Titleist Tour Soft

[jesusdelallata]

This has got to be the most disliked golf ball here on GOLFWRX. Like I said in other posts, I play all types of balls, from $21 Callaway Super Softs to $47 Pro V1's. Why? Because I enjoy checking out all types of balls. But let's take a look at this:

 

According to this GOLFWRX test (see link below), the NXT Tour S had 3% less spin than the Pro V1x on full 60 degree wedge shots, and 1% less spin with the full 6 iron shot.

 

http://www.golfwrx.com/206527/review-nxt-tour-and-nxt-tour-s-golf-balls/

 

According to this next test on YouTube (see link below), the NXT Tour S had 1% less spin than the Pro V1 with a full wedge.

 

 

So I'm going to assume that the new TOUR SOFT performs even better than the NXT Tour S. From my personal tests today, the Tour Soft performed better than the 3 piece, urethane covered Srixon Qstar Tour. It was longer, softer, and had very similar spin on pitches less than 50 yards.

 

So here's my question. Why shoot it down so much? Is it because it's hard to believe that a non-urethane, two piece ball can perform well? Or is it the $35 price? Or is it both? I have no problem playing $20 per dozen balls or $50 per dozen balls. I can afford it. However, for me the $30 to $35 range is where I rather be. The new Tour Soft fits that range...so does the Qstar Tour and the Project A. But from what I've seen, and the tests I mentioned above, this range of Titleist balls are not bad at all.

 

I'm sure a lot of you are already upset that I'm defending this ball. And I understand. We're all entitled to our opinions and our preferences. The point I'm trying to make is not to convince all of you that don't like this ball and would never dare pay $35 for it, but rather, I'm making a point for others out there who read these posts to be better informed. I've been playing for 20 years. I've tried ALL types of balls. And this ball is definitely good.

 

So why do I not play the top of the line balls? It's really not because of price. It's because I don't like the hard feel. For me, I like balls under 80 compressions. It's just my preference. So maybe I'll give the $48 Titleist AVX or the $45 Taylormade TP5 a try. I hear they're right around 80-83 compression.

 

So back to the main topic...the Titliest Tour Soft. I LOVE IT. It plays really well. But I will test it against the new Project A when it comes out in two weeks. Maybe I like that one even more.

 

If I total the cost of my golf clubs, I paid about $2,400 for my set, excluding my tour bag. So paying $5 more for the Tour Soft than the Qstar Tour is no big deal. I pay more at Starbucks every day than the difference between the two balls. If one ball plays better than the other, it's worth the $5 to me...regardless of how many layers it has or what type of cover it has. It's about performance and just enjoying myself, rather than over analyzing price to material/layers value in a golf ball.

 

New balls are coming out soon. Brand new Callaway Chrome Soft and the new Project A. If either of those feel better and play better for me, I'm willing to play them. But I will not deny that the Tour Soft is a good ball.

[dciccoritti]

This has got to be the most disliked golf ball here on GOLFWRX. Like I said in other posts, I play all types of balls, from $21 Callaway Super Softs to $47 Pro V1's. Why? Because I enjoy checking out all types of balls. But let's take a look at this:

 

According to this GOLFWRX test (see link below), the NXT Tour S had 3% less spin than the Pro V1x on full 60 degree wedge shots, and 1% less spin with the full 6 iron shot.

 

http://www.golfwrx.c...r-s-golf-balls/

 

According to this next test on YouTube (see link below), the NXT Tour S had 1% less spin than the Pro V1 with a full wedge.

 

 

So I'm going to assume that the new TOUR SOFT performs even better than the NXT Tour S. From my personal tests today, the Tour Soft performed better than the 3 piece, urethane covered Srixon Qstar Tour. It was longer, softer, and had very similar spin on pitches less than 50 yards.

 

So here's my question. Why shoot it down so much? Is it because it's hard to believe that a non-urethane, two piece ball can perform well? Or is it the $35 price? Or is it both? I have no problem playing $20 per dozen balls or $50 per dozen balls. I can afford it. However, for me the $30 to $35 range is where I rather be. The new Tour Soft fits that range...so does the Qstar Tour and the Project A. But from what I've seen, and the tests I mentioned above, this range of Titleist balls are not bad at all.

 

I'm sure a lot of you are already upset that I'm defending this ball. And I understand. We're all entitled to our opinions and our preferences. The point I'm trying to make is not to convince all of you that don't like this ball and would never dare pay $35 for it, but rather, I'm making a point for others out there who read these posts to be better informed. I've been playing for 20 years. I've tried ALL types of balls. And this ball is definitely good.

 

So why do I not play the top of the line balls? It's really not because of price. It's because I don't like the hard feel. For me, I like balls under 80 compressions. It's just my preference. So maybe I'll give the $48 Titleist AVX or the $45 Taylormade TP5 a try. I hear they're right around 80-83 compression.

 

So back to the main topic...the Titliest Tour Soft. I LOVE IT. It plays really well. But I will test it against the new Project A when it comes out in two weeks. Maybe I like that one even more.

 

If I total the cost of my golf clubs, I paid about $2,400 for my set, excluding my tour bag. So paying $5 more for the Tour Soft than the Qstar Tour is no big deal. I pay more at Starbucks every day than the difference between the two balls. If one ball plays better than the other, it's worth the $5 to me...regardless of how many layers it has or what type of cover it has. It's about performance and just enjoying myself, rather than over analyzing price to material/layers value in a golf ball.

 

New balls are coming out soon. Brand new Callaway Chrome Soft and the new Project A. If either of those feel better and play better for me, I'm willing to play them. But I will not deny that the Tour Soft is a good ball.

 

Great post. I have no experience with the NXT S but my guess is you are correct about many being upset that a 2 piece surlyn ball would have such a high price. I happen to like Titleist quite a bit but still can't help but feel a little gouged every time I purchase some ProV1's.

 

I won't be on a golf course for at least 2 more months so I'm looking forward to your thoughts on the new Project (a) and how it compares to the Tour Soft. And how both compare to a ProV1 or ProV1x (or Z-Stars or Tour B's)

[Break81]

This has got to be the most disliked golf ball here on GOLFWRX. Like I said in other posts, I play all types of balls, from $21 Callaway Super Softs to $47 Pro V1's. Why? Because I enjoy checking out all types of balls. But let's take a look at this:

 

According to this GOLFWRX test (see link below), the NXT Tour S had 3% less spin than the Pro V1x on full 60 degree wedge shots, and 1% less spin with the full 6 iron shot.

 

http://www.golfwrx.com/206527/review-nxt-tour-and-nxt-tour-s-golf-balls/

 

According to this next test on YouTube (see link below), the NXT Tour S had 1% less spin than the Pro V1 with a full wedge.

 

 

So I'm going to assume that the new TOUR SOFT performs even better than the NXT Tour S. From my personal tests today, the Tour Soft performed better than the 3 piece, urethane covered Srixon Qstar Tour. It was longer, softer, and had very similar spin on pitches less than 50 yards.

 

So here's my question. Why shoot it down so much? Is it because it's hard to believe that a non-urethane, two piece ball can perform well? Or is it the $35 price? Or is it both? I have no problem playing $20 per dozen balls or $50 per dozen balls. I can afford it. However, for me the $30 to $35 range is where I rather be. The new Tour Soft fits that range...so does the Qstar Tour and the Project A. But from what I've seen, and the tests I mentioned above, this range of Titleist balls are not bad at all.

 

I'm sure a lot of you are already upset that I'm defending this ball. And I understand. We're all entitled to our opinions and our preferences. The point I'm trying to make is not to convince all of you that don't like this ball and would never dare pay $35 for it, but rather, I'm making a point for others out there who read these posts to be better informed. I've been playing for 20 years. I've tried ALL types of balls. And this ball is definitely good.

 

So why do I not play the top of the line balls? It's really not because of price. It's because I don't like the hard feel. For me, I like balls under 80 compressions. It's just my preference. So maybe I'll give the $48 Titleist AVX or the $45 Taylormade TP5 a try. I hear they're right around 80-83 compression.

 

So back to the main topic...the Titliest Tour Soft. I LOVE IT. It plays really well. But I will test it against the new Project A when it comes out in two weeks. Maybe I like that one even more.

 

If I total the cost of my golf clubs, I paid about $2,400 for my set, excluding my tour bag. So paying $5 more for the Tour Soft than the Qstar Tour is no big deal. I pay more at Starbucks every day than the difference between the two balls. If one ball plays better than the other, it's worth the $5 to me...regardless of how many layers it has or what type of cover it has. It's about performance and just enjoying myself, rather than over analyzing price to material/layers value in a golf ball.

 

New balls are coming out soon. Brand new Callaway Chrome Soft and the new Project A. If either of those feel better and play better for me, I'm willing to play them. But I will not deny that the Tour Soft is a good ball.

the price point. People love the TF Gamer Soft , and I mean LOVE. 2 for $25 and very much same class of ball.

[xkilgorextroutx]

Wow, someone with a bag filled with Titleist clubs loves Titleist golf balls. I'm shocked.

 

Shocked, I say.

 

To respond seriously, yes absolutely it's the price point. At $35 the ball better perform like a higher end urethane covered ball to justify that price point. And if it performs the same as a Duo or e6 or Q-Star, then you're getting gouged. If you would like to spend more money on something than you need to, be my guest. It's a free market.

 

To those of us who don't buy into Titleist's hype, it's just another excuse of them using their logo to justify a higher cost for something their competitors do just as well if not better, at a much lower cost.

[North Butte]

It’s not an “excuse”. The Titleist logo does, as it has for years, justify higher prices than anyone else can get for golf balls.

[xkilgorextroutx]

It’s not an “excuse”. The Titleist logo does, as it has for years, justify higher prices than anyone else can get for golf balls.

 

Yes, in 2018 it’s an excuse. The golf ball market is saturated with plenty of very good, if not excellent, balls from many manufacturers all at varying price points. Titleist thinking they can sell a 2 piece ball for $35 in this segment is laughable. Sure they’ll have people eating it up because it’s a Titleist, while the majority of us will be playing Bridgestone, Callaway, Snell, Cut, Wilson, etc etc etc because we value our hard earned cash and know spending extra cash for the same build and performance is rather foolish.

 

If Toyota started selling a Corolla for $50k, would you buy it simply because it’s a Toyota?

[golfer07840]

I know, right? A marketing guy for one company claiming their product is BETTER than their competitors product. What's the world coming to when marketing guys make claims like that!!!

 

Next thing you know there will be Toyota salesmen running around telling everybody Camry is better than the Accord...

 

In my opinion, when you're claiming your product is better than a competitors, and you're not doing a true side by side comparison, the consumers will see through it pretty quickly. That's what's going on here.

 

Again, in my opinion, the soft, 2 piece ball category has becoming pretty saturated over the past few years with balls at a very good price point. I can't see anyone besides Titleist uber-fans paying $15 more per dozen for a ball who's true comparable is the W/S Duo.

^^^^^ this!

[North Butte]

It’s not an “excuse”. The Titleist logo does, as it has for years, justify higher prices than anyone else can get for golf balls.

 

Yes, in 2018 it’s an excuse. The golf ball market is saturated with plenty of very good, if not excellent, balls from many manufacturers all at varying price points. Titleist thinking they can sell a 2 piece ball for $35 in this segment is laughable. Sure they’ll have people eating it up because it’s a Titleist, while the majority of us will be playing Bridgestone, Callaway, Snell, Cut, Wilson, etc etc etc because we value our hard earned cash and know spending extra cash for the same build and performance is rather foolish.

 

If Toyota started selling a Corolla for $50k, would you buy it simply because it’s a Toyota?

 

You say the idea is “laughable” but turn around and agree that lots of people will buy it at that price. Huh?

 

You don’t want to buy it. I don’t want to buy it. Yet year after year they make profit margins on balls that the rest of the industry would kill for. Sounds like Titleist gets the last laugh.

[awtryau89]

This has got to be the most disliked golf ball here on GOLFWRX. Like I said in other posts, I play all types of balls, from $21 Callaway Super Softs to $47 Pro V1's. Why? Because I enjoy checking out all types of balls. But let's take a look at this:

 

According to this GOLFWRX test (see link below), the NXT Tour S had 3% less spin than the Pro V1x on full 60 degree wedge shots, and 1% less spin with the full 6 iron shot.

 

http://www.golfwrx.c...r-s-golf-balls/

 

According to this next test on YouTube (see link below), the NXT Tour S had 1% less spin than the Pro V1 with a full wedge.

 

 

So I'm going to assume that the new TOUR SOFT performs even better than the NXT Tour S. From my personal tests today, the Tour Soft performed better than the 3 piece, urethane covered Srixon Qstar Tour. It was longer, softer, and had very similar spin on pitches less than 50 yards.

 

So here's my question. Why shoot it down so much? Is it because it's hard to believe that a non-urethane, two piece ball can perform well? Or is it the $35 price? Or is it both? I have no problem playing $20 per dozen balls or $50 per dozen balls. I can afford it. However, for me the $30 to $35 range is where I rather be. The new Tour Soft fits that range...so does the Qstar Tour and the Project A. But from what I've seen, and the tests I mentioned above, this range of Titleist balls are not bad at all.

 

I'm sure a lot of you are already upset that I'm defending this ball. And I understand. We're all entitled to our opinions and our preferences. The point I'm trying to make is not to convince all of you that don't like this ball and would never dare pay $35 for it, but rather, I'm making a point for others out there who read these posts to be better informed. I've been playing for 20 years. I've tried ALL types of balls. And this ball is definitely good.

 

So why do I not play the top of the line balls? It's really not because of price. It's because I don't like the hard feel. For me, I like balls under 80 compressions. It's just my preference. So maybe I'll give the $48 Titleist AVX or the $45 Taylormade TP5 a try. I hear they're right around 80-83 compression.

 

So back to the main topic...the Titliest Tour Soft. I LOVE IT. It plays really well. But I will test it against the new Project A when it comes out in two weeks. Maybe I like that one even more.

 

If I total the cost of my golf clubs, I paid about $2,400 for my set, excluding my tour bag. So paying $5 more for the Tour Soft than the Qstar Tour is no big deal. I pay more at Starbucks every day than the difference between the two balls. If one ball plays better than the other, it's worth the $5 to me...regardless of how many layers it has or what type of cover it has. It's about performance and just enjoying myself, rather than over analyzing price to material/layers value in a golf ball.

 

New balls are coming out soon. Brand new Callaway Chrome Soft and the new Project A. If either of those feel better and play better for me, I'm willing to play them. But I will not deny that the Tour Soft is a good ball.

 

I have never purchased any NXT balls. I do seem to find them more on course than others and when I do I always put them in play if in a casual round. Everytime I have put them in play, I have always been impressed with the performance. Ultimately its the price differential that keeps me from buying them. I will say that I agree with your comparison though. I have played Srixon a good bit over the last few years and expected the Q-Star Tour to be a better ball than I have experienced. The NXT lines up well with it and I am sure the Tour Soft will outperform it. Overall Titleist makes great product at every level. They are dominant even considering their price points. It may be good that they "overprice" themselves a bit because if they lined their balls up at the same prices as the other companies, most couldn't compete just due to the Titleist name brand. Their market share would be even larger.

[xkilgorextroutx]

It’s not an “excuse”. The Titleist logo does, as it has for years, justify higher prices than anyone else can get for golf balls.

 

Yes, in 2018 it’s an excuse. The golf ball market is saturated with plenty of very good, if not excellent, balls from many manufacturers all at varying price points. Titleist thinking they can sell a 2 piece ball for $35 in this segment is laughable. Sure they’ll have people eating it up because it’s a Titleist, while the majority of us will be playing Bridgestone, Callaway, Snell, Cut, Wilson, etc etc etc because we value our hard earned cash and know spending extra cash for the same build and performance is rather foolish.

 

If Toyota started selling a Corolla for $50k, would you buy it simply because it’s a Toyota?

 

You say the idea is “laughable” but turn around and agree that lots of people will buy it at that price. Huh?

 

You don’t want to buy it. I don’t want to buy it. Yet year after year they make profit margins on balls that the rest of the industry would kill for. Sounds like Titleist gets the last laugh.

 

If you re-read what I wrote, you'll see that I said people will eat it up because it's a Titleist - meaning people who will blindly buy based on the logo will not care nor consider that it's drastically over-priced for what it is. If that's how Titleist makes their money, more power to 'em.

 

However... the days of the brand loyal, uninformed buyer are starting to go by the wayside. If this is how Titleist wants to make it's money, by overcharging for their product, then it's only going to be a few more years before their market share has shrunk drastically. Just a few minutes on Google shows that other companies have been eating into their golf ball market share over the last few years, and odds are that trend is going to continue.

[North Butte]

So there are what, maybe 25 brands now competing in the cheaper end of the golf ball market and one remaining that commands a price premium. Which is better, to have 100% market share among people wiling to pay $35 or fight it out with dozen of competitors for a share of the market paying $10 less for balls that cost the same to make?

 

Would you rather be Apple as the sole seller of iPhones are one of their numerous competitors chasing each other to the bottom in prices of iPhone alternatives?

 

[jesusdelallata]

I want to clarify something. In my previous posts I never claimed that Titleist was the best priced ball. Not at all. I wanted to point out something very important. That a 2 piece surlyn covered ball, the new Tour Soft is really a great performing ball. Tests have shown that this series of Titleist balls perform extremely well. And my own test indicate the same.

 

One more thing. I don’t like this ball because I have a bag full of titleists clubs. I’ve owned Callaway, Taylormade, Mizuno and Cleveland. It happens to be that right now I have mostly Titleist. I have no brand preference. I always change.

 

But back to the ball. I have never seen any other surlyn ball compared to a Pro V1. But the links I provided indicate that the two piece Titleist is really really good. The tests were not based on price. They test spin numbers between the two balls.

 

Let’s remove the price bias.

 

So here is a scenario. Imagine you go play at a golf tournament and at the end they have door prizes. You win a dozen balls and you have two choices. Either the new Titleist Tour Soft or the Callaway super hot 55. Both are surlyn covered balls. Which would you choose and why?

 

I have a hypothesis. If you choose the Callaway it is because of one of the following. Because you love Callaway or because you hate Titleist.

 

So tell me, which would you choose and why?

[xkilgorextroutx]

I'm grabbing which ever one is closer because they're exactly the same ball. Doesn't really matter which.

 

ETA: wait I take that back. I’ll grab the Tour Softs so I can sell them to a Titleist homer and then use the cash to go buy 2 dozen Duos ;)

[jesusdelallata]

By the way, my question was for anyone who wants to chime in.

[lenman73]

I would grab the titleist given the choice of those 2 because I haven't played them yet. So given a chance to do so for free, I see no reason why I wouldn't.

[North Texas]

So there are what, maybe 25 brands now competing in the cheaper end of the golf ball market and one remaining that commands a price premium. Which is better, to have 100% market share among people wiling to pay $35 or fight it out with dozen of competitors for a share of the market paying $10 less for balls that cost the same to make?

 

Would you rather be Apple as the sole seller of iPhones are one of their numerous competitors chasing each other to the bottom in prices of iPhone alternatives?

 

Good post here.

 

I continue to be amazed at the number of people on Golfwrx who think that Titleist doesn't know what they are doing or how to run a business or how to market their product. Or think that they know how to run Titleist's business better than Titleist knows how to run it. Pretty laughable when you think about it.

[xkilgorextroutx]

Good post here.

 

I continue to be amazed at the number of people on Golfwrx who think that Titleist doesn't know what they are doing or how to run a business or how to market their product. Or think that they know how to run Titleist's business better than Titleist knows how to run it. Pretty laughable when you think about it.

 

They can market their product however they want. And when they compare it to 3/4/5 layer urethane balls and declare it's better because of one metric that's really not comparable to real-world experience, and charge $15 more for it than nearly any other ball in that space, we reserve the right to think that's ridiculous.

 

Of course they know what they're doing. They're relying on their brand goodwill that's been built up over decades to push an overpriced ball. As I said above, it's a free market, so they can do what they like, and golfers can buy what they like. I'm sure in green grass locations where they are an exclusive, they'll sell a bunch to all the old guys who love the heck out of anything with the Titleist logo on it. But anyone who's at DSG or Golf Galaxy and sees $35 2 piece balls right next to $20-$25 2 piece balls, time will tell what they'll purchase.

[cdn]

These just showed up in the stores here this weekend here in Europe.....they're selling at the equivalent of $51.00 US a dozen...crazy.

[jesusdelallata]

I have friends that work at Golf Galaxy, Edwin Watts and Golf Headquarters. I’ve asked them many times about golf ball sales and what sells the most. The answer according to all of them...Titleist.

 

When I went by Golf Galaxy to pick up a dozen Tour Softs, two days after they were announced, I asked my buddy if I was the first to go buy them. He said oh hell no. These new Tour Softs are selling like crazy.

 

There are different consumer types with different preferences. But to say that people who buy Titleist golf balls are basically idiots is the wrong approach. I can easily turn it around and say that people in search of low cost balls are on welfare, but I would be wrong and disrespectful. I’m neither of those.

 

I respect those who buy budget balls. It’s all good. I don’t disrespect them or the the brand of the priduct they buy. There are products for everyone. I’ll use the example again that i used in another post. If I want coffee I have a choice. I can buy a 79 cent cup at the gas station or I can buy a $2 cup at Starbucks. I prefer Starbucks. And I guarantee you that Starbucks isn’t going out of business any time soon. Neither is Titleist. Neither is Callaway. Neither is Taylormade.

[crazygolfnut]

I get a kick out of people that have not played the ball but have a preconceived idea how bad it is just because it is a Titleist. Try it, you might like it.

[xkilgorextroutx]

I get a kick out of people that have not played the ball but have a preconceived idea how bad it is just because it is a Titleist. Try it, you might like it.

 

No one said it's bad. Just incredibly overpriced.

[crazygolfnut]

I get a kick out of people that have not played the ball but have a preconceived idea how bad it is just because it is a Titleist. Try it, you might like it.

 

No one said it's bad. Just incredibly overpriced.

 

Not picking on you but people are jumping to conclusions without even playing the ball. What you wrote is typical of many people and let me explain.

 

“when they compare it to 3/4/5 layer urethane balls”

• Looks like you have come to a conclusion that if it is not 3/4/5 layer than it must be inferior (bad)
  
• Looks like you have come to a conclusion that if it is not urethane than it must be inferior (bad)
  

“$35 2 piece balls right next to $20-$25 2 piece balls”

• Looks like you have come to a conclusion that this ball must be compared to other 2 piece balls which means it will perform like other 2 piece balls.
  

I would like to see some spin and distance tests along with summaries from people that have played this ball compared to other balls including 2/3/4/5 layer balls.

 

If it plays like a $25 ball than it is too expensive but if it plays closer to a $50 ball it might be a winner.

[jesusdelallata]

I get a kick out of people that have not played the ball but have a preconceived idea how bad it is just because it is a Titleist. Try it, you might like it.

 

No one said it's bad. Just incredibly overpriced.

 

Not picking on you but people are jumping to conclusions without even playing the ball. What you wrote is typical of many people and let me explain.

 

“when they compare it to 3/4/5 layer urethane balls”

• Looks like you have come to a conclusion that if it is not 3/4/5 layer than it must be inferior (bad)
  
• Looks like you have come to a conclusion that if it is not urethane than it must be inferior (bad)
  

“$35 2 piece balls right next to $20-$25 2 piece balls”

• Looks like you have come to a conclusion that this ball must be compared to other 2 piece balls which means it will perform like other 2 piece balls.
  

I would like to see some spin and distance tests along with summaries from people that have played this ball compared to other balls including 2/3/4/5 layer balls.

 

If it plays like a $25 ball than it is too expensive but if it plays closer to a $50 ball it might be a winner.

 

 

I agree with you 100 percent.

[North Butte]

I like Titleist golf balls as much as anyone but it is a virtual certainty that they have NOT somehow discovered the magic secret to making a cheap two-piece ball perform like a urethane one. If such a thing could be done, nobody in the industry would be spending the money they spend to produce expensive multipiece urethane designs.

[MadGolfer76]

Whatever happened to just buying a couple sleeves?

[Break81]

Markets change and Titleist is changing albeit slower than most.

 

In the 80’s Budweiser was everywhere , now they only promote Budlight. Everyone else has been on the “soft” train for a few years longer than Titleist. They do pay the most in ball advertising so of course they are going to want to charge more for their product. I do personally feel the gap difference they can charge is shrinking and the pressure of the other quality balls is absolutely taking away from their market share.

[spetzle]

late to this thread was on trackman yesterday @ golf cave and they had these new tour soft there to hit because they frown upon using your own balls that have sharpie marks on em due to them staining the screen. well well well i was getting close to 10g rpms on lob wedge shots and 9g on PW with these they felt pretty good of the face of my mizzy sc18s def a ball to check out putting n chipping

[xkilgorextroutx]

I get a kick out of people that have not played the ball but have a preconceived idea how bad it is just because it is a Titleist. Try it, you might like it.

 

No one said it's bad. Just incredibly overpriced.

 

Not picking on you but people are jumping to conclusions without even playing the ball. What you wrote is typical of many people and let me explain.

 

“when they compare it to 3/4/5 layer urethane balls”

• Looks like you have come to a conclusion that if it is not 3/4/5 layer than it must be inferior (bad)
  
• Looks like you have come to a conclusion that if it is not urethane than it must be inferior (bad)
  

“$35 2 piece balls right next to $20-$25 2 piece balls”

• Looks like you have come to a conclusion that this ball must be compared to other 2 piece balls which means it will perform like other 2 piece balls.
  

I would like to see some spin and distance tests along with summaries from people that have played this ball compared to other balls including 2/3/4/5 layer balls.

 

If it plays like a $25 ball than it is too expensive but if it plays closer to a $50 ball it might be a winner.

 

You sure know a lot about me and my conclusions, don't you?

 

As a 19 hdcp, I play 2 piece balls almost exclusively. Duo, Softfli, Q-Star, with some QST and Project (a) mixed in. So no, I don't think a 2 piece ball is bad at all. I prefer softer 2 piece balls, actually. But not one that's nearly double the price of a normal gamer for me.

 

So there's a few levels here. First, there's the assertion that the Tour Soft is comparable to a 3/4/5 piece urethane ball, which is about as big a stretch as you'll find. Cherry picking distance gains over urethane balls, at 140mph ball speed, off of driver, doesn't really say much. In fact, didn't Titleist tell people to choose from the greens back when they were touting how the Pro V1 was perfect for every golfer out there hacking away on weekends? If the new ball doesn't compare around the greens, why would a better player who wants that greenside control, and ability to really control flight, choose the Tour Soft over the Chrome Soft, or B-330, or Z-Star, or.....?

 

Then, there's the price level. A "normal" golfer who plays a 2 piece ball is used to paying around that $20 range, give or take a few bucks. So why should they almost double their out of pocket spend unless the ball is nearly guaranteed to drop 5 strokes off their score, or something along those lines? Last I checked, it wasn't.

 

I know I'm kind of hitting on the same points here, and I don't want to sound pedantic. If Titleist had come out with this ball at $29.99 and said it was better than the Project (a) and Q-Star Tour, I don't think any of this conversation is happening. But they chose tour-level balls of their competitors, and this is the end result.

[jesusdelallata]

late to this thread was on trackman yesterday @ golf cave and they had these new tour soft there to hit because they frown upon using your own balls that have sharpie marks on em due to them staining the screen. well well well i was getting close to 10g rpms on lob wedge shots and 9g on PW with these they felt pretty good of the face of my mizzy sc18s def a ball to check out putting n chipping

 

I played the ball. Two rounds over the past 9 days. I was very happy. If I had to choose between this ball at $35 or a Callaway Super Soft or others in that range I will pay for the Titleist. I loved the way it played. I honestly did. I liked it more than the Q star Tour, and the Bridgestone e6 Soft as well. I personally believe that once I try the new Project A coming out mid February it will be the ball I play the rest of the year. But like I said, I played it out on the golf course. And I loved it. And I can see the diffenrece. I wasn’t expecting this ball to to perform like a $40 plus type of ball. I expected the ball to play at the $30 to $35 price range. And it definitely met my expectations. I wasn’t expecting miracles. I was simply testing it. I removed the bias of price and number of layers or type of cover. I just wanted to play a normal round. But when my gap wedge was spinning the ball 6 feet I can assure you that no other 2 piece ball I’ve ever played has done that. In fact, the only other ball under 40 bucks that has done that for me is the current project a. So do i personally Personally believe that this ball is worth the 35 bucks? Sure. I’d be happier at $30, but I’m not going to complain about the $5. But I will definitely not compare it to a $20 ball.

[bogeypro]

If a Kia performed like a Ferrari, would you buy the Ferrari? Yes, you would because at the end of the day, the Kia is a Kia.

 

At the end of the day, it's a 2 piece ball posing as a 4 piece ball.

 

The value of the ball is not solely based on performance. It's materials, construction, and performance. In my mind, a 2 piece ball should not cost $35.

 

That being said.....i will still try it.