Titleist Tour Soft

[Break81]

I do agree that Titleist is guilty as charged. They definitely make a variety of vague advertising claims about their golf balls and those claims morph over time to follow trends.There is often no internal consistency between ads for one product five years ago and ads for a different product today.

 

Just not sure how that is supposed to be different from Callaway, Taylormade, Bridgestone, Srixon, Wilson and literally every single maker of golf balls. They all just throw stuff up against the wall marketing-wise and see what sticks, in search of appealing to a wide variety of potential buyers.

 

So what is it about Titleist that makes you lot think their advertisements are supposed to be less "disingenuous" than their competitors?

 

Some marketing guy for Titleist says "Our ball is better than Bridgestone's and Callaway's" and the uproar is loud and continuous. How dare they claim such a thing?

 

But when some marketing guy for Bridgestone or Callaway says "Oh no it isn't, our balls is way, way better!!!!!" then you're all like, "Well I guess that set the record straight, you tell 'em".

 

P.S. I mean for goodness sake, there are people whining on this thread about Titleist putting "Tour" in the name of a ball that nobody on Tour plays...as if there weren't at last count 2,703 golf products currently on the market with "Tour" in their name, including 498 golf ball models. Approximately.

 

Yea, I'm not sure what Titleist is doing that is any different than what other companies do. Or maybe I should say that Titleist is merely doing what everyone else does. Everyone does the same thing. Surprised at how many people don't get that.

 

No other company compared them to actual Tour/urethane balls.

This ! Srixon and B-Stone have preached that most players could actually benefit by not playing what the pros play. Titleist was 100% opposite In saying everyone could benefit from a ProV1. So unless I see a Pro playing a TourSoft, there is no magic potion that makes a 2 pc Ionomer ball and makes it play like a 4/5 pc Urethane . Titleist comparing this ball to a real Tour Level ball is just a blatant attempt to rip off uninformed golfers.

 

The only reason they didn’t compare the ball to an E6 / Supersoft , Soft Feel , Duo Spin or Q-Star is they would be exposed on their price point.

 

 

 

[nsxguy]

OK, let's bottom line it then.

 

Regardless of what it costs to make, if you could sell your product for $35, would you sell it for $25 ? :beruo:

 

And the NXT line was "exposed" ? Do you have any idea how long the NXT line has been around ? I'm guessing longer than the BEST selling model of ANY other brand's ball. :help:

 

Believe it or not I played the NXT for years for a few reasons: 1) It was a Titleist 2) It played well for my swing 3) It was second tier Titleist and as a mid-teens handicapper I stayed away from true tour balls. When I tried the old Gamer V2 I was surprised to see that I was longer and doing better on approach shots and around the green and the ball was half the price. The e6 was also a better ball for me. I had been a Titleist ball only golfer for about 15 years because I believed that they were the best simply because of brand recognition and the amount of pros, friends, and family that always played Titleist. It hit me that I was paying much more for a 3 piece surlyn ball because of the brand and it was not even the best ball of its type for my swing. The "exposed" factor for me was that the NXT was one of the most overpriced golf balls in the market and I know that I am not alone in that opinion. I believe it is why the NXT has been discontinued.

 

I am certain that Titleist made a ton of money on the NXT (some from me) which is what they are supposed to do. And of course they will use their brand to leverage the highest price for their golf balls. But their claims that their new 2 piece surlyn ball is better than the competition's urethane tour golf balls seems as disingenuous as telling me that the ProV1 is the best ball for my swing which was their mantra for a couple of years.

 

I'm not sure - is this a "Yes" or a "No" ? :dntknw: :D

 

Oh, & BTW, NXT first came out in 2001. "Overpriced" & "exposed". What a flop !!! :swoon:

[North Butte]

OK, let's bottom line it then.

 

Regardless of what it costs to make, if you could sell your product for $35, would you sell it for $25 ? :beruo:

 

And the NXT line was "exposed" ? Do you have any idea how long the NXT line has been around ? I'm guessing longer than the BEST selling model of ANY other brand's ball. :help:

 

Believe it or not I played the NXT for years for a few reasons: 1) It was a Titleist 2) It played well for my swing 3) It was second tier Titleist and as a mid-teens handicapper I stayed away from true tour balls. When I tried the old Gamer V2 I was surprised to see that I was longer and doing better on approach shots and around the green and the ball was half the price. The e6 was also a better ball for me. I had been a Titleist ball only golfer for about 15 years because I believed that they were the best simply because of brand recognition and the amount of pros, friends, and family that always played Titleist. It hit me that I was paying much more for a 3 piece surlyn ball because of the brand and it was not even the best ball of its type for my swing. The "exposed" factor for me was that the NXT was one of the most overpriced golf balls in the market and I know that I am not alone in that opinion. I believe it is why the NXT has been discontinued.

 

I am certain that Titleist made a ton of money on the NXT (some from me) which is what they are supposed to do. And of course they will use their brand to leverage the highest price for their golf balls. But their claims that their new 2 piece surlyn ball is better than the competition's urethane tour golf balls seems as disingenuous as telling me that the ProV1 is the best ball for my swing which was their mantra for a couple of years.

 

I'm not sure - is this a "Yes" or a "No" ? :dntknw: :D

 

Oh, & BTW, NXT first came out in 2001. "Overpriced" & "exposed". What a flop !!! :swoon:

 

This whole thing is starting to read as something like, "Well, you can see that Titleist has changed their marketing and the product mix. Maybe that means they will FINALLY SELL ME SOME PROV1'S AS CHEAP AS I CAN BUY B330'S AND Z-STARS!!!!!!".

 

Every other ball on the market is available at mark-down prices while Titleist generally succeeds at maintaining price control at a premium level. That one fact is IMO the root of 99.9999% of the Titleist hate evinced on these forums. This lot is rooting for Titleist to fail but to fail just enough to let them buy Titleist balls on the cheap.

[NJpatbee]

OK, let's bottom line it then.

 

Regardless of what it costs to make, if you could sell your product for $35, would you sell it for $25 ? :beruo:

 

And the NXT line was "exposed" ? Do you have any idea how long the NXT line has been around ? I'm guessing longer than the BEST selling model of ANY other brand's ball. :help:

 

Believe it or not I played the NXT for years for a few reasons: 1) It was a Titleist 2) It played well for my swing 3) It was second tier Titleist and as a mid-teens handicapper I stayed away from true tour balls. When I tried the old Gamer V2 I was surprised to see that I was longer and doing better on approach shots and around the green and the ball was half the price. The e6 was also a better ball for me. I had been a Titleist ball only golfer for about 15 years because I believed that they were the best simply because of brand recognition and the amount of pros, friends, and family that always played Titleist. It hit me that I was paying much more for a 3 piece surlyn ball because of the brand and it was not even the best ball of its type for my swing. The "exposed" factor for me was that the NXT was one of the most overpriced golf balls in the market and I know that I am not alone in that opinion. I believe it is why the NXT has been discontinued.

 

I am certain that Titleist made a ton of money on the NXT (some from me) which is what they are supposed to do. And of course they will use their brand to leverage the highest price for their golf balls. But their claims that their new 2 piece surlyn ball is better than the competition's urethane tour golf balls seems as disingenuous as telling me that the ProV1 is the best ball for my swing which was their mantra for a couple of years.

 

I'm not sure - is this a "Yes" or a "No" ? :dntknw: :D

 

I would charge whatever the market will bear and people will pay $35 for the Tour Soft because of the Titleist brand. As a former Titleist junkie I would. I do believe that their claim regarding the ball being better than the urethane tour balls of TM and Callaway will come back to bite them. I would have charged $35 and not made the comparison to true tour balls.

[nsxguy]

OK, let's bottom line it then.

 

Regardless of what it costs to make, if you could sell your product for $35, would you sell it for $25 ? :beruo:

 

And the NXT line was "exposed" ? Do you have any idea how long the NXT line has been around ? I'm guessing longer than the BEST selling model of ANY other brand's ball. :help:

 

Believe it or not I played the NXT for years for a few reasons: 1) It was a Titleist 2) It played well for my swing 3) It was second tier Titleist and as a mid-teens handicapper I stayed away from true tour balls. When I tried the old Gamer V2 I was surprised to see that I was longer and doing better on approach shots and around the green and the ball was half the price. The e6 was also a better ball for me. I had been a Titleist ball only golfer for about 15 years because I believed that they were the best simply because of brand recognition and the amount of pros, friends, and family that always played Titleist. It hit me that I was paying much more for a 3 piece surlyn ball because of the brand and it was not even the best ball of its type for my swing. The "exposed" factor for me was that the NXT was one of the most overpriced golf balls in the market and I know that I am not alone in that opinion. I believe it is why the NXT has been discontinued.

 

I am certain that Titleist made a ton of money on the NXT (some from me) which is what they are supposed to do. And of course they will use their brand to leverage the highest price for their golf balls. But their claims that their new 2 piece surlyn ball is better than the competition's urethane tour golf balls seems as disingenuous as telling me that the ProV1 is the best ball for my swing which was their mantra for a couple of years.

 

I'm not sure - is this a "Yes" or a "No" ? :dntknw: :D

 

I would charge whatever the market will bear and people will pay $35 for the Tour Soft because of the Titleist brand. As a former Titleist junkie I would. I do believe that their claim regarding the ball being better than the urethane tour balls of TM and Callaway will come back to bite them. I would have charged $35 and not made the comparison to true tour balls.

 

Fair enough. Thanks.

[North Butte]

By what mechanism do you imagine these ads can "bite them"?

 

You think people will try a Tour Soft, try a Chrome Soft and end up buying the Chrome Soft? If so, surely they would have reached that same conclusion absent this particular ad compaign from Titleist, no?

 

You think Harry Arnett will win a lawsuit against them for making a vague claims about the Titleist ball being "better"? He could sue them under the legal theory of "Is Not!", one supposes.

 

I'm just trying to imagine what any particular advertisement for one specific Titleist ball could possibly to do cause Titleist to suffer any worse outcome than having wasted money on an ineffective ad.

[Break81]

OK, let's bottom line it then.

 

Regardless of what it costs to make, if you could sell your product for $35, would you sell it for $25 ? :beruo:

 

And the NXT line was "exposed" ? Do you have any idea how long the NXT line has been around ? I'm guessing longer than the BEST selling model of ANY other brand's ball. :help:

 

Believe it or not I played the NXT for years for a few reasons: 1) It was a Titleist 2) It played well for my swing 3) It was second tier Titleist and as a mid-teens handicapper I stayed away from true tour balls. When I tried the old Gamer V2 I was surprised to see that I was longer and doing better on approach shots and around the green and the ball was half the price. The e6 was also a better ball for me. I had been a Titleist ball only golfer for about 15 years because I believed that they were the best simply because of brand recognition and the amount of pros, friends, and family that always played Titleist. It hit me that I was paying much more for a 3 piece surlyn ball because of the brand and it was not even the best ball of its type for my swing. The "exposed" factor for me was that the NXT was one of the most overpriced golf balls in the market and I know that I am not alone in that opinion. I believe it is why the NXT has been discontinued.

 

I am certain that Titleist made a ton of money on the NXT (some from me) which is what they are supposed to do. And of course they will use their brand to leverage the highest price for their golf balls. But their claims that their new 2 piece surlyn ball is better than the competition's urethane tour golf balls seems as disingenuous as telling me that the ProV1 is the best ball for my swing which was their mantra for a couple of years.

 

I'm not sure - is this a "Yes" or a "No" ? :dntknw: :D

 

Oh, & BTW, NXT first came out in 2001. "Overpriced" & "exposed". What a flop !!! :swoon:

how people shop in 2018 is completely different than 2001 or even 2010

 

Let’s not confuse loss of marketshare with losing money it’s not the same conversation

[nsxguy]

OK, let's bottom line it then.

 

Regardless of what it costs to make, if you could sell your product for $35, would you sell it for $25 ? :beruo:

 

And the NXT line was "exposed" ? Do you have any idea how long the NXT line has been around ? I'm guessing longer than the BEST selling model of ANY other brand's ball. :help:

 

Believe it or not I played the NXT for years for a few reasons: 1) It was a Titleist 2) It played well for my swing 3) It was second tier Titleist and as a mid-teens handicapper I stayed away from true tour balls. When I tried the old Gamer V2 I was surprised to see that I was longer and doing better on approach shots and around the green and the ball was half the price. The e6 was also a better ball for me. I had been a Titleist ball only golfer for about 15 years because I believed that they were the best simply because of brand recognition and the amount of pros, friends, and family that always played Titleist. It hit me that I was paying much more for a 3 piece surlyn ball because of the brand and it was not even the best ball of its type for my swing. The "exposed" factor for me was that the NXT was one of the most overpriced golf balls in the market and I know that I am not alone in that opinion. I believe it is why the NXT has been discontinued.

 

I am certain that Titleist made a ton of money on the NXT (some from me) which is what they are supposed to do. And of course they will use their brand to leverage the highest price for their golf balls. But their claims that their new 2 piece surlyn ball is better than the competition's urethane tour golf balls seems as disingenuous as telling me that the ProV1 is the best ball for my swing which was their mantra for a couple of years.

 

I'm not sure - is this a "Yes" or a "No" ? :dntknw: :D

 

Oh, & BTW, NXT first came out in 2001. "Overpriced" & "exposed". What a flop !!! :swoon:

how people shop in 2018 is completely different than 2001 or even 2010

 

Let’s not confuse loss of marketshare with losing money it’s not the same conversation

 

I'm afraid I don't get your point. I am not confusing anything; marketshare or losing money.

 

I simply asked if a guy could get $35, why would he sell something for $25. It's called supply and demand and I guarantee you Titleist is so much better at it than you or I could ever pretend to be.

 

NJ held up the NXT as a "failure". I pointed out that "failure" has been around for 18 years, far longer than ANY model from ANY other ball manufacturer. Does that sound like a failure to you ?

 

Yes, people shop somewhat differently. So ?

[Break81]

The True Soft will be a success simply based on marketing and curiosity, however if that is going to be sustainable is the question. Also if it ends up hurting the ProV sales in the process is an entirely other scenario, one in which Titleist may be completely ok with if the profit per box is the same , hence over charging $35 for a &20 ball.

 

Will they fail? Of course not... are they at risk of losing more market share , my opinion is yes but time will tell us both.

[elwhippy]

6 boxes on the shelf at my local store last week. Same 6 boxes there this afternoon. £30 a dozen for a 2 piece ball is not going to work in the UK.

[NJpatbee]

NJ held up the NXT as a "failure". I pointed out that "failure" has been around for 18 years, far longer than ANY model from ANY other ball manufacturer. Does that sound like a failure to you ?

 

I think you are reading too much into my claim that the NXT was "exposed" so let me clarify. I played the NXT for about 10 years and never said that the ball was a failure and stated that Titleist likely made a ton of money off them. However, with the proliferation of golf balls in recent years there became an abundance of balls to choose from, and for myself I tried the Gamer V2 which for me was better than the NXT (of course it was discontinued!). Some excellent golf balls, some urethane, are available for the same or less than the NXT line and although I have no stats to prove it I believe the NXT became known as the most overpriced ball on the market which is why I used the word "exposed". I strongly suspect that loss of market share in the $35 range is why Titleist put an end to the NXT. Their replacement Tour Soft which sounds to me like an ideal ball for a 17 HCP like myself, has Titleist saying it is better than the urethane tour models of Taylor Made and Callaway. As I said I am going to try them, but I suspect that few Callaway or Taylor Made tour ball players will flock to the Tour Soft. My prediction is that after 2-3 years Titleist golf ball only players like myself of 10 years ago will question why they are paying $35 for a 2 piece ionomer ball and some of them will go elsewhere.

[nbg352]

The True Soft will be a success simply based on marketing and curiosity, however if that is going to be sustainable is the question. Also if it ends up hurting the ProV sales in the process is an entirely other scenario, one in which Titleist may be completely ok with if the profit per box is the same , hence over charging $35 for a &20 ball.

 

Will they fail? Of course not... are they at risk of losing more market share , my opinion is yes but time will tell us both.

Here in Canada the cost of this ball is $35.00. It retails at $49.99.

[North Butte]

What percentage of Titleist NXT Tour and/or Tour Soft buyers do you think actually know how many "pieces" the ball is constructed from?

 

I'd be surprised if it were more than 10% and it may well be even lower than that. The vast majority of buyers, if you asked them whether the ball was "2 piece" or "3 piece" would have to look at the back of the box to know.

[nbg352]

What percentage of Titleist NXT Tour and/or Tour Soft buyers do you think actually know how many "pieces" the ball is constructed from?

 

I'd be surprised if it were more than 10% and it may well be even lower than that. The vast majority of buyers, if you asked them whether the ball was "2 piece" or "3 piece" would have to look at the back of the box to know.

And...they probably could play a two piece ionomer, thinking it was a three piece urethane and never know the difference until someone pointed it out to them. Then that ball that was fine as a 3 piece suddenly becomes crap as a two piece in spite of the fact that they hit it just the same as their fave "pro" ball.

[tbowles411]

What percentage of Titleist NXT Tour and/or Tour Soft buyers do you think actually know how many "pieces" the ball is constructed from?

 

I'd be surprised if it were more than 10% and it may well be even lower than that. The vast majority of buyers, if you asked them whether the ball was "2 piece" or "3 piece" would have to look at the back of the box to know.

And...they probably could play a two piece ionomer, thinking it was a three piece urethane and never know the difference until someone pointed it out to them. Then that ball that was fine as a 3 piece suddenly becomes crap as a two piece in spite of the fact that they hit it just the same as their fave "pro" ball.

All true. The ball I played last year was a DT TruSoft. It flew high, and yes, it spun to a stop on approaches, pitches and chips. A cheap 2-piece ball. Titelist knows this and they are literally putting a ball in every corner and price point to frankly get a ball in someone's bag from the $21 price point all the way to $55. They're going bolder because everyone is coming after them. I love Harry Arnett with Callaway. He's ticked off at the marketing aspect of Titleist. But to be honest, they are beating him at his own game. They got ahead of him and said, I'm going to give you a soft and cheaper ball that does everything you need. Whether it's true or not, depends on the golfer. This is all a game and we all have options to try. Is that a bad thing?

[NJpatbee]

A bit off topic, but talking about Titleist which is owned by Acushnet I did a little searching. It is over a year old and from when Acushnet went public but I was expecting better numbers:

 

http://golfweek.com/2016/10/17/acushnet-owner-titleist-footjoy-readies-ipo/

[ttucliffhanger]

$35 for a surlyn Ball? Yeesh

Yeah. I wouldn't pay that. I play the Cut Greys but they are 3 piece urethane, but if I was going to play a surlyn ball it would be the Cut whites at 14.95 a dozen, which is way better. I have played the NXT-Tours and I couldn't tell you a difference between those and the Cut Whites.

[ttucliffhanger]

Does anyone actually use an NXT?

I've used them before. Bought a few boxes a couple years ago when they were on sale but wouldn't pay 35 a dozen for a surlyn ball.

[ttucliffhanger]

What percentage of Titleist NXT Tour and/or Tour Soft buyers do you think actually know how many "pieces" the ball is constructed from?

 

I'd be surprised if it were more than 10% and it may well be even lower than that. The vast majority of buyers, if you asked them whether the ball was "2 piece" or "3 piece" would have to look at the back of the box to know.

And...they probably could play a two piece ionomer, thinking it was a three piece urethane and never know the difference until someone pointed it out to them. Then that ball that was fine as a 3 piece suddenly becomes crap as a two piece in spite of the fact that they hit it just the same as their fave "pro" ball.

All true. The ball I played last year was a DT TruSoft. It flew high, and yes, it spun to a stop on approaches, pitches and chips. A cheap 2-piece ball. Titelist knows this and they are literally putting a ball in every corner and price point to frankly get a ball in someone's bag from the $21 price point all the way to $55. They're going bolder because everyone is coming after them. I love Harry Arnett with Callaway. He's ticked off at the marketing aspect of Titleist. But to be honest, they are beating him at his own game. They got ahead of him and said, I'm going to give you a soft and cheaper ball that does everything you need. Whether it's true or not, depends on the golfer. This is all a game and we all have options to try. Is that a bad thing?

You're right. I honestly don't see why anyone would pay more for something that does the same thing.

[North Butte]

There is a long history of American consumers making purchasing decisions on the principles of "never buy the cheapest version" and "never buy the most expensive version". It's hand-me-down conventional wisdom that the best value for money is generally the second-cheapest version of anything.

 

Can't tell you how many times I've heard people repeat that nonsense. Completely baseless of course, just one of those things that are "explained" to you by various know-it-alls.

[BForrester]

$35 for a surlyn Ball? Yeesh

 

Yeah, that's why I was holding out hope it was going to be the AVX (yes, I know the AVX cost the same as the ProV1 in its limited release). Compete with the Srixon Q-Star Tour.

 

Maybe just buy the Q-Star tour and help us send a message to Titleist?

[Break81]

$35 for a surlyn Ball? Yeesh

 

Yeah, that's why I was holding out hope it was going to be the AVX (yes, I know the AVX cost the same as the ProV1 in its limited release). Compete with the Srixon Q-Star Tour.

 

Maybe just buy the Q-Star tour and help us send a message to Titleist?

or load up on the project A while they are $29.99

[bogeypro]

It’s good to see that people are finally making sense. When this ball was first announce people attacked it immediately. They did the same for the previous next tour s and the generation before it. It has been the same issue...Titleist is the devil, too much for a non-urethane ball, only 2 pieces. But for three generations I’ve loved this ball. And I’m excited about this Tour Soft. Three rounds with it so far and it plays great.

 

My longest drives have been with this ball. My best scores have been with this series of ball. So the price is acceptable to me. I always tell the general population here at WRX to try it for themselves and decide. The ball is not for everyone. But it drives me crazy how some people just straight out say this ball is the worst thing ever and that it will never compete against bargain balls like the Gamer, yet generation after generation this ball sells like crazy. Why? Because it is a great ball.

 

I love the Callaway Chrome Soft too. But guess what, it’s now going up in price to $45. So at $35 this ball is around 95% as good as the premium tour balls for less money. I accept that.

 

Like I said before, I got tired of some people attacking this ball. And I had to step in to expand the dialogue so other WRX members can hear both sides of the story. We are all here to share our experiences and learn from each other. Not all of us over analyze price/layers/cover and then decide if we will play the ball. Many of us play the ball and judge it for its performance. Some of us do care about the brand. But all these are individual choices

 

How much titleist pay you? I'm curious because i could always use more spending money. Jeez, dude, we get it... you like the ball. Doesn't mean it's for everyone else.

[crazygolfnut]

It would be nice to hear reviews from people that have actually played the ball. Just sayin :wacko:

[gvogel]

I will be giving the Tour Soft a try. If the AVX comes out, I will give that a try. I will probably play V1x in the mid summer, as I have in the past. But, I will say, I will miss the NXT Tour in the spring and fall when conditions are soft. I actually liked that ball.

 

Who knows? Perhaps the new Velocity will replace it in those conditions.

[tbowles411]

I will be giving the Tour Soft a try. If the AVX comes out, I will give that a try. I will probably play V1x in the mid summer, as I have in the past. But, I will say, I will miss the NXT Tour in the spring and fall when conditions are soft. I actually liked that ball.

 

Who knows? Perhaps the new Velocity will replace it in those conditions.

AVX on 1 May.

[North Texas]

Okay, earlier in this thread I said I would be testing the Tour Soft today so here goes.

 

First, I'm a high single digit handicap with a driver swing speed in the mid 90's. Have played nothing but the Pro V1x for a good 10 years buying nothing but used/recycled balls in mint condition. That's not to say that I haven't used other balls from time to time like the Pro V1, Bridgestone 330 series (non RX/RXS) and the Srixon XV. As you might surmise I like a harder feeling ball. To date, I have not found anything that goes as far as the Pro V1x (or even the Pro V1) for me. And the 2017 version of the X is the longest for me of any version I've hit.

 

So today, I put the Tour Soft in play on the 3rd tee and played it 3 holes before I gave up on it. It was way too soft off the clubface which meant I didn't get the feedback I like. It was also a good 10 yards shorter off the driver and 5 yards shorter off the irons. And, as I fully expected, had little or no check/bite on chip shots. I realize that 3 holes was not really much of a test but I really couldn't stand the soft feel. I've hit some balls from time to time that were soft but this one seemed softer than just about anything I have hit.

 

What I really will be interested in is letting my wife hit it next week. She is also a high single digit handicap with a driver swing speed in the mid 70's who likes a soft feeling ball. Interestingly enough however, she too uses the Pro V1x and hits it farther than any other ball she has ever hit. So that's what she plays.

 

So, as promised, there is my review of the Tour Soft, albeit only for 3 holes. Take it for what it's worth.

[crazygolfnut]

Okay, earlier in this thread I said I would be testing the Tour Soft today so here goes.

 

First, I'm a high single digit handicap with a driver swing speed in the mid 90's. Have played nothing but the Pro V1x for a good 10 years buying nothing but used/recycled balls in mint condition. That's not to say that I haven't used other balls from time to time like the Pro V1, Bridgestone 330 series (non RX/RXS) and the Srixon XV. As you might surmise I like a harder feeling ball. To date, I have not found anything that goes as far as the Pro V1x (or even the Pro V1) for me. And the 2017 version of the X is the longest for me of any version I've hit.

 

So today, I put the Tour Soft in play on the 3rd tee and played it 3 holes before I gave up on it. It was way too soft off the clubface which meant I didn't get the feedback I like. It was also a good 10 yards shorter off the driver and 5 yards shorter off the irons. And, as I fully expected, had little or no check/bite on chip shots. I realize that 3 holes was not really much of a test but I really couldn't stand the soft feel. I've hit some balls from time to time that were soft but this one seemed softer than just about anything I have hit.

 

What I really will be interested in is letting my wife hit it next week. She is also a high single digit handicap with a driver swing speed in the mid 70's who likes a soft feeling ball. Interestingly enough however, she too uses the Pro V1x and hits it farther than any other ball she has ever hit. So that's what she plays.

 

So, as promised, there is my review of the Tour Soft, albeit only for 3 holes. Take it for what it's worth.

 

Thanks for your review on this ball. Looking forward to your follow up with your wife's thoughts when she has a chance to play it.

[gvogel]

Okay, earlier in this thread I said I would be testing the Tour Soft today so here goes.

 

First, I'm a high single digit handicap with a driver swing speed in the mid 90's. Have played nothing but the Pro V1x for a good 10 years buying nothing but used/recycled balls in mint condition. That's not to say that I haven't used other balls from time to time like the Pro V1, Bridgestone 330 series (non RX/RXS) and the Srixon XV. As you might surmise I like a harder feeling ball. To date, I have not found anything that goes as far as the Pro V1x (or even the Pro V1) for me. And the 2017 version of the X is the longest for me of any version I've hit.

 

So today, I put the Tour Soft in play on the 3rd tee and played it 3 holes before I gave up on it. It was way too soft off the clubface which meant I didn't get the feedback I like. It was also a good 10 yards shorter off the driver and 5 yards shorter off the irons. And, as I fully expected, had little or no check/bite on chip shots. I realize that 3 holes was not really much of a test but I really couldn't stand the soft feel. I've hit some balls from time to time that were soft but this one seemed softer than just about anything I have hit.

 

What I really will be interested in is letting my wife hit it next week. She is also a high single digit handicap with a driver swing speed in the mid 70's who likes a soft feeling ball. Interestingly enough however, she too uses the Pro V1x and hits it farther than any other ball she has ever hit. So that's what she plays.

 

So, as promised, there is my review of the Tour Soft, albeit only for 3 holes. Take it for what it's worth.

 

I've got about the same swing speed as you, and also play to high single digit. I actually enjoyed the firmer feel of the NXT Tour.

 

Looks like Velocity might be my ball this year. They have made that a little softer - might hit the sweet spot for me. when it gets firm and fast, I can change to a V1x, as I did last year.

[argee1977]

Titleist have so many balls in the same area now, the tour soft is having to fight the trusoft and velocity now, back when i played the NXT it was up against the solo, which was noticeably different, same with the harder velocity of the day.

 

I've just started using the 2018 velocity for winter rounds and it does feel softer, it's a struggle to tell the different between it and the trusoft, i play both, the tour soft is another that'll be in and around these i guess. As for the velocity though, it feels a bit softer and does seem to keep up in terms of distance to previous models, plus it comes in pink, which was useful yesterday as the snow started!