Forum Member Reviews: Callaway Whitebox Testing

[Wicki]

18 hours ago, Erin B said:

I made the switch! 

testing these balls caused me to switch. 

Think I am heading in the same direction myself, with the same balls!

[Erin B]

3 minutes ago, Wicki said:

Think I am heading in the same direction myself, with the same balls!

I like the Chrome Tour as well. Just not as much as the X.

[ZackS]

I was able to sneak out and get in 7 holes at a little par 3 course after work to test the CTX against the Z Star Diamond outside in the wind. I will say that I am no longer worried about the CTX in the wind as it few pretty much the same as the diamond for me. I even on one hole into the wind when I would normally go to a 8 iron and swing easy to keep spin down just hit a hard 9 iron played back in my stance and it did not balloon on me. So the only worry I still have is durability. It did hit a tree limb but it was a pushed short iron that came down into the tree so hitting it very hard and had a pretty good mark. I will say rubbing my finger over it feels fine still and I kept playing it with no issues. It's almost like it marks might just mark up easy.  But for reference the ball next to it is a Diamond that landed on the cart path. 

By the way both these have been through 2 SIM sessions and short game work as well while comparing them. Guess I will see how my round goes on Monday and try and make a decision while the sales are still going on.

[gregh729]

Forgot to add pictures. Please see next post.

Edited March 6 by gregh729
forgot pictures.

[gregh729]

I have played 6 rounds with them and have a decent idea of what I like and dislike about each. In two rounds I hit both balls on every hole, just changing which one I hit first. Two rounds I used the Tour for 9 holes and the X for the other 9. The other two rounds I used the Tour for all 18 and then the X for all 18.

First Impressions:

I was surprised to see two sleeves each. That was a nice surprise and felt like a bonus.

Aesthetics:

Bright white with the triple track alignment.  I’ve never used the Triple Track before and was interested in how they worked for me. The markings are very sharp and on the side of the ball.  I like the placement of the number above the name but I miss the chevron. I like to point the chevron at the hole like an arrow. These looked like any other high quality ball.  
Tour: 10/10 Tour X:  10/10

Off the tee:

I love the feel and trajectory of the Tour.  It has a much lower flight than the X.  I crushed a few drives with the X that were significantly longer than my average. The X went, high, high! The X was spun too much for me and was very affected by the wind. My misses were exaggerated. But geez, when flushed the X flew forever! Both balls have plenty of distance, equal to or a little longer than what I am used to. I am much more consistent with the Tour, most likely due to the lower spin and better trajectory. The X is more volatile for me. I hit some bombs, but also had more trouble controlling it. Mishits lost more distance and accuracy.

The X has a firmer feel and sound. More clicky. I prefer the softer feel and control of the Tour.
Tour: 9/10 Tour X:  7/10

Approach: 

The Tour played like I am used to. 1 or 2 hops after hitting the green. It doesn’t spin back, but doesn’t have much roll out either. Very easy to control. The X has more spin.  Mid irons were only rolling out 5 ft on average. It was also easy to control once I got my distances down. I again preferred the softer feel of the Tour.
Tour: 9/10 Tour X:  8/10

PW with Tour. 4 ft roll out

7i with Tour. 10ft roll out

PW with Tour X, 1ft hop and stop

7i with Tour X. 4 ft roll out

Around the green:

Chips and pitches were easily controlled with both balls.  The Tour rolled out slightly more. The X grabbed more. Depending on the shot, each has its advantages. I would not have any problems playing either of these balls around the green.
Tour: 9/10 Tour X:  9/10

Putting:

This is the first time I have tried to use the Triple Track. I am not sure it is for me. It is a great alignment aid, but I find myself taking more time trying to get it lined up exactly and becoming more mechanical. I can definitely see the merit of the Triple Track and will keep trying, but I prefer the chevron and pointing that in the direction like an arrow.  I could not tell a difference of the putter, Odyssey White Hot Versa Seven S.
Tour: 9/10 Tour X:  9/10 

Like or Dislike:

I like everything there is about the Tour. It just works for me. Very nice feel, trajectory, above average distance off the driver, consistent distance off the irons, and very good short game control.

The X is a great ball and does what it is designed to do, but it spins too much more me and flies way too high and is a little bit too firm for my tastes. I don’t have the clubhead speed to make this perform better.

Improvement?:

I can’t think of any improvements. If you read the tech and advertising from Callaway, these do exactly what they are supposed to do. It is just a matter of finding which works better for you.   
Tour: 10/10 Tour X:  8/10 

Good, bad and in between:

Pretty much what I said earlier. The Tour matched the performance I look for in a ball. Above average distance, little side spin for better control, great feel, and very consistent.

The X has more spin which made it harder to control (still very controllable). A few more shots got away from me in terms of spin and curve.

The durability for both was fine. I used each for 2+ rounds before they got a little too beat up from cart paths and trees. I didn’t have any peeling from wedge swings. Both rolled great on putts. 
Tour: 19/20 Tour X:  17/20 

Play or Trade:

These balls are noticeable improvements to the previous version of the Chrome Soft and Chrome Soft X (which are both excellent balls) and are compare very favorably to the gold standard ProV1 and ProV1X.

I will be switching to the Chrome Tour. It is exactly what I want in a ball. I’ll need to decide between the Triple Track or plain white.
Tour: 19/20 Tour X:  17/20 

Conclusions:

I preferred the Tour over the X. Both had very good distance, but the Tour was easier to control. I had more confidence in being able to control the Tour which gave me a higher comfort level with it.

Final score:  Chrome Tour 94/100, Chrome Tour X 85/100

[climberboy2000]

On 3/2/2024 at 5:26 PM, Bohnson said:

@climberboy2000 those balls seem to wear more than your gamer? I played the Chrome tour for 25 holes and had to retire it. Just normal wear and tear. Hit one tree but the damage from that was not bad. IMO the covers seem to wear a little bit more than I would like. Performance is great everywhere else! 

I forgot to respond.  For me I felt that they were similar to my gamer balls (ProV1x and Sugar Pure).  Minor scuffs after 9 holes with each of them.   I'm holding out those two balls for my next outdoor round (if it would stop snowing up here) and see how they look after another 9 holes.  My brother and golf buddy must be a lot harder on balls than I am, as their balls didn't fare as well.   As far as performance they are right on par with my normal balls in distance, feel, putting, etc..  And the triple track is nice so I don't have to draw a line on my ball that eventually wears off.  Definitely a high quality ball.

[Erin B]

Hey MGS troops! Saturday I’ll be playing in Hurricane UT. I’ll be sporting the X and then we have rounds every day for the next week in Mesquite NV. As a tester, even though I’ve finished my final review, I’m still evaluating and will keep you informed. I have switched to these balls over the OnCores, and like these balls a lot. I do have some Pro V1- in the bag just in case. More to come!

[JeremyD]

did some Trackman testing this past weekend. I didn't download the information, but wrote down what balls went where. I threw in a bonus ball (Pinnacle Soft). Started with the ProV1x, followed by Pinnacle, Maxfli Tour X, Chrome Tour, and finally Chrome Tour X. My first 2 balls were mainly for warm up. The last 3 were my current gamer, plus the testing balls. I will say, they are all in line with each other.

This picture is just for show. I did hit a couple balls later. I can't figure out my problem, but this shows my pull hook. I'm a lefty, so my swing goes outside with a majorly closed face. Nothing to do with testing, but it shows why I hit a lot of trees and my handicap has climbed from a 5.1 to a 9.9

[TylerC31]

Final Review: 

As testing is wrapping up, I want to post my final thoughts and the aggregated data that I promised before! 

Final Rating (Chrome Tour X): 9.5/10

                     (Chrome Tour): 9/10

Overall thoughts: As a user of the chrome soft X previously, I am unsurprised that I love the Chrome Tour X. I think the ball retains the flight and iron spin numbers of the previous generation while optimizing driver spin numbers and developing a more durable cover. It is an immediate switch for me. Though I have not yet run out of the test balls, I plan to make my next ball purchase the Chrome Tour X. Secondarily, I do think the Chrome Tour provides a real competitor to the ProV1. Now that the cover is improved, the similar launch and spin numbers to the ProV1 make it a worthy competitor. Though I will not be playing this ball for fit reasons, I think it was a great addition to the line. 

Aggregated Testing Numbers (50 shots per club)

Club                         Ball Speed      Launch Angle      Spin      Carry     Total Distance

Driver

Chrome Tour               174.3                  13.1               1964      302.5             311.4

Chrome Tour X           177.9                   14.1               2037      307.2             319.5

5 Wood 

Chrome Tour              155.6                  12.4               2343      265.1             273.4

Chrome Tour X           160.2                  12.9              2454      270.3             277.8

 

6 Iron 

Chrome Tour              132.0                  17.5              4894      195.6             203.8

Chrome Tour X           133.1                  17.7               5011       197.8             205.4

 

9 Iron 

Chrome Tour              116.4                  23.3              7577      152.3             153.8

Chrome Tour X           121.1                  24.1               7592      159.6             160.2

 

50 Degree

Chrome Tour              89.9                  29.2              8562      120.4             121.5

Chrome Tour X           91.1                  29.4               8767      120.8             121.7

 

Overall, both were great balls! The covers are 10/10 on both balls. The triple track remains a great visual tool for setting the proper start line. I think the wind performance is equal to the previous generation, which was top of class in my opinion. Although not a distinct upgrade in this area, avoiding regression while improving the cover and the core is a huge win in my opinion. I think Callaway has earned its spot as the second-leading ball manufacturer and I look forward to gaming the Chrome Tour X!

[Madden B]

On 2/2/2024 at 12:16 PM, Madden B said:

On course (19 out of 20)

I have to say, I really, really like these balls on the course. I have now played 36 holes head to head with these balls and the results are dead even. Playing at my home course of Glen Eagle, both balls are at 4 under par through 36 and I have no complaints with either of them. Let me go through the different areas and select winners.

Tee Shots –  Both balls performed well off the tee and I found a lot of fairways over the course of the 2 rounds of golf. I alternated which ball teed off first so that it was fair and that one ball didn’t get the advantage of a “practice” tee shot by going second, if that makes sense. Both balls launch about the same height and I hit a lot of big bombs. Like on the launch monitor, the Tour X carried and rolled out a bit further, about a 5-10 yard difference consistently. I did catch one with the Tour X that was my biggest drive of the 2 rounds and it was about 25 yards past the Chrome Tour, but the numbers stayed pretty true to my practice sessions. I will say that the misses with both balls were still pretty consistent. My miss is more of a hook shape but even the worst of those found it’s way into the left rough but stayed in play. Overall, both balls were great off the tee. Advantage – Tour X

Approach Shots – So the nice thing on this is that many of my approach shots were using different clubs because of the added distance I got from the Tour X, which means my Chrome Tour was usually hitting 1 club up vs the Tour X. So I was able to hit lots of different iron shots and both balls a great. I was able to work the balls in both directions pretty comfortably even with temps only being in the 40s, they launched high enough and came down at a great angle to hold greens and I hit a lot of greens. I am a low spin player but they certainly had enough check on them for me. Now, the greens are very slow right now so I am interested to see performance in the summer when things speed up, but they were great and performed very well. Sound and feel is pretty similar, they are bit firmer than my old Chromesoft but I like the way they feel. Advantage – Chrome Tour ever so slightly, because of the added difficulty of hitting lower irons

Around the Green – I am very happy with how these balls spin with wedges, they were easy to control the distance and I put a lot of chip shots in tight. I typically play lower trajectory wedge shots and with the slow greens, a lot of them hopped twice and just stopped. I really like the feel of both balls. I will say that the Tour X spins a little bit more, which I like because I don’t have high spin rates, and I feel like that added spin was easier for me to control. But the shot of the day went to the Chrome Tour. I had to chip up over a bunker to a tucked pin and had very little room for error and not much green to work with. I opened the face way up on my 58 for a big flop shot and threw the ball up in the air to try and land it soft. It hit just on the fringe past the bunker and rolled out about 7 feet to end up a few inches short of the cup and made for a very comfortable par save. Overall, both balls were great around the greens I felt like I would get up and down every time. Advantage – Tour X by a fraction, only because of the extra spin that suits my game

Putting – This is my favorite part of the game of golf and I spend at least an hour every night putting in my room before I go to bed and have for at least 3 years. I have 10 putters and hope to have the world’s greatest putter collection before I die! So when I say that I really liked the feel putting with these balls it comes from someone that has spent a lot of time on a putting green. I feel like the Tour is very similar in feel to a ProV1, maybe slightly firmer, and the Tour X compares to the ProV1x. I currently have a Scotty Cameron Newport 1.5 Special Select in the bag and it rolled these balls beautifully on the greens. The greens did have some winter bumps and weren’t in perfect shape, but I really liked the feel putting with these balls. Over the course of 36 holes, each ball had one 3-putt, but one of those was on a par 5 and I had about 70 feet on the first putt. I absolutely hate having a 3 putt par but it beats taking a bogey. Anyways, I love the Triple Track for alignment, it is still my favorite putting alignment setup there is. Overall, I love both of these balls on the putting surface. Advantage – Tie

Bottom Line – I think that both of these are great golf balls. Playing with the Chrome Tour really did remind me of playing with a ProV1, just maybe ever so slightly a little firmer but with the same results. The consistency was great, I felt like I could work the ball and have it end up where I needed it to be, and around the greens was great. But for me, I tend to give just a little bit more love to the Tour X. Even though the scores were exactly the same for 36 holes, I think that with the added distance and spin, the Tour X would end up winning the war between the two balls. The added distance was real and noticeable for me and my game. Around the greens the ball just zipped to a stop. Iron shots felt great, flew high, sound and feel fantastic, and ended up right where I wanted them to be. And as I play more rounds with it, I really think that I will be able to dial it in further and really score well with it. Bottom line is that both of these balls are gamers! Advantage – Tour X by a nose for me!

And sorry, more pictures and videos to come. My dad helps me edit the sizes and I need to get him the images still. 

On the Course update from me. Played 36 holes head to head and played pretty well. I have a favorite between the 2 balls, I think I lean slightly towards the Tour X. It is long off the tee, great launch and feel with the irons, and spins great around the greens. Definitely a ball that is going to end up in my bag. 

[climberboy2000]

Some new balls on the way to compare to the Chrome Tours.  Haven't seen a lot of posts in this thread about comparisons to TaylorMade balls (or maybe I missed those posts).

[Rob Person]

3 hours ago, climberboy2000 said:

Some new balls on the way to compare to the Chrome Tours.  Haven't seen a lot of posts in this thread about comparisons to TaylorMade balls (or maybe I missed those posts).

A head to head on 2024 balls is always a good idea!!

[Erin B]

10 hours ago, Madden B said:

On the Course update from me. Played 36 holes head to head and played pretty well. I have a favorite between the 2 balls, I think I lean slightly towards the Tour X. It is long off the tee, great launch and feel with the irons, and spins great around the greens. Definitely a ball that is going to end up in my bag. 

It’s already in my bag. 

["Mr. 72"]

12 hours ago, climberboy2000 said:

Some new balls on the way to compare to the Chrome Tours.  Haven't seen a lot of posts in this thread about comparisons to TaylorMade balls (or maybe I missed those posts).

I tested the TP5 vs the Chrome Tours in this thread. It fared well.

Edited March 8 by "Mr. 72"

["Mr. 72"]

Callaway White Box Review
Ball Tested: Chrome Tour, Chrome Tour and Chrome Tour X

HDCP - 8, Swing Speed - 90 - 95ish, Strengths - Iron Play and Putting

Balls Tested: ProV1x, Chrome Tour and Chrome Tour X

Driver Simulator Test - Foresight Sports GC Quad Launch Monitor:  I do not like hitting a driver in a simulator. It's a bit odd because I don't have this feeling with any other clubs. I'm sure confidence plays a major role as I'm a decent iron player, but not a very good driver of the ball.  My bad iron shots are decent. My bad drives are horrendous. ...The sweet spot is elusive!

Weather conditions are poor here, so I went to the sim with a driver to get some numbers in "warm" conditions.

I hit a lot of balls within the hour. My results were pretty typical, but I hit enough decent drives to give you some feedback.  ...AND, I at least got a decent workout as I was sweating by the end.

Driver Used:  Ping G15. Yes, you read that right. I still use a 15 year old, 9° Ping G15 with a stock stiff flex shaft. Hopefully, that changes soon. I'm probably moving into a regular flex and 10.5° loft. I'm kind of a tweener, but I'll be 62 next month, so a regular shaft is probably prudent, and I could probably use a bit more carry.

ProV1x

Chrome Tour

Chrome Tour X

Looking at the numbers, two things should be obvious.

1. The average total distance of all three balls is very similar.

2. I threw out all of the bad drives. 

I hit the ProV1x first, then the CT and finally the CTX. Could that order have affected the results? Sure. When I have a fitting, I start with my driver first, and I also hit my driver last. My swing is more grooved at the end. ...I think the numbers are close enough to call the balls equal.

BUT, the last CT drive with a 241 carry and 271 total distance caught my attention, so it's the leader in the clubhouse.

And the reason the G15 is STILL in my bag! 

Next Up: My Final Review... ?

Edited March 8 by "Mr. 72"

[MuniGolfer]

Well, I hit driver on Monday. The weird thing is, everything I was working on after last session was looking good with my PW and 8 iron, but when I switched to driver, suddenly I was smothering it and creating a ton of spin. The facility I am a member of, updated their Uneekor system and it has not been getting attack angle and other things, but I am sure that is what I was doing. The reason being, my swing speed was down 7-10 mph from my normal, yet spin was way higher than normal. I am going to go again today, and hit driver right after my warmup so I am not tired. We will see what comes out. 

The PW and 8 iron numbers were much more what I was used to seeing in terms of carry and spin. I thought I would be looking at the Chrome Tour, but now I am thinking I might be a Chrome X player, and will tweak my driver settings, if needed, to get the ball into prime spin and launch territory. The Tour is lower spin and launch, as advertised, but maybe too low for me. I have said previously, I used to be a Chromesoft x player until durability got in the way. Maybe the Tour x will be my new gamer, since it spins similarly, but is WAY more durable. Also, the ball speeds off of the Tour x are very intriguing. Also, I may need to get the loft checked on my 8 iron. I was hitting it WAY too far. My gapping generally should have it around a 176 carry. If it's not loft, I may have to do a gapping session with all my clubs, if I switch.

[golfinnut]

So I was lucky enough to go on vacation (it's been over 4 years for the wife & I)  Just got back from Hilton Head Island tonight.  She was nice enough to allow me to play some golf at courses I've never played before.  Nicklaus Golden Bear Club at Indigo Run, Palmetto Dunes Fazio course at the Plantation & the creme de la creme, Harbour Town, where the pro's play.  It was great to play courses that are in such good shape, especially the greens.  I haven't played courses like that since college years ago.  It was a great time for me to get in more play with the CT/CTX balls.  

I'll only go over quickly the short game & putting.  These were the areas that I believed were going to show the greatest improvement in the data vs the long game.  I was correct.  

The short game:  both balls performed exceptionally well.  Watching both balls back up & spin on amazing fast greens was really fun to watch.  Especially because I don't normally do such a shot anymore.  Pays to see the difference in playing different green surfaces.  The X spun actually Too much, believe it or not.  I couldn't control it.  After I realized that it was going to do that more often than not, I had to start throwing it passed the hole, expecting it to back up.  The Tour ball performed great.  I could get that ball to drop & stop like my normal gamer.  It was easy to control around the greens, with expected spin & predictable rollout when necessary.  

Putting:  I excelled with the LAB MEZZ putter on these amazing greens!  Watching the 3 lines roll end over end, so pure, with perfect pace was a sight to see for me.  It's been a while since I've had that confidence with the putter.  It makes so much of a difference when you're putting true, well-manicured, greens.  It made me remember that I used to be a good putter back in the day.  I would say that all three courses were stimping around 12 or so.  I love fast greens (when I get the speed down anyway)  I had 28 putts 2 days & 27 the last day.  Now those are great putting rounds for me regardless.  (we won't talk about the rest of my game but just remember, you can still score if you have a good short game)

edit ... will post a few photos of the courses later.  

[Indy_Oz]

FINAL REVIEW

Firstly, thank you MGS staff and Callaway for the opportunity to test these balls. This is my first product test/ review, so hopefully I hit all bases and this is useful for someone!

To date I have only managed one round on an actual course with these balls (this past Sunday), but I’ve played a number of sim rounds and had a good number of sim practice sessions (including ball comparison testing sessions).

For the round on Sunday, I played the Tour for the front 9 and the Tour X for the back 9- all in windy (12-14mph) early season course conditions. I’ll get other rounds in with these balls (unless/ until I lose the rest of them, lol). But the sim testing, and a first round, give me enough information and ‘feel’ to make some conclusions…

First Impressions (Chrome Tour 10/10; Chrome Tour X 10/10)

When the package arrived, the larger box made me wonder how many balls Callaway had sent, but inside was a stock dozen size box. It was a pleasant surprise to see a full dozen balls and for them to be Callaway’s new premium level Tour balls.

The white box packaging appears and feels to be the same quality level as other premium brand packaging- it appears to be the same (or very close) weight card as the Taylormade TP5X package I had on the shelf to compare to.

The outer box has a hexagonal window that allows viewing of one ball inside an inner sleeve through a matching hexagonal window.

Inside the outer box was the usual four sleeves of three balls each. All the packaging was defect-free and in good condition.

Like other testers, I received two sleeves each of Callaway Chrome Tour and Chrome Tour X balls. Both sets of balls were plain white, with black Callaway text, red numbers (a tube each of 1 and 4 for each ball) and Callaway’s Triple Track red and blue alignment aid markings.

I couldn’t find any manufacturing defects on the balls I received, and all markings seemed consistent. Small spots in the second photo below were dust/ debris that wiped off. They have a premium feel that I would expect at their marketed price point.

Callaway’s claims for these balls:
- “Chrome Tour is engineered for outstanding performance with exceptional speed, consistent flight, incredible spin, and greenside control.”
- “We’ve engineered Chrome Tour X to provide outstanding distance, workability, and spin so you can experience your best performance from tee-to-green.”

Callaway go on to explain that these balls have a new ‘Hyper Fast Soft Core’, ‘Seamless Tour Aero’ to improve aerodynamic stability in the air and a new ‘High Performance Tour Urethane Soft Cover’ to improve feel and control. As someone that didn’t really get on well with the previous Chrome Soft offerings, I hoped some of these claims would be true and the balls would challenge the ProV1 and the Taylormade TP5 variants (the latter for which there is also a just-launched new model for 2024).

The below graphic is from Callaway’s website and summarizes the playing characteristics one should expect to experience with these new balls.

Aesthetics (Chrome Tour 9/10; Chrome Tour X 9/10)

I was already a fan of the Triple Track alignment markings and I draw similar on other brand balls I use. I find them useful for both putting alignment and tee shots. My local courses have a few tee boxes where the tee posts are often not aligned perpendicular to the direction you need to tee off, so ball alignment markings are extra insurance to help with my club face and feet setup.

The only reason I’ve knocked one point from both balls is that I would prefer to see the “Chrome Tour” text along one side of ball like an alignment marking, but opposite side to the triple track. I think the “Callaway” and number only on the front and back looks cleaner. A personal preference thing.

I gathered a few other ‘premium’ balls I had and cut them all up to compare their make-up. In part, I wanted to see if the core and mantle layers were all even and properly centered to ensure a good center of mass (which can contribute to good roll on greens and flight). Most of the comparison balls were purchased in 2023 or this year. The exceptions are, unfortunately, the ProV1 and ProV1X that are both course find balls. The ProV1 is the oldest looking of the two and may explain the color/ appearance of the core. I can’t imagine Titleist had a dull brown looking core (not the most aesthetically pleasing color from a PR perspective!).

Closer-up view of the Callaway Chrome Tour balls:

The cut up Tour and Tour X balls appeared to be well constructed with even and consistent material in the core and mantle layers, with no obvious defects apparent and the core seemed centrally located with even thickness mantle/ outer layers.

Looking at the above photo, the shell dimple pattern on these Tour and Tour X balls are similar, but as seen in the photo above there does appear to be a difference. The Tour (above right) has a stronger hexagonal shape with a subtle vaguely circular depressed center of each dimple. The circular shape of the depression in each dimple appears to be more pronounced (visually) on the Tour X shell- perhaps the raised ridges around the circular dimples on the X are subtly wider?

On initial handling, the Chrome Tour and Tour X feel and sound (when dropped on concrete floor) firmer than last year’s Chrome Soft and Soft LS balls and they have a higher pitch bounce sound. The shell feel is similar softness to the Taylormade TP5 and TP5X from what my uncalibrated thumb nail could measure. Not as soft as last year’s Chrome Soft and LS versions.

First Putts:
Ahead of hitting the sim and course, I grabbed a few of the balls and rolled our my putting mat to see how they feel. I game a Sik DW C2.0 putter.

I took a sharpie to all the balls to make the markings clearer for me to discriminate between the Tour and Tour X balls. It also helps on the course if I’m playing with another Callaway user (one of my regular playing partners games Chrome Soft balls).

The below photo shows the Triple Track alignment markings in use. They are bright and high-contrast and long enough that they are easy to use to line up putts.

Rolling a few putts indoors, it was difficult to discern any real difference between the balls. I suspect I need putts longer than 6-8ft to get a real feel of the differences. Both balls had a nice feel and pleasant crisp impact sound. The balls rolled well and straight and felt good to putt with. Good start.

After using the putting matt for proper putts, I hit some harder putts into a sandbag I lay across the matt. On harder putts, the differences were more apparent. The Tour X had a crisper, higher pitched impact sound compared to the Tour. Both sounded and felt nice, but I think I preferred the sound and feel of the Tour over the Tour X. I do like a crisp impact sound, but the softer Tour had a slightly better feel. Very subtle difference in feel though.

First Strike:
I took the balls to the indoor sim place I’m a member at. I’m fortunate to have access to these facilities.

I’ll come to the numbers and results in the next section, but I will comment on the initial feelings after hitting these balls in warming up as it provided a good first impression of feel and audible feedback. There was a nice crisp sound and feel from the both the Tour and Tour X. I slightly preferred the crisper pop of the Tour X, which seemed to leap off the club and spin well. Both were pleasing to hit. The Tour X feel wasn’t too dissimilar to the Taylormade TP5X and the Tour was closer to the TP5, albeit I think the TP5 is slightly firmer feeling off the face (but there’s very little in it).

Aside from ball comparison testing, I played a few rounds on the sim with both Tour and Tour X balls and I was impressed with the condition of both models after smashing them into the sim screen with irons and woods, and doing my best to rip the covers off with my Taylormade MG2 & MG3 wedges. My 60* is an older MG2, but I mostly use my 50* and 56* MG3s, which have less than a season playing time on them and the grooves are still sharp and in great condition. I had a bad case of the shanks with sand and lob wedge for one sim session, so smashed the balls into the base of the screen and the carpet-covered side wall a few times to provide extra shell endurance testing! LOL

The Numbers (Chrome Tour 17/20; Chrome Tour X 20/20)

Ball comparison testing:

There are three FlightScope launch monitor-equipped sims at the place I am a member of. The FlightScopes are rear-positioned radar type launch monitors and there are good hitting mat inserts in the artificial turf hitting bays. Each bay has a decent impact screen and projector. The systems run the E6 sim software.

My regular gamer ball over the last year has been between the Taylormade TP5 and TP5X. Late 2022 through to spring 2023 I tried gaming the Bridgestone Tour BX and BX-S balls (so still have a good few of those left) and have a selection of other balls I’ve experimented with or picked up on courses. I selected what I thought would be a good set of comparison balls to test against the Callaway Chrome Tour and Tour X. To stick to sets of similar tour-level ‘low spin’ and ‘higher spin’ balls (to test against the Tour and Tour X), I tested the Taylormade TP5 and TP5X (both 2023 models and the newly released 2024 where available), Titleist ProV1 and ProV1X and 2022 Bridgestone Tour BX and BX-S. The Bridgestone and Taylormade balls were purchased by me so I’m confident what year they are, but the Titleist were course finds, so I don’t know for sure what year they were produced.

Below photos show the balls used for comparison testing.

 

It's All In The Data:

Below tables show averages for driver and 7-iron for the balls tested. I’ve omitted ’23 TP5X from the driver data as the only swings with that ball were while still warming up and a sufficiently slower club head speed (CHS) that it’s an unfair comparison.

Method/ hitting order: For each set of 8 balls, I hit sets of 5 shots going through each brand twice, to mix things up and attempt to have an unbiased and good quality set of data.

Driver averages (club: Callaway Rogue ST Max LS, 9* set to 8* loft; Fujikura Ventus Blue TR 6X Velocore stock length):

Driver Data Observations:
-  Impressive showing from both the Tour and Tour X!
         Note: Tour X average CHS was the fastest in the test, so adjusting for even CHS the Tour would likely have ‘won’ the test.
-  <1yd carry difference between Tour X, Tour and ’23 TP5 with very similar ball speeds.
Very similar results across the board if you adjust for same CHS.
Spin numbers for the Callaway balls were slightly lower than I saw for all others.

 

7-iron averages (club: ’19 Taylormade P790, 30.5* loft, KBS C-Taper Lite Tour X-stiff, stock lie/loft, +0.25” length):

7-iron Data Observations:
-  I really like the feel of both Tour balls with the iron, but the Tour X clipped/ pop sound makes it feel like the ball is just exploding off the face.
-  With equal CHS, the Tour X may have carried further than the TP5 at the top of the table.
-  For some reason the Tour ball has higher spin than the Tour X in this test- the opposite to what I expected after reading Callaway’s website. I didn’t expect that. It also had a higher launch angle and higher apex. I expected the Tour ball to be lower spin and lower apex than the X.
-  For the Battle of the Callaway balls, the Tour X wins the 7-iron battle by a good margin.

 

Sand wedge averages (club: Taylormade MG2 TW 60*, S300 Wedge flex shaft, stock L/L/L):
Note: I was having a shocker with the wedges with a lot of bad contacts and shanks. If I get chance I’ll re-do this test with the same set of balls and check again.
(Table sorted by average back spin)

Sand Wedge Data Observations:
- I take very little from this data set due to the note above the table.
I like the feel of the Chrome Tour and Tour X. The Tour X really pops off the face and has a nice light clip sound much like the TP5X.
I felt like both the Tour balls ripped well and thought I’d see higher spin numbers based on feel. Maybe more testing will show different order of balls.

 

On The Course (Chrome Tour 19/20; Chrome Tour X 15/20)

Ahead of hitting the course, based on sim sessions I absolutely expected the Tour X to be my preferred ball on course. The sim data suggested it’s a beast off the tee and off the fairway. Putting I didn’t have a preference due to lack of any putting time outside.

However, on-course the Chrome Tour flipped the tables completely!

I played at Wood Wind Golf Club, Indiana in an early season round (start of March ’24). Air temperature that day peaked in the high 60s Fahrenheit, and I had to contend with a 12-14mph SSE wind (which meant a lot of head and tail-winds as a good number of holes at Wood Wind run in a North-South direction. It was my first time playing the course, so I went in with the intention of just seeing how the balls played and trying to get back into the groove of playing on-course rather than focusing on any total score.

I played the Tour exclusively on the front 9 and Tour X exclusively on the back 9. Unfortunately, I lost the Tour and Tour X balls I used the most for each 9 by OB on 8 (thanks to a cart path and big kick left) and hitting a narrow creek on 18! Doh… So no photos to show the condition of the balls after playing 9 each. Maybe another time.

Headwind: Hitting tee driver, woods, irons and wedges into head or cross winds, there was a clear winner. More penetrating ball flight and not as influenced by cross winds. The Chrome Tour wins the battle of the wind.

Off the tee: Both the Tour and Tour X flew well and reached a good distance without a headwind. My longest drive of the day was 320yds with the Tour X, thanks to a solid tail-wind and slight downhill after landing. Into head wind the X maybe wasn’t as penetrating, but it was hard to see much difference, which is consistent with distance and spin numbers seen on the sim. Arccos GPS shows the Tour maybe had a couple of extra yards into wind but really that’s within statistical scatter.

Approach: On a calm day the X might take the win, or run the Tour close, but the Tour was a great ball to play with in windy conditions. Better penetrating ball flight, easy to shape when needed and it didn’t seem to be bullied by cross winds at all. The nail in the coffin for the X may have been a knock-down gap wedge approach from 95 yards into a 14mph cross/head wind from the right. The X launched well and went high, but the wind took a ball that was going towards the right side of the green and pushed it 15+ yards left off the edge of the green and it landed down a bank towards a creek. I didn’t see the Tour move that much in cross winds on the front nine. I will re-test next round to be sure. But on a sample of one round, the Tour beat the Tour X in approach shots- using fairway woods, hybrid punch draw under a tree branch and irons from long to short. It held the green very well too, certainly close enough to the X for spin numbers not to worry me. Just great to play. Very impressed.

Greenside (chips and bunkers): Tour: 3 up and downs. Tour X: Zero up and downs. There wasn’t much between the balls in chipping feel, but the Tour just felt like it suited me better and I was better with judging distance with it. My putts after chips with the Tour were shorter according to Arccos, so that supports the feels.

Putting: Another clear win for the Tour over the Tour X. The slightly softer (but still sufficiently firm overall) feel ball combined with the firm face of my Sik putter (no soft face insert here) allowed really good feel and distance control. I just felt much more comfortable and confident with the Tour.
Stats: Tour:  3x1-putt. 1x3-putt (first putt from 28ft). 16 putts total for 9 holes. Tour X: 0x1-putt. 3x3-putt. 21 putts total for 9 holes.
Alignment: Triple Track helped as much as I expected. As previously stated I like the markings and find them helpful on the green. No surprises and no difference on that front between the balls.

The Good, the Bad, the In-between (Chrome Tour 19/20; Chrome Tour X 16/20)

As previously stated, I’m a fan of the triple track alignment markings, so it’s nice to play with a ball I don’t need to reapply alignment markings on after a round, or partial round, or sim session.

No issues for me with shell durability. I don’t have photos due to stupidly losing both Tour and Tour X balls I was gaming for the majority of each 9. Darn it. But they were in good condition and had previously been used on the sim so had seen more than a few rounds worth of strikes from driver to lob wedge. Minor scuffing only. I hit out of 3 bunkers on the round and didn’t see any major scuffing- certainly no more than my gamer Taylormade balls.

The X simply span too much for me to be confident gaming it with any wind and I struggled with feel on and around the greens. The Tour suited me far better. I’ll give them both another go on course.

It was odd to see such a turn-around  between sim sessions and the course. The X shone on the sim with some very impressive numbers, but out on the course the Tour’s feel and wind penetration won the day for me.

Play it or Trade it? (Chrome Tour 19/20; Chrome Tour X 15/20)

This is tough and there is a caveat for this section (hence 1pt knocked off the Tour). Taylormade have launched the 2024 TP5 and TP5X and I’ve not played them on course yet. Both are meant to be notable improvements over the last model, which I have been gaming, so any final decision will depend on testing the new TM balls against the Callaway Chrome Tour and Tour X. But that said…

Chrome Tour = PLAY! Against my current gamer, the ’23 Taylormade TP5, the Chrome Tour wins and would go straight in my bag. With the current 4 dozen for the price of 3, it’s more affordable a tour level ball than usual and a solid deal.

Conclusion (TL/DR)
Both the Tour and Tour X are good looking balls and the Triple Track alignment is a big plus.
For me, the Tour is very well-suited ball for my game and I would replace my current gamer (last year’s Taylormade TP5 and TP5X) with it. Great feel around the greens and enough spin to hold the green with irons.  Off the tee, the ball flight was just what I wanted. Off the tee there was little to separate the Tour and X. It's worth noting here, for me both balls are a big improvement over the previous generation Chrome Soft balls (stock, X, LS). My first round of the year used last year's balls and by contrast they felt almost heavy and too soft for me.
The Tour X was, for me, a little too spinny and too firm. Around the green it dug in and you could see the spin helping, but I struggled with feel on chips and (in particular) putting. But on the sim it was a beast and looked firm favorite to win a place in my bag.

Final Score (Chrome Tour 93/100; Chrome Tour X 85/100)

[Rob Person]

10 hours ago, Indy_Oz said:

FINAL REVIEW

Firstly, thank you MGS staff and Callaway for the opportunity to test these balls. This is my first product test/ review, so hopefully I hit all bases and this is useful for someone!

To date I have only managed one round on an actual course with these balls (this past Sunday), but I’ve played a number of sim rounds and had a good number of sim practice sessions (including ball comparison testing sessions).

For the round on Sunday, I played the Tour for the front 9 and the Tour X for the back 9- all in windy (12-14mph) early season course conditions. I’ll get other rounds in with these balls (unless/ until I lose the rest of them, lol). But the sim testing, and a first round, give me enough information and ‘feel’ to make some conclusions…

First Impressions (Chrome Tour 10/10; Chrome Tour X 10/10)

When the package arrived, the larger box made me wonder how many balls Callaway had sent, but inside was a stock dozen size box. It was a pleasant surprise to see a full dozen balls and for them to be Callaway’s new premium level Tour balls.

The white box packaging appears and feels to be the same quality level as other premium brand packaging- it appears to be the same (or very close) weight card as the Taylormade TP5X package I had on the shelf to compare to.

The outer box has a hexagonal window that allows viewing of one ball inside an inner sleeve through a matching hexagonal window.

Inside the outer box was the usual four sleeves of three balls each. All the packaging was defect-free and in good condition.

Like other testers, I received two sleeves each of Callaway Chrome Tour and Chrome Tour X balls. Both sets of balls were plain white, with black Callaway text, red numbers (a tube each of 1 and 4 for each ball) and Callaway’s Triple Track red and blue alignment aid markings.

I couldn’t find any manufacturing defects on the balls I received, and all markings seemed consistent. Small spots in the second photo below were dust/ debris that wiped off. They have a premium feel that I would expect at their marketed price point.

Callaway’s claims for these balls:
- “Chrome Tour is engineered for outstanding performance with exceptional speed, consistent flight, incredible spin, and greenside control.”
- “We’ve engineered Chrome Tour X to provide outstanding distance, workability, and spin so you can experience your best performance from tee-to-green.”

Callaway go on to explain that these balls have a new ‘Hyper Fast Soft Core’, ‘Seamless Tour Aero’ to improve aerodynamic stability in the air and a new ‘High Performance Tour Urethane Soft Cover’ to improve feel and control. As someone that didn’t really get on well with the previous Chrome Soft offerings, I hoped some of these claims would be true and the balls would challenge the ProV1 and the Taylormade TP5 variants (the latter for which there is also a just-launched new model for 2024).

The below graphic is from Callaway’s website and summarizes the playing characteristics one should expect to experience with these new balls.

Aesthetics (Chrome Tour 9/10; Chrome Tour X 9/10)

I was already a fan of the Triple Track alignment markings and I draw similar on other brand balls I use. I find them useful for both putting alignment and tee shots. My local courses have a few tee boxes where the tee posts are often not aligned perpendicular to the direction you need to tee off, so ball alignment markings are extra insurance to help with my club face and feet setup.

The only reason I’ve knocked one point from both balls is that I would prefer to see the “Chrome Tour” text along one side of ball like an alignment marking, but opposite side to the triple track. I think the “Callaway” and number only on the front and back looks cleaner. A personal preference thing.

I gathered a few other ‘premium’ balls I had and cut them all up to compare their make-up. In part, I wanted to see if the core and mantle layers were all even and properly centered to ensure a good center of mass (which can contribute to good roll on greens and flight). Most of the comparison balls were purchased in 2023 or this year. The exceptions are, unfortunately, the ProV1 and ProV1X that are both course find balls. The ProV1 is the oldest looking of the two and may explain the color/ appearance of the core. I can’t imagine Titleist had a dull brown looking core (not the most aesthetically pleasing color from a PR perspective!).

Closer-up view of the Callaway Chrome Tour balls:

The cut up Tour and Tour X balls appeared to be well constructed with even and consistent material in the core and mantle layers, with no obvious defects apparent and the core seemed centrally located with even thickness mantle/ outer layers.

Looking at the above photo, the shell dimple pattern on these Tour and Tour X balls are similar, but as seen in the photo above there does appear to be a difference. The Tour (above right) has a stronger hexagonal shape with a subtle vaguely circular depressed center of each dimple. The circular shape of the depression in each dimple appears to be more pronounced (visually) on the Tour X shell- perhaps the raised ridges around the circular dimples on the X are subtly wider?

On initial handling, the Chrome Tour and Tour X feel and sound (when dropped on concrete floor) firmer than last year’s Chrome Soft and Soft LS balls and they have a higher pitch bounce sound. The shell feel is similar softness to the Taylormade TP5 and TP5X from what my uncalibrated thumb nail could measure. Not as soft as last year’s Chrome Soft and LS versions.

First Putts:
Ahead of hitting the sim and course, I grabbed a few of the balls and rolled our my putting mat to see how they feel. I game a Sik DW C2.0 putter.

I took a sharpie to all the balls to make the markings clearer for me to discriminate between the Tour and Tour X balls. It also helps on the course if I’m playing with another Callaway user (one of my regular playing partners games Chrome Soft balls).

The below photo shows the Triple Track alignment markings in use. They are bright and high-contrast and long enough that they are easy to use to line up putts.

Rolling a few putts indoors, it was difficult to discern any real difference between the balls. I suspect I need putts longer than 6-8ft to get a real feel of the differences. Both balls had a nice feel and pleasant crisp impact sound. The balls rolled well and straight and felt good to putt with. Good start.

After using the putting matt for proper putts, I hit some harder putts into a sandbag I lay across the matt. On harder putts, the differences were more apparent. The Tour X had a crisper, higher pitched impact sound compared to the Tour. Both sounded and felt nice, but I think I preferred the sound and feel of the Tour over the Tour X. I do like a crisp impact sound, but the softer Tour had a slightly better feel. Very subtle difference in feel though.

First Strike:
I took the balls to the indoor sim place I’m a member at. I’m fortunate to have access to these facilities.

I’ll come to the numbers and results in the next section, but I will comment on the initial feelings after hitting these balls in warming up as it provided a good first impression of feel and audible feedback. There was a nice crisp sound and feel from the both the Tour and Tour X. I slightly preferred the crisper pop of the Tour X, which seemed to leap off the club and spin well. Both were pleasing to hit. The Tour X feel wasn’t too dissimilar to the Taylormade TP5X and the Tour was closer to the TP5, albeit I think the TP5 is slightly firmer feeling off the face (but there’s very little in it).

Aside from ball comparison testing, I played a few rounds on the sim with both Tour and Tour X balls and I was impressed with the condition of both models after smashing them into the sim screen with irons and woods, and doing my best to rip the covers off with my Taylormade MG2 & MG3 wedges. My 60* is an older MG2, but I mostly use my 50* and 56* MG3s, which have less than a season playing time on them and the grooves are still sharp and in great condition. I had a bad case of the shanks with sand and lob wedge for one sim session, so smashed the balls into the base of the screen and the carpet-covered side wall a few times to provide extra shell endurance testing! LOL

The Numbers (Chrome Tour 17/20; Chrome Tour X 20/20)

Ball comparison testing:

There are three FlightScope launch monitor-equipped sims at the place I am a member of. The FlightScopes are rear-positioned radar type launch monitors and there are good hitting mat inserts in the artificial turf hitting bays. Each bay has a decent impact screen and projector. The systems run the E6 sim software.

My regular gamer ball over the last year has been between the Taylormade TP5 and TP5X. Late 2022 through to spring 2023 I tried gaming the Bridgestone Tour BX and BX-S balls (so still have a good few of those left) and have a selection of other balls I’ve experimented with or picked up on courses. I selected what I thought would be a good set of comparison balls to test against the Callaway Chrome Tour and Tour X. To stick to sets of similar tour-level ‘low spin’ and ‘higher spin’ balls (to test against the Tour and Tour X), I tested the Taylormade TP5 and TP5X (both 2023 models and the newly released 2024 where available), Titleist ProV1 and ProV1X and 2022 Bridgestone Tour BX and BX-S. The Bridgestone and Taylormade balls were purchased by me so I’m confident what year they are, but the Titleist were course finds, so I don’t know for sure what year they were produced.

Below photos show the balls used for comparison testing.

 

It's All In The Data:

Below tables show averages for driver and 7-iron for the balls tested. I’ve omitted ’23 TP5X from the driver data as the only swings with that ball were while still warming up and a sufficiently slower club head speed (CHS) that it’s an unfair comparison.

Method/ hitting order: For each set of 8 balls, I hit sets of 5 shots going through each brand twice, to mix things up and attempt to have an unbiased and good quality set of data.

Driver averages (club: Callaway Rogue ST Max LS, 9* set to 8* loft; Fujikura Ventus Blue TR 6X Velocore stock length):

Driver Data Observations:
-  Impressive showing from both the Tour and Tour X!
         Note: Tour X average CHS was the fastest in the test, so adjusting for even CHS the Tour would likely have ‘won’ the test.
-  <1yd carry difference between Tour X, Tour and ’23 TP5 with very similar ball speeds.
Very similar results across the board if you adjust for same CHS.
Spin numbers for the Callaway balls were slightly lower than I saw for all others.

 

7-iron averages (club: ’19 Taylormade P790, 30.5* loft, KBS C-Taper Lite Tour X-stiff, stock lie/loft, +0.25” length):

7-iron Data Observations:
-  I really like the feel of both Tour balls with the iron, but the Tour X clipped/ pop sound makes it feel like the ball is just exploding off the face.
-  With equal CHS, the Tour X may have carried further than the TP5 at the top of the table.
-  For some reason the Tour ball has higher spin than the Tour X in this test- the opposite to what I expected after reading Callaway’s website. I didn’t expect that. It also had a higher launch angle and higher apex. I expected the Tour ball to be lower spin and lower apex than the X.
-  For the Battle of the Callaway balls, the Tour X wins the 7-iron battle by a good margin.

 

Sand wedge averages (club: Taylormade MG2 TW 60*, S300 Wedge flex shaft, stock L/L/L):
Note: I was having a shocker with the wedges with a lot of bad contacts and shanks. If I get chance I’ll re-do this test with the same set of balls and check again.
(Table sorted by average back spin)

Sand Wedge Data Observations:
- I take very little from this data set due to the note above the table.
I like the feel of the Chrome Tour and Tour X. The Tour X really pops off the face and has a nice light clip sound much like the TP5X.
I felt like both the Tour balls ripped well and thought I’d see higher spin numbers based on feel. Maybe more testing will show different order of balls.

 

On The Course (Chrome Tour 19/20; Chrome Tour X 15/20)

Ahead of hitting the course, based on sim sessions I absolutely expected the Tour X to be my preferred ball on course. The sim data suggested it’s a beast off the tee and off the fairway. Putting I didn’t have a preference due to lack of any putting time outside.

However, on-course the Chrome Tour flipped the tables completely!

I played at Wood Wind Golf Club, Indiana in an early season round (start of March ’24). Air temperature that day peaked in the high 60s Fahrenheit, and I had to contend with a 12-14mph SSE wind (which meant a lot of head and tail-winds as a good number of holes at Wood Wind run in a North-South direction. It was my first time playing the course, so I went in with the intention of just seeing how the balls played and trying to get back into the groove of playing on-course rather than focusing on any total score.

I played the Tour exclusively on the front 9 and Tour X exclusively on the back 9. Unfortunately, I lost the Tour and Tour X balls I used the most for each 9 by OB on 8 (thanks to a cart path and big kick left) and hitting a narrow creek on 18! Doh… So no photos to show the condition of the balls after playing 9 each. Maybe another time.

Headwind: Hitting tee driver, woods, irons and wedges into head or cross winds, there was a clear winner. More penetrating ball flight and not as influenced by cross winds. The Chrome Tour wins the battle of the wind.

Off the tee: Both the Tour and Tour X flew well and reached a good distance without a headwind. My longest drive of the day was 320yds with the Tour X, thanks to a solid tail-wind and slight downhill after landing. Into head wind the X maybe wasn’t as penetrating, but it was hard to see much difference, which is consistent with distance and spin numbers seen on the sim. Arccos GPS shows the Tour maybe had a couple of extra yards into wind but really that’s within statistical scatter.

Approach: On a calm day the X might take the win, or run the Tour close, but the Tour was a great ball to play with in windy conditions. Better penetrating ball flight, easy to shape when needed and it didn’t seem to be bullied by cross winds at all. The nail in the coffin for the X may have been a knock-down gap wedge approach from 95 yards into a 14mph cross/head wind from the right. The X launched well and went high, but the wind took a ball that was going towards the right side of the green and pushed it 15+ yards left off the edge of the green and it landed down a bank towards a creek. I didn’t see the Tour move that much in cross winds on the front nine. I will re-test next round to be sure. But on a sample of one round, the Tour beat the Tour X in approach shots- using fairway woods, hybrid punch draw under a tree branch and irons from long to short. It held the green very well too, certainly close enough to the X for spin numbers not to worry me. Just great to play. Very impressed.

Greenside (chips and bunkers): Tour: 3 up and downs. Tour X: Zero up and downs. There wasn’t much between the balls in chipping feel, but the Tour just felt like it suited me better and I was better with judging distance with it. My putts after chips with the Tour were shorter according to Arccos, so that supports the feels.

Putting: Another clear win for the Tour over the Tour X. The slightly softer (but still sufficiently firm overall) feel ball combined with the firm face of my Sik putter (no soft face insert here) allowed really good feel and distance control. I just felt much more comfortable and confident with the Tour.
Stats: Tour:  3x1-putt. 1x3-putt (first putt from 28ft). 16 putts total for 9 holes. Tour X: 0x1-putt. 3x3-putt. 21 putts total for 9 holes.
Alignment: Triple Track helped as much as I expected. As previously stated I like the markings and find them helpful on the green. No surprises and no difference on that front between the balls.

The Good, the Bad, the In-between (Chrome Tour 19/20; Chrome Tour X 16/20)

As previously stated, I’m a fan of the triple track alignment markings, so it’s nice to play with a ball I don’t need to reapply alignment markings on after a round, or partial round, or sim session.

No issues for me with shell durability. I don’t have photos due to stupidly losing both Tour and Tour X balls I was gaming for the majority of each 9. Darn it. But they were in good condition and had previously been used on the sim so had seen more than a few rounds worth of strikes from driver to lob wedge. Minor scuffing only. I hit out of 3 bunkers on the round and didn’t see any major scuffing- certainly no more than my gamer Taylormade balls.

The X simply span too much for me to be confident gaming it with any wind and I struggled with feel on and around the greens. The Tour suited me far better. I’ll give them both another go on course.

It was odd to see such a turn-around  between sim sessions and the course. The X shone on the sim with some very impressive numbers, but out on the course the Tour’s feel and wind penetration won the day for me.

Play it or Trade it? (Chrome Tour 19/20; Chrome Tour X 15/20)

This is tough and there is a caveat for this section (hence 1pt knocked off the Tour). Taylormade have launched the 2024 TP5 and TP5X and I’ve not played them on course yet. Both are meant to be notable improvements over the last model, which I have been gaming, so any final decision will depend on testing the new TM balls against the Callaway Chrome Tour and Tour X. But that said…

Chrome Tour = PLAY! Against my current gamer, the ’23 Taylormade TP5, the Chrome Tour wins and would go straight in my bag. With the current 4 dozen for the price of 3, it’s more affordable a tour level ball than usual and a solid deal.

Conclusion (TL/DR)
Both the Tour and Tour X are good looking balls and the Triple Track alignment is a big plus.
For me, the Tour is very well-suited ball for my game and I would replace my current gamer (last year’s Taylormade TP5 and TP5X) with it. Great feel around the greens and enough spin to hold the green with irons.  Off the tee, the ball flight was just what I wanted. Off the tee there was little to separate the Tour and X. It's worth noting here, for me both balls are a big improvement over the previous generation Chrome Soft balls (stock, X, LS). My first round of the year used last year's balls and by contrast they felt almost heavy and too soft for me.
The Tour X was, for me, a little too spinny and too firm. Around the green it dug in and you could see the spin helping, but I struggled with feel on chips and (in particular) putting. But on the sim it was a beast and looked firm favorite to win a place in my bag.

Final Score (Chrome Tour 93/100; Chrome Tour X 85/100)

The last part about sim vs real grass is where I have concerns with any ball. They are apples and oranges, and while each have there place, most have proven they are deficient in translating to real play. Loved the review!

[Erin B]

Played Sky Mountain yesterday and the Chrome Tour X’s did not disappoint! In fact, they were incredible! Great distance, with my longest drive 322 and my longest 4 iron was 236. The putting was darn near perfect! They checked nicely but the greens were so hard and fast that no one in our group was able to hold them. The ground was very, very hard. I can’t recall what course I’m playing today, but will update accordingly. Happy Birdie Hunting!!!

[Indy_Oz]

2 hours ago, Rob Person said:

The last part about sim vs real grass is where I have concerns with any ball. They are apples and oranges, and while each have there place, most have proven they are deficient in translating to real play. Loved the review!

Thanks Rob. Going into the test I wondered how much of a difference there would be between sim and course and the it was eye-opening how much of a difference there was in feel and preference as well as ball flight. I do wonder if a different type of launch monitor (GC Quad style with cameras adjacent to the ball) would measure ball characteristics vs the rear mounted Flight Scope I used. But I don't have access to both to check. As an engineer that works with data everyday, it has been a useful reminder to not put too much emphasis on sim data and use real course data (Arccos for me) ahead of sim for real life club distances and gapping. All good fun regardless!

[2puttbogey]

The most interesting thing I have discovered doing this testing is the difference between balls. I didn’t think I was good enough for it to matter, but it has. I have been playing the Kirkland thinking I haven’t seen a difference to make me change. Well this has exposed a difference. The Chrome Tours, PV1s, and Maxfli balls that I have used during this testing have shown that the Kirkland is half to a full club shorter for me. For the purposes of the Callaway testing I have liked both balls. Personal preference is the X, but the standard tour has been good as well. Unfortunately for me I have now realized that I will need to spend more than $15 a dozen on balls. Now I just need to decide which one. Chrome Tour X will be on the list to see what I’m going to be gaming.

[chisag]

3 minutes ago, Indy_Oz said:

Thanks Rob. Going into the test I wondered how much of a difference there would be between sim and course and the it was eye-opening how much of a difference there was in feel and preference as well as ball flight. I do wonder if a different type of launch monitor (GC Quad style with cameras adjacent to the ball) would measure ball characteristics vs the rear mounted Flight Scope I used. But I don't have access to both to check. As an engineer that works with data everyday, it has been a useful reminder to not put too much emphasis on sim data and use real course data (Arccos for me) ahead of sim for real life club distances and gapping. All good fun regardless!

 

... I have touched on this many times and every golfer is different but we are talking about the difference between a golf shot and a golf swing. On the course you are looking at a specific target and hopefully envisioning a trajectory that gets your ball to the target. 3/4 wedge to a target with a middle pin from 110 or a towering 7 iron from 160 to a pin tucked over a bunker and an 8 iron from 120 into a strong win and a back pin you want to skip in low and roll a little to the pin. These are all golf shots.

... Standing in one spot in front of a screen with no wind and no idea what kind of trajectory I am producing is not hitting golf shots but me just making golf swings. It is much easier to be aware of your swing because you don't have a visual target. Again, some are much better at this than others but I find it almost useless and the only way I can honesty judge equipment is on the course. Again Ymmv ... 

 

[chisag]

14 minutes ago, 2puttbogey said:

The most interesting thing I have discovered doing this testing is the difference between balls. I didn’t think I was good enough for it to matter, but it has. I have been playing the Kirkland thinking I haven’t seen a difference to make me change. Well this has exposed a difference. The Chrome Tours, PV1s, and Maxfli balls that I have used during this testing have shown that the Kirkland is half to a full club shorter for me. 

 

... It is just so personal. I gave Kirklands to 2 of my playing partners. One is an 81 yr old dude that is crazy straight and he gained about 10 yds because the spin is keeping his ball in the air longer. He now drives the ball around 180-200 and after building him an Aerojet with a NVS 45 A Flex driver the ball really was the final piece of the puzzle for him. The fact that he is only paying $15 a dozen and rarely loses a ball is just a nice bonus. 

... The other player is one of my pards wife and she has a tendency to open her body too quickly and cut across the ball producing a 20-15yd slice. When she is timing her body rotation well the Kirkland produced longer carries for her too, but when swinging poorly he slice was exaggerated. Moving to a Chrome Soft gave her the best of both worlds when swinging well or poorly. Her best drives may be a few yards shorter than with the Kirkland but her average and poor drives are much better. Asa shorter hitter she doesn't lose many balls so the added expense of the Chrome Soft balls is worth it for her as she will play one ball for 3 or 4 rounds. 

[Pingzingny]

Another round played with the New Tour ball. Same results as before.  The ball cuts and gets scuffed too easily and we all know that a scuffed ball doesn’t perform as well as a new ball.  The ball has a good flight and lands relatively quickly on the greens.  Putting on the greens feel good and rolls as on would expect but still expect a cover that holds up better.  

[ZackS]

5 minutes ago, Pingzingny said:

Another round played with the New Tour ball. Same results as before.  The ball cuts and gets scuffed too easily and we all know that a scuffed ball doesn’t perform as well as a new ball.  The ball has a good flight and lands relatively quickly on the greens.  Putting on the greens feel good and rolls as on would expect but still expect a cover that holds up better.  

I really like these balls and want them to work as I also like that they are made in the USA but the durability is my main concern. Especially cause I currently use the ZStar Diamond which is very durable. 

[chisag]

1 hour ago, Pingzingny said:

Another round played with the New Tour ball. Same results as before.  The ball cuts and gets scuffed too easily and we all know that a scuffed ball doesn’t perform as well as a new ball.  The ball has a good flight and lands relatively quickly on the greens.  Putting on the greens feel good and rolls as on would expect but still expect a cover that holds up better.  

 

... I am curious as to what you are hitting to cause that kind of damage? I start every round with a new ball but I don't see damage like that unless I hit a cart path or a sprinkler head. 

[Pingzingny]

There is nothing being hit other than the golf club. The ball does not respond well to sharp grooves and compression of the irons.  That ball was used for 7 holes in a round of a 75 score.  If you look at my previous posts you will see how the ball shreds and clearly shows signs of groove marks.  In my opinion the cover should hold up better and according to mygolfspy testing scuffed and cut golf balls should be removed from play due to its yardage decrease.  I would go through way too many balls in a round of golf.  I probably should have removed that ball after 3 holes.  

[GolfSpy_APH]

1 minute ago, Pingzingny said:

There is nothing being hit other than the golf club. The ball does not respond well to sharp grooves and compression of the irons.  That ball was used for 7 holes in a round of a 75 score.  If you look at my previous posts you will see how the ball shreds and clearly shows signs of groove marks.  In my opinion the cover should hold up better and according to mygolfspy testing scuffed and cut golf balls should be removed from play due to its yardage decrease.  I would go through way too many balls in a round of golf.  I probably should have removed that ball after 3 holes.  

Really interesting you found this. 

I was impressed by the durability overall..I have new wedges and hit 50 plus shots into a net plus the rest of my shots and it showed like new.

Interesting!

[Pingzingny]

I used them in real course situations and I go down, dig and compress the ball especially with my wedges.  I know I am creating a lot of spin and I do intentionally keep my grooves sharp but legal.  I have found this with both models of their new golf balls.