Top-Flite Consumer Relations

i don't know about the xl, but the gamer, the d-2's, and i believe the freak's compression numbers are all on the top flite web site.

I don't know if this answers your question but as of a few years ago now, probably at least 5 years now, when three piece balls took over, the compression factor number became a non issue. One explanation I heard for this was that with multi layer balls, since the characteristics can be so finely manipulated, the compression number became obsolete in defining the feel of the ball. Essentially, a harder compression ball could have softer feel than a lower compression ball. This may be the reason why this data isn't readily available anymore.

I got that same email when I inquired about the gamer and the feel balls. There is a list of compression ratings for various balls on this board. I think the "policy" is strange as well.

I got that same email when I inquired about the gamer and the feel balls. There is a list of compression ratings for various balls on this board. I think the "policy" is strange as well.

The ratios could be trade secrets they do not want their competitors to know. T-F is making a lot better balls at attractive prices so they should be praised. I bought 2 dozen Pinnacle Exceptions but I may try some Top-Flite's when I use the Pinnacles up. The Ds Feel and freaks are supposedly excellent. I also want to try the Noodle +.

I called TF a couple weeks ago to get some info on the Freak. My question was along the lines of is it too "hard" or of a high compression to for medium swing speed players. I never actually asked for the compression number. The person at TF (actually Callaway) assured me that it is not like the top rocks of old and it works fine for medium swing speeds and is actually geared towards medium swings. Where they telling me the truth or just what I wanted to hear? I don't know.

Thanks for all the great thoughts. I know it’s not a big deal, I just thought TF's response was a little odd.

To many it must seem dumb to be so interested in such cheap balls. My interest has been sparked because I think cheap 2 piece balls, especially distance balls, are much better than they were.

I was really taken with the work golf mag did a few months ago. I was surprised when the new XL5000 was not listed among the hardest of the balls on the Shore D tests. I also found it interesting that they were able to spin it at about 7800 rpms off a sand wedge, which is only a little less than a D2 or Nike PDS, which are both solid two piece budget balls. Anyhow, its made me really rethink what options are out there.

I bought a box of the XL5000 Soft, but have not had the chance to play them yet. I don't expecct much from them but have yet to give them a try. Off the putter in the living room, it feels ok. Off a vokey lob wedge in the garden it seems a little spin challenged compared to some others, but that’s not a good test as I have to watch for the dog and make sure I don't smack a stone wall, or hit the house. Next time I go out for 18, I think I'll try and do a side by side with a Nike Ignite and see the difference.

The reviews by golfers on web sites have been pretty good for the D2 Feel, Freak and Gamer. Target had the D2 Distance on sale for $12.49 for a dozen which is a good price.

Bingo.

I don't know if this answers your question but as of a few years ago now, probably at least 5 years now, when three piece balls took over, the compression factor number became a non issue. One explanation I heard for this was that with multi layer balls, since the characteristics can be so finely manipulated, the compression number became obsolete in defining the feel of the ball. Essentially, a harder compression ball could have softer feel than a lower compression ball. This may be the reason why this data isn't readily available anymore.

I don't know if this answers your question but as of a few years ago now, probably at least 5 years now, when three piece balls took over, the compression factor number became a non issue. One explanation I heard for this was that with multi layer balls, since the characteristics can be so finely manipulated, the compression number became obsolete in defining the feel of the ball. Essentially, a harder compression ball could have softer feel than a lower compression ball. This may be the reason why this data isn't readily available anymore.

i assumed similar to the above regarding compression ratings of balls being less important than in the days of wound, liquid core balls except for one difference - i believe compression to be more a gauge of "feel" now than of what swing speed is necessary to properly utilize the performance characteristics of a given ball.

i brought this up with my Bridgestone rep (who's been in the biz for 20+ years at Slazenger, Dunlop, among several other companies) the other week and he corrected me saying although a compression rating may not be as indicative of a given ball's performance characteristics, deformation and restitution rates are still a critical aspect in determining or characterizing any given ball's performance...along with dimple pattern. the rate at which a ball compresses and then returns to it's static state is what will influence distance, spin, trajectory, etc. and is what most of the R&D is devoted to these days...at least at BS.