Project (a) vs. Q Star Tour

[Shadrach]

As I'd guessed earlier above, my choice between P(a) and QST came down to durability. One day some weeks back, after playing the P(a) over 9 holes, I noted it had some semi-serious scuff marks from a few thin hits. Since the balls, also as previously noted *for me*, land on top of each other off the long clubs, the QST at that instant "won" by the P(a) "losing." Well, that, and $5/doz. less.

 

I report back today because I've been playing the same QST over 9 holes for 4 or 5 or 6 days now — no kidding. Don't write back that I'm not that good o:) . The ball has no scuff marks or any other damages still, so I haven't tossed it into next March's shag bag yet. I am starting to gain confidence from the consistent feel and feedback I get off all clubs by playing just one ball. At this rate, my crock o' balls — N=48 — will last until next year. I imagine I'll use the money wasted on "ball testing" to play a premium track or two.

 

If it ever stops raining....

[xkilgorextroutx]

I noticed the same durability concerns (if you can even call it that) with the P(a) vs the QST. I find that the QST stands up to more abuse, and I notice that the performance for me & my swing is slightly better especially around the greens. Even with that said, I wouldn't hesitate to play either ball.

[Hammer22]

> @BeerPerHole said:

> I don't really know what to think about balls marketed for slower swing speeds. I think it's just marketing malarkey. My swing speed isn't down in the regions referenced in the marketing. Yet, I enjoy playing these balls very much. The firmer balls (yes to the XV) perform great too, but seem to go more wild off the driver if the swing's a little off. This past couple weeks I've been plucking Z Stars and Project a balls from my ball pouch when playing on the course. Life is rough...

 

I think you have to be at one extreme or the other to really notice. My driver SS is close to 110 and I love the Project (a) - hit it as far or farther than any other premium ball out there and the feel & performance is fantastic. There are other balls like the Chrome Soft and BXS that aren't far away in compression that are being played on Tour, so there is nothing wrong at all with thinking a ball like the (a) and all the other "softies" can benefit most golfers out there.

 

> @xkilgorextroutx said:

> I noticed the same durability concerns (if you can even call it that) with the P(a) vs the QST. I find that the QST stands up to more abuse, and I notice that the performance for me & my swing is slightly better especially around the greens. Even with that said, I wouldn't hesitate to play either ball.

 

Haven't noticed any durability issues with the (a), but then again, I've never played the QST. Occasionally get in a full round with one and other than a cart path scar, the balls have been fine. I never thought I'd like a ball more than the RZN TP, but the (a) sure got me hooked. I'll blame Pebble Beach for that since they are used at the Academy there - made the practice quite enjoyable.

 

Dig these balls so much that TM even sent some freebies after completing a recent survey. Have many dozen on hand, but these were a nice treat...

 

 

[Break81]

I could not get the Project A to bite as well as the QST gen 2. That being the case, I only gave the Yellow version a thorough test run .

I will say the A felt softer, which is not a bad thing but the QST had a better response for me off the putter face.

Estitcally, the Project A looked more high end, but performance wins out with the QST 2 (not 1st gen)