Vice Pro balls are the same as those Rife Balls and Monsta Balls?!?!

typhoonoidtyphoonoid Members Posts: 899 ✭✭✭✭✭

Saw an instagram video from that other golf website that ends with spy and they cut up all these balls and they are identical!
And those rife balls are still on clearance for only $10 a dozen on rockbottom...

WITB:
Ping G400 Max Driver Fujikura Pro XLR8 61S
Ping G 3W Fujikura Pro 63s
Ping G25 3H, 4H
Mizuno JPX 919 Hot Metal Pro 5-GW KBS CTaper Lite S
Ping Glide 2.0 Stealth 56* ES
Taylormade Hi-Toe 60*
Evnroll ER5 Black
Srixon Z-Star Yellow
Ping DLX Cart Bag

Comments

  • trackcoach13trackcoach13 Members Posts: 1,007 ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    [font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Driver: Cobra F9 w/ Aldila NV 2KXV Green 65 Stiff
    3W: Titleist 917F2 w/Fujikura Speeder Pro Tour Spec 84 Stiff [/font]

    [font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]2I: Srixon Z U65 18 Degree w/Miyazaki Kaula 7s
    Irons: Wilson FG Tour v6 4-GW DG S300 AMT
    Wedge: 56/11 Wilson FG Tour PMP Raw Tour Grind[/font]

    Wedge: Vokey SM6 60-12 K-Grind
    [font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Putter: [/font]Odyssey O-WORKS Red Marxman
  • hammergolfhammergolf St. LouisMembers Posts: 105 ✭✭✭
    edited Jul 5, 2019 2:39pm #4

    You would think after the bs ball test they published then took down they would be careful about making unsubstantiated, non scientific claims. If you look closely, all of those golf balls have different cover thickness, different mantle thickness, different dimple patterns, and of course there is no way to determine if they were the same firmness. Merely cutting three balls in half and saying they are the same because the cover, mantle, and core are the same color is beyond ridiculous...

    Ping G400 Max 9 Tour 65 Stiff
    Ping G410 3wd @ 15.5 flat Tensei Orange Stiff
    Ping G410 7wd @ 19.5 flat Tensei Orange Stiff
    Ping G410 22 hybrid @ 21 flat Alta CB Stiff
    Ping G25 5-PW Steelfiber i95
    Cleveland RTX4 Raw 50*, 56* @ 55, 60* Modus 105 Stiff
    Evnroll TR8 33"
  • trackcoach13trackcoach13 Members Posts: 1,007 ✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @hammergolf said:
    You would think after the bs ball test they published then took down they would be careful about making unsubstantiated, non scientific claims. If you look closely, all of those golf balls have different cover thickness, different mantle thickness, different dimple patterns, and of course there is no way to determine if they were the same firmness. Merely cutting three balls in half and saying they are the same because the cover, mantle, and core are the same color is beyond ridiculous...

    You cannot tell from that video angle if the covers are a different thickness. As for what they are suggesting, it is right on the money.

    [font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Driver: Cobra F9 w/ Aldila NV 2KXV Green 65 Stiff
    3W: Titleist 917F2 w/Fujikura Speeder Pro Tour Spec 84 Stiff [/font]

    [font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]2I: Srixon Z U65 18 Degree w/Miyazaki Kaula 7s
    Irons: Wilson FG Tour v6 4-GW DG S300 AMT
    Wedge: 56/11 Wilson FG Tour PMP Raw Tour Grind[/font]

    Wedge: Vokey SM6 60-12 K-Grind
    [font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Putter: [/font]Odyssey O-WORKS Red Marxman
  • storm319storm319 Members Posts: 3,837 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Jul 5, 2019 7:56pm #6

    @hammergolf said:
    You would think after the bs ball test they published then took down they would be careful about making unsubstantiated, non scientific claims. If you look closely, all of those golf balls have different cover thickness, different mantle thickness, different dimple patterns, and of course there is no way to determine if they were the same firmness. Merely cutting three balls in half and saying they are the same because the cover, mantle, and core are the same color is beyond ridiculous...

    Read the GD article I posted on the lawsuit from a few years ago. Foremost (factory in Taiwan) was confirmed to be producing the same ball for different dtc companies marketing in the US. According to past USGA conforming list submissions, these balls along with others accused of being the same all had 318 dimples. So this does not appear to be a random cut open and jump to conclusions situation.

    Also, you could cut open several ProV1s from the same box and still perceive slight differences in layer thickness based on non-clean cuts by the pvc cutter, manufacturing tolerances, or simply optics.

    Post edited by storm319 on
  • hammergolfhammergolf St. LouisMembers Posts: 105 ✭✭✭
    edited Jul 5, 2019 10:19pm #7

    I’ve played the rife ball and the vice ball. I can tell you they “are not the same ball”. Different dimple patterns, qty, size, and shape, different feel, and performance. Now, if they tested all three of these balls with a robot and the performance ”was identical” then they can make that statement. As usual they confuse opinion for actual fact.

    Ping G400 Max 9 Tour 65 Stiff
    Ping G410 3wd @ 15.5 flat Tensei Orange Stiff
    Ping G410 7wd @ 19.5 flat Tensei Orange Stiff
    Ping G410 22 hybrid @ 21 flat Alta CB Stiff
    Ping G25 5-PW Steelfiber i95
    Cleveland RTX4 Raw 50*, 56* @ 55, 60* Modus 105 Stiff
    Evnroll TR8 33"
  • storm319storm319 Members Posts: 3,837 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Jul 6, 2019 12:52am #8

    @hammergolf said:
    I’ve played the rife ball and the vice ball. I can tell you they “are not the same ball”. Different dimple patterns, qty, size, and shape, different feel, and performance. Now, if they tested all three of these balls with a robot and the performance ”was identical” then they can make that statement. As usual they confuse opinion for actual fact.

    Again, this was not solely based on MiGolfSpi randomly cutting a few balls open and jumping to a conclusion, it is based on evidence as part of a 2015 lawsuit (this isn’t their opinion nor is this breaking news, just gathering attention due to their wide audience).

    Are you sure you are even comparing the same balls? Innovex released two balls under the Rife brand. E-motion = 3-piece, surlyn cover, 392 dimples. V-motion = 3-piece, urethane cover, 318 dimples. The V-motion is the ball in question here.

    The Vice Pro Plus/Soft have different dimple patterns and are not on trial in this situation. The regular Vice Pro is in fact identical to the other 9 defendants in the lawsuit. Also I am sure that Acushnet counted the dimples before filing considering that it is the basis of the infringement suit.

    Lawsuit in case anyone is interested. 10 defendants with identical balls made by Foremost Golf Mfg:
    https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/11254370

    Post edited by storm319 on
  • typhoonoidtyphoonoid Members Posts: 899 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Funny thing I have a house in taiwan that's in the same district as their office/factory. I've probably walked past it a bunch of times over the years and never noticed.

    WITB:
    Ping G400 Max Driver Fujikura Pro XLR8 61S
    Ping G 3W Fujikura Pro 63s
    Ping G25 3H, 4H
    Mizuno JPX 919 Hot Metal Pro 5-GW KBS CTaper Lite S
    Ping Glide 2.0 Stealth 56* ES
    Taylormade Hi-Toe 60*
    Evnroll ER5 Black
    Srixon Z-Star Yellow
    Ping DLX Cart Bag

  • stevegpstevegp ClubWRX Charter Member Members Posts: 234 ✭✭✭

    @storm319 said:

    @hammergolf said:
    I’ve played the rife ball and the vice ball. I can tell you they “are not the same ball”. Different dimple patterns, qty, size, and shape, different feel, and performance. Now, if they tested all three of these balls with a robot and the performance ”was identical” then they can make that statement. As usual they confuse opinion for actual fact.

    Again, this was not solely based on MiGolfSpi randomly cutting a few balls open and jumping to a conclusion, it is based on evidence as part of a 2015 lawsuit (this isn’t their opinion nor is this breaking news, just gathering attention due to their wide audience).

    Are you sure you are even comparing the same balls? Innovex released two balls under the Rife brand. E-motion = 3-piece, surlyn cover, 392 dimples. V-motion = 3-piece, urethane cover, 318 dimples. The V-motion is the ball in question here.

    The Vice Pro Plus/Soft have different dimple patterns and are not on trial in this situation. The regular Vice Pro is in fact identical to the other 9 defendants in the lawsuit. Also I am sure that Acushnet counted the dimples before filing considering that it is the basis of the infringement suit.

    Lawsuit in case anyone is interested. 10 defendants with identical balls made by Foremost Golf Mfg:
    https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/11254370

    Storm 319, thanks for posting the link. I remember this lawsuit. Do you know the status of the case? Has it been settled? Did it go to trial?

    Thanks.

    stevegp
  • storm319storm319 Members Posts: 3,837 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @stevegp said:
    Storm 319, thanks for posting the link. I remember this lawsuit. Do you know the status of the case? Has it been settled? Did it go to trial?

    Thanks.

    It looks like the case was closed as of June 2016. There were docket updates to report Alternative Dispute Resolution (likely settled out of court) and Stipulation of Dismissal. Given that Vice is basically the only one still selling the ball in question, my guess is that the settlement options were licensing to continue or stop selling (potentially payment for damages as well).

    https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Massachusetts District Court/case/1:15-cv-11524

  • stevegpstevegp ClubWRX Charter Member Members Posts: 234 ✭✭✭

    Thanks. I appreciate your reply.
    Yes. It looks like Vice is the only one still selling the ball in question.

    stevegp
  • hammergolfhammergolf St. LouisMembers Posts: 105 ✭✭✭

    The suit actually was dismissed. All of the smaller companies could not afford to fight it, but Vice did and it was thrown out. Titleist arrogance basically makes them feel like every round golf ball with dimples is their design.... The suit was ridiculous, and would basically be like a big golf company filing suit on smaller companies claiming that cavity back design is their intellectual property. Titleist try to sue everyone that threatens their position in the golf market. They still pay royalties to Bridgestone for stealing their technology, and tried to sue Callaway without winning. Titleist make a great ball, but so do many other companies. I like the fact that I can buy a ball that has as good or better performance at half the price of a pro v.

    Ping G400 Max 9 Tour 65 Stiff
    Ping G410 3wd @ 15.5 flat Tensei Orange Stiff
    Ping G410 7wd @ 19.5 flat Tensei Orange Stiff
    Ping G410 22 hybrid @ 21 flat Alta CB Stiff
    Ping G25 5-PW Steelfiber i95
    Cleveland RTX4 Raw 50*, 56* @ 55, 60* Modus 105 Stiff
    Evnroll TR8 33"
  • storm319storm319 Members Posts: 3,837 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @hammergolf said:
    The suit actually was dismissed. All of the smaller companies could not afford to fight it, but Vice did and it was thrown out. Titleist arrogance basically makes them feel like every round golf ball with dimples is their design.... The suit was ridiculous, and would basically be like a big golf company filing suit on smaller companies claiming that cavity back design is their intellectual property. Titleist try to sue everyone that threatens their position in the golf market. They still pay royalties to Bridgestone for stealing their technology, and tried to sue Callaway without winning. Titleist make a great ball, but so do many other companies. I like the fact that I can buy a ball that has as good or better performance at half the price of a pro v.

    You could make the same argument about most other IP related litigation. It is not necessarily about stealing technology as much as it is about the US Patent office issuing vague and overlapping patents (go take a look at the number of issued patents related to multilayer golf ball, many of which are basically indistinguishable). From there you end up with companies litigating over differences in interpretation.

    Next, Callaway actually sued Acushnet first based on patents they acquired from Spaulding and Acushnet countersued (for which Acushnet was actually triumphant in appeals court). That mess ended in a settlement in the form of a cross-licensing deal (basically only the lawyers won in that situation).

    While I agree that the basis of the case listed above was a bit thin, it doesn’t change the fact that all of those balls being sold under 10 different brands were the same which is what this thread is about.

  • Bad9Bad9 Members Posts: 4,299 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @storm319 said:

    While I agree that the basis of the case listed above was a bit thin, it doesn’t change the fact that all of those balls being sold under 10 different brands were the same which is what this thread is about.

    And if that ball was found not to be in violation of any of Titleist's patents what difference does it make how many companies sell it under their own name? There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of items being sold by different brands that are identical to each other. Start with appliances for one.

    Ping G410 Plus 10.5°/Alta CB55 r flex
    Ping G400 7w/Alta CB r flex
    Ping G400 4h/Alta CB r flex
    Ping G400 5 Crossover/Alta CB r flex
    Ping IE1 6-G/Xcaliber r flex
    Ping Glide ES 58°/Xcaliber r flex
    Mizuno Bettinardi C06
  • storm319storm319 Members Posts: 3,837 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @Bad9 said:

    @storm319 said:

    While I agree that the basis of the case listed above was a bit thin, it doesn’t change the fact that all of those balls being sold under 10 different brands were the same which is what this thread is about.

    And if that ball was found not to be in violation of any of Titleist's patents what difference does it make how many companies sell it under their own name? There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of items being sold by different brands that are identical to each other. Start with appliances for one.

    I don’t see any comments regarding moral implications here or that this practice is unique to the golf ball sector, simply that several companies marketing in the US were selling the identical ball purchased off the shelf from Foremost Golf Mfg.

    Is this a bit disingenuous? Yes, especially in the marketing examples where they imply that they had a hand in the design. Is this morally wrong? Depends on who you ask. Illegal? Depends on the country/jurisdiction.

  • gioreekogioreeko Members Posts: 335 ✭✭✭✭

    I think the snarky duck face one of the Vice guys always makes in their ads shows you they had nothing to do with the design of these balls, lol

    Driver: Taylor Made M3
    3 wood: Taylor made 12 degree mini driver TP
    3 Iron Mizuno Fli hi
    4-UW: Ping i210
    Ping 54, 58 Ping Glide wedges
    Odyssey Versa Tank Putter
    Kirkland Tour ball
  • George1174George1174 Members Posts: 206 ✭✭✭

    Let me chime in from my perspective as a Munich native:
    „designed and engineered in Germany“ (US Site)
    meanwhile on the german site: crickets.
    The two founders are lawyers and have had not a single connection to golf beforehand. They narrowed their business model down to two options: d2c selling toilet paper or golf balls. They just know that a claim like that mentioned would get them in real trouble under german law if they had just bought production time in an taiwanese factory instead of getting „>250 engineers working for them“.
    Anyway I believe they were lucky in the lawsuit and just like everybody else they had to give in and Acushnet won out of court. But as VICE has had a handful of other models that weren‘t included in the lawsuit they could stay afloat and continue business. They simply had to buy another ball from Taiwan and put the Pro logo on that.
    I believe that the VICE Pro neon I bought is a very good ball for my game. I like the soft feel on the putting green with the milled face of my Fastback and that‘s about 70% of how I decide if I like a ball. I can compress any 2pc range ball at 34F with an SGI but if it clicks on the green it will go into someone else‘s bag.
    Played outdated B330RX/S as long as I could get them for €30/dz, now I lean to the Pro.
    Should on of them become unplayable before I lose it, I‘ll cut it and have a look.

    Callaway Big Bertha Alpha 10* - Project X LZ 6.0 44.5"
    Callaway XR16 4W 17° - Fujikura Speeder Evolution 565 S
    Callaway X2Hot 4H 22* - Aldila Tour blue
    Cleveland Mashie 3H 20.5° - Miyazaki C.Kua 59
    Mizuno MP-59 4-PW - KBS Tour R hs
    Titleist SM 7 50/08 - 54/10 - 58/08 - DG S200
    Scotty Cameron Select Fastback 29.5" Winn Jumbo Pistol, 40gr down the shaft, 40gr counterweight
  • pollock21pollock21 Members Posts: 726 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @hammergolf said:
    You would think after the bs ball test they published then took down they would be careful about making unsubstantiated, non scientific claims. If you look closely, all of those golf balls have different cover thickness, different mantle thickness, different dimple patterns, and of course there is no way to determine if they were the same firmness. Merely cutting three balls in half and saying they are the same because the cover, mantle, and core are the same color is beyond ridiculous...

    I just checked and the ball test is still up and hasn’t been taken down. Unless I’m missing something? Their test was legit and I’m constantly amazed at how much people argue with the results. I don’t know if it’s brand loyalty or what, but they did a great job and opened a lot of eyes to some shady business going on in the golf ball business.

    Play the ball you want, I’d the test said it was crap, then ignore it. Balls are just like clubs and they will perform different for everyone. There’s no one size fits all. However, they did as best job as you could to try and do a scientific test and simply published the results. Hardly BS.

    The best part is that this should make all the ball manufacturers take a serious look at their product and their quality control practices. Tests like this are only going to help all of us to have access to a better quality product. It’s a good thing that someone is looking under the hood where no one else has. If that means certain companies got some egg on their face, then they likely deserve it.

    Driver: Ho
    Fairway: 16M2 15* & 18*
    Irons: Ho
    Wedges: Ping Glide Stealth 50* PXLZ 6.5, 54* & 60* PXLZ 7.0
    Putter: Scotty Newport 2
  • George1174George1174 Members Posts: 206 ✭✭✭

    Here‘s a Vice Pro Neon that fell victim to a groundskeeper.
    Looks exactly like the three cuts from **** from what I can see.

    Callaway Big Bertha Alpha 10* - Project X LZ 6.0 44.5"
    Callaway XR16 4W 17° - Fujikura Speeder Evolution 565 S
    Callaway X2Hot 4H 22* - Aldila Tour blue
    Cleveland Mashie 3H 20.5° - Miyazaki C.Kua 59
    Mizuno MP-59 4-PW - KBS Tour R hs
    Titleist SM 7 50/08 - 54/10 - 58/08 - DG S200
    Scotty Cameron Select Fastback 29.5" Winn Jumbo Pistol, 40gr down the shaft, 40gr counterweight

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file