Best ball for moderate swing speed single handicap

[dcmidnight]

I'm not necessarily discounting their test but ever since I noticed they spelled BALL wrong in the link to their BALL TEST...my OCD hasn't stopped looking at it.

[bluedot]

There's a lot in your post, so I'll take it piece by piece.

First and foremost, I believe deeply that, in order to play your best golf, the really important thing is to play the same ball ALL THE TIME; this is far more important than what that ball is. So I didn't experiment with other balls AT ALL while I was using the CS, and I won't be experimenting with the "new" CS, either. I've moved on...

Yes, the testing I referenced is from last year, but I think that is not only the most recent testing available, but also the most extensive testing I've ever seen.

As to the money that Callaway is spending, I don't know what they're doing with it, though I believe the press statement from the company used "quality control" as part of the announcement. But on a personal note, even that bothers me; Costco bought back the Kirkland balls that were below their standards; I had 4 dozen CS's in my hall closet for which I would have LOVED to have seen Callaway step up and do the right thing. That didn't happen, and I understand that, but I don't have to buy any more of their products, either. That's the way the market works.

I'd add this, too: The issues with the CS aren't just the off-center cores. Of all of the balls tested, the CS was the third shortest, had the third worst dispersion off a driver, and had the 5th lowest spin off a wedge, And in each of those categories, it is fair to generally say that NO premium priced ball performed anywhere nearly as poorly. I don't have any way of knowing how many of the zillion CS's I used had off-center cores, but ALL of them had the other issues.

To be clear, I have NOBODY but me to blame for playing a ball that was short, crooked, and didn't spin much. But Callaway won't get me back in the foreseeable future.

[Sean2]

I am almost 65 and in my experience no matter the ball, they go roughly the same distance off the tee. It's around the green where a ball can shine for the individual and I select a ball based on that.

[nsxguy]

Well, I can't really argue with anything you've said here. Your game, your choice(s).

Me personally ? While I do love and enjoy reading scientific testing I generally go with what works for me. I did not find those faults with the prior gen CS. As mentioned, for me, it flew a bit further than the others and felt great. If there is scientific evidence of it not flying as straight, perhaps there are faults with my swing that counteracted/offset those very faults. I don't know. And results off a robot, while interesting, don't tell me how my results would be.

I also wonder exactly what happened when those balls with the very obvious off-center cores WERE hit. I'd have found it interesting. I wonder if those balls, when putted, would wobble as that "joke" ball did - you know, the one made to wobble. Would it wobble just as obviously ? Not quite as obviously ? Not at all ? Same thing with flying 200+ yards. Would it be obviously that ball's core was far off center ? Again, I don't know. I would find it interesting though.

Just so happens I'll be testing balls again once we can play golf again as I'm not as big a fan of the new AVX as I was of the original so I will begin testing again. And I'll probably include the new CS as I really like the previous one.

Anyway, thanks for you explanation. 

 

[dcmidnight]

And I just do not think the chart(s) looks that "bad" for the CS the way others seem to. When people use "worst" and "shortest" - its all relative. Take the 85 mph chart for example. Its long, lots of data - but its also only 4 yards in difference from top to bottom. For most of our swings, thats nothing, we have so many inconsistencies in our strikes that the "4 yards" comes out in the wash.

I find that test perfectly aligns with my testing. It is ~5 yards shorter off the tee but it is perfect everywhere else. So given that, I dont care if it leaves me a half club shorter off the tee - to me - if it feels better off the irons and gives me better spin characteristics around the greens. For me, for my game. For example, I love that its at the bottom of the wedge spin chart bc for my game, it works best, I hate balls that rip back off the greens with wedges.

So, just take the data for what its worth, look at it for how it matches up to your game and as always, your mileage may vary.

[stuart.f.cohen]

I am in the same spot. I am curious how the left dash ProV1X performed for you vs. the regular ProV1X

[Sparty4202]

It played very similar to the TP5x...high launch..a little lower spin off the irons than a Pro V1x, so about 1/2 club longer. It still had enough spin around the greens for me. It has the same feel as a TP5x & Pro V1x...a little clicky off the driver & putter...which I prefer.

[Fuscinator]

Whichever ball you chip and putt best with. No point giving that up for two more yards.

[bluedot]

I don't know the answer to the questions you pose about what a ball with an off-center core might do vs. a ball with a core that is on-center. But I think we might assume that ANY ball that isn't balanced is going to have at least some degree of inaccuracy, right? You wouldn't see your ball curve 40 yards into the woods because of an off-center core; only a terrible swing can do that. But I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that there might be a few feet of difference in ball flight off a full shot, or an inch or two difference in holding the line on a putt. And, of course, now you're talking about something that is VERY subtle, and very hard to pin down without robotic testing.

So it's sort of like the difference o degree or two of lie angle makes in an iron. It might be the difference once or twice a round between being in the fairway and being in the rough, or being on the green vs. in the fringe, or being in the fringe vs. being in the bunker, or missing a putt over the edge instead of having it drop in. Those things happen ALL THE TIME to all of us, and when they do, we typically blame ourselves or attribute it to bad luck or the rub of the green or whatever; we don't think about the quality of the golf ball we just struck.

And that's the point: I don't want to think about the quality control of the golf ball I just struck! The best thing about the ProV1 (which, btw, I don't play because of the price) all these years has been industry-standard quality control, like pretty much everything that Tittelist (and Ping, IMO) makes.

Here's a quote from a MGS article that did it for me: "Your affections aside, objectively, Chrome Soft has never been a good golf ball. Nobody making a soft ball has been transparent enough about the performance implications for mid- to high-swing golfers and Callaway’s quality control issues were such that, even if you didn’t notice, it may have cost you some strokes." I play an LOT of tournaments, a lot of interclub matches, and a lot of (small) money games, and a stroke or two matters to me. I have enough on my plate trying to make a good swing without thinking about the golf ball I'm playing. Which won't ever be a Callaway again...

[Forged5]

OP here.

Ive enjoyed all the input, suggestions, opinions, observations...keep them coming!

 

Can we please keep it on topic. Even though I played the CS, this was not about that particular ball, it’s defects or a bash on Callaway.

 

Hope everyone and their family is healthy and safe.

Fore!

 

[arbeck]

You actually could see the ball curve that far depending on how off center the core is. You could also see it curve that far off center if the dimples on one side of the ball are shallower than the other.

[bluedot]

You're right, and I apologize for my part in a thread jack. So I'll sum up what I believe, based on the best research I've read, and I'll stop there.

There is no best ball for moderate swing speeds; there are just balls that spin more or spin less. Distance varies within a pretty tight range, dispersion varies more, and spin varies widely. The balls that test out as superstars in the combination of those three categories also have in common that they cost more.Distance doesn't cost extra dollars; spin does. "Dollars for spin" is the basic trade-off in golf balls, with a few notable exceptions; there ARE premium balls that don't spin nearly as much as other premium balls; there aren't any cheap balls that DO spin a lot. Manufacturers have to put significant money into the cover and outer layer of a golf ball to make it spin off a wedge."Soft" isn't a performance characteristic, and is mostly sound. That doesn't invalidate it as a basis for picking a golf ball IF it's important to the consumer. But it isn't like distance or dispersion or spin, which are measurable parameters of what the ball DOES.The basic task for ANY player is to decide what they want a golf ball to do around the greens, and then determine how much they are willing to pay for that particular performance. In 2020, testing data is so easily found that there isn't much reason to wonder about what a particular ball does or does not do relative to other balls.Last, but of the utmost importance, good players basically play the same ball all the time, even in practice rounds. You can play good golf with pretty much any ball IF you know what it is going to do in terms of spin around the greens. Most good players, though not all, prefer more spin to less, for obvious reasons.If any of that is arguable, you'll have to argue it with somebody else.

[Bt31]

I'm 50 and a 4hc with a driver ss of only 90 mph. Played the Chrome soft for several years and cared mostly about soft feel and control around the green. After reading last year's ball test on the other site that proved "soft means slow", I made myself switch to a Pro V1x. A ball that I'd always hated the feel of. That test showed it was longer, flew higher, and spun more than anything else for my swing speed. So I committed to playing only that ball last year.

After a couple of rounds I got used to the firm feel and came to actually prefer it. But it was the performance that really made me a believer. Off the tee it was as long as anything else I'd played. But the spin on shots into the green was noticibly higher than any other ball. Flies about 3-4 yards shorter on wedges and short irons but it stops much more quickly than the Chrome soft ever did. I actually would come up a little short of the pin at first until I learned to count on very little release. Once I learned to trust that, my distance control got better than it had ever been. I would routinely hit shots that would bite and stop where they never had before with other balls. I can honestly say that the new ball saved me strokes on a regular basis and that surprises me because I thought most tour balls were the same. There may be other balls that perform like a Pro V1x. But I don't plan on changing anytime soon.

[DC61]

I played Chrome Soft the last 2 years (reminded me of balata ball feel), but experienced the quality inconsistencies...

I have played ~10 rounds with the B RX (driver SS ~102) & although slightly firmer than CS, it’s IMHO a better (longer, great spin, & more consistent) ball throughout the bag.

[bluedot]

Your post reads like the independent testing reviews of not only the ProV1x, but all of the other X balls as well.

I don't think golf balls are much different that most products; more R&D and better engineering yields better performance., and, typically costs more money. The ProV1x, along with a handful of others, is just a better golf ball for pretty much EVERY golfer, regardless of swing speed; the only issue is whether or not you are willing to pay for it.

[CDLgolf]

I'm a little younger, 56, with a 7.6 hdcp and driver speed between 95 and 100.

The 2 balls I like are the Callaway chrome soft and Srixon Q star tour. For the money I dont think you can beat the Q star tour.

[Forged5]

You my doppelgänger? Lol

Have you had a chance to try the PROV1x or similar?

[gvogel]

I'm 67 this year, and the last couple of years I played the AVX. That ball might not carry as long off the driver as the Pro V1 and Pro V1x, but when the fairways firm up, the AVX rolls out nicely (I'm down in Buffalo). The real advantage, I've found, is into the wind. As I am distance challenged, playing into the wind is the most difficult part of the game for me, and the AVX works better than most.

[brew4eagle]

I have a similar swing speed and draw the ball. I love the Srixon Q Star Tour, can't recommend it enough

[Forged5]

Much appreciated!

Please share why and how it compares to others you've tried.

[brew4eagle]

Sure, I love the soft feel off of all full shots (driver and irons), and whether true or not it seems to provide a straighter flight with the driver. Compared to higher cost balls that I've tried (ProV1, ProV1x, ZStar) I didn't notice a significant difference on spin around the greens, but I do prefer the Q Star Tour (and ProV1) for feel off the putter. So, due to the added confidence of straighter flight with the driver (whether mental or not), the overall performance, and the cost I decided to play the QST and I don't even bother trying other balls so I can take that variable out of play. When I find ProV1s, etc I just give them to my friend who prefers the ProV1 and V1x.

Edit- I had already arrived at the QST when I found them for $10/doz during a golfgalaxy sale sometime in the last 12-16 months. I bought 6 dozen which will last me many years (don't play much compared to most on here, 20ish rds/year).

[nsxguy]

May I ask how the quality inconsistencies manifested themselves ?

And if you knew what the ball was doing, inconsistency-wise, why did you play them for so long ?

I played those CS balls for almost as long as you did but I couldn't say that ANY single shot I hit was because of anything the ball did, or the way it flew (or didn't), rather than the way I hit it.

[nsxguy]

The thing we all have to remember with these balls threads is there's no single ball right for everyone.

These tests with robots have the robots set at 1, or a few, different settings giving some variety of launch conditions but we may launch the ball quite differently. If we are a high spin player the ProV1X may be a great ball but spin costs distance off the driver so if we spun the V1X at 27909 and the AVX at 2300, it's likely the AVX travels farther, all other things being equal.

Same goes for hitting to the green. If your 80 yard SW spins back a foot or so would you really want a higher spinning ball to spin back 10-15 feet ? Probably not.

Point is we all have different launch conditions so what works for one person doesn't work for another.

 

Personally I LOVE the AVX. Been using it for about 15 months now. I would like a bit more spin around the green and presumably the new one supplies that. But I've played the new ball for about 6 rounds now and while it does bite slightly better around the green it doesn't seem to fly as far off the driver. That said, 6 rounds isn't enough to say for sure and right now, who knows how long it'll be before I figure it out.

[Mikey5e]

So now that 20 different golf balls have been suggested for your swing speed, I'm sure you're convinced now which one to use?

[Forged5]

For sure!

have it down to an even dozen

lol

[DC61]

My course has very few hazards & I typically play 1 ball/round. Last year (before reading any ball tests), I occasionally had CS balls that flew oddly (fell from sky and/or curved excessively). I would replace them w/ another CS & problem solved - I never had 2 in a row that were odd...

I loved the 2019 CS “balata” feel & wedge spin & cover durability & iron distance, but the occasional odd ball was problematic.

2020 B RX has everything that I want.

[CDLgolf]

Yes I've tried the V1x and the Bridgestone rxs and xs but I like the Cally and Srixon better. I like a softer feeling ball and to me thats the feel I get with the Cally & QST.

[Mikey5e]

For me, a ball that feels good off the putter face generally feels good off the driver as well, and that's the ball I search for. I never choose a ball based on my swing speed as that would probably indicate a softer feeling ball for me which I really dislike. For me, the softer the ball the less feedback I get back into my hands, and my ears. Golf balls are so close in distance that this aspect really doesn't concern me either. What feels good off the clubface and looks good to my eyes is the golf ball I go with.

[anythingfinite]

For the record, if you call Callaway about the CS balls, they will email you a shipping label and send you all new balls, typically 3:1.

[Forged5]

In the end went with the Prov1 x.

Went yellow in a 3/4 deal.

So far in the 5 rounds this year putting very well. Adjusted quickly to the clicky sound but feels fine off the BB6 milled face.

If anything there's more feedback on putts vs the mushy feel of the CS.

Difficult to tell distance with newer irons but spin has been excellent. Spin off wedges and partial shots is very good too.

Driver distance is hard to tell vs my old C CS ball.

 

Had it down to that against the TP5X. Bought a box with the pix. Didn't enjoy that look to my eye. Returned them unused.

Decided to stay away from all things TM. Tired of all the hyped up marketing. Too much.

 

FORE!