Great ball test!

[BiggErn]

> @lenman73 said:

> > @agolf1 said:

> > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > @agolf1 said:

> > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > @agolf1 said:

> > > > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > > > @agolf1 said:

> > > > > > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > > > > > @agolf1 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @agolf1 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @BiggErn said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @agolf1 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Andygolderson said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like the feeling of the soft balls and the control you can have over them in the green.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I play the SuperSoft a lot, and like it for all parts of my game. However, I've always wondered if the sound/feel of this ball around the green makes it seem like you can do more with it (vs. what you actually can do / how it performs)? I mean it doesn't spin more than a ProV (which may be good or bad for total short game performance), and I'm guessing spin is what people usually associate with "control" (whether or not they can actually control the spin consistently). I do think these balls (SuperSoft or Soft Feel) grab a bit more than the pure two-piece distance balls like a Velocity if that's what your comparison is to.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Not only does it not spin around the green it doesn’t anywhere else either. If you have any kind of swing speed it’s almost impossible to control short irons and wedges due to the extreme lack of spin. I’m not talking about it carrying the correct distance and just not stopping but rather flying forever over the target.

> > > > > > > > > > > > I"m pretty moderate speed. I hit a 36 degree iron about 150 yards carry. Personally, I've found that these type of balls stop nearly as quick as urethane balls on full iron shots. I believe it is because the SuperSofts fly higher but I don't know for sure.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I believe most people here think they have a lot more control over the ball than they actually do. You probably have a nice 10 foot circle as your target from 175-200 yards, right? Rarely outside of that I'd guess. For me, there is 5-10 yards of variation on reasonably well struck shots from 5-iron to GW. Exact contact location on the face, loft delivered at impact, how the ball is sitting, wind, elevation, air temperature, etc. I don't have the ability to judge all of that so precisely, but I'm probably not as good as you are.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Either you didn’t comprehend what I said or you assume I hit a short iron or wedge 175-200. Don't know if I’m better than you or not but I’m good enough to know I don’t need short irons and wedges airmailing greens where they normally wouldn’t.

> > > > > > > > > > My point is you may airmail the green for any number of reasons that are due to you. Everyone blames the ball, the clubhead design, etc. Maybe some types of equipment aren't as consistent but I'd bet more than half the variation is user error (i.e. people think they have a pro like swing but they suck).

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Lol ok. I doubt any rational person doesn’t realize there’s always gonna be some degree of dispersion and don’t make a judgement based on one instance. Maybe I’m better than I thought to be able to diagnose a marshmallow ball with virtually no spin as the culprit.

> > > > > > > > It works fine for me. I bet you could improve more by hitting the centre of the face with the correct face/path and right swing speed and this would trump any difference there is between ball choice today. Is the tour ball better? Sure but when chops that miss the target 50% of the time (possibly more) anyways are blaming it all on the crappy ball I have my doubts.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I find the middle of the face plenty and as a single digit HC who shoots consistently in the 70s I feel I can usually find the culprit when shots start randomly flying 20+ yards over their intended target. My swing speed is my swing speed and I’m not gonna change it to accommodate a low performance ball that doesn’t spin but instead I’ll realize the ball is definitely not for me and move to a better ball.

> > > > > > WOW, WOW, WOW!!! I'm a single digit handicap too and I've shot in the 70s with the equivalent of a range ball (2-piece rock). News flash for you - when a ball goes 20+ yards over the intended target it wasn't just the ball. Something else happened; you swing, wind, distance wasn't what you thought it was etc. No doubt that ball may have jumped and been exaggerated by the a specific ball's characteristics. But it's not like the ProV1 was going to be 20+ yards shorter right next to the hole. Thanks for your post - you just proved my point on how people at this level cannot estimate what is going on with their swing/other factors vs. just the equipment.

> > > > >

> > > > > You must be a senior citizen. You’re right though something else did happen, I tried a marshmallow ball that had virtually no spin and it carried forever multiple times. The ProV1 analogy is asinine and certainly proves a point.

> > > > Entirely wrong on my age. Shows how dumb you are here too.

> > > >

> > > > The ProV analogy is perfect. Same swing and conditions and it's not 20+ yards shorter than the Supersoft. You swing or miscalculation of something else made it seem like it went farther. Again, I'm not saying the SuperSoft doesn't jump or jump more but 20+ yards was not just the ball.

> > >

> > > Lol ?

> > Lol. BiggErn = Big Blow Hard. Many have seem it in the blades/cb threads.

>

> Ern has proved all he is is a contrarian. A blade don't work for him so they can't for anyone. A cheap ball don't work for him, the master ball striker he is so they are stupid for anyone else to use. Weird I just hit my longest drives for the season on 2 different holes for that course and shot a 39 on league night with a trusoft. Odd I never had one shoot 20+ yards over a green. I must not achieved tour ball striker status yet like Ern. So the fact people complained about getting hot spots and fliers from some taylormade irons (taylormade spokesman admitted to fixing the problem in the next release) get shot down and called crazy. But changing a ball causes 20+ yard fliers now. I have learned so much in this thread. Like how anonymous people on the internet tell other people something won't work, even though it does.

 

Lol. I never said blades don’t work for anybody I just don’t believe they work for someone who is a double digit HC and below average ball striker. Actually if you don’t hit them dead solid pretty much exclusively there’s really zero benefit to playing them at all. I never said the supersoft doesn’t work for anybody but if you are a decent ball striker with any kind of swing speed they are terrible to control with shorter clubs because they don’t spin. The trusoft is a low-mid compression and almost double that of a SuperSoft. I guess you’re just being a contrarian since you must’ve been ignorant to that fact.

[Red4282]

Big ern or whatever isnt far off. Slower compression balls have shown to actually have more ball speed off short irons than a firmer ball. Combined with a much lower spin rate, some one who has high ss can no doubt hit some absolute bombs with no stopping power. Consistency is key here, if the softer ball was +20 everytime then ok, its the dispersion that really matters... at least for a better player. Im not saying who is right or wrong here as i think both have valid arguments. Man placebo has such an effect on people tho, wow.

[grm24]

> @jjfcpa said:

> One of the balls singled out in the ball test was the Srixon AD333. I was playing 9 holes last night and found one on the course. What a coincidence because I can't find it on Srixon's website.

 

In the USA the AD333 is now known as the Q-Star (and Q-Star Tour). The first generation Q-Star 2 piece ball was released in the USA in 2012. In the UK and Japan they still are the AD333 (and AD333 Tour). For a 2 piece ball the AD333 was actually a pretty good ball. Especially at it's price point at the time of $20/dozen.

 

[jjfcpa]

> @grm24 said:

> > @jjfcpa said:

> > One of the balls singled out in the ball test was the Srixon AD333. I was playing 9 holes last night and found one on the course. What a coincidence because I can't find it on Srixon's website.

>

> In the USA the AD333 is now known as the Q-Star (and Q-Star Tour). The first generation Q-Star 2 piece ball was released in the USA in 2012. In the UK and Japan they still are the AD333 (and AD333 Tour). For a 2 piece ball the AD333 was actually a pretty good ball. Especially at it's price point at the time of $20/dozen.

>

Looks like you can purchase the AD333 ball on Amazon for $ 19.97 a dozen.

 

[storm319]

> @jjfcpa said:

> > @grm24 said:

> > > @jjfcpa said:

> > > One of the balls singled out in the ball test was the Srixon AD333. I was playing 9 holes last night and found one on the course. What a coincidence because I can't find it on Srixon's website.

> >

> > In the USA the AD333 is now known as the Q-Star (and Q-Star Tour). The first generation Q-Star 2 piece ball was released in the USA in 2012. In the UK and Japan they still are the AD333 (and AD333 Tour). For a 2 piece ball the AD333 was actually a pretty good ball. Especially at it's price point at the time of $20/dozen.

> >

> Looks like you can purchase the AD333 ball on Amazon for $ 19.97 a dozen.

>

I believe the first generation of the AD333 was available to the USDM in 2004. As previously stated, Srixon rebranded the AD333 as the QStar in 2012 for the USDM only (with an accompanying $5 price increase). This ball is still the AD333 in all other markets (check the European and Asian Srixon websites) and the most popular 2-piece ionomer ball in the UK hence the reason it was included in this test. Initially they had different dimple designs (AD333 had 333 dimples where the QStar had the same pattern as the ZStar at the time). However in 2014, they changed the AD333 to the same ZStar dimple design and it had been the same ball since. Prior generation overstock often ends up being sold in NA by Amazon, Walmart, and discount golf retailers, but the ball is not officially available to the USDM (you’ll notice that it is not on the US website).

 

Ultimately, it is still a 2-piece ionomer ball, nothing special.

[North Butte]

When I used to make yearly golf vacation trips to UK, the AD333 was my go-to ball for restocking when I ran out of the ball I brought from home. It was always the cheapest ball in the course pro shops and even with the exchange rate they usually sold them for not much more then US$20/dozen.

 

No better or worse performance wise than a Duo or DT Solo but cheaper at pro-shop retail for an American tourist.

[CougarRed]

Very interesting that the Project (a) ball has very similar spin characteristics to the TP5x on both the wedge chart and the driver chart. In fact, almost identical spin numbers on the 100 mph driver swing and the 7 iron swing. TP5x spins 107 rpm more on the wedge.

 

[This review](http://www.golfalot.com/equipment-reviews/taylormade-project-a-2018-golf-ball-review-4017.aspx "This review") suggests Taylormade made changes in the Project (a) ball for 2018 that reduced spin and increased ball speed.

 

The (a) and the TP5x look like different compression versions of the same ball (92 vs 107). The TP5 is their "spinny" ball.

[BeerPerHole]

Back in the caveman days when I was studying engineer (in the finest engineering school west of the Mississippi) I remember the concept of coefficient of restitution, and how it related to firmness. A few other things going on with golf balls, but this rhymes...

[nad12]

Storm319 - you mention the AD333 is nothing special but aren't these numbers showing that there isn't much between the worst and best performers in this test (genuine question)?

Also the AD333 has a urethane coating, I presume this is the 'spin skin'. I would like to know how the ball would perform after a few strikes and in wet conditions where the urethane coating could wear away. I expect the numbers then would very much be lesser than the test is indicating (maybe that's why it is nothing special).

Just a thought.

[storm319]

> @nad12 said:

> Storm319 - you mention the AD333 is nothing special but aren't these numbers showing that there isn't much between the worst and best performers in this test (genuine question)?

> Also the AD333 has a urethane coating, I presume this is the 'spin skin'. I would like to know how the ball would perform after a few strikes and in wet conditions where the urethane coating could wear away. I expect the numbers then would very much be lesser than the test is indicating (maybe that's why it is nothing special).

> Just a thought.

 

First, the 74mph PW is pretty good full swing and where you see a bigger separation between ionomer and urethane is on partial greenside shots. My guess is that they setup the PW swing with a very shallow angle of attack which would also explain the low across the board spin rates at that speed, but hard to tell since they didn’t share that detail nor the launch results. Even then, the 2-piece QStar spinning more than the 3-piece urethane ZStar is a bit suspect. From a high swing speed driver perspective, the result of lower ball speed from the lower compression balls was as expected.

 

The AD333/QStar have an ionomer cover and the spin skin coating does not contain urethane. It being a mediocre 2-piece ball is based on my personal experience, but to be honest I have had a similar experience with just about every ionomer covered ball I have tried.

[CougarRed]

> @storm319 said:

> Reference link in case anyone is interested:

> https://www.todaysgolfer.co.uk/features/equipment-features/2019/september/robot-tested-which-golf-bal-suits-my-game/

 

So the TP5x performed really well in this test. But the Maxfli Tour was not tested.

 

In the **** test, the Maxfli Tour put up very similar numbers to the TP5x. Same compression. Same launch angle for 100 mph driver. Slightly faster. Carried further.

 

Faster but more spin and slightly lower launch in the 7 iron. Similar carry.

 

Almost identical wedge spin. Similar carry. Smaller dispersion.

 

When on sale for "buy 2, get 1," costs half as much as TP5x.

[nad12]

> @storm319 said:

> The AD333/QStar have an ionomer cover and the spin skin coating does not contain urethane. It being a mediocre 2-piece ball is based on my personal experience, but to be honest I have had a similar experience with just about every ionomer covered ball I have tried.

________________________________________

The article is saying it does contain a urethane coating:

"A new urethane coating on the Ionomer cover digs into wedge and iron grooves for more control and stopping power."

 

What is this urethane coating they refer to?

 

[Red4282]

> @CougarRed said:

> > @storm319 said:

> > Reference link in case anyone is interested:

> > https://www.todaysgolfer.co.uk/features/equipment-features/2019/september/robot-tested-which-golf-bal-suits-my-game/

>

> So the TP5x performed really well in this test. But the Maxfli Tour was not tested.

>

> In the **** test, the Maxfli Tour put up very similar numbers to the TP5x. Same compression. Same launch angle for 100 mph driver. Slightly faster. Carried further.

>

> Faster but more spin and slightly lower launch in the 7 iron. Similar carry.

>

> Almost identical wedge spin. Similar carry. Smaller dispersion.

>

> When on sale for "buy 2, get 1," costs half as much as TP5x.

 

The spin on a 7 iron was massively lower with the tp5x. As someone who spins my short irons a bit much, that would concern me. Dispersion was also better with the tp5x. Oh and i think i remember mgfsp saying when they cut open maxflis (not sure on model) they found several instances of different cores/balls within the same box..

[storm319]

> @nad12 said:

> > @storm319 said:

> > The AD333/QStar have an ionomer cover and the spin skin coating does not contain urethane. It being a mediocre 2-piece ball is based on my personal experience, but to be honest I have had a similar experience with just about every ionomer covered ball I have tried.

> ________________________________________

> The article is saying it does contain a urethane coating:

> "A new urethane coating on the Ionomer cover digs into wedge and iron grooves for more control and stopping power."

>

> What is this urethane coating they refer to?

>

 

Found this on another site referencing the SeRM coating. It is still not going to make a huge difference in closing the gap between an ionomer and urethane cover as the cover’s hardness and thickness will be a greater influence.

 

“This cover, now joined by the SeRM coating, is just 0.5mm thick and created from a super soft urethane”

[Nessism]

I like this test better than the "other" one. Test data better matches what people like Tom Wishon and Dean Snell has said about balls and distance.

My takeaway: ball performance is pretty consistent across the manufacturers. Spin affects distance, no surprise there. The slower the club head speed the less important the ball is in terms of distance. Not that it's overly important with long hitters, because it isn't. Can you imagine anyone with a 115 mph driver speed worrying about 5-7 yards of carry? If they are their priorities are wrong.

[Andygolderson]

> @tsecor said:

> I cant wait for the new and improved chromesoft.........TP5 is the longest ball for me.....prov1 is the best all around ball.....for me......get fit for what you want......distance? greenside play? all around play???? we all want different things, but I'm willing to sacrifice 10 yards off the tee to have better results near and around the green. Scoring is what matters....its really the ONLY thing.

 

I think it's exactly this point that everyone is looking separately for something different in their game.

I like the Callaway SuperSoft since i played it due to the feel, the sound and i really like the control (or at least my idea of control - stopping the ball quickly or having high spin) I don't need distance, as long as i know what to expect from my shots, my clubs and the ball i'm playing with what it's going to do. (i tried Teitelist Tour Soft and didn't get the same feeling or "control")

I do notice my drives can be high and my ball can stop without a good roll, but i'd say this is more on my driving technique compared with the ball.

On the contrary, this is exactly what i like from my irons on approach or chipping. (I'm more of a lobber as opposed to a pitch and runner)

For the drive, i'm perfectly OK with that, i will carry at least 200-220m before it stops, or rolls, great. For anything else that's left long, i can still make 200-230m with a 3 wood, meaning that for me, i'm only really concerned how the ball is going to play on the green.

 

Curious if a ball fitting would be beneficial or whether it's based upon the fitter's opinion of how you should be playing (compared to pros, or the average golfer ? for example)

[tsecor]

ball fitting is more important that going into a booth and hitting a 7 iron 10x with 3 different shafts, which is the extent of what most "fitters" do. Ball fitting in my opinion is just as or even more important than club fitting.

 

> @Andygolderson said:

> > @tsecor said:

> > I cant wait for the new and improved chromesoft.........TP5 is the longest ball for me.....prov1 is the best all around ball.....for me......get fit for what you want......distance? greenside play? all around play???? we all want different things, but I'm willing to sacrifice 10 yards off the tee to have better results near and around the green. Scoring is what matters....its really the ONLY thing.

>

> I think it's exactly this point that everyone is looking separately for something different in their game.

> I like the Callaway SuperSoft since i played it due to the feel, the sound and i really like the control (or at least my idea of control - stopping the ball quickly or having high spin) I don't need distance, as long as i know what to expect from my shots, my clubs and the ball i'm playing with what it's going to do. (i tried Teitelist Tour Soft and didn't get the same feeling or "control")

> I do notice my drives can be high and my ball can stop without a good roll, but i'd say this is more on my driving technique compared with the ball.

> On the contrary, this is exactly what i like from my irons on approach or chipping. (I'm more of a lobber as opposed to a pitch and runner)

> For the drive, i'm perfectly OK with that, i will carry at least 200-220m before it stops, or rolls, great. For anything else that's left long, i can still make 200-230m with a 3 wood, meaning that for me, i'm only really concerned how the ball is going to play on the green.

>

> Curious if a ball fitting would be beneficial or whether it's based upon the fitter's opinion of how you should be playing (compared to pros, or the average golfer ? for example)