Titleist Tour Soft

[golfer07840]

I was in a Target today, wanted to see if the NXT's were price reduced (silly right?) Well on the shelf below, are Callaway Chrome soft balls, a dozen. They weren't in a box, it was 4 sleeves taped together, and on sale for 26$ as "repackaged".

 

Is the box really worth 13$??

[golfer07840]

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.

I'm more than willing to try them. I liked the NXT's, so why not give these a shot?

[Break81]

I was in a Target today, wanted to see if the NXT's were price reduced (silly right?) Well on the shelf below, are Callaway Chrome soft balls, a dozen. They weren't in a box, it was 4 sleeves taped together, and on sale for 26$ as "repackaged".

 

Is the box really worth 13$??

if it was target there is a good chance they were the first generation 3 pc CS .

[philly2kuk]

I’ve seen the tour soft, but I just can’t bring myself to try it and I’m no ball snob. At £30 for 12 in the Uk, why wouldn’t I just buy some chrome soft/chrome soft x for £27?

 

I get that different balls suit different people and it may well be a good ball, but my personal opinion is they have got the price wrong when you can buy a competitor tour ball for less or a dozen pro v/x for £2 more a dozen.

[lenman73]

With the few actual reviews on here, they seem to all indicate it is a good ball so for $35 here in the states I will try it at least once.

 

What I find the funniest is on the same site we have people willing to throw down enough coin to buy a small island on a set of PXG's and people who have to go buy this years new 17 yard longer driver for 5 bills. But $35 dollars for a two piece ball, that's where people will draw the line. How dare someone think they can charge that much.

Maybe titleist is following the PXG business model with their balls now. If you gotta ask how much it is, you are not their target market.

[North Butte]

Advertising bushwah does work. Out of seven players in my weekend group yesterday, two were playing Tour Soft. Both had switched this past week, at least one switched from ProV1. The other guy I’m not sure what he was playing before but he may have been a Chrome Soft guy at one point in time.

 

The discussion within the group (which I stayed out of) was that Tour Soft is supposed to be a cheaper version of ProV1. These guys are lawyers and CPA’s and business owners, certainly not a bunch of idiots. But they are not equipment guys and they pretty much know what they see on TV or hear from the staff in the pro shop. In other words their decisions are apparently highly susceptible to marketing messages.

 

Maybe titleist is following the PXG business model with their balls now. If you gotta ask how much it is, you are not their target market.

 

Except it isn’t “now”. Titleist have had balls at these same price points for many years.

[lenman73]

I will concede you that point.

 

Did your buddies like the ball ?

[North Butte]

One of them was in my group and seemed to play his usual game with it. No real opinion either way. The other guy was no in my foursome so I didn’t talk to him much.

 

It was in the 30’s and threatening to rain so we were just trying to get the round in and get back to the ‘house, if I’m honest. So not really conditions to tell much about the ball I must say...

[chris975d]

Advertising bushwah does work. Out of seven players in my weekend group yesterday, two were playing Tour Soft. Both had switched this past week, at least one switched from ProV1. The other guy I’m not sure what he was playing before but he may have been a Chrome Soft guy at one point in time.

 

The discussion within the group (which I stayed out of) was that Tour Soft is supposed to be a cheaper version of ProV1. These guys are lawyers and CPA’s and business owners, certainly not a bunch of idiots. But they are not equipment guys and they pretty much know what they see on TV or hear from the staff in the pro shop. In other words their decisions are apparently highly susceptible to marketing messages.

 

Maybe titleist is following the PXG business model with their balls now. If you gotta ask how much it is, you are not their target market.

 

Except it isn’t “now”. Titleist have had balls at these same price points for many years.

 

Advertising most certainly works. I've discussed it in several threads, but being a golf course/pro shop operator with 23+ years of experience in selling a lot of golf balls, the VAST, VAST majority of golfers buy more or less blindly off of advertising. I'm still (although I shouldn't be at this point) astounded sometimes at how truly unknowledgable golfers are outside of what they see on TV in Tour use and advertising. Doctors, lawyers, heads of large corporations STILL say things like "I only play a Titleist", and mean just that...doesn't matter whether it's a Pro V1, NXT, Tour Soft, etc...they will play it if it says Titleist. That's how the vast majority of golfers distinguish "quality" in a golf ball...the "Titleist" logo.

 

Titleist knows how to market, and they know what works. They know that the advertising they do that shows Tour pros playing a Titleist ball, those ads that show "nearest competitor" numbers (being MUCH less) at Tour events, that seeding local PGA/club pros with free balls, all works to build that image of a superior ball. And the VAST majority of golfers eat that up. Titleist has learned that the quantity of Tour players using their ball has more bearing on image than the quality of Tour players...meaning that they would rather pay smaller sums of money to more Tour players than larger sums to a few players. This seems to pay off greatly for them. It's why when I'm trying hard to sell non-Titleist balls to customers I routinely hear "if it's so good (the non-Titleist ball), why aren't more Tour players using it like Titleist?"

 

GolfWRXers have to maintain perspective..even if ever single member account on here is an active account, the total of GolfWRXers is still less than 1-2% of the total number of golfers in just the U.S. We are in the vast minority. Most people do not do the research on, and have knowledge of equipment to the level we do. I talk to golfers by the tens and sometimes hundreds every day of my life (except Mondays...it's my one day off). Golfers are generally very clueless when it comes to equipment....shockingly so.

 

**Just to clarify, just because "975d" is part of my username, it's been a LONG time since I've been a Titleist fanboy...pretty much since the 975D driver. I created my online identities around that time period, and the 975D part has just stuck. I'm not a Titleist staffer, I usually rotate between Bridgestone and TaylorMade for my personal use. But Titleist sells without any effort, so I basically have to keep them in the shop. They are one of the very few products (along with FootJoy gloves and shoes...notice a theme (Acushnet)?) that literally sell themselves. Everything else takes much more active selling to move any significant numbers. So I do know that what Titleist/FootJoy/Acushnet do in terms of advertising works very, very well, even if I disagree with them being the "best" in all the different categories of products they have offerings in.

[golfer07840]

I was in a Target today, wanted to see if the NXT's were price reduced (silly right?) Well on the shelf below, are Callaway Chrome soft balls, a dozen. They weren't in a box, it was 4 sleeves taped together, and on sale for 26$ as "repackaged".

 

Is the box really worth 13$??

if it was target there is a good chance they were the first generation 3 pc CS .

Not sure I'd even know the difference.

[jesusdelallata]

Advertising bushwah does work. Out of seven players in my weekend group yesterday, two were playing Tour Soft. Both had switched this past week, at least one switched from ProV1. The other guy I’m not sure what he was playing before but he may have been a Chrome Soft guy at one point in time.

 

The discussion within the group (which I stayed out of) was that Tour Soft is supposed to be a cheaper version of ProV1. These guys are lawyers and CPA’s and business owners, certainly not a bunch of idiots. But they are not equipment guys and they pretty much know what they see on TV or hear from the staff in the pro shop. In other words their decisions are apparently highly susceptible to marketing messages.

 

Maybe titleist is following the PXG business model with their balls now. If you gotta ask how much it is, you are not their target market.

 

Except it isn’t “now”. Titleist have had balls at these same price points for many years.

 

Advertising most certainly works. I've discussed it in several threads, but being a golf course/pro shop operator with 23+ years of experience in selling a lot of golf balls, the VAST, VAST majority of golfers buy more or less blindly off of advertising. I'm still (although I shouldn't be at this point) astounded sometimes at how truly unknowledgable golfers are outside of what they see on TV in Tour use and advertising. Doctors, lawyers, heads of large corporations STILL say things like "I only play a Titleist", and mean just that...doesn't matter whether it's a Pro V1, NXT, Tour Soft, etc...they will play it if it says Titleist. That's how the vast majority of golfers distinguish "quality" in a golf ball...the "Titleist" logo.

 

Titleist knows how to market, and they know what works. They know that the advertising they do that shows Tour pros playing a Titleist ball, those ads that show "nearest competitor" numbers (being MUCH less) at Tour events, that seeding local PGA/club pros with free balls, all works to build that image of a superior ball. And the VAST majority of golfers eat that up. Titleist has learned that the quantity of Tour players using their ball has more bearing on image than the quality of Tour players...meaning that they would rather pay smaller sums of money to more Tour players than larger sums to a few players. This seems to pay off greatly for them. It's why when I'm trying hard to sell non-Titleist balls to customers I routinely hear "if it's so good (the non-Titleist ball), why aren't more Tour players using it like Titleist?"

 

GolfWRXers have to maintain perspective..even if ever single member account on here is an active account, the total of GolfWRXers is still less than 1-2% of the total number of golfers in just the U.S. We are in the vast minority. Most people do not do the research on, and have knowledge of equipment to the level we do. I talk to golfers by the tens and sometimes hundreds every day of my life (except Mondays...it's my one day off). Golfers are generally very clueless when it comes to equipment....shockingly so.

 

**Just to clarify, just because "975d" is part of my username, it's been a LONG time since I've been a Titleist fanboy...pretty much since the 975D driver. I created my online identities around that time period, and the 975D part has just stuck. I'm not a Titleist staffer, I usually rotate between Bridgestone and TaylorMade for my personal use. But Titleist sells without any effort, so I basically have to keep them in the shop. They are one of the very few products (along with FootJoy gloves and shoes...notice a theme (Acushnet)?) that literally sell themselves. Everything else takes much more active selling to move any significant numbers. So I do know that what Titleist/FootJoy/Acushnet do in terms of advertising works very, very well, even if I disagree with them being the "best" in all the different categories of products they have offerings in.

 

Great post. Your insights are awesome. That’s why I love GolfWRX. Because we have great discussions and it makes us all better informed.

 

Now here is the big reveal. I’m an advertising executive. I’ve worked for 20!years on national campaigns for national and international brands. Advertising works. But advertising isn’t done blindly. It’s based on a lot of consumer research into golf companies use research not only for marketing but for product development.

 

If you look at the some of the articles online about this new ball you’ll read that they did research with 19,000 golfers to understand what they want, what they need and I bet they researched what people are willing to pay. Titleist isn’t stupid or trying to rip people off. They are astute marketers who run a business. But that advantage in sales leads to more money behind research and development, eendorsements and more advertising that leads to more sales. Are their products good? Yes they are. But I agree with you that most consumers equate Titleist with total quality and superior performance. In certain ways, it leads to confidence and feeling good. All drivers we measure in consumer psychology. This is art and science. This isn’t done by chance. It’s done by design.

 

Personally, even though I know all this, will never buy a Top Flite Gamer at $15. Why? I play with lawyers and accountants and doctors and other advertising executive and clients. So I’m going to fit in. For many here this is stupid. But you made a point, the public is the majority and Titleist sells sells sells.

 

Now that I said all that I will still make the claim that I love the Tour Soft. Not because it’s Titleist but because I love how it performs FOR ME. Is the price point acceptable to me. YES. I’m not looking for bargains I pay up to $100 per round of golf so the last thing I’m thinking about is how much money I save with by buying top flite balls. Besides, I usually play one ball for the entire round. I sometimes lose one or two. And I play 2 times a month. So for me, the economics is not a big deal.

 

I’m going to repeat myself again, I may switch to the project a once it comes out. If the ball has similar distance to the Tour Soft and it feels as good I will switch because I expect it to spin a little more inside of 40 yards. But again I will admit that the Tour Soft played amazing I was very impressed.

[golfer07840]

With the few actual reviews on here, they seem to all indicate it is a good ball so for $35 here in the states I will try it at least once.

 

What I find the funniest is on the same site we have people willing to throw down enough coin to buy a small island on a set of PXG's and people who have to go buy this years new 17 yard longer driver for 5 bills. But $35 dollars for a two piece ball, that's where people will draw the line. How dare someone think they can charge that much.

Maybe titleist is following the PXG business model with their balls now. If you gotta ask how much it is, you are not their target market.

On those same lines, as an example, a friend of mine refuses to play any course over 80$. Me? Depends on the course, but if it's top notch, I'll do it.

 

Now, same friend says I'm the one who is cheap. Why? Because I hold onto that 8$ glove I bought at Target or Walmart like my life depended on it.

 

$500 for Pebble Beach? No problem!

 

25$ for a good glove that will last longer than 5 rounds? Outrageous!

[lenman73]

There is nothing wrong with trying to get good mileage out of something. Lol

[jesusdelallata]

There is nothing wrong with trying to get good mileage out of something. Lol

 

Great point. I use golf gloves until they fall apart. Lol. That’s one thing I hate spending on. We are all humans and we are all crazy.

 

There is nothing wrong with trying to get good mileage out of something. Lol

 

Great point. I use golf gloves until they fall apart. Lol. That’s one thing I hate spending on. We are all humans and we are all crazy.

[dciccoritti]

There is nothing wrong with trying to get good mileage out of something. Lol

Great point. I use golf gloves until they fall apart. Lol. That's one thing I hate spending on. We are all humans and we are all crazy.

 

Me too. That's why I stopped wearing them 4 years ago :-)

[Break81]

My club gave out a dozen for the closest to the pin on #6 yesterday. In the past they always gave out ProV1’s. It was a way for the club to save a few $$$

 

Too me the simple way to put the Tour Soft is this. ProV1 sales are down , stop the bleeding by rebranding the NXT-S , make it a hair softer , give it a cool Blueish/Silver box that subliminally looks like the QST packaging and market it as a ball that competes with the CS but for $5 cheaper.

 

It’s actually a really good way to recapture loss revenue with a product that not that different that the NXT-S (maybe a tad softer)

[nsxguy]

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.

 

Frankly, if I was a 20 handicapper I wouldn't be paying the price for these balls either.

 

You're very smart to stay with the cheapies. I get it. A ProV1 wouldn't do you any good.

 

But why you're all over this thread killing the new ball ? That's something I don't quite get.

[North Butte]

More like, it’s an even numbered year. Come out with a new version of the $35 price point ball as in every even numbered year.

 

The only aberration I see in the long term $35 price point pattern was three cycles with the silly “Tour” vs “Tour S” thing. Now they are back to the older scheme of a single model in that price slot.

[nsxguy]

Is there such a thing as too soft ?

 

I'm a Chrome Soft guy and can't wait to try the new ones.

 

But I'll try almost anything once; sometimes even twice. LOL

 

These balls just came out at my local PGATSS and of course I had to at least take some putts with them.

 

Don't know how they feel or travel on full swings but man, these thing are soft off the putter. Too soft ? One of the things I work on constantly is to keep the putter going to the hole. No "pop" stroke for me. But when I putt with these, the putter head seemed to pass the ball on the way to the hole and, in fact, I double hit a short-ish putt.

 

I seem to recall this sort of thing happening with 2 older balls, the Callaway ix(?) and the 20XI(?) Nike.

 

Anybody notice anything like this ?

 

Anyway, I'm away for a bit but I'll probably try them again when I get back in a couple of months.

[North Butte]

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.

 

Frankly, if I was a 20 handicapper I wouldn't be paying the price for these balls either.

 

You're very smart to stay with the cheapies. I get it. A ProV1 wouldn't do you any good.

 

But why you're all over this thread killing the new ball ? That's something I don't quite get.

 

There’s something about a Titleist golf ball prices that turns otherwise reasonable GolfWRXers into rabid haters. There are a handful of frequent posters who simply can’t let it go, ever. Guys who wouldn’t be caught dead in a thread ragging on PXG or any other commonly hated brand but that extra $10/dozen Titleist price premium just drives them around the bend.

[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.

 

Frankly, if I was a 20 handicapper I wouldn't be paying the price for these balls either.

 

You're very smart to stay with the cheapies. I get it. A ProV1 wouldn't do you any good.

 

But why you're all over this thread killing the new ball ? That's something I don't quite get.

 

Not killing the new ball. Killing the PRICE of the new ball, and Titleist’s blatant cherry picking in an attempt to compare it with balls well out of its league.

 

Big difference.

 

Complaints about OEM marketing have ramped up IMO seemingly alongside product release cycles. As another poster mentioned, it’s highly unlikely with all the ball companies out there that Titleist suddenly found some secret to making a 2 piece surlyn act just like a tour level ball.

 

If they did, for the sake of argument, and they priced it at $25 and marketed it as such? They’d be kings among the weekend hackers everywhere.

[nsxguy]

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.

 

Frankly, if I was a 20 handicapper I wouldn't be paying the price for these balls either.

 

You're very smart to stay with the cheapies. I get it. A ProV1 wouldn't do you any good.

 

But why you're all over this thread killing the new ball ? That's something I don't quite get.

 

Not killing the new ball. Killing the PRICE of the new ball, and Titleist’s blatant cherry picking in an attempt to compare it with balls well out of its league.

 

Big difference.

 

Complaints about OEM marketing have ramped up IMO seemingly alongside product release cycles. As another poster mentioned, it’s highly unlikely with all the ball companies out there that Titleist suddenly found some secret to making a 2 piece surlyn act just like a tour level ball.

 

If they did, for the sake of argument, and they priced it at $25 and marketed it as such? They’d be kings among the weekend hackers everywhere.

 

Use wordplay all you like my friend. Maybe consider trying to make "spin" a 2nd (or even first ?) "profession". :rolleyes:

 

You have NO idea of what it costs to make the ball. You have NO idea of their marketing costs or what the market will bear.

 

If YOU could sell your product for $X, would you take $X-$10 for it ? Somehow I doubt it. :lol:

[xkilgorextroutx]

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.

 

Frankly, if I was a 20 handicapper I wouldn't be paying the price for these balls either.

 

You're very smart to stay with the cheapies. I get it. A ProV1 wouldn't do you any good.

 

But why you're all over this thread killing the new ball ? That's something I don't quite get.

 

Not killing the new ball. Killing the PRICE of the new ball, and Titleist’s blatant cherry picking in an attempt to compare it with balls well out of its league.

 

Big difference.

 

Complaints about OEM marketing have ramped up IMO seemingly alongside product release cycles. As another poster mentioned, it’s highly unlikely with all the ball companies out there that Titleist suddenly found some secret to making a 2 piece surlyn act just like a tour level ball.

 

If they did, for the sake of argument, and they priced it at $25 and marketed it as such? They’d be kings among the weekend hackers everywhere.

 

Use wordplay all you like my friend. Maybe consider trying to make "spin" a 2nd (or even first ?) "profession". :rolleyes:

 

You have NO idea of what it costs to make the ball. You have NO idea of their marketing costs or what the market will bear.

 

If YOU could sell your product for $X, would you take $X-$10 for it ? Somehow I doubt it. :lol:

 

As the marketing manager for a company, I appreciate your compliments. Thank you so much, friend.

[nsxguy]

 

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.

 

Frankly, if I was a 20 handicapper I wouldn't be paying the price for these balls either.

 

You're very smart to stay with the cheapies. I get it. A ProV1 wouldn't do you any good.

 

But why you're all over this thread killing the new ball ? That's something I don't quite get.

 

Not killing the new ball. Killing the PRICE of the new ball, and Titleist’s blatant cherry picking in an attempt to compare it with balls well out of its league.

 

Big difference.

 

Complaints about OEM marketing have ramped up IMO seemingly alongside product release cycles. As another poster mentioned, it’s highly unlikely with all the ball companies out there that Titleist suddenly found some secret to making a 2 piece surlyn act just like a tour level ball.

 

If they did, for the sake of argument, and they priced it at $25 and marketed it as such? They’d be kings among the weekend hackers everywhere.

 

Use wordplay all you like my friend. Maybe consider trying to make "spin" a 2nd (or even first ?) "profession". :rolleyes:

 

You have NO idea of what it costs to make the ball. You have NO idea of their marketing costs or what the market will bear.

 

If YOU could sell your product for $X, would you take $X-$10 for it ? Somehow I doubt it. :lol:

 

As the marketing manager for a company, I appreciate your compliments. Thank you so much, friend.

 

Ahhhh, so you're already a "spin-meister". Shoulda guessed that. Sure noticed you didn't answer the question.

[xkilgorextroutx]

 

Ahhhh, so you're already a "spin-meister". Shoulda guessed that. Sure noticed you didn't answer the question.

 

When we price a product we look at market competition. Then we price accordingly based on what we feel the market will bear. We leave some money on the table on a few products but know we’ll make it up on volume.

 

No, I don’t know what R&D costs Titleist has. None of us do. If the market shows that golfers will buy their 2 piece ball at $35, they’re geniuses and I am wrong.

 

Oh and thanks for the back handed insult. Very kind of you.

[crazygolfnut]

People keep saying the ball has a Surlyn cover which is a DuPont product. I have not been able to find Surlyn on the Titleist website describing this ball. They do describe the cover this way.

 

“A new ultra-thin 4CE grafted cover made with TCU Process Technology generates advanced short game control. Innovations in the manufacturing process at Titleist Ball Plant 2 in Massachusetts allowed engineers to mold the extremely thin, very soft cover formulation – made from a proprietary blend of four different materials – uniformly across the surface.”

 

Must not be Surlyn.

[jesusdelallata]

A lot of people equate surlyn to any ball not urethane.

[xkilgorextroutx]

Surlyn is DuPont's trademark name for their ionomer.

 

20 seconds on Google shows that the Tour Soft's cover is made of ionomer blends.

[crazygolfnut]

you must be using a different search engine because no where do I see what you see. It does say "made from a proprietary blend of four different materials" but does not say "surlyn" anywhere.

[xkilgorextroutx]

you must be using a different search engine because no where do I see what you see. It does say "made from a proprietary blend of four different materials" but does not say "surlyn" anywhere.

 

You’re right. It doesn’t say Surlyn. It says ionomer. Which is what Surlyn is.

 

Surlyn is to ionomer as Kleenex is to tissue.