Titleist Tour Soft

[Silicon Valley Dale]

For nuts like us that enjoy evaluating golf balls for our swings regardless of brand the Tour Soft may not seem a reasonable choice but we are a small minority.

 

My general recollection is that most of the golfers that "enjoy evaluating golf balls", as you so eloquently put it, (i.e. saving 25 cents per ball), are high handicappers whose time may be better spent getting lessons and/or working on their games.

 

Then they might spend a lot more time enjoying the game,,,,,,,,,,,,, instead of enjoying evaluating golf balls.

 

Or not. :)

Ehhh, , more like $2 a ball cheaper and for me I like trying different things. Keeps the game fresh when your playing as a hobby and not for a paycheck. Can't afford new drivers every year but balls are consumable / perishable items so being a ball hoe is not a horrible thing.

 

Don't get me wrong, in tournament play I have my gamer 2017 XV. For casual rounds I like to mix it up.

 

You might not realize it, but you can afford a new driver every year. I just bought 6 of them from CPO.... for 180.00 shipped. I have two R1's, two R11's, an R7, and an R7 Superquad (I think, without looking it up). Average price is 30.00 to my door. Two of them are even TP models. Sure they're used but CPO hasn't sent me a crap club yet. I also have an Adams Super Speedline LS 7.5* with a Kuro Kage Tx shaft, this ones brand new for 50.00 to my door.

 

So while you might not be able to afford the 2018 Hot Lost drivers at retail and in the interest of full disclosure I have a Rogue coming tomorrow that is the first name brand new driver that I've ever paid full retail for, but it performed.

 

The others were bought for the price of a dozen decent balls each. You can become a driver hoe too. I'm here to support you in that. You don't have to go as crazy as me and buy them all. But if you want a new, for you, driver the prices are not unattainable. In fact, I have a 15 year old beat to hell Dunlop Goliath 420cc driver that I hit 15 yards less than my current top driver a 2016 430cc M1. It's pretty repeatable too, it's 15 yards behind it. I also from familiarity due to using it for 13 years, would probably shoot a better score on average with it. And when I tell you it's beat to hell, I'm not kidding. It's got gouges and dents. It's well seasoned. I'll admit that I have a soft spot in my heart for it since it is the only club I've ever hit a HIO with, short par 4 too.

 

So don't limit yourself. If you want that 4 year old driver you've always dreamed about, get it. They're not expensive. Many of them from OEM's even, will set you back less than these golf balls. If it blows your budget, let me know. I, ahem, stocked up on RZN Platinum practices for 8.00 a dozen. I'll send you a dozen gratis.

 

But don't think that a budget should let you keep away from a new driver. It don't have to be new to be new. I was like a kid in a candy store when my "new" Razr X Forged 3-PW came today. They're in good playable shape but the bag chatter is not good. I don't even care. They're playable and the chatter won't impact that. I also got the entire set for 94.00. Trade in today for them is 130.00 plus 15% cash or 30% credit. That's when I pull the trigger. If you can get it for less than trade in, it's a no brainer. The Adams clubs are tough right now. I wanted to try out the one I got. But PGA trade in has EVERY Adams driver worth 14 bucks. It doesn't matter if it's from 2002 or 2013, trade in is 14.00. This club sold MSRP three years ago for 399.99. I don't really buy most for trade in value, but it stinks when you check out their 2003 club and it's worth the same as they're most current and tech saavy driver.

 

Blah blah. Who cares? But if you want to play new for you clubs, find good deals and go for it. Check trade in prior to purchase and unless it's something you really want pull the trigger when there's no risk.

[xxio]

I don't think people hate the ball. Obviously, Titleist makes some very good golf balls. But the golf ball industry has indicated for some time that multi-layered, urethane golf balls cost so much because urethane multi -layered balls are expensive to manufacture. Personally I doubt that manufacturing costs are the sole reason that balls are so expensive, but that has been the message. So. when a two piece ionomer covered ball comes out at price comparable to multi-layered urethane balls, people get upset. They feel that they are being ripped off. The performance of the actual ball has very little to do with it. It's the fact that Titleist is willing to charge more for a ball that we have been told, by the manufacturers themselves, is significantly cheaper to produce than a multi-layered urethane ball. I doubt I'll play the ball. I think it's stupid to pay that much for an ionomer covered two piece. I don't like ionomer covered balls. But, I'm not angry at Titleist for the advertisements or the price of the ball. Titleist can charge whatever they want for their balls, and advertising isn't real information. The price of the ball is inconsistent with what the golfing public has been told by the golf ball companies and so called equipment experts. The ball companies themselves have used this argument to justify the high prices of their products. But, I would bet it's baloney. The ball companies will charge what the market will bear, period. Titleist can charge a lot. Their claim that their two piece ionomer ball performs "better" than other company's multi-layered urethane balls is impossible to prove or disprove. It's puffery- a practice that has a rich tradition in the golf industry. And, in case I'm not making myself clear- yes, I do think golf companies lie to sell their products at the highest prices possible.

 

It's not even that. I don't mind Titleist charging $$ for a 2 piece ionomer ball. They've spent more than enough to develop the goodwill of their brand.

 

It was deceptive comparison to the urethane balls of Bridgestone, Callaway, and TM.

 

If they just compared it to the Superhot, the Soft Feel, etc.... No problem. However comparing it to actual Tour Caliber balls and having the term Tour on the balls implies and will make the ill informed think it is a tour caliber ball.

[larciel]

Why waste so much energy over a ball that will disappear in 2 years?

 

It's very simple.

 

1. Prov1 will never go down below $47 msrp

2. Titleist needs next tier of balls. They can't go to $29.it's too low. So price is set at $35

3. Kudos for them to make a nice performing ball with just 2 piece and surlyn cover.

4. Sprinkle little bit of titleist advertising magic and you wait for the result

 

If ball sells well.. v2 next year

If not. Try v2 then if still meh... then kill it and come up with new ball at $35.

 

Just try it for yourself and decide. I believe, since this is wrx, 90% people will move onto next ball in 6 months.lol

 

 

[jesusdelallata]

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

 

[nsxguy]

The only real "answer" is to vote with your wallets.

 

Everything else is just noise.

[xxio]

I would love for TM to come out with an ad saying their 790 "player's club/muscleback" is 2 clubs longer and 25% more forgiving than the 718mb.

[Break81]

I would love for TM to come out with an ad saying their 790 "player's club/muscleback" is 2 clubs longer and 25% more forgiving than the 718mb.

I good comparison is if TM came out and said the new Aeroburner Soft was better then the ProV1 . They would get laughed out of the industry. However when Titleist goes to market the same way, they “earned” the right to do so.

[Break81]

Also curious as too when a Titleist staffer on the LPGA is going to game the Tour Soft. If that happens I will redact all my negative posts about this ball.

[nsxguy]

Also curious as too when a Titleist staffer on the LPGA is going to game the Tour Soft. If that happens I will redact all my negative posts about this ball.

 

Why do you CARE about what ANYBODY else plays ?

 

And why do you think ANYBODY cares about your negative posts about the ball ?

 

THEY will do the same thing YOU will (or should) probably do. You'll try it and if you don't like it you'll move on and if you DO like it better than anything else you WILL play it.

 

Sheesh. How difficult is that ?

[Break81]

Also curious as too when a Titleist staffer on the LPGA is going to game the Tour Soft. If that happens I will redact all my negative posts about this ball.

 

Why do you CARE about what ANYBODY else plays ?

 

And why do you think ANYBODY cares about your negative posts about the ball ?

 

THEY will do the same thing YOU will (or should) probably do. You'll try it and if you don't like it you'll move on and if you DO like it better than anything else you WILL play it.

 

Sheesh. How difficult is that ?

. I don’t care who plays it , just laugh at the deception In their marketing. I guess you don’t care if companies are truthful about their products you buy.

 

It might be an ok ball, I am sure I will find plenty in the sticks around the course. I will try it when I do but it will not change my mind about how they go to market. It’s shady , IMHO

[dmac4g]

I'm curious if Callaway steps up and says the Supersoft is a superior ball to the Pro V1 using the same metrics that they are judging the Tour Soft with? It is disingenuous, at best, to compare apples and oranges in the marketing as Titleist did.

[NJpatbee]

For nuts like us that enjoy evaluating golf balls for our swings regardless of brand the Tour Soft may not seem a reasonable choice but we are a small minority.

 

My general recollection is that most of the golfers that "enjoy evaluating golf balls", as you so eloquently put it, (i.e. saving 25 cents per ball), are high handicappers whose time may be better spent getting lessons and/or working on their games.

 

Then they might spend a lot more time enjoying the game,,,,,,,,,,,,, instead of enjoying evaluating golf balls.

 

Or not. :)

 

Definitely not. Look at the handicaps of some of the participants on this thread and you will see a wide variety of skill levels. And speaking for myself I try golf balls to see what works for my swing and not to save 25 cents a ball. I have tried the Prov1 versions a number of times and they just are a terrible ball for this 17 HCP golfer but if I played better with them I would spend the $4/ball. I have tried quite a few of the lower compression balls looking for any advantage and the best value. Quite frankly it takes very little time and of course I spend most of my golf time either playing golf or working on my game. When it comes to purchasing a golf ball I do include value as a factor which I believe is normal for a consumer but believe me that price is just one variable.

[nsxguy]

I don't think people hate the ball. Obviously, Titleist makes some very good golf balls. But the golf ball industry has indicated for some time that multi-layered, urethane golf balls cost so much because urethane multi -layered balls are expensive to manufacture. Personally I doubt that manufacturing costs are the sole reason that balls are so expensive, but that has been the message. So. when a two piece ionomer covered ball comes out at price comparable to multi-layered urethane balls, people get upset. They feel that they are being ripped off. The performance of the actual ball has very little to do with it. It's the fact that Titleist is willing to charge more for a ball that we have been told, by the manufacturers themselves, is significantly cheaper to produce than a multi-layered urethane ball. I doubt I'll play the ball. I think it's stupid to pay that much for an ionomer covered two piece. I don't like ionomer covered balls. But, I'm not angry at Titleist for the advertisements or the price of the ball. Titleist can charge whatever they want for their balls, and advertising isn't real information. The price of the ball is inconsistent with what the golfing public has been told by the golf ball companies and so called equipment experts. The ball companies themselves have used this argument to justify the high prices of their products. But, I would bet it's baloney. The ball companies will charge what the market will bear, period. Titleist can charge a lot. Their claim that their two piece ionomer ball performs "better" than other company's multi-layered urethane balls is impossible to prove or disprove. It's puffery- a practice that has a rich tradition in the golf industry. And, in case I'm not making myself clear- yes, I do think golf companies lie to sell their products at the highest prices possible.

 

It's not even that. I don't mind Titleist charging $$ for a 2 piece ionomer ball. They've spent more than enough to develop the goodwill of their brand.

 

It was deceptive comparison to the urethane balls of Bridgestone, Callaway, and TM.

 

If they just compared it to the Superhot, the Soft Feel, etc.... No problem. However comparing it to actual Tour Caliber balls and having the term Tour on the balls implies and will make the ill informed think it is a tour caliber ball.

Also curious as too when a Titleist staffer on the LPGA is going to game the Tour Soft. If that happens I will redact all my negative posts about this ball.

 

Why do you CARE about what ANYBODY else plays ?

 

And why do you think ANYBODY cares about your negative posts about the ball ?

 

THEY will do the same thing YOU will (or should) probably do. You'll try it and if you don't like it you'll move on and if you DO like it better than anything else you WILL play it.

 

Sheesh. How difficult is that ?

. I don’t care who plays it , just laugh at the deception In their marketing. I guess you don’t care if companies are truthful about their products you buy.

 

It might be an ok ball, I am sure I will find plenty in the sticks around the course. I will try it when I do but it will not change my mind about how they go to market. It’s shady , IMHO

 

Seriously ? First of all, do you know, for a fact, that this ball is NOT better than those Titleist compares them against ?

 

Of course you don't. And we ALL(?) know that "better" is a subjective term. Better for you isn't necessarily better for me.

 

Truthful about their products ? They HAVE to be. But they are also allowed to offer THEIR opinions on their products just like you and I can. Facts and opinions are different and you and I, the consumers, are supposed to be able to tell the difference.

 

None of us were born yesterday and ALL companies do it when they advertise. ALL of them.

[nsxguy]

For nuts like us that enjoy evaluating golf balls for our swings regardless of brand the Tour Soft may not seem a reasonable choice but we are a small minority.

 

My general recollection is that most of the golfers that "enjoy evaluating golf balls", as you so eloquently put it, (i.e. saving 25 cents per ball), are high handicappers whose time may be better spent getting lessons and/or working on their games.

 

Then they might spend a lot more time enjoying the game,,,,,,,,,,,,, instead of enjoying evaluating golf balls.

 

Or not. :)

 

Definitely not. Look at the handicaps of some of the participants on this thread and you will see a wide variety of skill levels. And speaking for myself I try golf balls to see what works for my swing and not to save 25 cents a ball. I have tried the Prov1 versions a number of times and they just are a terrible ball for this 17 HCP golfer but if I played better with them I would spend the $4/ball. I have tried quite a few of the lower compression balls looking for any advantage and the best value. Quite frankly it takes very little time and of course I spend most of my golf time either playing golf or working on my game. When it comes to purchasing a golf ball I do include value as a factor which I believe is normal for a consumer but believe me that price is just one variable.

 

Look, I get it. You're a high handicapper. So I guess <cough> value<cough> should matter to you. But high handicapper, almost by definition, means you lose a lot of golf balls. I get it. I do. If the low handicappers lost a lot of balls,,,,,,,, well,,,,,,, they wouldn't BE low handicappers so I suppose they don't mind paying more.

 

And your hobby is evaluating golf balls but it doesn't take much time ? Damn. It took me 3+ months to choose between 4 different balls - turns out the old one "survived".

 

But the ball is the single most important piece of equipment of all - at least that's what I've heard. :)

 

And the low handicappers in this thread aren't the ones complaining about the price or performance of the ball. As Yogi said (or was it Casey ?) "You could look it up". :D

 

And if you only need 1 ball most rounds and are going cheap to save a buck or 2 despite the fact that the ball is the most important tool AND quite possibly the cheapest one of all considering greens fees, clothes, clubs, etc., then you should take up chess.

 

Just one person's opinion. (cool)

[briansII]

Yesterday I played 14 holes with the Tour Soft. My initial impression is I didn't get any more or less wedge spin than any other non urethane ball I've tried. Granted 14 holes is not enough time with the ball, and I didn't have very many full wedge shots, but early reports in this thread had me hopeful of urethane like performance. For me personally, that did not happen. More on course testing to be done. BTW, I did like the ball. Soft, no perceivable loss in distance, and solid feeling. Good feel off the putter too.

[NJpatbee]

For nuts like us that enjoy evaluating golf balls for our swings regardless of brand the Tour Soft may not seem a reasonable choice but we are a small minority.

 

My general recollection is that most of the golfers that "enjoy evaluating golf balls", as you so eloquently put it, (i.e. saving 25 cents per ball), are high handicappers whose time may be better spent getting lessons and/or working on their games.

 

Then they might spend a lot more time enjoying the game,,,,,,,,,,,,, instead of enjoying evaluating golf balls.

 

Or not. :)

 

Definitely not. Look at the handicaps of some of the participants on this thread and you will see a wide variety of skill levels. And speaking for myself I try golf balls to see what works for my swing and not to save 25 cents a ball. I have tried the Prov1 versions a number of times and they just are a terrible ball for this 17 HCP golfer but if I played better with them I would spend the $4/ball. I have tried quite a few of the lower compression balls looking for any advantage and the best value. Quite frankly it takes very little time and of course I spend most of my golf time either playing golf or working on my game. When it comes to purchasing a golf ball I do include value as a factor which I believe is normal for a consumer but believe me that price is just one variable.

 

Look, I get it. You're a high handicapper. So I guess <cough> value<cough> should matter to you. But high handicapper, almost by definition, means you lose a lot of golf balls. I get it. I do. If the low handicappers lost a lot of balls,,,,,,,, well,,,,,,, they wouldn't BE low handicappers so I suppose they don't mind paying more.

 

I am not sure that you do get my point. As a high handicapper that typically loses 1-2 balls per round it would not matter if the balls were $4 each - I stated that I would play the $4 ball if I played better with it. But if I could buy the same ball (specs and performance wise) for $2 I would pay $2 (something about value). If someone needs to pay 4$ simply because of brand then they are free to do it. I am guessing you are not in procurement.

 

And your hobby is evaluating golf balls but it doesn't take much time ? Damn. It took me 3+ months to choose between 4 different balls - turns out the old one "survived.

 

I have multiple hobbies and one of them is golf. Testing out a couple of different golf balls early in the season is something I enjoy, but after a round or two I can make a decision regarding the suitability of a golf ball for my swing. Obviously we have different criteria - What did you do for 3+ months?

 

 

 

But the ball is the single most important piece of equipment of all - at least that's what I've heard. :)

It is definitely the one piece of equipment that gets used on every stroke and the reason why I do give it some attention. I do play much better with a ball that has less spin than a Prov1 but have had very good performance from the (RIP) U/3.

 

 

And the low handicappers in this thread aren't the ones complaining about the price or performance of the ball. As Yogi said (or was it Casey ?) "You could look it up".

That is true. Could it be that higher handicaps normally play more 2 piece ionomer balls?

 

And if you only need 1 ball most rounds and are going cheap to save a buck or 2 despite the fact that the ball is the most important tool AND quite possibly the cheapest one of all considering greens fees, clothes, clubs, etc., then you should take up chess.

 

Are you making an assumption that a golfer would play a ball that is not best suited for their game to save a buck? If so, I have never met one.

 

Just one person's opinion. (cool)

 

Bottom line, Titleist has made some excellent golf equipment but they often try to take advantage of their brand. They had a heavy marketing program saying that the ProV1 will "perform" for all golfers. Well it does spin for most golfers but it is the worst golf ball that I have tried for my swing. Now they are saying clearly that their 2 piece ionomer ball is better than the urethane tour offerings from Taylor Made and Callaway. It probably is for my swing but not for a tour caliber player!

 

But time will tell and I predict that the Tour Soft will be a big seller until it gets exposed like the NXT line.

[Break81]

I agree - initial sales of this ball will be very strong. I say In a year it will be $29.99 or less or on the same chopping block of the NXT. Maybe Titleist is ok with that and the short term profits are enough to push it for now.

 

If I were Titleist I would be concerned with any customers who aren’t overly impressed with the ball and that in turn opens up other brands to their loyal customers.

 

Time will tell.

[North Butte]

For nuts like us that enjoy evaluating golf balls for our swings regardless of brand the Tour Soft may not seem a reasonable choice but we are a small minority.

 

My general recollection is that most of the golfers that "enjoy evaluating golf balls", as you so eloquently put it, (i.e. saving 25 cents per ball), are high handicappers whose time may be better spent getting lessons and/or working on their games.

 

Then they might spend a lot more time enjoying the game,,,,,,,,,,,,, instead of enjoying evaluating golf balls.

 

Or not. :)

 

Definitely not. Look at the handicaps of some of the participants on this thread and you will see a wide variety of skill levels. And speaking for myself I try golf balls to see what works for my swing and not to save 25 cents a ball. I have tried the Prov1 versions a number of times and they just are a terrible ball for this 17 HCP golfer but if I played better with them I would spend the $4/ball. I have tried quite a few of the lower compression balls looking for any advantage and the best value. Quite frankly it takes very little time and of course I spend most of my golf time either playing golf or working on my game. When it comes to purchasing a golf ball I do include value as a factor which I believe is normal for a consumer but believe me that price is just one variable.

 

Look, I get it. You're a high handicapper. So I guess <cough> value<cough> should matter to you. But high handicapper, almost by definition, means you lose a lot of golf balls. I get it. I do. If the low handicappers lost a lot of balls,,,,,,,, well,,,,,,, they wouldn't BE low handicappers so I suppose they don't mind paying more.

 

I am not sure that you do get my point. As a high handicapper that typically loses 1-2 balls per round it would not matter if the balls were $4 each - I stated that I would play the $4 ball if I played better with it. But if I could buy the same ball (specs and performance wise) for $2 I would pay $2 (something about value). If someone needs to pay 4$ simply because of brand then they are free to do it. I am guessing you are not in procurement.

 

And your hobby is evaluating golf balls but it doesn't take much time ? Damn. It took me 3+ months to choose between 4 different balls - turns out the old one "survived.

 

I have multiple hobbies and one of them is golf. Testing out a couple of different golf balls early in the season is something I enjoy, but after a round or two I can make a decision regarding the suitability of a golf ball for my swing. Obviously we have different criteria - What did you do for 3+ months?

 

 

 

But the ball is the single most important piece of equipment of all - at least that's what I've heard. :)

It is definitely the one piece of equipment that gets used on every stroke and the reason why I do give it some attention. I do play much better with a ball that has less spin than a Prov1 but have had very good performance from the (RIP) U/3.

 

 

And the low handicappers in this thread aren't the ones complaining about the price or performance of the ball. As Yogi said (or was it Casey ?) "You could look it up".

That is true. Could it be that higher handicaps normally play more 2 piece ionomer balls?

 

And if you only need 1 ball most rounds and are going cheap to save a buck or 2 despite the fact that the ball is the most important tool AND quite possibly the cheapest one of all considering greens fees, clothes, clubs, etc., then you should take up chess.

 

Are you making an assumption that a golfer would play a ball that is not best suited for their game to save a buck? If so, I have never met one.

 

Just one person's opinion. (cool)

 

Bottom line, Titleist has made some excellent golf equipment but they often try to take advantage of their brand. They had a heavy marketing program saying that the ProV1 will "perform" for all golfers. Well it does spin for most golfers but it is the worst golf ball that I have tried for my swing. Now they are saying clearly that their 2 piece ionomer ball is better than the urethane tour offerings from Taylor Made and Callaway. It probably is for my swing but not for a tour caliber player!

 

But time will tell and I predict that the Tour Soft will be a big seller until it gets exposed like the NXT line.

 

By “exposed” you mean exposed as one of the 15-20 best selling golf balls on the market, year after year for more than a decade?

[jesusdelallata]

“But time will tell and I predict that the Tour Soft will be a big seller until it gets exposed like the NXT line”

 

I don’t understand? Are you suggesting that after a few weeks the world is going to discover some deep dark Titleist secret that will turn users away and cause Titleist to discontinue this ball or mark the price down to $25?

 

It’s a popular ball. Maybe not to some on this forum. But the NXT line, now Tour Soft, has been selling for several generations. Nothing has been discovered about this ball or was exposed that was so awful that it caused Titleist to stop making it.

 

You may not like it. You may not play it. You may not want to pay the asking price. But to think that the ball will fail is not based on facts. Only personal opinion.

[MBBG]

Threads like this blow my mind. Who gives a crap where Titleist prices their second tier balls? If you consider yourself an educated consumer and believe it offers no value over other two piece surlyn balls, then don’t buy it. But why would anyone blast Titleist for trying to leverage their brand cachet?

[jesusdelallata]

By the way, the NXT Tour line came out in 2001. So if it is changed every two years then it’s gone tough about 8 generations. I don’t think Titleist is losing any money with this ball.

[North Texas]

Picked up a sleeve and will be using them Friday. Currently hit Pro V1x and curious to see how this ball performs. Will report back.

[dciccoritti]

Picked up a sleeve and will be using them Friday. Currently hit Pro V1x and curious to see how this ball performs. Will report back.

 

Very interested in your thoughts, especially around the greens. Not saying I hope you miss alot of greens, but you know what I mean :-)

[Tanner25]

All this trash talking is making me want to try this ball, Perhaps, I can buy a sleeve at the golf course...and they come in yellow.

[storm319]

"But time will tell and I predict that the Tour Soft will be a big seller until it gets exposed like the NXT line"

 

I don't understand? Are you suggesting that after a few weeks the world is going to discover some deep dark Titleist secret that will turn users away and cause Titleist to discontinue this ball or mark the price down to $25?

 

It's a popular ball. Maybe not to some on this forum. But the NXT line, now Tour Soft, has been selling for several generations. Nothing has been discovered about this ball or was exposed that was so awful that it caused Titleist to stop making it.

 

You may not like it. You may not play it. You may not want to pay the asking price. But to think that the ball will fail is not based on facts. Only personal opinion.

 

It isn't as simple as whether Titleist making a profit or not (I guarantee that they have made a profit on every ball model they have ever released). There are several decision points during a product cycle and certain sales expectations will decide whether or not to continue with the current marketing strategy or start over on the next product cycle. If the NXT line was selling well enough to meet their sales expectations for the last cycle, they would not be rebranding it as the Tour Soft (and I say rebranding because it is likely that this ball would have become the NXT Tour S if they had decided to continue with the NXT strategy).

 

Many fail to realize that unless there is a major construction change, new ball offerings are more of a slow evolution than the tear down and redesign that the marketing implies. Perfect example is Taylor Made's urethane lineup since 2010. 6 balls with the same 5-piece construction with only small changes in hardness and a couple of slight dimple design changes, but we saw a new product name with 5 of the 6 releases. During that same time frame, Titleist had 5 ProV1x releases with the same construction and similar small changes but retaining the same product name. The difference? the Titleist offering greatly outsold the Taylor Made offering.

 

Penta TP --> Penta TP5 --> Lethal --> TPX --> TPX --> TP5X

 

Bottom line, name changes with each new product cycle tend to signify that the prior product simply did not meet sales expectations. We have definitely seen some deviations from Titleist's marketing strategy since being sold by Fortune Brands in 2011 (and even more so since the IPO announcement). I have a feeling that public shareholder pressure will bring further deviation to their clockwork like release cycles.

 

Lastly, if you gave this ball a fair test and like it, good for you and by all means continue to buy it. Whether it be a legitimate improvement or simply a placebo effect, results are results. However, my experience has been that similarly constructed balls perform similarly with little deviation with exception to maybe feel and it is doubtful that this will be any different (not trying to hate, just being realistic based on every past experience).

[storm319]

I also think that the commercial has been a factor in all of the hate and criticism. Certainly got Callaway's Harry Arnett going

 

 

[Belmont148]

Titleist isn’t just offering their “opinion” in the advert that it is better. The fine print states actual distance gains in robot testing and lists each balls numbers. It’s a 2 piece surilyn ball. That’s like Noodle spending money to say how it is “better” than the $40+ balls based on robot distance testing. Complete BS!!!

[nsxguy]

For nuts like us that enjoy evaluating golf balls for our swings regardless of brand the Tour Soft may not seem a reasonable choice but we are a small minority.

 

My general recollection is that most of the golfers that "enjoy evaluating golf balls", as you so eloquently put it, (i.e. saving 25 cents per ball), are high handicappers whose time may be better spent getting lessons and/or working on their games.

 

Then they might spend a lot more time enjoying the game,,,,,,,,,,,,, instead of enjoying evaluating golf balls.

 

Or not. :)

 

Definitely not. Look at the handicaps of some of the participants on this thread and you will see a wide variety of skill levels. And speaking for myself I try golf balls to see what works for my swing and not to save 25 cents a ball. I have tried the Prov1 versions a number of times and they just are a terrible ball for this 17 HCP golfer but if I played better with them I would spend the $4/ball. I have tried quite a few of the lower compression balls looking for any advantage and the best value. Quite frankly it takes very little time and of course I spend most of my golf time either playing golf or working on my game. When it comes to purchasing a golf ball I do include value as a factor which I believe is normal for a consumer but believe me that price is just one variable.

 

Look, I get it. You're a high handicapper. So I guess <cough> value<cough> should matter to you. But high handicapper, almost by definition, means you lose a lot of golf balls. I get it. I do. If the low handicappers lost a lot of balls,,,,,,,, well,,,,,,, they wouldn't BE low handicappers so I suppose they don't mind paying more.

 

I am not sure that you do get my point. As a high handicapper that typically loses 1-2 balls per round it would not matter if the balls were $4 each - I stated that I would play the $4 ball if I played better with it. But if I could buy the same ball (specs and performance wise) for $2 I would pay $2 (something about value). If someone needs to pay 4$ simply because of brand then they are free to do it. I am guessing you are not in procurement.

 

And your hobby is evaluating golf balls but it doesn't take much time ? Damn. It took me 3+ months to choose between 4 different balls - turns out the old one "survived.

 

I have multiple hobbies and one of them is golf. Testing out a couple of different golf balls early in the season is something I enjoy, but after a round or two I can make a decision regarding the suitability of a golf ball for my swing. Obviously we have different criteria - What did you do for 3+ months?

 

 

 

But the ball is the single most important piece of equipment of all - at least that's what I've heard. :)

It is definitely the one piece of equipment that gets used on every stroke and the reason why I do give it some attention. I do play much better with a ball that has less spin than a Prov1 but have had very good performance from the (RIP) U/3.

 

 

And the low handicappers in this thread aren't the ones complaining about the price or performance of the ball. As Yogi said (or was it Casey ?) "You could look it up".

 

That is true. Could it be that higher handicaps normally play more 2 piece ionomer balls?

 

And if you only need 1 ball most rounds and are going cheap to save a buck or 2 despite the fact that the ball is the most important tool AND quite possibly the cheapest one of all considering greens fees, clothes, clubs, etc., then you should take up chess.

 

Are you making an assumption that a golfer would play a ball that is not best suited for their game to save a buck? If so, I have never met one.

 

Just one person's opinion. (cool)

 

Bottom line, Titleist has made some excellent golf equipment but they often try to take advantage of their brand. They had a heavy marketing program saying that the ProV1 will "perform" for all golfers. Well it does spin for most golfers but it is the worst golf ball that I have tried for my swing. Now they are saying clearly that their 2 piece ionomer ball is better than the urethane tour offerings from Taylor Made and Callaway. It probably is for my swing but not for a tour caliber player!

 

But time will tell and I predict that the Tour Soft will be a big seller until it gets exposed like the NXT line.

 

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:

[Break81]

Anyone who doesn’t think Titleist is scrambling a little with the AVX , colored Velocity and Tour Soft is somewhat in denial. Clearly they are trying to recapture lost market share.

 

They will most likely do well with the Velocity , but the jury is up in the air with the other 2. Can a brand really have 3 balls pushing $47? Bridgestone tried this but always discounts massively shortly there after. The AVX may lure a couple customers back , but at $47 I am not convinced it’s enough to sustain another ball in the line-up. On the Tour Soft , initial intrigue will boost short term sales but I expect that to flatten out early summer.

 

Might be popular as a “winter” ball for the Titleist fans in cold weather climate but still see it struggling after the hype is over.

 

The most curious thing to me is this - are both the AVX and True Soft going to hurt ProV1 sales more than hurting their direct competitors in Callaway , Taylormade and Srixon ?

[larciel]

^^^^^^ this