2-piece Question

[L29]

Been playing urethane for a while now, but have started messing around with some two piece here recently to see what would happen. Most of the two piece balls now are on the soft end. According to MGS testing the harder balls spin more around the green in the premium ball range. Would this also hold true with surlyn balls? Understanding that no surlyn ball can approach a urethane covered ball, should a firmer two piece spin more than a softer two piece? I fully understand I'm starting to get into the weeds here a bit...lol

[storm319]

All other things equal, the 2-piece ball with the higher compression core will theoretically increase friction (and as a result spin) than a lower compression core. With that said, the difference on low speed shots (especially in longer grass) will be negligible.

Also when it comes to lower speed partial shots, there is no comparison between urethane and ionomer when it comes to spin. There is generally very little to distinguish between different ionomer covered balls in this area beyond the perception of feel so I would not worry too much about it. Bottom line, if you are concerned at all with maximizing spin don't even bother with any ball with an ionomer ball.

[RWbloom]

Nope...not according to the test done by the PXG robot. The Srixon AD333 (Q-Star) created more wedge spin than the Prov1, TP5x, Srixon Z-Star, both Snell Tour Balls, Callaway CS, CSX...etc.

The only urethane balls tested that beat the Q-Star in wedge spin were the V1x, TourB XS, Z-star VX, and TP5....https://www.todaysgolfer.co.uk/features/equipment-features/2019/september/robot-tested-which-golf-bal-suits-my-game/

That's if you believe robot testing is useful (I don't, but many do...).

[storm319]

While I do believe that robotic testing is the only way to eliminate swing variables in order to objectively test balls, that Today’s Golfer AD333 results are not apples to apples with most other tests given that they used a distance oriented pitching wedge at what appears to be a full shot vs partial green side shot which is where you will see the biggest difference between cover materials.

[L29]

The reason for this talk about 2 piece surlyn is that while I can afford any golf ball, as a casual golfer, I am enamored with value.

I don’t like used golf balls and I understand there are premium urethane balls available, either on sale from last year or direct to consumer, that are not much more than some surlyn balls.

So this question is more on principle and less on practicality that I have to answer for my game. Seems with all the “scientific” golf ball testing being done recently, it’s been proven what the best golf balls are. The question is, are they on economic principle, 30$/dozen better for me? For players who are “enamored with value”, it’s kind of a tough question I’m having to figure out for myself.

 

[RWbloom]

I don't think there is enough "scientific" data on the "value" balls to answer your original question. I can only assume robot testing is too expensive to waste time on them. Golf digest has some human testing for value, premium, and tour balls.... https://www.golfdigest.com/content/dam/images/golfdigest/fullset/2020/04/23/5ea1abb1d626988892a9cbad_EQUIP_CHART-2020_3.jpg

Srixon Q-Star Tour's can generally be found for $20 a dozen somewhere all the times. Human tester Rick Shiels produced some pretty high wedge spin numbers with the Callaway Supersoft and Titleist TruSoft (now TruFeel). I personally think the Pinnacles Soft/Rush are the best balls for the price.

 

[munichop]

I have played surlyn for over 5 years continuously and in winter for many more. The difference between surlyn and urethane is most significant in the short game and out to about 50 yards or so. I have found no surlyn model that spins as well as urethane on shorter shots. So why play surlyn at all? More spin is different but not always better. If you play surlyn you have to understand the limitations of the cover. Once you accept those characteristics you can develop a consistent short game and improve scoring. Currently I am playing the trufeel, shot 69 with it today. These types of balls offer an alternative to urethane but you must not ask them to behave like them.

[xkilgorextroutx]

I think that's the key at the end - playing surlyn balls like they are surlyn balls... not playing them like urethane and getting upset when they don't act like them. I'm a slower swinger and I don't get much spin off of ProV1 type balls, so my short game is based on a lot of bump and runs. Surlyn works just fine for that.

[Tanner25]

Munichop, Other than playing for the run out with a surlyn ball for the short greenside shots. Are there are any other adjustments you do?

[munichop]

Tanner25

instead of spin I use height to stop the ball more quickly. I don’t carry a 60 deg wedge so I open the face of my 57 deg wedge. When I practice chipping I do most of my shots from 14 yards away since Pelz study claims that regardless of hcp this is the average recovery distance. After that I just experiment with the height it takes to get the ball close. Once you find a ball you like I only practice with that ball, never range balls for short game.

[arbeck]

Spin around the greens and off lofted clubs is generated by a soft cover pinching against a harder inner core/mantle. So the compression doesn't really matter to spin unless the balls have similar covers. Most Surlyn balls have relatively hard covers (for durability) and soft core's. That's exactly what you don't want for green side spin. If you found a Surlyn ball that had a firmer core and softer cover, it would spin more, but I don't know that this ball exists, and would probably have issues with too much spin off the driver.

There is a very specific reason that all the tour balls have a similar cover and a firmer mantle around the core. That gives the soft cover something to pinch against, while still allowing for your driver and low lofted clubs to reduce spin.

[bluedot]

On 7/24/2020 at 12:59 PM, L29 said:

Been playing urethane for a while now, but have started messing around with some two piece here recently to see what would happen. Most of the two piece balls now are on the soft end. According to MGS testing the harder balls spin more around the green in the premium ball range. Would this also hold true with surlyn balls? Understanding that no surlyn ball can approach a urethane covered ball, should a firmer two piece spin more than a softer two piece? I fully understand I'm starting to get into the weeds here a bit...lol

 

The short answer is "no".  Harder balls, regardless of the price, do NOT spin more.  What makes a ball spin more is mulit-layer construction and a urethane cover.  So one of the three piece surlyn balls should spin more than a two piece surlyn ball, but less than a three piece with a urethane cover.

 

What would likely be true is that, all other things equal, a harder ball would go farther (at least marginally) than a softer ball, regardless of the number of layers and the cover material.  But there are so many variables in there that unless you are comparing two specific balls, it's hard to go beyond that generalization.

[mvhoffman]

No matter what ball you play, the contact and attack angle needs to be there for spin.  yes, 4/5 piece balls are designed to spin more.  I personally play with a 3 piece Diablo Tour ball and last week shot my lowest round of -2 69.  

[shortset]

I have been wanting to try the wilson duo soft ball with a persimmon and blade set.  It's the lowest compression ball available.  Does anyone have experience with that ball?

[gvogel]

On 7/26/2020 at 6:38 AM, munichop said:

I have played surlyn for over 5 years continuously and in winter for many more. The difference between surlyn and urethane is most significant in the short game and out to about 50 yards or so. I have found no surlyn model that spins as well as urethane on shorter shots. So why play surlyn at all? More spin is different but not always better. If you play surlyn you have to understand the limitations of the cover. Once you accept those characteristics you can develop a consistent short game and improve scoring. Currently I am playing the trufeel, shot 69 with it today. These types of balls offer an alternative to urethane but you must not ask them to behave like them.

This is a really interesting post.  I have played the predecessor to the Trufeel and found it to be very soft.

Question: is the Trufeel basically the same ball as the Pinnacle Soft?

Is the Velocity basically the same ball as the Pinnacle Rush?

[Titleist_PT23]

6 minutes ago, gvogel said:

This is a really interesting post.  I have played the predecessor to the Trufeel and found it to be very soft.

Question: is the Trufeel basically the same ball as the Pinnacle Soft?

Is the Velocity basically the same ball as the Pinnacle Rush?

I'm a big believer of what was written about surlyn vs urethane.  There is no doubt a urethane can do things a surlyn cannot.  But a lot of people are not good enough to consistently control the spin of a urethane.  Just think about it.  A lot of people with probably 20%-40% short game conversion rates are telling you they have great control over the ball.  The true answer is that they don't (if they did, they would get up and down a lot more).  They remember the infrequent hero shot and think their game would suffer without that shot.  

 

I do agree that in theory the urethane is not hurting you if you know when to play a shot with less spin.  But this requires one to practice various short game shots a lot.  Living in a dense metro area with limited access to chipping green with real grass I don't have time to practice these different shots much.  I found it was just as effective to play a basic pitch shot with a 54 or LW and allow for runout.  Clean contact is the biggest factor, which I often don't achieve anyways.  Over about 20 rounds I calculated that the extra spin of a urethane was helpful (i.e. had no hope with a surlyn) on about 3 of 10 greenside shots per round.  Realistically, over the long-run getting 1/3 up and down or a shot per round was the max benefit I could see.  And 1/3 may be high given that by nature these shots are in more difficult situations (no green to work with, crappy lie, etc).

 

For reference, my index is usually around 7-8, which is either not too bad or not very good depending on your perspective.  I would rate my short game very average for this overall skill level.

[LumpyPockets]

On 8/22/2020 at 8:10 AM, gvogel said:

This is a really interesting post.  I have played the predecessor to the Trufeel and found it to be very soft.

Question: is the Trufeel basically the same ball as the Pinnacle Soft?

Is the Velocity basically the same ball as the Pinnacle Rush?

That's a good question.  Anybody know? 

 

[wantacigar]

Well, today was an interesting day.  Played a "Tour level" course today in an outing.  Actually more difficult than Glen Oaks Country Club (right next door to the course I played today) which was the site of the 2017 Northern Trust.  Alternated Pro V1 and Top Flite D2 Feel.  The greens were running at about an 11.  There were several obvious noticeable differences.  HOWEVER, I scored equally as well with both balls.  Pro V had a softer feel (Obviously), did get some green holding bite on chips and short irons but I played the roll out which suited my game better.  I got two birdies on the day.  One with each ball and a sprinkling of pars.  Long story short on courses like this the Pro V games better in performance but I play mostly on courses that aren't as difficult and greens softer that the TF would actually perform fine.  At $8 for 15 balls vs. $49 for doz Pro V's  I could game the 2 piece ball most of the time.  Would really like to try the TF HC to see the difference.  For the mid to high handicapper (I'm an 18 hcp)  the performance of the Pro V makes no difference in scoring.  I'll chunk a Pro V as quick as I would chunk a 2 piece.   My usual gamer is Callaway Diablo Tour or Vice Tour.

I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of S**t for this but, hey, it's the truth

[rwbloom93]

45 minutes ago, wantacigar said:

Well, today was an interesting day.  Played a "Tour level" course today in an outing.  Actually more difficult than Glen Oaks Country Club (right next door to the course I played today) which was the site of the 2017 Northern Trust.  Alternated Pro V1 and Top Flite D2 Feel.  The greens were running at about an 11.  There were several obvious noticeable differences.  HOWEVER, I scored equally as well with both balls.  Pro V had a softer feel (Obviously), did get some green holding bite on chips and short irons but I played the roll out which suited my game better.  I got two birdies on the day.  One with each ball and a sprinkling of pars.  Long story short on courses like this the Pro V games better in performance but I play mostly on courses that aren't as difficult and greens softer that the TF would actually perform fine.  At $8 for 15 balls vs. $49 for doz Pro V's  I could game the 2 piece ball most of the time.  Would really like to try the TF HC to see the difference.  For the mid to high handicapper (I'm an 18 hcp)  the performance of the Pro V makes no difference in scoring.  I'll chunk a Pro V as quick as I would chunk a 2 piece.   My usual gamer is Callaway Diablo Tour or Vice Tour.

I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of S**t for this but, hey, it's the truth

 

I played Vahalla in 2019 and had the same experience. I played the front nine with a Titleist Tour Soft (shot 46) and the back nine with the B RX(S)  and shot 46..... So 46 with Ionomer and 46 with urethane. BTW I putted the Tiger Woods walk in on the 16th green (2000 PGA) and drained it.  I one putted 8 greens (and still shot 92...I was really awful ball striking) but what Phil said about Valhalla greens was right, you get the ball started on line and the ball just funnels toward the hole. 

 

 

[dog flog]

For short shots, the spin comes from the cover compressing and gripping the club face. The other layers don't get compressed enough to contribute to the spin. Any urethane covered ball should give you lots of spin on your cute greenside wedge shots.  A balata cover on a Top Flite core would theoretically spin more than a Pro V 1X around the green but might not be spinny enough on full iron shots.

[Need2golfalot]

I play mostly two piece so I don't get annoyed as much from a lost ball.  The full wedges can carry further due to less spin.  So watch out for that.  Frustrating to go over the green on a well struck wedge.  The 3 piece surlyn (TF Gamer, Gamer Soft) are good for me.  Also really like the Nike PD Long (2 piece)  Mid compression has the best feel for me.

[L29]

On 9/17/2020 at 6:09 AM, dog flog said:

For short shots, the spin comes from the cover compressing and gripping the club face. The other layers don't get compressed enough to contribute to the spin. Any urethane covered ball should give you lots of spin on your cute greenside wedge shots.  A balata cover on a Top Flite core would theoretically spin more than a Pro V 1X around the green but might not be spinny enough on full iron shots.

 

Agreed, however, according to MGS a harder layer underneath the cover will allow the cover itself to compress more against that harder layer vs a softer inner layer.  Therefore, theoretically, a harder ball with a urethane cover should spin more than a softer ball with a urethane cover.  At least that's the way I understand it.

[PhilsFanDrew]

I've experimented with both 2 piece ionomer balls and multilayer urethane balls this season and found that it made no real difference to my scoring.  I think a couple reasons have to do with this.  First I mostly play in on muni/public tracks which in Eastern PA the greens are pretty soft/receptive.  Couple that with my naturally high ball flight and I have no issue stopping 2 piece balls on the green very close to their pitch marks.  Another reason is for my club selection and short game methods around the green.  Whenever possible I take less loft and play bump and run chip shots.  I don't take high lofted wedges and throw the ball close to the hole and rely on spin to stop it.  From a matter of ball composition, urethane would give me a better chance on short sided shots with a tucked pin over a bunker but that is still a low percentage shot for me regardless of ball based on my current ability.  I don't get to play enough or practice my short game enough to be able to utilize the functional advantages of a multilayer urethane ball so for that reason I'm plenty content to stay with 2/3 piece ionomer balls going forward.  

 

 

[wantacigar]

I've been gaming TP5's and Snell MTB-X because they were gifts.  As soon as they run out my pocket and skill level like the 2 and 3 pc. ionomer covered balls

[arbeck]

3 hours ago, L29 said:

 

Agreed, however, according to MGS a harder layer underneath the cover will allow the cover itself to compress more against that harder layer vs a softer inner layer.  Therefore, theoretically, a harder ball with a urethane cover should spin more than a softer ball with a urethane cover.  At least that's the way I understand it.

Sort of. A harder ball and a softer ball with the same urethane cover will behave that way. But you can have a softer ball with a harder urethane cover (for less spin) or a firmer ball with a harder urethane cover (for less spin). You can also have a harder mantle, but softer core so that you get more spin on irons and wedges but the overall compression of the ball is less than a softer mantle ball with a firmer core.

 

That's the way companies can make a firmer ball that spins less than their softer ball (bridgestone and taylormade for example).

[bluedot]

17 hours ago, wantacigar said:

I've been gaming TP5's and Snell MTB-X because they were gifts.  As soon as they run out my pocket and skill level like the 2 and 3 pc. ionomer covered balls

 

Ok, but if you like the MTB-X, you won't be paying a lot more for it than any of the better ionomer balls, especially the three piece ones.  You can buy 5 doz for $29 a doz, and you'll be playing one of the longest balls on the market AND a ball with superior spin performance off irons as well. 

[rwbloom93]

9 hours ago, bluedot said:

 

Ok, but if you like the MTB-X, you won't be paying a lot more for it than any of the better ionomer balls, especially the three piece ones.  You can buy 5 doz for $29 a doz, and you'll be playing one of the longest balls on the market AND a ball with superior spin performance off irons as well. 

Not sure these type of statements can be made anymore. The two competing robot tests show what is longer for Golfer A is not necessarily longer for Golfer B (same for spin).

 

Take distance, for example, between the TP5X vs ProV1x.

 

MSG test at 85 mph Driver speed reports the ProV1x as the top distance ball and the TP5x as below average.  However, the PXG robot had the TP5X near the top but the ProV1x below average.  A complete reversal with the only known variable difference the club used.

 

In terms of spin, we don't know what Wantacigar prefers.  Does he want or need more spin?  The PXG showed one 2-pce ball (AD-333) spinning more than the Snell MTB-X.  The PXG test didn't show MTB-X to be superior to the AD-333 in all dispersion categories either.

 

Maybe the MTB-x is a superior distance ball with great iron performance and maybe it's not.  All depends upon how Wantacigar strikes the ball with the clubs he uses.

 

Regards 

 

 

[bluedot]

14 hours ago, rwbloom93 said:

Not sure these type of statements can be made anymore. The two competing robot tests show what is longer for Golfer A is not necessarily longer for Golfer B (same for spin).

 

Take distance, for example, between the TP5X vs ProV1x.

 

MSG test at 85 mph Driver speed reports the ProV1x as the top distance ball and the TP5x as below average.  However, the PXG robot had the TP5X near the top but the ProV1x below average.  A complete reversal with the only known variable difference the club used.

 

In terms of spin, we don't know what Wantacigar prefers.  Does he want or need more spin?  The PXG showed one 2-pce ball (AD-333) spinning more than the Snell MTB-X.  The PXG test didn't show MTB-X to be superior to the AD-333 in all dispersion categories either.

 

Maybe the MTB-x is a superior distance ball with great iron performance and maybe it's not.  All depends upon how Wantacigar strikes the ball with the clubs he uses.

 

Regards 

 

 

 

14 hours ago, rwbloom93 said:

Not sure these type of statements can be made anymore. The two competing robot tests show what is longer for Golfer A is not necessarily longer for Golfer B (same for spin).

 

Take distance, for example, between the TP5X vs ProV1x.

 

MSG test at 85 mph Driver speed reports the ProV1x as the top distance ball and the TP5x as below average.  However, the PXG robot had the TP5X near the top but the ProV1x below average.  A complete reversal with the only known variable difference the club used.

 

In terms of spin, we don't know what Wantacigar prefers.  Does he want or need more spin?  The PXG showed one 2-pce ball (AD-333) spinning more than the Snell MTB-X.  The PXG test didn't show MTB-X to be superior to the AD-333 in all dispersion categories either.

 

Maybe the MTB-x is a superior distance ball with great iron performance and maybe it's not.  All depends upon how Wantacigar strikes the ball with the clubs he uses.

 

Regards 

 

 

 

I've studied those tests pretty carefully, and I agree with you on all points.  But the post that I was replying to indicated that cost was part of the equation (along with skill level) that would cause wantacigar to go back to an ionomer ball when the TP5's and MTB-X's ran out.  I wasn't advocating the MTB-X because it is better or worse than the TP5; I focused on it because it's a pretty incredible deal, especially when bought in bulk.  It's up to wantacigar to decide what golf ball suits him best, but cost doesn't need to be much of a factor in that decision anymore.