Kirkland Signature (Costco) golf balls (MERGED) (NO BST POSTS)

[North Butte]

A good friend of mine has been playing nothing but the 3pc K-Sigs for a couple years now and he's a big fan. Doesn't lose many balls so he's not buying on price. The extra spin is the big selling feature for him.

 

I've thought all along that I noticed an overnight loss of distance as soon as he switched to the K-Sig. I can't put a number on it but with the K-Sig he seemed to me to be hitting at least two clubs longer into Par 4's than I remembered him hitting a few months earlier.

 

Early on I asked if he thought they were costing him any distance and he blamed it entirely on some health issues and orthopedic problems he was going through. Which was convincing enough for me, he knows his own game much better than I do. But it's always stuck in the back on my mind. We play together enough, always at the same course, that I know which holes are driver/7-iron and which are driver/5-wood for him and that changed almost overnight.

 

Having seen those results, I am now 99% convinced it was a ball thing and not that his swing suddenly had a power failure 24-30 months ago. Not sure I'll mention this test to him or not but I might...

Edited August 16, 2021 by North Butte

[soregongolfer]

The 3.2 has been a strange ball for me.  It's been short through the bag as I reported last spring.  I haven't given a review for the ball because I've blamed not seeing the inside of a weight room since April 2020 and playing very little golf due to Covid for the ball being short.  At least partially.  So seeing these test results have made me feel better about my swing. 

 

The strange thing is I haven't really noticed any evidence of a ton of spin.  My drives have had a lower trajectory than normal and I can only think of one shot into the green where the ball spun like a top and, that was during the winter on a very wet green.  Chips haven't produced any overspun shots either.  Maybe I need new wedges ;).  So, yeah, a ball that has produced strange results for me. 

 

 

[Rippin6Gears]

If anyone wants to know why the 4 piece have not came out yet… 😂

 

https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2021/08/16/busted-nearly-10000-counterfeit-golf-clubs-seized-china/

Edited August 16, 2021 by Rippin6Gears

[snagy2000]

30 minutes ago, Rippin6Gears said:

If anyone wants to know why the 4 piece have not came out yet… 😂

 

https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2021/08/16/busted-nearly-10000-counterfeit-golf-clubs-seized-china/

Are you implying the too good to be true Costco golf ball price means they're counterfeit?... Otherwise, I don't see a connection...

[wantacigar]

I just want to say that I've been using the Ksig 3.2 since March.  I have not seen a distance loss.  As a matter of fact, some of my longest drives have been with the Ksig.  I've done a side by side with the Ksig and TP5x.  I get better distance with the Ksig.  So the test can show what it shows.  As long as the Ksig keeps performing the way it performs for me I will continue to use it.  My other gamers are the TP5, TM Tour Response.  I have some TP5x but working through them because I don't seem to get the distances I get with the Ksig, TP5 and Tour Response.  It is what it is...  🤷‍♂️

[ASN21]

It’s a solid ball. Not good enough to be my gamer but I don’t feel anything when I lose one so that’s a plus. My gamer will still be the TP5X. 

[grm24]

6 hours ago, snagy2000 said:

Are you implying the too good to be true Costco golf ball price means they're counterfeit?... Otherwise, I don't see a connection...

There is no connection. More like a supply chain and/or lack of materials issue to produce the K-Sig balls. Both the current 3.2 and unreleased 4.3 ball. Dean Snell in recent posts has stated that there are material shortages for some golf balls. 

 

 

 

[wantacigar]

As an edit to my post above:

I looked at the test results on the Kirkland vs. my main gamer: TP5 & Tour Response.  I'm a mid ss player.  I'm in my mid 50's.  The robot hits the ball in the same spot with the same swing speed on every shot.  Do you really think any average golfer could tell that 5 yard distance differential on perfectly hit balls?  I tried.  I've teed up the Ksig hit a beautiful drive with very little roll (maybe 5-10 yds) at about 245.  Got up and toed the TP5 to 235.  Hit another TP5 about 245.  Maybe I hit the Kirkland more in the sweet spot that particular time. Maybe If I hit the TM in the same spot It would have gone 250-255.  I wouldn't know.  I play maybe 1 to 1.5 rounds a week.  I may use the drive 10-14 times a round depending upon the course.  There is no way on God's green Earth that I would be able to tell if I got 3-10 yards difference on any shot over the same one I hit an hour before 5 holes back.  Maybe If I was a scratch golfer playing 2-3 times a week I could tell.  In that case, fine.   But in the case of about 75% of the worlds golfers, it's all about feel off the clubface, confidence playing with a ball and the price of that ball.  This is why it's hard to keep the Ksigs on the shelves.  I've shot some of my best rounds with the Ksig.  I know, no matter what ball I play, that my 8 i is my 140-149 club.  My 7i is my 150-160 club, etc.....  Doesn't matter what MGS says.  I love the Tour  Response, TP5 and Ksig.  I'm sure if someone gave me two dozen Bridgestone BX whatever, I would love them too.  And still not notice any differences other than the way it feels off the clubhead.  When I started playing  golf the Pinnacle Gold was THE BALL.  LOL.  

 

Just my rant and $.02

 

Hit em straight and have fun..... 

[North Butte]

44 minutes ago, wantacigar said:

As an edit to my post above:

I looked at the test results on the Kirkland vs. my main gamer: TP5 & Tour Response.  I'm a mid ss player.  I'm in my mid 50's.  The robot hits the ball in the same spot with the same swing speed on every shot.  Do you really think any average golfer could tell that 5 yard distance differential on perfectly hit balls?  I tried.  I've teed up the Ksig hit a beautiful drive with very little roll (maybe 5-10 yds) at about 245.  Got up and toed the TP5 to 235.  Hit another TP5 about 245.  Maybe I hit the Kirkland more in the sweet spot that particular time. Maybe If I hit the TM in the same spot It would have gone 250-255.  I wouldn't know.  I play maybe 1 to 1.5 rounds a week.  I may use the drive 10-14 times a round depending upon the course.  There is no way on God's green Earth that I would be able to tell if I got 3-10 yards difference on any shot over the same one I hit an hour before 5 holes back.  Maybe If I was a scratch golfer playing 2-3 times a week I could tell.  In that case, fine.   But in the case of about 75% of the worlds golfers, it's all about feel off the clubface, confidence playing with a ball and the price of that ball.  This is why it's hard to keep the Ksigs on the shelves.  I've shot some of my best rounds with the Ksig.  I know, no matter what ball I play, that my 8 i is my 140-149 club.  My 7i is my 150-160 club, etc.....  Doesn't matter what MGS says.  I love the Tour  Response, TP5 and Ksig.  I'm sure if someone gave me two dozen Bridgestone BX whatever, I would love them too.  And still not notice any differences other than the way it feels off the clubhead.  When I started playing  golf the Pinnacle Gold was THE BALL.  LOL.  

 

Just my rant and $.02

 

Hit em straight and have fun..... 

Feel free to rant.

 

But I'm pretty sure even as a terribly inconsistent golfer that if I'd been playing a certain ball for months and I switched to one that was 5-10 yards shorter (or longer) then after 20 or 30 rounds I'd be getting a pretty strong inkling that something had changed. I play 150+ times a year on the same course I've been playing for decades. My swing is horribly variable from swing to swing and day to day but it doesn't change massively over time. So when I hit a shot solidly I have a pretty darned good idea where it's going to end up, unless it gets a bad bounce or there's a lot of wind or something. 

 

Would I swear in court that Ball A was 6.85 yards shorter than Ball B after I compared them? Of course not.

 

Could I be fooled into thinking Ball A was shorter than Ball B over a period of a few rounds due to variation in my swing? Absolutely.

 

But in the long run I sure as hell am not going to play a ball that's 5-10 yards shorter than usual unless there's a mighty big advantage to the ball otherwise to make up for the lost distance. And as I've commented above, when I look at this sort of test on balls I've played dozens or hundreds of rounds with the test results are spookily concurrent with my own subjective (long term) impressions. 

[Girevik]

Damnit, you all have me questioning ball choice again.  I'm no where near consistent enough to compare shot-to-shot.  I do no some of my longest drives haver have been Ksig, but if that's what I'm playing.....

 

I've considered switching form the K-sig a couple of times before and have always come back to it.  Bottom line for me always comes down to what will perform better for a similar price?   I loose too many balls to play anything much more expensive.

[wantacigar]

28 minutes ago, North Butte said:

Feel free to rant.

 

But I'm pretty sure even as a terribly inconsistent golfer that if I'd been playing a certain ball for months and I switched to one that was 5-10 yards shorter (or longer) then after 20 or 30 rounds I'd be getting a pretty strong inkling that something had changed. I play 150+ times a year on the same course I've been playing for decades. My swing is horribly variable from swing to swing and day to day but it doesn't change massively over time. So when I hit a shot solidly I have a pretty darned good idea where it's going to end up, unless it gets a bad bounce or there's a lot of wind or something. 

 

Would I swear in court that Ball A was 6.85 yards shorter than Ball B after I compared them? Of course not.

 

Could I be fooled into thinking Ball A was shorter than Ball B over a period of a few rounds due to variation in my swing? Absolutely.

 

But in the long run I sure as hell am not going to play a ball that's 5-10 yards shorter than usual unless there's a mighty big advantage to the ball otherwise to make up for the lost distance. And as I've commented above, when I look at this sort of test on balls I've played dozens or hundreds of rounds with the test results are spookily concurrent with my own subjective (long term) impressions. 

I don't think I've played 150 rounds in the past 10 years.  LOL.  Mostly due to my 4 kids playing "Travel Sports" and then to college ball.  Sooo up until 2016 I was reduced to playing 5 times a year since 2003.  This year will be my most prolific golf year in 20 years and I'll play approximately 40 rounds.  I played about 20-25 last year.  However, for me, I don't see a difference.  If you see that difference, and I have absolutely no reason to doubt you, then you do you.  My point was that for a guy like me, the MGS test really has no meaning.  Granted I use the Ksig mostly on courses that have alot of water and other ball eating hazards because that are only $12.50/dozen.  The three of the courses I play alot are links courses with a lot of water.  When I play Bethpage, I use the TM.  But I do like the feel, control and confidence when I play the Ksig.  That's important to me.

[snagy2000]

6 minutes ago, wantacigar said:

My point was that for a guy like me, the MGS test really has no meaning.

Exactly, play what you want and spend what you want to play.  Their information can be informative to some, but it's not the end all. Their results are very far from being pure, and shouldn't be treated as the definitive voice.

[betarhoalphadelta]

1 hour ago, wantacigar said:

I play maybe 1 to 1.5 rounds a week.  I may use the drive 10-14 times a round depending upon the course.  There is no way on God's green Earth that I would be able to tell if I got 3-10 yards difference on any shot over the same one I hit an hour before 5 holes back.  Maybe If I was a scratch golfer playing 2-3 times a week I could tell.  In that case, fine.   But in the case of about 75% of the worlds golfers, it's all about feel off the clubface, confidence playing with a ball and the price of that ball.

 

I agree with your last sentence. By all means, play whatever ball makes you feel the most confident. 

 

I've been playing the K3.2 for most of the last year because it seemed like the price and performance were the best. It's not because I can't afford a "premium" ball, it's because I have no desire to spend $4/ball for "premium" when the Kirkland is equally premium for a quarter of the cost. 

 

But based on this test, it seems the Kirkland is not actually premium. Distance across all clubs and all swing speeds were down significantly. 

 

The MTB-X has about 9.5 more yards at my swing speed (mid) with driver than the Kirkland. It has about 4 more yards carry with the 8i (not counting roll-out because I rarely get much if I'm hitting into soft greens). That's a combined 13.5 yards, or somewhere between 1 to 1.5 clubs less into every green. 

 

Looking at all the other measurables, the MTB-X has higher peak height, similar ballspeed, the 8i has similar descent angle, and it's still in the "spinny" category compared to the other balls on the list--it's not a decidedly low-spin ball. 

 

I played the Kirkland because I didn't think I was giving anything up. But giving up 1-1.5 clubs on every approach is too much. 

[North Butte]

11 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

I agree with your last sentence. By all means, play whatever ball makes you feel the most confident. 

 

I've been playing the K3.2 for most of the last year because it seemed like the price and performance were the best. It's not because I can't afford a "premium" ball, it's because I have no desire to spend $4/ball for "premium" when the Kirkland is equally premium for a quarter of the cost. 

 

But based on this test, it seems the Kirkland is not actually premium. Distance across all clubs and all swing speeds were down significantly. 

 

The MTB-X has about 9.5 more yards at my swing speed (mid) with driver than the Kirkland. It has about 4 more yards carry with the 8i (not counting roll-out because I rarely get much if I'm hitting into soft greens). That's a combined 13.5 yards, or somewhere between 1 to 1.5 clubs less into every green. 

 

Looking at all the other measurables, the MTB-X has higher peak height, similar ballspeed, the 8i has similar descent angle, and it's still in the "spinny" category compared to the other balls on the list--it's not a decidedly low-spin ball. 

 

I played the Kirkland because I didn't think I was giving anything up. But giving up 1-1.5 clubs on every approach is too much. 

I think even though supposedly the general performance of golf balls is limited by USGA/R&A testing, in fact there have been gradual optimizations and exploitation of loopholes in the testing to gradually eke out a few more yards over the past decade or so. Not night and day differences but incremental improvements here and there.

 

I doubt that applies to the K-Sig. It's no doubt a ball that can be produced with no major R&D using intellectual property that's not specifically owned and protected by the major OEM's. So I'd imagine whatever design it's based on hasn't really kept up with the latest and greatest ways of sneaking in a few more yards under the rules. 

 

The test results make it almost seem like a throwback to circa 2005 when there was still a tendency where playing a ball with gobs of spin necessarily meant compromising a bit on outright distance. By about 2012 to my perception that tradeoff no longer existed for the mainstream OEM balls. But K-Sig is kind of a 3pc time warp ball in that sense. 

[snagy2000]

1 hour ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

I agree with your last sentence. By all means, play whatever ball makes you feel the most confident. 

 

I've been playing the K3.2 for most of the last year because it seemed like the price and performance were the best. It's not because I can't afford a "premium" ball, it's because I have no desire to spend $4/ball for "premium" when the Kirkland is equally premium for a quarter of the cost. 

 

But based on this test, it seems the Kirkland is not actually premium. Distance across all clubs and all swing speeds were down significantly. 

 

The MTB-X has about 9.5 more yards at my swing speed (mid) with driver than the Kirkland. It has about 4 more yards carry with the 8i (not counting roll-out because I rarely get much if I'm hitting into soft greens). That's a combined 13.5 yards, or somewhere between 1 to 1.5 clubs less into every green. 

 

Looking at all the other measurables, the MTB-X has higher peak height, similar ballspeed, the 8i has similar descent angle, and it's still in the "spinny" category compared to the other balls on the list--it's not a decidedly low-spin ball. 

 

I played the Kirkland because I didn't think I was giving anything up. But giving up 1-1.5 clubs on every approach is too much. 

If you ever thought a Kirkland three-piece golf ball sold for a dollar per ball and sourced from a generic ball factory in Asia was premium, that's on you... Everybody's definition of premium is different, but c'mon...As far as losing distance, there's no guarantee any other ball will get you or anyone else a guaranteed 1+ clubs more distance... A lot of it is based on the swing and contact, etc... I'm willing to bet nobody out here has a consistent swing like the robot...

 

It's funny how a site which had a big part in the OG K-Sig popularity, all of a sudden smashes any ball produced by Costco after Dean becomes their buddy... It's almost like they know the Costco negativity also helps drive clicks to their website...Hmmm.....

 

 

Edited August 17, 2021 by snagy2000

[Girevik]

1 hour ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

 

 

The MTB-X has about 9.5 more yards at my swing speed (mid) with driver than the Kirkland. It has about 4 more yards carry with the 8i (not counting roll-out because I rarely get much if I'm hitting into soft greens). That's a combined 13.5 yards, or somewhere between 1 to 1.5 clubs less into every green. 

 

Wouldn't you notice if you were losing a full club or more?

[NRJyzr]

1 hour ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

But based on this test, it seems the Kirkland is not actually premium. Distance across all clubs and all swing speeds were down significantly. 

 

You may be jumping the gun, figuratively speaking, in your conclusion.  You need to include other variables in your evaluation of whether the ball suits you.  

 

If you are a high spin and/or high trajectory player, the higher spin of the KSig will hurt your distance.  But, if you are a lower trajectory player, it may not.  If you are a lower spin player, that extra spin will definitely not hurt you.

 

It's not as easy as looking at the distance results and taking them as gospel...

 

[North Butte]

5 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

You may be jumping the gun, figuratively speaking, in your conclusion.  You need to include other variables in your evaluation of whether the ball suits you.  

 

If you are a high spin and/or high trajectory player, the higher spin of the KSig will hurt your distance.  But, if you are a lower trajectory player, it may not.  If you are a lower spin player, that extra spin will definitely not hurt you.

 

It's not as easy as looking at the distance results and taking them as gospel...

 

They aren't doing it quite as much as in the previous test IMO but they still tend to present the results as some sort of horse race where how a ball ranks in the distance metric is the main thing and all the other characteristics are add-ons. Or maybe I'm just overly sensitive and they aren't really exaggerating the distance horse race but that's how it seems to me.

 

I didn't listen to their preliminary comments a couple weeks ago but they apparently teased something about the Tour Speed being a huge deal that would surprise everyone. All I see is it's near (but not at) the top for driver distance at high clubhead speeds. Treating 3-4 yards extra off the driver for big hitters compared to other popular models as a Stop The Presses headline material is really milking it IMO. 

[The Pearl]

22 minutes ago, North Butte said:

They aren't doing it quite as much as in the previous test IMO but they still tend to present the results as some sort of horse race where how a ball ranks in the distance metric is the main thing and all the other characteristics are add-ons. Or maybe I'm just overly sensitive and they aren't really exaggerating the distance horse race but that's how it seems to me.

 

I didn't listen to their preliminary comments a couple weeks ago but they apparently teased something about the Tour Speed being a huge deal that would surprise everyone. All I see is it's near (but not at) the top for driver distance at high clubhead speeds. Treating 3-4 yards extra off the driver for big hitters compared to other popular models as a Stop The Presses headline material is really milking it IMO. 

 

My only quibble with their approach is the tendency to "over emphasize'' the differences between balls.  With only a few exceptions, most of the balls are grouped rather closely. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

40 minutes ago, snagy2000 said:

If you ever thought a Kirkland three-piece golf ball sold for a dollar per ball and sourced from a generic ball factory in Asia was premium, that's on you... Everybody's definition of premium is different, but c'mon...As far as losing distance, there's no guarantee any other ball will get you or anyone else a guaranteed 1+ clubs more distance... A lot of it is based on the swing and contact, etc... I'm willing to bet nobody out here has a consistent swing like the robot...

 

It's funny how a site which had a big part in the OG K-Sig popularity, all of a sudden smashes any ball produced by Costco after Dean becomes their buddy... It's almost like they know the Costco negativity also helps drive clicks to their website...Hmmm.....

 

 

Well the reviews online were mixed. Even guys like TXG didn't denote any real driver distance loss in their test--granted their test was indoors using GCQuad, which computes flight characteristics rather than actually measuring them. A few reviewers thought there might be a little distance loss off the driver, but it wasn't certainly an airtight case. 

 

And of course there's no "guarantee 1+ club distance". However, what it suggests to me is that on good strikes I am more likely to lose distance with Kirkland relative to some other balls like MTB-X. 

 

36 minutes ago, Girevik said:

Wouldn't you notice if you were losing a full club or more?

 

I came back to the game last summer. At the time I had a bag full of random balls--including a dozen yellow top flite X-outs... When I standardized on Kirkland, I looked through all the balls I had to see if any were worth keeping, and all except for two in my bag were 2-piece surlyn balls. 

 

I've been working on my game, and I have replaced all my clubs except 4w and putter since standardizing on Kirkland. My contact is intermittent (I am a 20 cap, after all), and I only get to play a full 18 about once every other weekend. 

 

So unfortunately, I don't have enough of a sample size to really have noticed if I'm losing a club's worth of distance. 

 

31 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

You may be jumping the gun, figuratively speaking, in your conclusion.  You need to include other variables in your evaluation of whether the ball suits you.  

 

If you are a high spin and/or high trajectory player, the higher spin of the KSig will hurt your distance.  But, if you are a lower trajectory player, it may not.  If you are a lower spin player, that extra spin will definitely not hurt you.

 

It's not as easy as looking at the distance results and taking them as gospel...

 

 

I'm definitely a higher trajectory player... Not sure how high my spin numbers are, but I've never had trouble stopping a ball. So I think my own game is such that I'm more likely to lose distance due to the extra spin. 

 

Granted, I don't think I'm the player that needs a "low spin" ball--hence why I'm looking at the MTB-X which appears to be more in the middle than the Kirkland. It's still a ball that should generate a fair bit of spin, but a better balance. 

[bhj83]

29 minutes ago, The Pearl said:

 

My only quibble with their approach is the tendency to "over emphasize'' the differences between balls.  With only a few exceptions, most of the balls are grouped rather closely. 

They do the same thing with their most wanted clubs. The winning club has a strokes gained of like +.15 or something and there isn't even a full stroke between any of the clubs. 

[North Butte]

24 minutes ago, bhj83 said:

They do the same thing with their most wanted clubs. The winning club has a strokes gained of like +.15 or something and there isn't even a full stroke between any of the clubs. 

Yes, that's the sort of thing I meant by "horse race" in my comments. It doesn't really matter which "horse" puts his nose across the line first.  All I want is a list of the "horses" that were part of the photo finish. 

[PeterHenric]

2 hours ago, snagy2000 said:

If you ever thought a Kirkland three-piece golf ball sold for a dollar per ball and sourced from a generic ball factory in Asia was premium, that's on you... Everybody's definition of premium is different, but c'mon...As far as losing distance, there's no guarantee any other ball will get you or anyone else a guaranteed 1+ clubs more distance... A lot of it is based on the swing and contact, etc... I'm willing to bet nobody out here has a consistent swing like the robot...

 

It's funny how a site which had a big part in the OG K-Sig popularity, all of a sudden smashes any ball produced by Costco after Dean becomes their buddy... It's almost like they know the Costco negativity also helps drive clicks to their website...Hmmm.....

 

 

They do seem to have an affinity for Titleist and Snell balls.

 

As far as distance vs spin, some of my longest and shortest drives ever were with the Ksig. I chalk most of it up to the fact that I'm not a pro and don't always hit the ball the same way. I love the greenside/entry spin and since they say to choose your ball from the green to the tee, I'd say I'm happy.

 

I started playing the Ksig because I hated paying a fortune to lose balls but since I've gotten better and don't lose many balls anymore, it's still my go-to ball. It's what I play and I like it. I could hit other balls farther but that's not my priority. I'm not playing from the tips and I miss more greens than I hit so my short game benefits from the added spin.

[chisag]

2 hours ago, NRJyzr said:

You need to include other variables in your evaluation of whether the ball suits you.  

 

If you are a high spin and/or high trajectory player, the higher spin of the KSig will hurt your distance.  But, if you are a lower trajectory player, it may not.  If you are a lower spin player, that extra spin will definitely not hurt you.

 

It's not as easy as looking at the distance results and taking them as gospel...

 

 

... Just like any piece of golf equipment, results will vary depending on your swing. I would call myself an average spin player and for me the KSig is about 5-10 yds shorter off the tee. I played 2 practice rounds with the course to myself and did some ball testing with the TP5x, KSig 3.2, Z Star and original KSig.  TP5x and original KSig were the longest and pretty even, Z Star a few yards behind and the KSig 3.2 a few yards shorter. For me at least playing in Chicago's windy conditions made the Ksig 3.2 a bad fit and the TP5x a very good fit. My ex wife otoh that drives the ball around 200yds, never spun the ball enough and the KSig 3.2 was an excellent ball for her game. 

... Interestingly in my driver fitting that the TP5x did not spin quite enough when combined with my Cobra Speedzone. Switching to a Sim2 Max gave me great numbers with the TP5x and I made the switch and have been very happy. So you are spot on with other variables need to be included and understood. 

[NRJyzr]

1 hour ago, chisag said:

 

 

... Just like any piece of golf equipment, results will vary depending on your swing. I would call myself an average spin player and for me the KSig is about 5-10 yds shorter off the tee. I played 2 practice rounds with the course to myself and did some ball testing with the TP5x, KSig 3.2, Z Star and original KSig.  TP5x and original KSig were the longest and pretty even, Z Star a few yards behind and the KSig 3.2 a few yards shorter. For me at least playing in Chicago's windy conditions made the Ksig 3.2 a bad fit and the TP5x a very good fit. My ex wife otoh that drives the ball around 200yds, never spun the ball enough and the KSig 3.2 was an excellent ball for her game. 

... Interestingly in my driver fitting that the TP5x did not spin quite enough when combined with my Cobra Speedzone. Switching to a Sim2 Max gave me great numbers with the TP5x and I made the switch and have been very happy. So you are spot on with other variables need to be included and understood. 

 

Back in the early Callaway golfball days, when they had the HX Blue and HX Red, both in two piece and three piece balls, I would alternate which I played depending on which driver I was using.  One driver was higher spin, so I'd use the HX Red with good effect.  The other driver was low spin, and if I switched to the HX Blue, my distance would be the same.

 

Had great fun doing that, until they did away with those balls.  

 

The Precept U Tri Extra Spin was possibly the ultimate, though.  I gained a club and a half distance with my irons with that ball, in part because of spin and height I got with that set of irons.  It was absolutely ridiculous.  And, of course, I found the ball only at the end of its product cycle.  😐

 

[Tanner25]

It's too bad the Ksig doesn't come out in yellow. 

[forrester_fire]

I was running low on balls and picked up my first double-dozen of the 3.2 a week or two ago.  I had been playing the 2019 TP5x and the Maxfli Tour for most of this season, but regularly played the 3.1 before that.  I've had two rounds with them and I've noticed a couple of drives that I hit on the screws that were a good 10 yards shorter than what I expected them to have been.  I think I'll stay away from the Kirkland balls until the seemingly mythical new 4-piece comes out and is tested.

Edited August 18, 2021 by forrester_fire

[RCGA]

I'm obviously way late to the party here. But I bought a 24 pack of KSig balls in the spring. They were the green box ones. 

 

What are these? v3.1? 

[Girevik]

49 minutes ago, RCGA said:

I'm obviously way late to the party here. But I bought a 24 pack of KSig balls in the spring. They were the green box ones. 

 

What are these? v3.1? 

Yes, that's the older version.  The newer V2 ball seems to have gotten much better reviews.

[forrester_fire]

I didn't read the MGS data closely enough to know whether this question was answered, but I'm curious what the AoA was on the robot's swings.  TXG did a test of the 3.2 in comparison to the ProV1 earlier this year.  The Ksig was considerably higher spinning with the 7i and PW, but it was only a few hundred RPMs (with a higher standard deviation, granted) off the driver. 

 

Now, I realize Matt isn't a robot, but he's got about as repeatable a swing as you'll find outside of a tour player.  He swings anywhere from 117 - 125mph and was seeing an average spin of ~2700 with driver.  That's 700rpm less than the MGS test (~3400) at a similar swing speed. 

 

I guess the other unknown variable is how much the PXG driver/shaft combo used in the MGS test spins. In the TXG test, the difference in spin between the ProV1 and 3.2 on driver was about 300rpm (~2400 vs ~2700) and in the MGS test it was 700rpm (~2700 vs. ~3400).

Edited August 19, 2021 by forrester_fire