Jump to content

northstar33

Members
  • Content Count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yes they were. Don't give OnCore what they want and drive discussion/visibility of their brand. I'm fine with marketing and product placement but not in the inappropriate way that they did. This thread should probably just be deleted honestly. I don't know if there are moderators here (?) but it would honestly be great if this thread could be deleted/archived or something so OnCore doesn't get the increased visibility/exposure that they wanted.
  2. Do you take a ball out of play the second you see any groove cuts on the cover? Or do you play it until it splits in half?
  3. These are a just a little too expensive for a new no name brand. As others have mentioned, you can get Maxfli Tours and Z Stars, among others for cheaper and those are proven balls. I think Sugar would be better suited pricing these at say $59 rather than $69. Would be much more interested in trying these at that price.
  4. I've been trying out the RB Tour X and like the feel and spin, was researching the ball and found several claims of terrible durability. Personally I noticed some shallow groove marks after full wedge shots but nothing much more than that. Obviously not as durable as a Pro V1 but doesn't seem too bad. Before I commit to buying any more has anyone else played these balls? Have they perhaps improved the durability of the ball since the first run?
  5. I've been trying a lot of different balls recently and have found wildly inconsistant durability accross most of them. In your experience, which urethane ball(s) holds up the best for durability?
  6. Everything I've read/heard says as long as they are not exposed to extreme temperatures, anything from the last 10 years or so should be fine.
  7. Definitively, if you have a membership. If not then it would be Cut. But you have to consider the durability of Cut. They are just awful as far as durability goes, deep cuts on the cover after a single iron strike oftentimes for me. If you don't lose a metric ton of balls, anything more durable in the $30-$40 range would be a better "value" than Cut. If you lose a ball every other hole then yes Cut might be a good value. Kirklands aren't great either as far as durability goes but Cut takes it to an extreme.
  8. I think that honor still goes to Kirkland for urethane balls.
  9. The guy cut open some Titleist balls and found a few to be more off centered than normal. Maybe it was just a random bad batch or maybe it's representstive of a larger issue with the new model. That doesn't mean he was paid off by Callaway or that he hates Titleist and is out to destroy them. It's crazy how people tie their identity into the equipment they use and are unwilling to consider there might be any kind of flaw with it. It's completely possible that the new Pro V1x model just had an inconsistent first run and they will correct it as time goes on, or maybe even already hav
  10. I've noticed that the 2015 and 2017 model Z-Stars are available at some retailers for as low as $20-$25. How do these models compare to the 2019, or the just released 2021? Seems like one of the best deals on premium balls around if they aren't too far behind current gen.
  11. There's another thread talking about them here as well. These balls appear to have significant durability issues and questionable consistency. Some people claim they play great but definitely more than just a handful claiming they are seeing significant distance decreases. Seems to indicate a very inconsistently made ball. Personally I found them to have really bad durability, deep cuts on the cover in as few as 1 or 2 shots with an 8 iron. Similar or maybe worse than the older Cut Blue. But some lasted longer than that. I didnt notice any significant distance issues, but again oth
  12. For anyone wondering about these, played 2 rounds over the weekend with the x and regular and had some definite durability issues. Played a par 62 executive course and was getting some deep gashes on the cover after a single iron shot off the tee. Went through 6 balls over the course of the round. I think they just have an inconsistent cover, as some balls would cut immediately after a shot or 2 and others would last 4 or 5 holes. Something to be aware of...these are probably only worth it in the $5 to $15 range. They performed very well and had great distance, but that
  13. How do balls actually make it to and then stay on this list? Specifically older balls, do they have to be renewed annually? I ask because I noticed for example that the Taylormade Project (a) is on the list, but specifically it describes the 2018 version with the "(a)" on the ball and nothing else. Is the earlier 2016 version with "project (a)" no longer a playable ball according to the USGA? As another example I also noticed that Cut Blue and Cut Grey are not on the list, but the newer Cut Blue DC is. Is this because companies like Cut not doing some kind of USGA renew
  14. Yeah like I said in the edit on my post above, you are right. They are different balls using the same exact cover pattern minus the micro dimples on the RZN. So made in the same factory, but different.
  15. I mean I can take a picture right now and post it if you like. The cover is literally exactly the same, no differences at all. Every dimple is literally exactly the same and in the exact same place. I'd prefer you take my word for it but I can post picture if needed. Maybe the mantle is different as I havent cut it open but these are 100% using the exact same cover and therefore I would think 100% made at the same factory. Edit - Held it under a light and was able to see the micro dimples on the RZN. Aside from the micro dimples the cover 344 dimple pattern is the same though, with
×
×
  • Create New...