Is a Two Piece Ball a Step Back?

[Titleist_PT23]

49 minutes ago, North Butte said:

Well I think I do get it. 

 

What I get is that you don't agree with many comments I've made on several different golf balls over a period of years. That's not a problem.

 

And if that's not "it" then I guess I don't get it. That's not a problem, either.

 

Cheers.

Hahaha

 

Ever hit a 3/4 shot with your ProV1x?  That ball was probably spinning 500-1000 rpms less than your full shot.  I suppose these one-hopped over the green too.  Hahaha.

 

Disagreeing is fine.  Illogical comments and snobbery not so much.

 

And I could play a new ProV1 on every hole if I wanted to do so.  I'm just not delusional enough to think it makes holding a green and not type of difference.  The ProV1 marketing team has succeeded with you.

 

Have a great day.

[lenman73]

I don't know how many times I said in here not everyone needs a dam urethane ball.  A guy says he needs one to hold a green and his buddy don't.   Wow.  Stop the presses.  The ball snobbery is a joke. Play what ya want, but please quit with the holier than thou bullxxxx of thinking you know what will help someone you never seen swing a club before score better or let alone the course conditions they play on. 

[arbeck]

16 hours ago, lenman73 said:

I don't know how many times I said in here not everyone needs a dam urethane ball.  A guy says he needs one to hold a green and his buddy don't.   Wow.  Stop the presses.  The ball snobbery is a joke. Play what ya want, but please quit with the holier than thou bullxxxx of thinking you know what will help someone you never seen swing a club before score better or let alone the course conditions they play on. 

A urethane ball is much less about holding greens and much more about having the most consistent performance from shot to shot. That comes from the cover producing more spin in all situations (stopping "flyers"), but more importantly it comes from consistency of manufacturing. The cheaper you go with a ball; the more likely it is to be out of round, have an off center core, not be the correct size, or have inconsistent cover thickness. How much effect do those have? I don't know. How much is it worth for you to get that? Only you can answer that.

 

I will say that every study done has shown that almost everyone improves their scores by using a tour level ball.

[lenman73]

There ya have it at the very end. Almost everyone.  That means not everyone.  I have never told anyone to not use a urethane ball.  Use what ever ya want, but do not blow smoke up my but like it's some magic elixir that will drop scores. After 30 years, playing with numerous folks along the way, I know this to be false.  I have also mentioned more than once that the part of the country I live in, we typically don't have baked out greens. I played a high end course yesterday, we haven't had rain in over a week and the place had standing water in some fairways.  Not puddles but it squished under the cart tires and your feet.  So we get a lot of soft conditions.  Don't even get me going on fliers.  When a company admitted people were getting them off their irons, so they changed them, people in here called bs.  Now you can get them because you didnt buy a 45 dollar box of balls.   You would think somewhere along the way, I would have noticed such a problem with the number of surlyn balls I have played.  Luckily I go by what I actually see and experience instead of what I read on the internet in appropriate situations. This is one of those. 

[Titleist_PT23]

4 hours ago, arbeck said:

A urethane ball is much less about holding greens and much more about having the most consistent performance from shot to shot. That comes from the cover producing more spin in all situations (stopping "flyers"), but more importantly it comes from consistency of manufacturing. The cheaper you go with a ball; the more likely it is to be out of round, have an off center core, not be the correct size, or have inconsistent cover thickness. How much effect do those have? I don't know. How much is it worth for you to get that? Only you can answer that.

 

I will say that every study done has shown that almost everyone improves their scores by using a tour level ball.

I don't doubt that the quality and consistency is different.  However, I cannot tell on the course if a ball flies 5 yards further than I thought it should what caused it (delivered different dynamic loft, actually really flushed one vs. just hit it very well, wind up in the air was different than I thought, etc).  I will concede that if you want to play your best then yes try to eliminate or reduce this variable as much as you can.  But I think it is dwarfed by the swing inconsistencies that most recreational golfers have. 

[Titleist_PT23]

Here's one last gem for many of you.

 

How many times do we hear about the newest fairway / hybird model and how it is an absolute cannon.  I swing easy and it just took off, over the green.  Picked up X yards from my last hybrid.  Greatest club ever.  Blah, blah, blah.  

 

When that happens with a hybrid/fairway, it's all about the golfers skill and club.  When the same thing happens with an iron its either the (inferior) iron design or ball causing "flyers."  Certainly not all of the time but I'd bet there's a large cross section of the fairway/hybrid and iron shots were "professional 80s shooter" golfer did something different with his/her swing and they actually just have no idea they were doing it.  Or the contact was on the actual true COG, which is about the size of a pinhead.  But in one case they congratulate themselves and in the other they blame the inferior equipment.

 

Anyways, can't wait for more stories about how an 85 would be a 102 without a tour ball...

[bluedot]

12 hours ago, agolf1 said:

Here's one last gem for many of you.

 

How many times do we hear about the newest fairway / hybird model and how it is an absolute cannon.  I swing easy and it just took off, over the green.  Picked up X yards from my last hybrid.  Greatest club ever.  Blah, blah, blah.  

 

When that happens with a hybrid/fairway, it's all about the golfers skill and club.  When the same thing happens with an iron its either the (inferior) iron design or ball causing "flyers."  Certainly not all of the time but I'd bet there's a large cross section of the fairway/hybrid and iron shots were "professional 80s shooter" golfer did something different with his/her swing and they actually just have no idea they were doing it.  Or the contact was on the actual true COG, which is about the size of a pinhead.  But in one case they congratulate themselves and in the other they blame the inferior equipment.

 

Anyways, can't wait for more stories about how an 85 would be a 102 without a tour ball...

 

I think you're conflating marketing with testing.  Your point about how new clubs are marketed is correct and valid, as is your point about the biggest factor being the individual golfer's skill. 

 

But that doesn't mean that better equipment doesn't help lesser golfers, and urethane, mulit-layer golf balls are better equipment; there's no way around it.

 

I'm an old guy who remembers clearly the binary choice in golf balls.  Good players played balata balls, even though they were trading distance and durability, because spin is valuable.  Lesser players WHO NEEDED DISTANCE played surlyn balls, as did players who couldn't afford balata, either because of the retail price or the shocking lack of durability.  It really was that simple of a choice.

 

Now that you can get all of that stuff, distance, durability, spin, and even price if you buy direct, the idea that somehow ANY golfer is better with less spin off an iron has evolved, and it's just silly.  Spin isn't about backing a ball up on the green like a Tour pro; it's about consistent performance.  Urethane balls have that; surlyn balls don't.  And lesser players need consistency from their equipment MORE than skilled golfers, not less.

[Titleist_PT23]

7 minutes ago, bluedot said:

 

I think you're conflating marketing with testing.  Your point about how new clubs are marketed is correct and valid, as is your point about the biggest factor being the individual golfer's skill. 

 

But that doesn't mean that better equipment doesn't help lesser golfers, and urethane, mulit-layer golf balls are better equipment; there's no way around it.

 

I'm an old guy who remembers clearly the binary choice in golf balls.  Good players played balata balls, even though they were trading distance and durability, because spin is valuable.  Lesser players WHO NEEDED DISTANCE played surlyn balls, as did players who couldn't afford balata, either because of the retail price or the shocking lack of durability.  It really was that simple of a choice.

 

Now that you can get all of that stuff, distance, durability, spin, and even price if you buy direct, the idea that somehow ANY golfer is better with less spin off an iron has evolved, and it's just silly.  Spin isn't about backing a ball up on the green like a Tour pro; it's about consistent performance.  Urethane balls have that; surlyn balls don't.  And lesser players need consistency from their equipment MORE than skilled golfers, not less.

My first comment is not OEM marketing.  It's what golfers on GolfWRX believe happened and what they describe.  My point is the same thing happens (ball goes farther than normal) and they describe two completely different things.  Why?  Probably because they know what they want to believe.

 

Agree on the difference in ball choice pre-2000 or even more recently as the price point has been pushed down on tour like balls.

 

Your comment about less spin off an iron is where we disagree.  People have fewer qualms about others using the AVX or some lower spinning urethane ball.  Hence, they don't believe that LESS SPIN is an evil (even NB doesn't use the high spinning K3).  They believe LESS SPIN WITH A SURLYN is an evil.  I'd be you'd agree a tour player with 120+ mph ss and a 130 foot peak apex on a stock shot could benefit from less spin from the highest spinning ball on the planet?  Of course, this would be trading off some greenside spin, but they may or may not think it is worth it.  Again, don't focus on the cover's material.  Just focus on whether less spin may be better.  Regardless, the difference on full swing iron shots isn't that large anyways unless you are comparing the very low cost distance balls.  I don't see how anyone can think a ball spinning 500-1000 rpms less of an iron has stopping power difference (all else equal) of more than 10-15 feet or so.  Snell once quoted 1,000 rpms off a wedge as 5 feet.  Further, it really doesn't matter if your 7-iron with a surlyn flies like a 6-iron with a urethane as long as all of your gaps through the bag work.  It's the exact same thing as why 3/4 shots with a 6-iron work for many golfers and they don't complain about them always rolling off the back of the green even with a ProV1x.  Lastly here, there are different iron designs that produce different spin rates loft-for-loft (both using a ProV1x).  If less spin was NEVER good, then all of these low spin iron designs would be unplayable but they are loved by many.  Of take a shaft that produces less spin.  That is often fine as well but I don't see anyone jumping up and down about that.

 

I see your point (here and many prior comments) that the tour like ball behaves more consistently off the irons and this itself is a benefit for everyone.

 

I have always agreed that a urethane behaves very differently inside of 100 yards (or whatever your full swing PW distance is).  In theory, I agree that the urethane gives you more options and should be no worse (can always take spin off).  In practice, I am not as convinced as this requires many once a week golfers to practice multiple shots, which they often don't do (essentially Munichop's argument).  I could go either way here and a lot depends.  For me, at most I think the benefit is 1 shot and I probably believe its closer to zero than 1 (but I am accustomed to playing for roll out with a surlyn).

 

Appreciate many of your comments and perspectives.  Would love to hear your thoughts on my third paragraph above.

 

 

[munichop]

I see my name was mentioned regarding this issue of surlyn vs urethane.  To expand a little that additional spin allows every player to score better I say again, only if a player knows how to control the spin. I have been using the trufeel the last month because I have putted better with it than the top flite HC ball.  They are very similar tee to green but I have been holing more putts so I am sticking with it for now.

i play with a wide range of players in my casual group and most still play urethane though I regularly beat them with surlyn.  I think any ball change requires time to practice so you know how the ball will react. The vast majority of my friends don’t do this. So they play the same type ball because  that is what they know. I have embraced the limitations of the surlyn balls and score better as a result. Someone mentioned urethane balls being better because of consistent performance vs surlyn. For most of my friends I see the opposite. The wider range of spin outcomes due to the variations in their strikes create much bigger misses from which they are not able to recover.  That is why they lose strokes.  To me it is similar to blades vs cavity irons.  Urethane balls are the blades, allowing you a wider array of shots but the misses can really hurt.
they also play 10.5 deg drivers though there is a mountain of evidence they would do better with more loft. I play 12 degrees because I hit the driver better with that loft. I think the majority of casual golfers don’t really want to know how bad their data is, it depresses them. So they continue with stiff shafts, low lofts, poor short games etc. but they play the same ball as the pros.

I realize I have lost club head speed through the bag. I now am closer to the average lpga player than any other pro. My first iron is now a 6. I carry a 7 wood. But surlyn allows me higher flight and spins plenty on full scoring shots- 7 iron to sw. To score on less than full shots takes practice regardless of the ball.

[Titleist_PT23]

On 8/24/2020 at 7:58 AM, lenman73 said:

A guy says he needs one to hold a green and his buddy don't.

Here's the thing.  My 40 degree iron may go farther, higher, and spin more with a SuperSoft than another person's 40 degree iron with a ProV1x.  If so, I kind of wonder why I can't hold greens or do everything they do just as well if not better (talking approach shots)?  Maybe someone can explain that to me, as I am kind of slow.

 

I would be interested to see standard deviation of spin rates across cover types (i.e. quality/consistency of the premium ball).  Have seen lots of talk about the ball "sliding up the face" re Dean Snell.  Does anyone have any numbers or is this half true, half marketing (I believe this guy is as qualified as anyone to talk but he's also selling golf balls).  I would agree consistency is an advantage.  I am less sold that it matters more for handicap golfers than elites.  Elites are trying to hit a 30 foot circle from 200 yards.  Chops are trying to hit the green period.  Again, it is an advantage but how big of a difference?  I contend that it is TINY relative to the chop making better contact a couple more times per round.

 

 

[Titleist_PT23]

7 minutes ago, munichop said:

I think any ball change requires time to practice so you know how the ball will react. The vast majority of my friends don’t do this. So they play the same type ball because  that is what they know. I have embraced the limitations of the surlyn balls and score better as a result. Someone mentioned urethane balls being better because of consistent performance vs surlyn. For most of my friends I see the opposite. The wider range of spin outcomes due to the variations in their strikes create much bigger misses from which they are not able to recover.  That is why they lose strokes.  To me it is similar to blades vs cavity irons.  Urethane balls are the blades, allowing you a wider array of shots but the misses can really hurt.

I think the consistent performance comment is more the urethane spins say 500 rpms within its average and the surlyn spins 1000 rpms within its average on most shots.  I.e. surlyns = fliers.

 

I also agree on the blades vs. cavity analogy.  There's no doubt that a ProV1 and a LW allow everyone to get up and down once in a while from a spot they have no chance from with a surlyn.  These experiences create vivid memories that everyone recalls.  Buried away in the back of their mind is all the times they were playing for spin and it wasn't there or the ball didn't release at all when they wanted it to.  I think I mentioned earlier that it doesn't matter if your ProV1 checks up immediately on a 50 yard pitch when you carry it 20 feet too far.  It's unlikely you are getting up and down.

 

For me, I buy into the less is more short game approach.  This is partly because I cannot practice different shots off of real grass to a real green that is cut like the ones you actually play on.  So just using a 54 PING G series SW most of the time I pitch the ball on to the green and let it roll out towards the hole.  Clean contact is still the biggest factor, and I don't always achieve this.  While I may hit less great shots, I believe this strategy allows me to put more balls within 5-15 feet of the hole.  I may put fewer inside of 5 feet, but I also believe I'm outside of 20+ feet less.  Again, not a great strategy if you are trying to win on tour, but for someone that plays once or twice a week I find that it helps to reduce blow-ups.

 

Also agree on the practice thing.  If you have played urethane for years and take a surlyn out tomorrow you will hate it.  Its the same reason why many people here insist they hit their traditional 4 iron better than a fairway or hybrid.  They take the fairway / hybrid out for a couple of rounds, aren't used to it, and complain / give up right away.  90-100 mph LPGA players rarely have an iron less than ~24 degrees in their bag and many have hybrids through 30 degrees.  120 mph PGA players often switch over to a more GI like iron at ~24 degrees for more height, forgiveness, etc.  But everyone here insists they don't need that or will do better otherwise.

[bluedot]

agolf1 wrote:

"Your comment about less spin off an iron is where we disagree.  People have fewer qualms about others using the AVX or some lower spinning urethane ball.  Hence, they don't believe that LESS SPIN is an evil (even NB doesn't use the high spinning K3).  They believe LESS SPIN WITH A SURLYN is an evil.  I'd be you'd agree a tour player with 120+ mph ss and a 130 foot peak apex on a stock shot could benefit from less spin from the highest spinning ball on the planet?  Of course, this would be trading off some greenside spin, but they may or may not think it is worth it.  Again, don't focus on the cover's material.  Just focus on whether less spin may be better.  Regardless, the difference on full swing iron shots isn't that large anyways unless you are comparing the very low cost distance balls.  I don't see how anyone can think a ball spinning 500-1000 rpms less of an iron has stopping power difference (all else equal) of more than 10-15 feet or so.  Snell once quoted 1,000 rpms off a wedge as 5 feet.  Further, it really doesn't matter if your 7-iron with a surlyn flies like a 6-iron with a urethane as long as all of your gaps through the bag work.  It's the exact same thing as why 3/4 shots with a 6-iron work for many golfers and they don't complain about them always rolling off the back of the green even with a ProV1x.  Lastly here, there are different iron designs that produce different spin rates loft-for-loft (both using a ProV1x).  If less spin was NEVER good, then all of these low spin iron designs would be unplayable but they are loved by many.  Of take a shaft that produces less spin.  That is often fine as well but I don't see anyone jumping up and down about that."

 

I'll do the best I can, but I doubt I'll say anything new or that will change anybody's mind.

 

First, and by FAR most important, is NOT what ball you play, but that you play the same ball all the time.  I don't know many good players who are serious about the game and competitive and want to play their best that don't do this.  I doubt that we disagree on this.

 

Second, I don't disagee with your belief that, for SOME PLAYERS, less spin may be better; that's why Titleist has offered their Tour players the left dash version of the V1x for years now.  On the other end of the spectrum, I picked up 10 yards when the G30 driver came out because the spin rate was so much lower than the driver I had been using.  All of this, of course, is very much an individual matter, and I imagine that we more or less agree on this, too. 

 

I do disagree with this part, though: "I don't see how anyone can think a ball spinning 500-1000 rpms less of an iron has stopping power difference (all else equal) of more than 10-15 feet or so.  Snell once quoted 1,000 rpms off a wedge as 5 feet.  Further, it really doesn't matter if your 7-iron with a surlyn flies like a 6-iron with a urethane as long as all of your gaps through the bag work."    10-15 feet is a LOT when you talk about putting distances; a LOT!  Even 5 feet of difference in putting is of HUGE significance; none of us miss 6 inch tap ins; the Tour average from 5 feet is less than 80%, less than 2 out of 3 for scratch golfers, and bogey golfers make only 50% from 5 feet!  Those, at least to me, are BIG numbers, much less your guess of 10-15 feet.  From 15', Tour pros make less than one out of 4 putts, and bogey golfers barely break 10% as a make rate from 15'.  So you've got your work cut out for you convincing me that these differences don't matter. 

 

But even that isn't the main point to me; it's consistency.  Whether a given player is "high spin" or "low spin" might help determine which ball they should use, but a ball that isn't spinning much isn't consistent and predictable, period.  What's been proven in testing over and over and over is that multi-layer urethane golf balls are more consistent than two-piece Surlyn; there's no way around it.

 

I remember years back the the Precept Lady was sort of a sensation, and Jack Nicklaus played a round with one.  His comment at the end of the round was, "It's a cheap ball and it behaved like a cheap ball."  He then went on to elaborate exactly what you said; that shots were flying 5, 10, 15 yards farther or shorter than they were supposed to.  That was a watershed moment for me, because I was pretty sure that Nicklaus was better than me and that I needed more help from my golf balls than he did, not less.  And I've never bought a Surlyn golf ball again.

 

That's the best I can do for a response.

 

 

 

[lenman73]

I have not seen these fliers people talk about.  What I have seen and continue to see on a weekly basis is more hurt than help.  For example, one of my weekly playing partners, he averages 55 for nine holes. Has to have the newest everything, only wants to play high end courses and now only buys tour balls.  All of which is his choice and is fine.  But out of his 55 to 57 strokes per nine holes, not one was saved from using a tour ball.  From 90 yards out, he tries chipping a 7 iron instead of hitting a wedge of any kind.  If he don't chip it over the green from the greenside and actually made decent contact, the ball comes up short and he doesn't know why.  If you asked him to hit a checker chip, he would look at you like a deer caught in the headlights. For the few he hits decent, they never get to the hole.  You will never get one to go in as a happy accident that way.  Now is he an extreme case, sure.  Are tour balls needed. No.  90% of the time on 90% of the courses we play, I can get a surlyn ball to stop with a 6 iron on down.  Above that, I am hitting and hoping anyway.  Do I tell people not to play them, nope.  If you bought them, hit whatever ya want. 

 

Now back to the fliers, I just don't experience this.  Could it be a club head speed thing.  The faster the swing, it has more of a chance of producing this?  I am just under a hundred with the driver and don't seem to have those problems. 

[lenman73]

I should add that I don't think all surlyn balls are equal at least in how the react.  A guy a few posts up said he likes the titleist.   I do not.  For me they had no grip.  But I do get along with the e12, duo and the new hammer control. Before I wouldn't have used a top flite if ya paid me, but I enjoy the HC.  20 years ago, my predominant ball was the pinnacle gold ls.  If I could get those to stop on our greens here in south west michigan, a hammer control is a piece of cake. 

[munichop]

Two piece balls don’t have to be a step back as long as you recognize their limitations.  The added spin of urethane offers a wider array of choices but without consistent contact you can score worse.

[Titleist_PT23]

4 hours ago, bluedot said:

I do disagree with this part, though: "I don't see how anyone can think a ball spinning 500-1000 rpms less of an iron has stopping power difference (all else equal) of more than 10-15 feet or so.  Snell once quoted 1,000 rpms off a wedge as 5 feet.  Further, it really doesn't matter if your 7-iron with a surlyn flies like a 6-iron with a urethane as long as all of your gaps through the bag work."    10-15 feet is a LOT when you talk about putting distances; a LOT!  Even 5 feet of difference in putting is of HUGE significance; none of us miss 6 inch tap ins; the Tour average from 5 feet is less than 80%, less than 2 out of 3 for scratch golfers, and bogey golfers make only 50% from 5 feet!  Those, at least to me, are BIG numbers, much less your guess of 10-15 feet.  From 15', Tour pros make less than one out of 4 putts, and bogey golfers barely break 10% as a make rate from 15'.  So you've got your work cut out for you convincing me that these differences don't matter. 

 

But even that isn't the main point to me; it's consistency.  Whether a given player is "high spin" or "low spin" might help determine which ball they should use, but a ball that isn't spinning much isn't consistent and predictable, period.  What's been proven in testing over and over and over is that multi-layer urethane golf balls are more consistent than two-piece Surlyn; there's no way around it.

My point on the 500-1000 rpms is this.  Instead of carrying it 150 with a ProV1 that stops immediately, I just know that I need to carry it 145 with the other ball.  There are some situations (similar to the short game) that it reduces my options.  Pin tucked on a sliver of green over a bunker.  Pin on a top shelf, etc.  On the mantra of playing your best, I'll give you this one.  But practically speaking, attacking these pins is a losing proposition over time at my skill level (7-8 index).  I'm much better just playing to the fat of the green and trying to get a par.  May be less fun but I'd argue it's more effective.  And really, its the same as if I switched from a blade to a hollow cavity back iron both with a ProV1.  The hollow cavity would spin less, which reduced what I can do in some instances but it may be better for me overall.

 

If you are saying sometimes the surlyn rolls out 5 feet and sometimes it rolls out 15 feet where as the urethane nearly always stops within 0 - 5 feet then I guess I would agree with that (5 foot range vs. 10 foot range for rollout).  I guess this is basically the same thing as the flyer argument; if the urethane is always +/- 5 yards of your carry yardage and the surlyn is +/-10 yards.  Theoretically, I agree this is worse for the surlyn.  But as noted above, I just don't know when each of these is due to the ball, me (swing/strike not exactly the same), or different green condition (hard spot, slightly running away, etc).

 

Per above, I'd love to see the data on variation in spin rates across balls.  I.e. Supersoft spins X with standard deviation of Y and ProV1x is spins W with standard deviation of Z.  For this, I am most interested in Y and Z.  Or just the range in carry distances for different types of balls if this is what you are talking about in the last paragraph above.

 

Regards.

[Flyers99]

I’ll say that I don’t believe a urethane ball is better for everyone. Not every player can spin a chip or 40 yard shot consistently. I am one of them.  Not every player can contact the ball to utilize the spin advantage if urethane. I love golf and equipment but for me with work and family I don’t get a chance to play/practice as much as I like. As was stated above, I may play a course where I have 2-3 shots to a tucked pin where spin is helpful but for me attacking that flag is not the play regardless of the ball. Playing to more green and 2 putts for par or is the play. Also with green side chips the non-urethane balls are better for me. They roll out consistent.  With the urethanes obviously if I clip it well it come up woefully short. Not the ball but me but still that is a problem. With a 2 piece if I clip it well it still rolls out and give me a look. I Never had an issue with fliers either.  I am right around 9-10HC and play with others in the 3-6HC range using 2 piece balls. One guy still uses the Titleist Tour S and Can spins it no problem and have not seen him shoot over 75 in 3 years. 

[xkilgorextroutx]

20 hours ago, bluedot said:

I remember years back the the Precept Lady was sort of a sensation, and Jack Nicklaus played a round with one.  His comment at the end of the round was, "It's a cheap ball and it behaved like a cheap ball."  He then went on to elaborate exactly what you said; that shots were flying 5, 10, 15 yards farther or shorter than they were supposed to.  That was a watershed moment for me, because I was pretty sure that Nicklaus was better than me and that I needed more help from my golf balls than he did, not less.  And I've never bought a Surlyn golf ball again.

 

 

Taking something a pro who played for 8+ hours a day for decades and applying it to your own game and making a decision based on that is peak WRX.

[PhilsFanDrew]

I think there are good arguments on both sides and while I don't think a higher handicap will be hurt by using a premium urethane ball I just don't see how it is going to help much.  Pretty much all the conditions that the pro urethane crowd mentioned about being more consistent with yardages, etc doesn't apply to higher handicaps.  The ball is not the reason they aren't getting consistent yardages, it's their swing and quality of strike.  You can take higher handicaps out to the range with ProV1s and a launch monitor and have them hit their 8 iron 10 times and I guarantee there will be at least a 15-20 yard distance gap between their lowest distance and best distance even with the premium balls.   Mid handicaps to higher single digit can go two ways on this.  While they hit distances much more consistently it really depends on how they prefer to manage their short game.  If your preference when a couple yards off the green with no obstruction between the ball and the hole is to pull a 56 degree and fly the ball closer to the hole then urethane is going to be the ticket.  If your preference with the same situation is to pull out an 8 iron and basically strike the ball like a putt just to get it going through semi rough and fringe then ionomer balls are fine.  Honestly being short sided with a tucked pin behind a bunker is going to be a difficult up and down for the vast majority of recreational golfers across a wide range of handicaps using either urethane or non urethane.  I think the most worthwhile takeaway from this thread as mentioned by others previously is to pick a ball regardless of cover and stick with it for awhile.  It's much harder to be consistent when you swap equipment out every other week and that includes the golf ball.

[Girevik]

Wow, I didn't realize I'd kick off such a firestorm with my ignorant question.  Never imagined this would be a 7 page thread.

 

So if anyone cares, here's a bit of an update.  I've been playing the HC for a bit now, and they seem to be fine.  I've not noticed a significant roll out difference from other balls, but I'm not to the point where I try to generate or reduce spin.  I just hope to make solid contact with the ball.  I tend to fall into the camp that says and difference in ball flight from one swing to the next is far more likely to be due to my poor swing than ball composition. 

 

All that said, now that the intro price on the HC is done and they seem to have settled it at 2 for $30, they're really no cheaper than the Kirkland balls.  I think I will miss having a yellow ball (except maybe once the leaves start coming down), but once I've drowned my last HC I'll probably go back to the better (at least for better golfers) Kirkland 3 piece.

 

And to the poster who asked "isn't $15 cheap enough?" (actually it's $12.50; $25 for 2 dozen), my answer is "not if I can get it for $10". 

[lenman73]

I actually use surlyn and urethane.  Me personally, given a choice between the HC and Kirkland 3 piece, I actually like the HC better.  But that is just me.  The HC works fine for most of the places I play due to soft greens, I like the feel better and it seems longer off the driver for what that's worth. 

[bluedot]

On 8/26/2020 at 9:20 AM, xkilgorextroutx said:

 

Taking something a pro who played for 8+ hours a day for decades and applying it to your own game and making a decision based on that is peak WRX.

 

You can think anything that you want about me, golf balls, or pretty much anything else. 

[cristphoto]

I've only played urethane balls since they first came out - mostly ProV1.  I played yesterday and lost a ball in the rough (they were spraying and applying the little foam dots so it looked like tons of balls). So I reached in my bag and for some reason there was a Callaway Supersoft in there.  I always only have one model in my bag as I play tournaments and years ago got penalized for playing with multiple balls.  Anyway I was surprised at how soft the ball actually was. In comparison the ProV1 actually felt a bit harsh on slight mishits. So unless I was puring every Supersoft shot (unlikely) its very forgiving. It seemed pretty durable too as I played it for about six holes and still looked good after the round. We aerated last week so greens are chopped up a bit and sanded so I couldn't make any conclusion as to stopping ability.  When I got home I went online and researched the Supersoft and saw it was a 30 compression ball - wow!  I think the ProV1 is rated at 90.  

[L29]

Speaking play only and not economics, to me, urethane vs surlyn comes down to how you prefer to play the short game(say 75 yds and in or maybe anything less than a full shot).  If you have a decent, at least somewhat consistent, strike in the short game and want to throw it to the pin and see it stop quickly more than a couple times a round, play urethane.  If you prefer never to throw it at the pin in the short game, but always play it short and let it roll up, play surlyn.  

 

The only issue I've seen guys have playing urethane is in the short game when they have inconsistency of strike fairly frequently.  I've heard myself and some other playing partners say when playing a urethane ball, "I can't get the ball to stop today," on short game shots so they start playing for rollout.  Of course, the next short game shot they play for roll out and the ball checks up 15 feet short.  Other than that and economics, I haven't seen any other reason not to play urethane.

 

Speaking of the consistency of the more expensive ball vs the cheaper ball, I haven't seen anything concrete on the course that one surlyn ball plays completely different than another because they were made differently due to less QC at the ball plant.  I would venture to say in the amateur world, if inconsistent balls exist, that due to inconsistency of strike you've got a 50/50 shot of the inconsistent ball actually helping instead of hurting.....j/k.....sort of.

 

Like in the boating world, if economics is an issue, play whatever gets you out on the water/golf course.

[AngryGilmore]

It depends on your goals and abilities.   At the beginning of the year, I dig out the Precept Powerdrive balls that I bought at......wait for it......Home Depot.  I use (and lose) those for a couple rounds until I get my swing back, then I switch to the higher quality balls.

[arbeck]

4 hours ago, L29 said:

Speaking play only and not economics, to me, urethane vs surlyn comes down to how you prefer to play the short game(say 75 yds and in or maybe anything less than a full shot).  If you have a decent, at least somewhat consistent, strike in the short game and want to throw it to the pin and see it stop quickly more than a couple times a round, play urethane.  If you prefer never to throw it at the pin in the short game, but always play it short and let it roll up, play surlyn.  

 

The only issue I've seen guys have playing urethane is in the short game when they have inconsistency of strike fairly frequently.  I've heard myself and some other playing partners say when playing a urethane ball, "I can't get the ball to stop today," on short game shots so they start playing for rollout.  Of course, the next short game shot they play for roll out and the ball checks up 15 feet short.  Other than that and economics, I haven't seen any other reason not to play urethane.

 

Speaking of the consistency of the more expensive ball vs the cheaper ball, I haven't seen anything concrete on the course that one surlyn ball plays completely different than another because they were made differently due to less QC at the ball plant.  I would venture to say in the amateur world, if inconsistent balls exist, that due to inconsistency of strike you've got a 50/50 shot of the inconsistent ball actually helping instead of hurting.....j/k.....sort of.

 

Like in the boating world, if economics is an issue, play whatever gets you out on the water/golf course.

You probably would never know if a ball issue effected a shot. The ball curves 20 yards extra, how often are you going to blame the ball or your swing? The ball spins 500 rev's more or less and ends up 5 yards short or long (balls are being measured with different compression ratings on different parts of the ball, which would effect spin like this), are you going to know it's the ball? The ball is slightly out of round and your putts don't go exactly straight, are you going to blame the ball or uneven greens? These are all small things which probably wouldn't even add up to a stroke per round, and they may not be important to you. But they do exist.

 

And I will say again and again, I don't believe the urethane vs surlyn ball really comes down to the short game. If the ball reacted the same every time, you could learn to play and score with any ball. The problem with surlyn balls, especially off full irons and wedge shots, is that the spin is not nearly as consistent as it is with urethane. That means you can gain or loose half a club just due to the spin on any give shot. Given that most amateurs don't even really know how far they hit their clubs, this may or may not be an issue to you. But you will almost certainly score better overall if the ball varies as little as possible from shot to shot.

[munichop]

I have found the consistency issue the opposite for me. My lowest scores have been with the 3 piece gamer soft due to how consistent it was.  I have challenged players to measure how many chips and pitches over spin with urethane and come up short vs the number of surlyn shots that go too long. Same with gir. My best years with gir were with the gamer soft. For me it was the best ball I ever played regardless of price. MY current HC and trufeel balls also are very consistent.  The two piece balls are very good thru the bag.

[philly2kuk]

On 8/26/2020 at 8:46 PM, Girevik said:

Wow, I didn't realize I'd kick off such a firestorm with my ignorant question.  Never imagined this would be a 7 page thread.

 

So if anyone cares, here's a bit of an update.  I've been playing the HC for a bit now, and they seem to be fine.  I've not noticed a significant roll out difference from other balls, but I'm not to the point where I try to generate or reduce spin.  I just hope to make solid contact with the ball.  I tend to fall into the camp that says and difference in ball flight from one swing to the next is far more likely to be due to my poor swing than ball composition. 

 

All that said, now that the intro price on the HC is done and they seem to have settled it at 2 for $30, they're really no cheaper than the Kirkland balls.  I think I will miss having a yellow ball (except maybe once the leaves start coming down), but once I've drowned my last HC I'll probably go back to the better (at least for better golfers) Kirkland 3 piece.

 

And to the poster who asked "isn't $15 cheap enough?" (actually it's $12.50; $25 for 2 dozen), my answer is "not if I can get it for $10". 

Play with what works for you mate. If it’s $12.50 a dozen balls fantastic. We are all different in how we swing, launch the ball and how much spin we generate. 
 

Come to think of it, when I’m golfing with anyone I don’t ask what ball they’re playing regardless of how well or badly they play. The only time I show any interest is when my dad tries a new ball as he hits it similarly to myself.

[xkilgorextroutx]

15 hours ago, AngryGilmore said:

It depends on your goals and abilities.   At the beginning of the year, I dig out the Precept Powerdrive balls that I bought at......wait for it......Home Depot.  I use (and lose) those for a couple rounds until I get my swing back, then I switch to the higher quality balls.

 

I remember that ball! I drove to like 4 different Home Depots to try and snag someone but I found out about them too late and I was beaten to the punch. I want to say they were something crazy, like $5/dozen. 

[wantacigar]

Depending upon the day and course I'm playing determines what ball I play.  If I'm playing on a course with a lot of water, I play a 2 piece sub $1.00 ball (Top Flite, Noodle, Ultra).  If I'm playing a premium course with impeccable fairways and greens, I play a TP5 or Pro V.  I also play a lot of 3 pc surlyn/ionomer balls.  For me, it all depends.  I've scored equally well with urethane and ionomer balls.   The science means nothing to me as an average golfer.  It all depends on how I'm hitting them that day.  I keep sleeves of several different balls in my bag.  Just my $0.02 from a casual golfer.