ideally sized for the Tour Ball category.
Compression Consistency
- Compression consistency for the Snell MTB-X is also in the middle of the average range. With a range of nine compression points across the sample, it’s not perfect but it’s within reasonable limits with no balls flagged as bad.
- When we look at the consistency across the three points measured on each ball, the Snell MTB-X is on the high end of the average range with only a single ball approaching an uncomfortable level of variance.
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 two, the more you should be concerned about the quality of the ball.
Snell MTB-X 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.
The consistency of compression, diameter and weight was generally within reasonable limits and present no serious cause for concern.
A single ball (three percent of the sample) was flagged as bad. That should be regarded as excellent but the Snell MTB-X isn’t perfect. We found minor defects in approximately 50 percent of the sample.
Overall, the quality and consistency across the samples tested suggests that the Snell MTB-X is deserving of its reputation as one of the best values in the golf ball market.
*This content is backed by the MyGolfSpy Integrity in Advertising Promise.
Dave
2 weeks agoI’ve gamed the Snell in the past and found that I struggled to get the same distance as the Bridgestone Balls I then mostly used. I play a seaside course that is frequently windy and found that the Snell seemed more prone to ballooning into the wind which I guess is spin related?? Be interested in what others are finding.
MHarr
2 weeks agoThe original MTB and (especially) MTB-Red had problems with playing in the wind. The MTB-Red seemed to take the slighest breeze and just climb, dropping well shot. But MTB-X was redesigned to fix that problem, and it is much better into the wind.
But saying that, I still use MTB-Black for windy conditions. It is a lower spin, lower flight ball than MTB-X, and I find it more consistent and comfortable when playing windy conditions. (I am defining windy conditions as 20mph or over.. If less, then MTB-X is fine to use.)
Mike K
2 weeks agoI am totally enjoying reading these reviews. Any though of doing any more direct to consumer balls?
I’ve played the Tour C4 from MG golf. i found one on the course and enjoyed playing it, so I purchased some. I would like to see how they would rate in your tests.
Marshall Hosel
3 weeks agoI’ve had a good experience with the few balls I’ve tried. I will be trying more.
Eric
3 weeks agoToo bad about that GIANT seam though. It’s not going to make a difference in flight, but it will make a difference with me putting it, I’ll stick with Pro V1. it’s top in terms of pedigree
Paulo
3 weeks agoHow did Titleist get that cover on without a seem ? Honestly believe me , you are nowhere near good enough for a seem to make any difference to you 🙂
David
3 weeks agoYou need to check the review on ProV1’s. They haver a rating worst than the MTB-X
saveva
3 weeks agodo the new 2020 ones have a seam? From the pictures on the website it doesn’t look like it but I haven’t seen new 2020 one in person. Can anyone comment?
Tony Covey
3 weeks agoThe parting line/seam is similar to what you’d find on a TaylorMade Ball as well as balls coming out of Foremost in Tawain. That would include OnCore, Vice, MaxFli, and several others.
Every golf ball has a seam. How visible it is depends on how much effort went into staggering it.
Gary Penn
2 weeks agoI just received the MTB Black (yellow) it was on backorder until they could get more made. So I guess that assures it’s the latest version. I have difficulty spotting the seam, so it appears the large seam has been eliminated.
Alex
3 weeks agoWhile the compression may be different, can we presume MTB Black is a similar quality (assume made at same plant, etc.)?
Andrew Han
3 weeks agoHey Tony, is it really 3% defective and the number you used in your truecost calc? I am getting $34.01 with a 3% and close to 2.82% with your stated true cost. If that latter, thats amazing and close to Titleist’s numbers.
TR1PTIK
3 weeks agoIf you use the whole number 35 for your good ball count, it will come out to the right number. I plugged the formula into Excel and was getting the same thing as you, but Excel will include the decimals in its calculations even if you format the cell to round to the nearest whole. Once I manually typed in the number “35” I got exactly what Tony came up with.
Andrew Han
3 weeks agoThanks Trip. Still amazing. Shows that Callaway wasted $50 mm. They might as well contract Nassau or they really have to see what drained their money. I can say the same for Bridgestone. I would say it’s probably volume, but it sounds like Nassau is not a small shop.
Depending on Kirkland’s results, I may carry Snell and ProV1x.
Tony, this is a nice excuse to go to Korea and tour the plant.
TR1PTIK
3 weeks agoYou’re welcome.
I wouldn’t say Callaway wasted $50M. It’s not like they invest the money and every thing magically changes at the flip of a switch. It takes time.
As for the Bridgestone Tour B XS, you’re talking about 1 ball out of every dozen that MIGHT have a problem which Tony noted as being “comfortably within the average range.”
Of all the ball reports released to date, the most concerning IMO is TP5. While they performed identically to Bridgestone for absolute defects, the fact that 80% were noted to have some sort of minor issue signals that a larger failure event is inevitable if not corrected.
That doesn’t necessarily mean that the issue won’t be captured at the source, but it could create a significant number of bad balls that Taylormade can’t sell.
Steve C
3 weeks agoThe report said 50% of the Snell’s had quality issues but the “True Cost” was excellent. Please explain. What is the yardstick for when a defect impacts ball quality? Thanks.
mack. daddy9
3 weeks agoThanks, Who You Are Makes A Difference
Brian
3 weeks agoCurious about the compression rating. In this article it says 96, however in the big ball test published on this site in April 2019 (https://mygolfspy.com/most-wanted-golf-ball/), it states the compression is 114. Just curious about the disparity. 2018 vs 2019 ball maybe?
Tony Covey
3 weeks agoI’ve discussed this in the comments of other Ball Lab reports. It comes down to the gauges that were available to us during last year’s test. Different gauges, different scale, and no conversions necessary. We find that our gauge is typically within a few points of stated specs.
LABillyboy
3 weeks agoI play Pro V1x. I still do. But I did buy a couple dozen MTBx last year to try them out. First nice surprise was Dean Snell autographed my invoice, great indicator that he really cares about his product, customers and quality.
Playing the balls I notice very little difference with the Pro V1x. Very similar trajectories across the bag, similar distance and spin. Balls both feel good off the putter and seem to have good durability, both line up the side stamp with the ball seam (pretty rare). They are within 5% across the board on my launch monitor within the margin of error for my swing…
I still have a few of the Snell’s to use up sometime after just receiving 4 dozen new Pro V1’s for free ( a pretty good True Price).
Snell is a great ball in my opinion having played through 3 dozen mixed in with Pro V1x over a couple months. I will definitely order some more when I run out to keep Titlist honest…
Pete
1 week agoI’ve got just one question for anyone who would like to answer it. If the MTB & MTBX as well as all other Snell products are as good or as some claim better than Titleist V1 & V1X, why is it that not one PGA Tour player, or LPGA Tour player use them? After all, there are top tour level players, both men and women in their respective tours who play Titleist without being paid at all, like Brooks Keopka, he ranks in the top three players in the world and he’s not under contract with any ball company, yet he chooses to play the V1X, another example was Bubba Watson who signed a a five year contract to play Volvik after playing his entire semi pro and PGA career with Titleist, V1 & V1X, and after one year he backed out of the contract and went back to playing Titleist with zero compensation until signing on again a year later. Now those to examples speak volumes, and there isn’t another golf ball company in the world who can make that same claim, and the classiest part about Titleist is that they don’t make statements about these and many other similar cases, and they never speak negatively about competitors in TV ads, or in any other public forum, once again, that says a lot!
Mharr
1 week agoThere is a little more to it than saying ProV1 is better because tour players play it and do not play Snell. NOBODY on the tour EVER pays for golf balls. The only exception likely are amateurs playing on sponsor exemption, as golf balls provided are gifts that would be counted against a player’s amateur status limits.
No one is saying that Titleist is not the leading ball brand. Titleist becomes the PGA leader primarily for two reasons, besides being a premium performance ball. One, gaining Tour status an almost automatic contract with Titleist/Footjoy for balls, shoes, and gloves for $10k – 50k; easy money especially for new players that also eliminates a cost. Second, Titleist has contract with tour to provide driving range balls at tour events. It makes it an easy decision to play the same ball as what you work on at the range, to eliminate any possible thought about adjusting from range to course.
So, Tour players not only play Titleist for free, but they are paid to play Titleist (unless they sign with someone else). Even the leading players without equipment contracts like Koepke, Reed, Molinari, they still have contracts for balls, just not contracts for clubs.
Dean Snell has said on a number of occasions that he does not sign players to ball contracts. However, there have been anecdotal reports about a few Senior Tour players that have played Snell balls.. Will that change? Dean has not ruled it out. Considering that this year, he did expand to start selling balls to pro shops for resale, perhaps that will change.
Yes, Titleist is the top of the list for the best ball. But Snell is proven to be right there, too. And for those of us that must pay for our balls, getting the same performance (AND consistent quality, as this report demonstrates) at a little more than half the cost for the 4-5 dozen balls I will use in a season, is worth looking into. (I buy Snell at 5 dozen discount price of $29/doz, vs $52 for ProV1.)
Gary
3 weeks agoGreat review, as always! Like last year, will MGS publish the results in a spreadsheet where we can compare all of the balls at once? That would be extremely helpful! Thanks for all you guys do at MGS.
Brandon Aka manimal26
3 weeks agoSo I have been looking forward to this review since it was announced. Also I am not surprised that this has been on par with the gold standard of the ProV1. Here comes my concern and something that is missing from the ball lab. I bought a box of MTB-X to give them a try and compare them to my gammer the ProV1x. The first tee box I hit a good drive and so far I was impressed. It was a par 5 and I went for it and missed in the green side bunker. Bunker shot was solid and had a 3ft for bird. I got up to mark my ball and I was shocked the cover was destroyed on the MTB-X. Next hole was a short par 3 where I hit a 50 deg. Again got up and the ball was destroyed. That round I had to toss 6-7 balls because they did not hold up to hard wedges shots or shots out of the bunker. I can go 3 rounds (if I am lucky) with a single ProV1x. When you talk about true cost I feel this is miss leading because after this point Of just seeing if a ball is playable durability should be factored in to true price. I am sure the type of sand contributes but it’s something I never worry about with a Titleist ball
Vince Schiavo
3 weeks agoWow! You REALLY ARE an animal!!
Russ
3 weeks agoI’ve noticed the same thing with cover durability
Michael
3 weeks agoI have been gaming the MTB-X since April when my Country Club started keeping them in stock at the Pro Shop. In my experience with these balls the cover has been one of the most durable covers I have played. I don’t know if you got a “bad batch” which would also hurt MGS true price point but I for one have had the complete opposite experience with these balls as you. I hope you give them another chance I love them!
Brian
3 weeks agoWow. That’s not my experience. I’ve played a lot of different balls including the ProV1 & ProV1x. I find the Snell among the most durable balls.. I’m sure I don’t play my wedges like you but I’ve hit lots of trees, sand and cart paths with all these different balls. I hit the ball hard but unfortunately not very straight.
Chris
3 weeks agoI have had the opposite experience. Played the same Snell MTB-X ball for 27 holes before I lost it, and it was barely scuffed.
Kyle Sinclair
3 weeks agoWhy no comment about the $5 a box discount when you buy 5 boxes????
Nice to hear that the Snell ball is as good as I thought it was!
Jason
3 weeks agoI had the exact same experience. If I even look at the covers wrong they are ruined. It was worse on the yellow balls than the white.
I stopped playing them for this reason.
MIGREGB
3 weeks agoIt would be very informative & helpful if any or all of you guys who had the cover durability issue would contact Dean to get his opinion. He is always concerned. He responded to me when I had a question about paint coming off under place that I used permanent marker.
JasonA
3 weeks agoFWIW I find Srixon covers are more durable than Pro V1’s if that matters to you
Besides with Srixon Z-Star I can pick my ball from any Titleist’s on the fairway because it is actually white. Not that yellow-ish white the Pro V1’s have that make them look a bit aged out of the box.
Patrick
2 weeks agoYes. Srixon are white and bright.
Cully
3 weeks agoI’ve had the exact opposite experience. The only thing that takes a Snell out of play for me is a cart path, whereas I can’t make it through a full round with a ProV1x without a well-struck wedge giving it a deep scuff.
PAulo
3 weeks agoI’ve found yellow pro v’s more durable than white ones but I’ve asked many times if they’ll fit a direct comparison of white v yellow and I’m ignored. Google it , nobody ever has . A lot of reviewers , even the ‘independent’ ones rely on freebies from manufacturers, I wouldn’t be surprised if they aren’t allowed to compare and highlight the diffs
leftright
2 weeks agoTo quote iceman from Top Gun…..BS.
Stevegp
3 weeks agoTony, nice job again on the review! I really enjoy these Ball Lab reports. It is great to be able to get some factual information and feedback on the quality and consistency of various top golf balls.
JeremyB
3 weeks agoAs I’m reading through the ball lab stuff it is amazing to be able to put numbers to the equipment. Especially when you pay a premium for a good ball. Especially up here in Canada
Adam
3 weeks agoI was given one of the Snell MTB Blacks and absolutely loved it. I played through 11 holes before I lost my only one. I haven’t had a chance to try the MTB X. My biggest culprit are balls that spin too much off a driver so usually I play TM TP5X or Bridgestone BX. Can anyone answer for me of the the Snell offerings which has lowest driver spin?
MHarr
3 weeks agoAccording to Snell website, Dean’s Youtube videos, and my experience, the MTB Black spin less and fly a little lower than the MTB-X. I play the MTB-X when playing I’m playing well (little sidespin), good conditions, and want as much approach spin as I can get. And I play MTB Black when looking to reduce an early-season fade, and in windy conditions.
Birdieputt
3 weeks agoExcellent job of reviewing the Snell MTB-X balls Tony.
I bought a dozen almost a year ago and have used them on a regular basis. They replaced the Bridgestone 330-RX balls.
I like the length, ability to work the ball and of course, the price point is excellent for a tour quality ball.
When one considers that the balls are delivered directly to your mailbox, it’s a no brainer.
Lou
3 weeks agoIt is not a surprise that Snell MTB X is an excellent ball. I doubt that Dean Snell would settle for less. I prefer their MTB Black when I play Snell. Would hope you will soon add balls that your people who have 10+ handicaps play such as Tour Response, Tour Speed, Bridgestone B RX, Snell Black and OnCore Elixr.. Thanks.
Daniel D Balint
3 weeks agoThey look as if they are a quality ball, but the compression is too high for us seniors. Any plans to offer a lower compression ball?
Vince Schiavo
3 weeks agoHi Daniel – to bust a myth..in general, .Seniors should be playing the highest compression golf ball they can. Higher compression balls travel further than so-called “soft/low” compression golf balls.
Cheers!
Desert Hack
3 weeks agoYEEESSSS!!
Tim
3 weeks agoVERY interesting results for a DTC offering.
Matt
3 weeks agoSeems like this pretty much does it for me. You’re telling me this ball performed with the very best in last years ball test, is amongst the leaders in quality control (only behind Titleist so far) and is nearly half the price of a pro V1? I know what ball I’ll be playing for the foreseeable future.
scott
3 weeks agoI’ve played the Snell ball a few times and found it just like any brands better balls , It seems like today’s golfer has allot of great balls to choose from and Snell is just one more on the list . .. Thanks for one more great read.
Dan
3 weeks agoGood work Tony! Thanks! One typo on the graphics, it states MTB X (2010) in the ball summary, rather than 2019.
Stephen C Wilson
3 weeks agoHow do I know if I should use high or low spin balls?
Taylor
3 weeks agoGet a ball fitting done.
Joe
3 weeks agoI started playing this ball this year. I have been out of golf for a while, and I am not a distance guy but a short game specialist. As I read the ball reports and thought about what a golf ball should and shouldnt do I realized a few things.
I am a mid-high handicapper that plays very consistent bogey golf. If a ball does what it is supposed to 95% of the time that eliminates a few strokes over 18 and takes one more factor out of the equation. I tried the Vice route, and while those are good balls and awesome branding, they werent consistent and didnt hold up. For my game and for the cost of 5 doz. Snells… I am getting a ball that doesnt hurt my game, probably helps in a few areas, and the rest of the times lets my shot determine success or failure.
This report affirms all of this thinking to me. This will be the ball I play until I finish rounding out my bag this winter and possibly do a ball fitting at some point to see if something reacts better.
Patrick Kohlman
3 weeks agoMTB-X IS the best ball for the money. $14-26 per dozen True Cost cheaper than ProV1, TP5, BX5 and Chrome Slow…. Like what I did there Tony? After all the labs are done you guys should include these results into the performance lab you do.
Scott King
3 weeks agoGlad to know it is of high value and consistency. I have playing Snell’s since 2015. Same amount of time i have been following MGS. I have taken a few times to test other balls and with nine being a better playing ball. Some equal, but not the same price without a sale. Good Job Dean and thank you.
Michael H
3 weeks agoTony, you sent me 2 Snell balls a couple years ago as I had trouble getting my account set up. I played them at a local course and lost both on the tee shot on the first hole on separate days. Determined then that it was not the ball for me.
Thanks for continuing the unbiased testing. I find it very useful in making my purchasing decisions.
Kyle Sinclair
3 weeks agoYeah, it’s the balls fault…..😂😂😂
Nick hanna
3 weeks agoSo they have significantly less bad balls than tp5 and Bridgestone. Pretty much on par with pro v1 and are worth 17 dollars less as their true price? If they were truly one of the best values wouldn’t they have a much greater difference of true price vs actual price?
Kurt
3 weeks agoNope. You arent understanding the TP metric. It is the number of dollars required to purchase 12 full quality balls. The closer the TP is to MSRP, then the better the quality output of that ball/brand is.
Joe E
3 weeks agoI have played the MTB-X in the past and found it to be a good golf ball but I had issues with cover quality. They don’t seem to hold up as long as a ProV1. You should include some sort of durability test in your reviews. If I have to replace a ball sooner, the cost savings aren’t as great.
Ryan
3 weeks ago“True Price” here is how much it will cost you to get 12 “good” balls. Unless every single ball was perfect, the true price will always be higher than the actual price. However, the closer the true price is to actual price, the more consistent the balls are with fewer issues (look at the ProV test and its TP is not much higher than its AP as it was extremely consistent, but if you look at the Chrome Soft test, the TP is much higher than the AP because there were a lot of balls they found with issues).
In other words, you don’t want a true price that is substantially higher than the actual price because that means you’re having to pay more for 12 “good” balls. The closer true price is to actual price, the better.
Brian L
3 weeks agoI think you are missing the meaning of “true price.” MGS is defining it as the cost for 12 “good” balls. So with 3% “bad” balls, MRP × 1.03 = “true” price.
Rob C
3 weeks agoYou’ve got the understanding of True Price wrong, go back and read the definition of it. You want to see a smaller difference between Actual Price and True Price.
CMJ
3 weeks agoThe “true price” is just how much it costs to get 12 good balls. Since 3% of the balls were “bad”, the true price is 3% more than the retail price since you’d need to replace 3% of your bad balls with good balls.
It’s not a comparison to the price of other, more expensive balls — just a comparison to its own retail price.
Now, if you buy 5 dozen, the price is $27.99/doz and the “true price” is $28.83/doz. That’s why I switched to Snell.
Dave D
3 weeks agoTrue price measures the cost of getting 12 “good balls”, not the value of the ball. The highest quality ball (zero defects) would have no difference between true price and actual price. The value of the ball is in the eye of the player.
Justin Kosar
3 weeks agoThat is not how the True Price metric works. it is simply the theoretical price it should cost you to buy a dozen satisfactory balls. The ball lab is much less about ball performance and more about ball quality. The closer the True Price is to MSRP, the better the quality. They may run a ball lab on a box of Pinnacles, and they turn out to be manufactured perfectly to spec every time, and the True Price = MSRP, but that doesn’t mean I want to hit ’em.
Paulo
3 weeks agoBravo Nick. 7 bites and counting. Well played sir
Howard
3 weeks agoTwice on this report where you showed the price the date was listed as 2010. I’m guessing you mean 2020?
Ian
3 weeks agoWhy does the ball summary say 2010? Great review to see the consistency from Snell and a smaller company. Is there a reason the Top Flite Gamer wasn’t part of the Ball Lab?
Justin
3 weeks agoI think what we are learning through these tests is every single ball company to some degree will have defective product with golf balls. Were Snell’s defects enough for the player to notice a performance drop off?? Probably not is my guess. It would really be interesting to get your hands on three dozen balls that get sent to a tour player and test those against the identical ball from retail shelf. Because I would imagine there is some of these defects that still make it out onto tour.
TR1PTIK
3 weeks agoGood job Tony and great job Snell Golf!!! Now buckle in for all the conspiracy theories regarding MGS and Snell lol!
David
3 weeks agoI switched from ProV1X about 5 years ago, and have never had any regrets. I play the MTB-X. It does 100% of everything Snell Golf claims. It is long, yet I can spin it effectively off the wedges, mid irons, etc. The quality of the ball is superior, very durable, and resists abrasion well. I’m 68 years old, currently a 4 handicap, and can still drive the X 280, or longer. Thank you Dean Snell for your beyond excellent product, at a bargain price, with superior customer service. Well done!
Kevin Smith
3 weeks agoSoooo thanks for the “lab stuff” but w/o any practical data (total distance, carry distance, spin rate etc.) it’s only an exercise in physical perimaters.
Kurt
3 weeks agoTotal distance, carry, and spin numbers are unique to each player. Club, shaft, lie, swing speed, etc are all variables that determine those stats. This is LITERALLY “Ball Lab” for measuring the quality of a golf ball.
TR1PTIK
3 weeks agoIf you don’t care that the next ball you grab from a brand new box could be different from the one you just lost in the drink, you’re at the wrong place.
MGS published a ball test last year (many of the balls are unchanged from that test). https://mygolfspy.com/most-wanted-golf-ball/
This is Ball Lab. Completely different… https://mygolfspy.com/mygolfspy-ball-lab/
Dan
3 weeks agoThat’s the point of this “Golf Ball Lab”. Its not about how much it spins, how far it goes etc as we all have different swings that make any given ball react in a different way. This is about the physical attributes of a ball and how each compare and conform to the other balls in a dozen and allowable limits. If a % of the balls from the 12 are not round, have off center cores, weigh different then no amount of questions on “how far does it go, what’s the spin numbers etc” are going to help you or anyone else there. Golf ball consistency is what they are looking here and I think MSG have said that from the start.
Jay McGillicuddy
3 weeks agoIs that a typo in the Ball Summary? 2010? Should it be 2020
Charles
3 weeks agoBeen my gamer for a year now and I see no reason to change.
Dugan
3 weeks agoBuild quality wise, it’s just as good as the big 3, maybe better than one of them! Good job Mr. Snell. I will continue buying them.
Jason Sluyter
3 weeks agoI’ve used the Snell XTB based on your longest balls report earlier in the year. I’ve found it to be awesome one the greens and am happy with it overall. I used the yellow ones for a period as I find them to be easier to track in the air. I feel like the yellows balls scratch often and easier compared to the white balls. Often after one sand shot. I was curious if you knew why?
Christopher
3 weeks agoI agree on the yellow. It is very easy to see which balls have been hit. Sometimes even once. I tried the GYS ball in yellow and it held up better. But I am all in on the MTB-X.
dski93
3 weeks agoRelieved to see my go to ball this year is pretty consistent.
Adam Flowers
3 weeks agoGreat work again, Tony.
I like that you keep streamlining the presentation over the weeks. In particular, I like how you compare the compression to other balls.. Even if you haven’t published their reports yet, most players reading this will have played one of them and be able to visualize the Snell’s feel.
Anthony
3 weeks agoI started gaming the MTB-X this season based on a MySpy article comparing various balls and think it compares favorably to ProV1x and TP5. Great ball for the money. I have a 95-98 mph driver chs.
Simon French
3 weeks agoBeest ball ever played. I was switching between the MTB and Pro V1X before these came along. This feels a lot like the ProV1X. It might be just me but I think I might be getting a few extra yards. Awesome performance and great price. Won’t go back