Index vs. Golf Ball Cork Sniffery

[lenman73]

Um no. My reading skills are fine. You made a statement regarding all cap levels. One thing I agree with you on is what a tour ball can do when well struck well. I contend a cheap ball can perform similar when struck well. My point , not as prominent in this thread as the other one, granted because the OP is playing to a 12, but high caps do not have the consistency to take advantage of a tour ball. How many times do they come up short with an approach regardless of what club was used. You say science says it's better for all levels. I'm saying produce this science.

 

Just for grins I just went on Bridgestones website and did their online ball fitting. I answered the questions like a high cap and low and behold, their recommendation was not a tour ball. It was the e12. So there's that.

[nsxguy]

"I love the prov1x, just hate paying for it.""I like pick up trucks and corvettes, but I choose not to own either because I don't want to pay for one."

 

Hmnmmm,,,,,,,,,, I'm sensing a theme here,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[lenman73]

You got me there. The theme is I don't want to pay for something I don't need. The secret is out now.

[Old Tom Morris]

Drives a Hyundai or Kia I bet.

[The Pearl]

Nobody is making the claim about the motives of the ball manufacturers. "Never ask a barber if you need a haircut." Totally with you on that. The consistency argument is often made and it is a big ole fat red-herring and illogical. If "consistency" were the reason for "performance" choice than everybody would be playing inferior equipment from driver through putter. Good equipment, including balls, increases consistency. The entire golf industry is built on trying to lessen the impact of poor shots.

The ball studies are on the internet and have been discussed plenty in previous threads.

[straight crooked]

This sums it up perfectly. I'm playing off a 1.8 right now. Do I need a tour ball? No. Can I go low with a topflight, pinnacle, Wilson duo, etc. Yes. Am I going to pay the extra $2-3/ball? Yes, for many reasons. To name a few: (1) I regularly play against other 0-5 caps for $ (albeit, not much, but a dollar is a dollar--something you seem to understand) so if the tour ball can save me even 1 stroke, it was worth it; (2) I don't lose golf balls, so I don't have to buy many golf balls; (3) I invest money and time into my swing, why wouldn't I do the same into my equipment when its been proven to produce better/more consistent results?

We agree about a lot of things. Golf doesn't have to be expensive to be fun. Golf balls don't cure swing defects. Play whatever makes you happy and whatever you can afford (invest time/money/effort into your swing and equipment, or don't) but accept the results of your choices.

We disagree about one thing: there is a reason tour balls cost $45 and topflights cost $12. I say its because science has proven (time and time and time again) which ball is more consistent and produces better results when struck well. You say its because suckers like me will pay $45 for 12 golf balls. To each their own.

[lenman73]

And the problem would be what if I did? Is this more proof of snobbery ?

 

And I actually have a dodge, a ford and a kawasaki.

[lenman73]

No where did I call anyone a sucker. And at a 1.8 I can definitely respect your game and your choice of ball. Even if you were a 28.8 I still would respect your choice to play a tour ball because it's your choice. I'm saying at the higher end of the cap spectrum there is a difference between a need and a want. As far as equipment goes, higher caps should focus on the ball last in my opinion. If the other 14 pieces of equipment in their bag are not a good fit, then that prov1 is not going to get them to scratch any time soon. But thave every right to play one, I see it every week. And what I see is a 5 dollar ball looks the same as a 1 dollar ball when someone skulls a chip over the back of the green.

 

[Old Tom Morris]

Your problem is that you are trying to rationalize being a cheapskate. Do whatever you want but don’t kid yourself and think you wouldn’t benefit from the more expensive ball.

[lenman73]

Umm sorry, but you are wrong. And at times I do play tour balls. That reading thing again. One thing I am not is cheap. I just spend money on more important things than high priced golf balls everytime I need a box. And go check the tag on a new Hyundai SUV then tell me it's cheap.

[straight crooked]

To be fair to you, I was calling myself a sucker. I was not attempting to impute words to you.

Also, I'm not criticizing anyone for playing topflight or whatever floats their boat. I'm simply trying to address OP's question re: at what HDCP level will you see differences in performance between tour balls and two piece balls. My answer is that you will see a difference in performance (on a well struck ball--of which 36 caps will actually hit many of during a round) no matter what your HDCP level. The performance boost may be minimal and a 36 cap may only see it 2 or 3 times around, but it exists nonetheless. Further, the performance benefits only increase on shots around the green--the very shots high HDCP players typically play the most of. If the high HDCP player can learn to put a good move on the ball around the green, they will be taking advantage of one of the very things for which tour balls are made--increased spin and control greenside. There simply is no HDCP "cut off" as far as when you will see a difference in performance on a well struck ball. Science has proven that. It's not up for debate. It's disingenuous and misleading to advocate differently.

Again, I agree with you (and have since the beginning), if you don't care to spend the time/money to fix swing flaws, no ball will help you. I'm a big advocate for spending time working on all things swing related. But that is not what OP asked. OP asked if he, as a 12 cap, would benefit from using a tour ball. I say yes. Even if its 1-2 strokes per round, its something. Will it make OP a scratch golfer? No. Will the spin he can generate with a well struck wedge put a grin on his face? Probably.

[nsxguy]

I certainly agree with your point about high handicappers playing a less expensive ball as they probably couldn't tell nor appreciate the difference anyway. And cost certainly is a factor when one is losing a sleeve or more per round.

And while the OP was clearing trolling with the title you sound like you're close to him cap-wise; about a 12. So you're not at the "higher end of the spectrum".

You took the op's bait and came into the thread railing about "experts" and people knowing" little to nothing" about golf balls opining why there are better golf balls, implying you know everybody else is wrong and you're somehow right because you shot 1 round, a career best, with a lesser ball. I know you know an exception does not disprove a rule; nor scientific results.You didn't expect some pushback ?

But that aside, and given the actual topic, at what point DO you think the consistency of the ball should come into play ?

That is, after all, the point of the thread (outside of the op stirring the pot of course).

[The Pearl]

There are tons of tour balls that routinely sell for the price of regular balls. Srixon just had a BOGO sale...$20 a dozen. The MG Tours are always $20 a dozen. Oncore had a killer deal last Christmas, $17 a dozen on a BOGO. Titleist and Bridgeston, not so much. But if you pay attention to Lostgolfballs.com , you can score even these at reasonable prices. 4A rated ProV1s are $21 a dozen. 4A rated next gen TM TPX $16 a dozen.

The days of paying retail for high level tour balls are long gone.

[soregongolfer]

I use a lot of different balls and score pretty much the same with all of them. If you know the characteristics of the ball, you can compensate for such things are roll out.

[lenman73]

Fair question. But anyone can use whatever they want but my answer to it whether or not it will help in my mind would have more to do with ability rather than a number. While sometimes they are closely correlated, other times maybe they aren't. So I don't want to just put a number on it. You take a person who just can't drive it but they are a decent wedge player, maybe they can save a few strokes. I really think ball control is a factor. If you have none then I don't see much gains to be had.

 

Here's an example to what I've been saying. I have a friend who Friday just shot 100 if you take mulligans and creative math into account. Got brand new mizuno something irons this year and in 18 holes maybe hit 3 of them once a piecr. 100 yard par 3, his go to shot is a 4 hybrid half slap shot. He couldnt chip and hit the green from 10 yards with a wedge if a gun was held to his head. But he insists on using a tour ball. I golf with the dude every week and see every shot and can assure you no shots were saved because of his ball of choice. But he likes them and plays them which is fine. He justifies them because he likes them, not because they help him score. Which is perfectly fine. I have never told him he would be better off with a box of noodles. Now I personally use tour balls probably 75% of the time. Mostly course related. For example, yesterday I got to the course early. Started chipping with the hammer control(stupid name) ball. Found out it did what I wanted and used it the entire round. Carded a 77. Conversely, there are other courses where I know they play firmer and faster and I use a tour ball only. In my neck of the woods that is possible. Now if you live in Arizona, I am willing to concede that maybe it's not on the greens down there.

 

My problem is when people talk inferior this and you need that. It is all subjective. While I will admit, not all surlyn balls are even created equal, I am not out playing a 4 dollar box of nitros. I still expect a ball to do certain things. I am as concerned with score as much as anyone else. I can promise you, if I thought a ball was going to hurt my score, I will not use it, period.

 

Anyway, sorry bout the long answer but I hope it clears up my thoughts some.

[bluedot]

First of all, the E12 is NOT a two-piece ball; it's a 3 piece, though with a Surlyn cover. Second, you only get that recommendation if you put in very short driver distances with the highest available average score; when you get to middle distances even at the highest scores, the recommendation becomes the Tour B-RXS. But third, and MOST important, Bridgestone is selling Bridgestone golf balls, and comparing an online sales tool to the testing done by independent agencies like Today's Golfer or MGS is just not valid, which I'm sure you understand anyway. To underscore that, if you click on the link to the B-RXS, Bridgestone says that it's designed for swing speeds under 105, and that Fred Couples uses it on Tour. If that ain't a sales pitch, I've never heard one!

You've shown to a certainty that you aren't interested in the testing data, and that's fine. But your argument that "high caps do not have the consistency to take advantage of a tour ball" completely misses the point of why high caps need good equipment. Cheap balls are inconsistent balls because they behave like fliers. The carry distances aren't as consistent, the roll out isn't as consistent, and the dispersion isn't as consistent; there are mountains of data on that from people that are NOT trying to sell golf balls. Even in the America of 2020, ignoring data and facts doesn't change data and facts. And the reality is that lesser players need MORE help from their equipment, not less.

When I was younger, and had little kids and not much money available for golf, I used Top Flites or whatever I found instead of Tour Balatas because I just flat out couldn't afford what I KNEW was a better golf ball. The Tour Balatas not only cost a lot, but they were SO not durable that the per round cost was astronomical, so I just couldn't buy 'em. But I was NEVER confused about WHY I wasn't buying them.

But time marched on, and not only did I come to have enough money to buy good golf balls, but the ball changed, too, so that the best balls were just as durable as the cheap ones. It's much easier to play a good golf ball today than it's ever been, which is great. There are also still lots of cheap golf balls available, which is great, too. I think maybe the trick is intellectual honesty about WHY a golfer would want to play a cheap golf ball.

[lenman73]

I said I answered bridgestones questions as a high cap and no I did not use the highest score possible. So you are wrong there. But thanks for embellishing to try to prove your point. I did the same thing on Titleist website. Same result. Not a tour ball, but the tour soft was suggested. And if you think you can't shoot a good round with a non tour ball, well I can't help you. You are diluted. Food for thought, my first under par round was not with a tour ball !

Are tour balls great? Yes, they are stupendous. Does everyone need one. NO.

 

People keep claiming the science. Post it instead of just saying it's out there. I don't give 2 craps what a robot test showed. Most people do not hit like robots. Someone posted a group of bogey golfers scored better in a test. Well I don't consider them high caps so I believe the outcome. Now the next person to bring up "science", post it.

[bluedot]

Bro, there is literally NO way to answer you. You want "science" but don't give "2 craps" about robot testing even though that testing is done independently by people who are NOT selling golf balls and includes data from different swing speeds. You don't consider bogey golfers to be high handicappers, even though a bogey golfer would typically carry an index of around a 20.

But I think that what I love the most is that a guy who wants "science" seems to like the marketing tools that the ball manufacturers have online to help sell THEIR golf balls. Let me know when you fill out a Titleist survey and it recommends a TP5-x or a Bridgestone ball for you, or when the Bridgestone tool recommends that you save money and buy Snell or Vice.

I'll end this with a challenge to you. Go back in this thread and find one, JUST ONE, post in which anybody has said that "you can't shoot a good round with a non tour ball". That's actually the dead opposite of what several of us have been saying throughout; better players can play good golf with anything. It's lesser players are the ones that need help, whether it's better clubs, lessons, more practice, or better, more consistent golf balls. I think you may have gotten a bit defensive about using cheap golf balls, and there is no need; cheap is a valid thing on which to base buying decisions. Just try not to get it confused with other stuff.

[lenman73]

I will clarify. I don't care about robot testing since none of us swing like one. I would like to see actual human testing and data. That's what I meant by that.

 

Second. I realize the titleist ball fitter will reccomend a titleist. My point was neither ones I tried recommended a tour ball. You would think that if it is a for gone conclusion a tour ball will make everyone better, they would at least suggest one of their own.

 

If someone said at the price you can find some tour balls for, there is no real reason not to play one. The statement alone I don't dispute. My problem is saying everyone needs one. Well that is a bold statement and in my view false.

 

I hope that helps. I openly admit not being the best communicator.

[HyzerFlipDG]

I went to a srixon/cleveland demo and they were also helping people choose a srixon ball. I was suggested their soft feel even though I normally play the q-star tour when I play a srixon ball. Shot my all time PB that day with their lower compression surlyn ball. Was very surprises the rep suggestes that ball when he could have sold me a ball that was twice the price.

[lenman73]

Congrats on the personal best round ! Out of curiosity, are you still using that ball? I like the soft feel ball but fell out of favor with the latest version of the QST.

[HyzerFlipDG]

I will use the soft feel for my next few rounds as well as playing my normal gamer (Top Flite Hammer Control) to see if the difference is the ball or me finally transitioning to an in-to-out swing and getting rid of my OTT swing.

I honestly haven't used the Q-star Tour 3 at all yet as I'm still going through the Q-Star Tour 2 boxes I have. What don't you like about the new version? I'm hoping it's nothing too dramatic as I bought 7-8 boxes of the new gen during the BOGO and I'd hate to not want to use them. Luckily I can still get the previous Gen boxes for $20 so i'm not SOL if I don't like the new ones.

[lenman73]

For me the new QST is shorter of the tee. Increased iron distance though, but around the green I feel I can get more spin with the hammer control. Seems odd I know, but I personally don't get along the the new QST. That is not to say you or others will not either. Just doesn't do it for me.

[munichop]

One advantage I have found with the surlyn balls is they tend to launch higher. I used to play e5 balls because I could get them in the air. Tour balls are made for tour swings not mine. I know at +2 I am odd by playing 2 and 3 piece top flutes but I score better with them. When it cools down I will put some trufeel balls back in the bag. For over 5 years these have been the best balls for my scorecard. As I lose clubhead speed the advantage with these balls grows.

[HyzerFlipDG]

that's a real shame. You'd think if anything the new version would be better with it having SerM and all the other Z-star tech added to it. I wonder if they messed with the compression as well?

 

[lenman73]

If memory serves, people were having similar experiences according to reviews on here. But I liked them before and DSG had a sale so I went for it. They just were no bueno for me. You may love them. Won't know till ya know.

[lenman73]

Found it. https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/1806677/3rd-gen-srixon-q-star-tour-to-be-released-january-17th#latest

[BeerPerHole]

No. Not trolling. Strange...

This is golf balls, guys. No need to get our skivies in a bind. "Cork sniffing" is just a term used in some circles to describe over-analysis of the tools of a trade or hobby. It's funny. My question is legit, and I can see now it's been asked many times before. Forums like this are interesting because they are a little snapshot of the psyches from across society. You can see that many people are quick people are to conflict. Explains why our society seems so chimp-fisted at tackling real issues these days. So people seemed overwhelmed just trying to read a thread about golf balls...

[nsxguy]

Well, maybe not exactly trolling but you already knew the term "cork sniffer" has distinctly negative connotations.

I did NOT know the term and, while I'm not a vinophile of any sort the image that popped to mind was of someone sniffing a wine cork; a picture that evokes snobbery to my mind and when applied to golf balls, the implication is immediate and obvious.

So it turns out I was wrong about the wine connotation but right about the snobbery aspect so i guess I'm batting .500. LOL

And as it turns out, Urban Dictionary https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cork%20sniffer or a discussion on this very term (1st 5 or so posts should suffice) http://www.everythingsg.com/threads/cork-sniffer-defined.23388/#:~:text=A%20cork%20sniffer%20is%20one,the%20shape%20of%20the%20neck.

[BeerPerHole]

LOL. Didn't mean to get that reaction. No worries, man. My sense of humor gets me in trouble regularly.