RECAPS: The 2019 Titleist Pro V1 Experience. GolfWRX Members visit Titleist World Headquarters!

[getair23]

Coffee was extra special good this morning.

 

[getair23]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> I know it is poor taste in these situations to mention what balls are the same but with different logos but I would love to know what they are. I do not expect anyone to say, nor would I ask. But I am curious.

 

I remember the question being asked. I don't think there were any. Every Titleist ball is unique, as well as the Pinnacle balls. Even the Pinnacle range ball even gets a different cover than the balls you can buy off the shelf.

[PapaJohick]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> I know it is poor taste in these situations to mention what balls are the same but with different logos but I would love to know what they are. I do not expect anyone to say, nor would I ask. But I am curious.

 

What’s interesting about two of these balls that jumped out to me, was that about 3-4 years ago, these two balls had a pretty decent following here and other forums. Being touted as premium urethane/tour balls. They were good balls (I played both and enjoyed them haha), but they were the exact same ball apparently. Only difference was logo, price and possibly the cover/dimple patterns as not to infringe. But the amount of layers, layer construction/composition, etc were the exact same haha.

 

Now, if it were just that, obviously I wouldn’t be too worried about playing other balls. A good ball is a good ball ya? The thing that will have me playing titleist is the fact that while those other balls are good, because the other oems (except for 1 or 2 others. I know srixon was one, cannot remember if there was another) do not control the entire manufacturing process, they cannot control the quality as well. Ie: cores being centered, same amount of raw materials being added/processed the same way every time, ensuring consistency, this means that you could end up with a ball that you completely expect and can trust, but there is a chance (some way higher than others) that you’ll get some type of inconsistency that DOES have an effect on your game.

 

[PapaJohick]

A few examples of above that I’m trying to remember:

 

One ball, very popular ball a few years ago. Again a good ball also. They took out to the testing range and hit a shot. Went wildly to the left (like wayy left). Called nate and he didn’t understand. Told them to flip it the other way. This time the shot went wayyyyy right. Brought it back to the office and cut it open. The core was way off center. Like one side of it was almost near the edge of the 2nd layer. Wow. Again, it was a good ball and I’m sure there were ones that were just fine, but to think that you could randomly have one in the dozen that could fly like that is disturbing for a 50-60$ dzn ball. That can really screw up your head while playing.

 

Another example. Again very very popular ball. Some very big names playing said ball. Cut open a dozen from retail and from tour stock. Both dozen had core inconsistencies and more alarming, there were balls that weren’t even made the same way.... so basically two different balls in the same dozen. Ones from retail and from the tour ?. Again. I played this ball a ton. Looking back I realized about some things where I new certain swings were giving me unexpected results.

[Oaks]

Fascinating stuff guys. I really wish I could have been there.

[mBiden2]

> @Oaks said:

> Fascinating stuff guys. I really wish I could have been there.

 

Amen!

[QuigleyDU]

> @PapaJohick said:

> A few examples of above that I’m trying to remember:

>

> One ball, very popular ball a few years ago. Again a good ball also. They took out to the testing range and hit a shot. Went wildly to the left (like wayy left). Called nate and he didn’t understand. Told them to flip it the other way. This time the shot went wayyyyy right. Brought it back to the office and cut it open. The core was way off center. Like one side of it was almost near the edge of the 2nd layer. Wow. Again, it was a good ball and I’m sure there were ones that were just fine, but to think that you could randomly have one in the dozen that could fly like that is disturbing for a 50-60$ dzn ball. That can really screw up your head while playing.

>

> Another example. Again very very popular ball. Some very big names playing said ball. Cut open a dozen from retail and from tour stock. Both dozen had core inconsistencies and more alarming, there were balls that weren’t even made the same way.... so basically two different balls in the same dozen. Ones from retail and from the tour ?. Again. I played this ball a ton. Looking back I realized about some things where I new certain swings were giving me unexpected results.

 

Very very interesting. Thanks! Geez, it seems more and more as the curtain of golf equipment gets pulled back you discover who are truest wizards, and who are imposters.

 

 

[mBiden2]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @PapaJohick said:

> > A few examples of above that I’m trying to remember:

> >

> > One ball, very popular ball a few years ago. Again a good ball also. They took out to the testing range and hit a shot. Went wildly to the left (like wayy left). Called nate and he didn’t understand. Told them to flip it the other way. This time the shot went wayyyyy right. Brought it back to the office and cut it open. The core was way off center. Like one side of it was almost near the edge of the 2nd layer. Wow. Again, it was a good ball and I’m sure there were ones that were just fine, but to think that you could randomly have one in the dozen that could fly like that is disturbing for a 50-60$ dzn ball. That can really screw up your head while playing.

> >

> > Another example. Again very very popular ball. Some very big names playing said ball. Cut open a dozen from retail and from tour stock. Both dozen had core inconsistencies and more alarming, there were balls that weren’t even made the same way.... so basically two different balls in the same dozen. Ones from retail and from the tour ?. Again. I played this ball a ton. Looking back I realized about some things where I new certain swings were giving me unexpected results.

>

> Very very interesting. Thanks! Geez, it seems more and more as the curtain of golf equipment gets pulled back you discover who are truest wizards, and who are imposters.

>

>

 

Man I would really love to know more who the “imposters” are. Especially since Ricky switched to TM after playing ProV his whole life. Also, makes me wonder how different the TP5 retail and tour balls are....

[QuigleyDU]

> @mBiden2 said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @PapaJohick said:

> > > A few examples of above that I’m trying to remember:

> > >

> > > One ball, very popular ball a few years ago. Again a good ball also. They took out to the testing range and hit a shot. Went wildly to the left (like wayy left). Called nate and he didn’t understand. Told them to flip it the other way. This time the shot went wayyyyy right. Brought it back to the office and cut it open. The core was way off center. Like one side of it was almost near the edge of the 2nd layer. Wow. Again, it was a good ball and I’m sure there were ones that were just fine, but to think that you could randomly have one in the dozen that could fly like that is disturbing for a 50-60$ dzn ball. That can really screw up your head while playing.

> > >

> > > Another example. Again very very popular ball. Some very big names playing said ball. Cut open a dozen from retail and from tour stock. Both dozen had core inconsistencies and more alarming, there were balls that weren’t even made the same way.... so basically two different balls in the same dozen. Ones from retail and from the tour ?. Again. I played this ball a ton. Looking back I realized about some things where I new certain swings were giving me unexpected results.

> >

> > Very very interesting. Thanks! Geez, it seems more and more as the curtain of golf equipment gets pulled back you discover who are truest wizards, and who are imposters.

> >

> >

>

> Man I would really love to know more who the “imposters” are. Especially since Ricky switched to TM after playing ProV his whole life. Also, makes me wonder how different the TP5 retail and tour balls are....

 

I Am not claiming anything other than proVs are not good. I have been playing snells and think it is a great ball.

[jwm1]

I played TP5x before the trip and had a good experience. The cores are sourced from 2 factories and when you cut them open someone can tell what factory they came from based on color. The cores are then tested and not consistent batch to batch. I still don’t think they’re bad balls, I just expect more when I’m paying that. I would want at least a consistent dozen. It seems like the minimum quality control I would expect.

[Drewmiller07]

 

> > > Another example. Again very very popular ball. Some very big names playing

> Man I would really love to know more who the “imposters” are. Especially since Ricky switched to TM after playing ProV his whole life. Also, makes me wonder how different the TP5 retail and tour balls are....

 

Let’s just say Phil’s driving might not be totally his fault.

 

And For Ricky, Guaranteed sponsor money is better than possible tournament money.

[Mr. Grumpy]

> @Drewmiller07 said:

>

> > > > Another example. Again very very popular ball. Some very big names playing

> > Man I would really love to know more who the “imposters” are. Especially since Ricky switched to TM after playing ProV his whole life. Also, makes me wonder how different the TP5 retail and tour balls are....

>

> Let’s just say Phil’s driving might not be totally his fault.

>

> And For Ricky, Guaranteed sponsor money is better than possible tournament money.

 

Really,, c'mon,, As much as the positive marketing machine grabs you, so does the negative marketing machine. Do you really believe that Phil M missing a fairway is because his ball is not Titleist? Or that RIckie is any worse a golfer because he now plays a TM? BS... The only weird phenomenon is Bubba and his Volvic and I don't think that was QC, it's just a bad ball...

[toc]

> @"Mr. Grumpy" said:

> > @Drewmiller07 said:

> >

> > > > > Another example. Again very very popular ball. Some very big names playing

> > > Man I would really love to know more who the “imposters” are. Especially since Ricky switched to TM after playing ProV his whole life. Also, makes me wonder how different the TP5 retail and tour balls are....

> >

> > Let’s just say Phil’s driving might not be totally his fault.

> >

> > And For Ricky, Guaranteed sponsor money is better than possible tournament money.

>

> Really,, c'mon,, As much as the positive marketing machine grabs you, so does the negative marketing machine. Do you really believe that Phil M missing a fairway is because his ball is not Titleist? Or that RIckie is any worse a golfer because he now plays a TM? BS... The only weird phenomenon is Bubba and his Volvic and I don't think that was QC, it's just a bad ball...

 

Very true, everything Titleist says about other balls may be true but one has to be somewhat skeptical.

 

[n_rones]

> @toc said:

> > @"Mr. Grumpy" said:

> > > @Drewmiller07 said:

> > >

> > > > > > Another example. Again very very popular ball. Some very big names playing

> > > > Man I would really love to know more who the “imposters” are. Especially since Ricky switched to TM after playing ProV his whole life. Also, makes me wonder how different the TP5 retail and tour balls are....

> > >

> > > Let’s just say Phil’s driving might not be totally his fault.

> > >

> > > And For Ricky, Guaranteed sponsor money is better than possible tournament money.

> >

> > Really,, c'mon,, As much as the positive marketing machine grabs you, so does the negative marketing machine. Do you really believe that Phil M missing a fairway is because his ball is not Titleist? Or that RIckie is any worse a golfer because he now plays a TM? BS... The only weird phenomenon is Bubba and his Volvic and I don't think that was QC, it's just a bad ball...

>

> Very true, everything Titleist says about other balls may be true but one has to be somewhat skeptical.

>

 

Like many have said the other too OEMs don’t make bad balls but when there’s a dozen balls of X brand sitting on the table in front of you cut in half and not every ball in the box has the same core or one dozen has one core and the next dozen has another and it’s all supposed to be the same ball then that’s not something I want to invest in.

[Mr. Grumpy]

I get that there are many balls that are the same with different manufacturer names, at different price points,,, but blaming Phil's and Rickie's performance on a ball that is not a Titleist is hogwash.. Name manufacturers that are in control A-Z? We know Titleist is, who are the others?

[Dreadzombie]

> @"Mr. Grumpy" said:

> I get that there are many balls that are the same with different manufacturer names, at different price points,,, but blaming Phil's and Rickie's performance on a ball that is not a Titleist is hogwash.. Name manufacturers that are in control A-Z? We know Titleist is, who are the others?

 

I honestly dont think any others were mentioned. Titleist literally controls every aspect of making the thing you can think of to the t.

 

Also, if theres inconsistencies in a ball, it WILL affect performance, period.

 

 

[518TitleistX]

> @"Mr. Grumpy" said:

> I get that there are many balls that are the same with different manufacturer names, at different price points,,, but blaming Phil's and Rickie's performance on a ball that is not a Titleist is hogwash.. Name manufacturers that are in control A-Z? We know Titleist is, who are the others?

 

There were only 3 manufacturers who controlled every aspect of their manufacturing as of a couple years ago. Titleist, Srixon, and Bridgestone. Since then, if I remember the conversation correctly, both Srixon and Bridgestone have either begun outsourcing certain aspects of their manufacturing or have produced parts for other companies for their balls. Titleist controls every aspect of their production from chemical composition to packaging and everything in between. I asked their R&D guys if they had an operating budget, they said yes, HOWEVER they had blown that budget out of the water annually for as far back as he could remember. Cost vs performance analysis is always being performed for potential improved materials to make the #1 ball in golf, better.

 

 

[jwm1]

I think @Drewmiller07 ‘s comment was a little tongue in cheek. The aero test when we hit a ball with uneven dimples was pretty funny though. If you lined it up straight you could hit it straight, but then off the fairway or off the next tee lined up the other way it would fly way offline even on a great strike. I would think the tour players are getting the best of the best of any brand.

[Dreadzombie]

> @518TitleistX said:

> > @"Mr. Grumpy" said:

> > I get that there are many balls that are the same with different manufacturer names, at different price points,,, but blaming Phil's and Rickie's performance on a ball that is not a Titleist is hogwash.. Name manufacturers that are in control A-Z? We know Titleist is, who are the others?

>

> There were only 3 manufacturers who controlled every aspect of their manufacturing as of a couple years ago. Titleist, Srixon, and Bridgestone. Since then, if I remember the conversation correctly, both Srixon and Bridgestone have either begun outsourcing certain aspects of their manufacturing or have produced parts for other companies for their balls. Titleist controls every aspect of their production from chemical composition to packaging and everything in between. I asked their R&D guys if they had an operating budget, they said yes, HOWEVER they had blown that budget out of the water annually for as far back as he could remember. Cost vs performance analysis is always being performed for potential improved materials to make the #1 ball in golf, better.

>

>

 

Yep that's it, good memory man lol. As #PapaJohick mentioned, some factories in those 2 brands were found to be more consistent than others.

 

It's not an issue of "all balls from x company are off center or whatever" it's an increased probability of that happening.

[518TitleistX]

There was one particular brand of balls that was displayed via cut aways in the "Lab". All the same exact model ball with varying colors, flat white, orange, yellow, and even black. The composition of this ball had absolutely no uniformity. Some were dual core, some single core, varying composition of materials and the ones with dual cores weren't centered within the ball. Total garbage quality control. How do you market this all as the same exact ball with that much variance in product package to package. How does a consumer rely on the performance of this ball, or even a tour pro? The answer is they dont. They nix the contract and go back to Titleist.

[Drewmiller07]

> Really,, c'mon,, As much as the positive marketing machine grabs you, so does the negative marketing machine. Do you really believe that Phil M missing a fairway is because his ball is not Titleist? Or that RIckie is any worse a golfer because he now plays a TM? BS... The only weird phenomenon is Bubba and his Volvic and I don't think that was QC, it's just a bad ball...

 

I’ll say this exactly how I meant it because it came off to be interpreted in many ways.

 

The ball that Phil plays was the ball that was tested that flew in multiple directions during the test. I was joking saying it wasn’t Phil’s fault.

 

I meant that Ricky took guaranteed sponsorship money going with the new ball. It was more than he got with titleist. He took that knowing that there is a POSSIBILITY that he might not get a perfect ball.

 

I didn’t mean that you’re guaranteed to get a POS from everyone else.

[Mr. Grumpy]

So, money is wasted on every other premium ball? Missing an out of round ball or an uneven dimple design is understandable,, and I would think that it happen more often if you are not in charge from start to finish.... However, this happens to every manufacturer. Titleist is not immune. I am sure that the number guys have even calculated for this. Does this happen more with Callaway, Bridgestone, Taylormade? I don't know,,, I would assume it does if they are not in control of all the process.. I would also assume this happens to the lower tier balls more often. Just a guess...

Do I question the QC of the Titleist that I just hit where it did not go where I wanted it to? No. And I don't question that with any other ball.

My stats say that I am more often to shoot below 81 with a non Titleist ball - Rounds below 81 with A Titleist 0, rounds below 81 with other manufactures 6,, and play with a Titleist the majority of the time. Do I blame this is Titleist? No...

[Drewmiller07]

> @"Mr. Grumpy" said:

> So, money is wasted on every other premium ball? Missing an out of round ball or an uneven dimple design is understandable,, and I would think that it happen more often if you are not in charge from start to finish.... However, this happens to every manufacturer. Titleist is not immune. I am sure that the number guys have even calculated for this. Does this happen more with Callaway, Bridgestone, Taylormade? I don't know,,, I would assume it does if they are not in control of all the process.. I would also assume this happens to the lower tier balls more often. Just a guess...

> Do I question the QC of the Titleist that I just hit where it did not go where I wanted it to? No. And I don't question that with any other ball.

> My stats say that I am more often to shoot below 81 with a non Titleist ball - Rounds below 81 with A Titleist 0, rounds below 81 with other manufactures 6,, and play with a Titleist the majority of the time. Do I blame this is Titleist? No...

 

No

[Dreadzombie]

> @"Mr. Grumpy" said:

> So, money is wasted on every other premium ball? Missing an out of round ball or an uneven dimple design is understandable,, and I would think that it happen more often if you are not in charge from start to finish.... However, this happens to every manufacturer. Titleist is not immune. I am sure that the number guys have even calculated for this. Does this happen more with Callaway, Bridgestone, Taylormade? I don't know,,, I would assume it does if they are not in control of all the process.. I would also assume this happens to the lower tier balls more often. Just a guess...

> Do I question the QC of the Titleist that I just hit where it did not go where I wanted it to? No. And I don't question that with any other ball.

> My stats say that I am more often to shoot below 81 with a non Titleist ball - Rounds below 81 with A Titleist 0, rounds below 81 with other manufactures 6,, and play with a Titleist the majority of the time. Do I blame this is Titleist? No...

 

Have you played an equal number of rounds with each? Same course? Ect. I'd like to see a controlled test with brands on the same course over a period of time, new ball each time. Then check the ball after for imperfections. Thatd be neat to see.

 

Imagine if you were buying cars from companies A and B, company A outsourced their wheel studs, and now 1/100 cars have at least 1 stud shear after X miles. Company B didnt outsource, and maybe 1/1000 have weakened wheel studs. Looking at the car from the outside youd have no idea until you drove it, and even then you wouldn't know that the stud issue would be caused by outsourcing, and think it could be cause by "driving conditions" or the like.

 

I'm not the best at analogies, but like I mentioned, imperfections affect ball flight, Titleist severely limits these by controlling their processes and doing everything in house, something I cant say for other companies.

[Frid_the_kid]

We have run tests at our course using a putting ramp “the perfect putt” and a perfectly flat artificial putting green. It is incredible how POORLY some brand’s ball roll is (I’m sure out of center cores are a large part of the issue). Titleist’s were some of the only golf balls that rolled consistently. There were other golf balls in our unscientific test which made our mouths drop with how wobbly they rolled under a slow motion video (harder for us to see with naked eye).

The different was universal at the mid-tier golf ball range. Titleist’s mid teir golf balls were far more consistent than the mid-tier golf balls some of of the guys at the course were playing.

[jwm1]

That’s just like the Titleist origin story. The founder missed a short putt, x-rayed the ball and saw it was like an egg. Every single ProV is still x-rayed before it’s released.

 

> @Frid_the_kid said:

> We have run tests at our course using a putting ramp “the perfect putt” and a perfectly flat artificial putting green. It is incredible how POORLY some brand’s ball roll is (I’m sure out of center cores are a large part of the issue). Titleist’s were some of the only golf balls that rolled consistently. There were other golf balls in our unscientific test which made our mouths drop with how wobbly they rolled under a slow motion video (harder for us to see with naked eye).

> The different was universal at the mid-tier golf ball range. Titleist’s mid teir golf balls were far more consistent than the mid-tier golf balls some of of the guys at the course were playing.

 

 

[PapaJohick]

Like others have mentioned. There are other brands that have a great ball and may be the best ball for you. The thing for me is, I’m paying money for a product I expect to be quality. Yes variances occur as with any product, and yes titleist won’t have perfection out there, but one oem in particular who claims to have changed the game with their ball, they were able to fill two tables about 10-12 feet long and 3-4 feet wide with just those balls that showed a huge amount of inconsistencies. From paint issues, non centered cores, different cores, compression variances (as in 15-25 units of measurement difference), etc. this selection wasn’t just accumulated either. It was after 1-3 bulk purchases.

 

I don’t know. I’m not sitting here trying to get you to play titleist haha. I’m giving feedback from what I saw with my own eyes. The tp5x is an amazing ball and I love it. Butttt knowing what I know now, it will probably not see my bag very often. Tour players are probably getting the least variance, but even in the tour samples from different oems, there were some that could cause a difference. Especially with roll on the greens.

[PapaJohick]

> @"Mr. Grumpy" said:

> So, money is wasted on every other premium ball? Missing an out of round ball or an uneven dimple design is understandable,, and I would think that it happen more often if you are not in charge from start to finish.... However, this happens to every manufacturer. Titleist is not immune. I am sure that the number guys have even calculated for this. Does this happen more with Callaway, Bridgestone, Taylormade? I don't know,,, I would assume it does if they are not in control of all the process.. I would also assume this happens to the lower tier balls more often. Just a guess...

> Do I question the QC of the Titleist that I just hit where it did not go where I wanted it to? No. And I don't question that with any other ball.

> My stats say that I am more often to shoot below 81 with a non Titleist ball - Rounds below 81 with A Titleist 0, rounds below 81 with other manufactures 6,, and play with a Titleist the majority of the time. Do I blame this is Titleist? No...

 

 

No not a waste of money. Just not how I as a consumer wants to spend mine personally.

 

You’re right about tolerances. Everyone has them. Yes titleist and srixon probably have a better chance because they control from beginning to end. I’ve never been to another ball plant so I can’t talk about how the oems do it, but titleist has so many checks so early in the process, done by people who have been doing it for so long, that their variances where it matters are much more limited, or would seem to be. Once the cover is out on, again with special tooling they do themselves, between the people and computers that check these things, it’s hard pressed to think there’s a significant amount of oopsies out there.

 

 

[getair23]

It is a lot of fun to get deep into the weeds on this stuff. There are a lot of great golf balls in the market, and probably not as wildly inconsistent as some have claimed. That being said there are instances where a bad ball or dozen is definitely possible under less stringent process quality.

Being the bestselling ball in the market allows you to afford a high level of scientists, testing, quality control, testing/innovation, technology etc... I took all that I learned in R&D to understand why Titleist takes great pride in their ball, and that anything less than meeting a strict manufacturing standard is unnaceptablre to them. Much more than those other guys make a subpar product.

 

 

[getair23]

> @"Mr. Grumpy" said:

> I get that there are many balls that are the same with different manufacturer names, at different price points,,, but blaming Phil's and Rickie's performance on a ball that is not a Titleist is hogwash.. Name manufacturers that are in control A-Z? We know Titleist is, who are the others?

 

To say only 3 companies, control the process from start to finish is partially true. Some ball companies are more hands on with some of their flagship balls than some of their lower price point balls. I can't speak to the balls Rickie and Phil play. It is possible their ball is not the same as the retail ball we can buy at the store. We learned all Titleist staff play balls off the production line in plant 3. Even the special runs for guys playing models from previous years. There is actually a guy whose job is to get the balls after production and send them to the players, tour van, and for their lockers at tour events.