Jump to content

Titleist Tour Speed Golf Ball


Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, jons1 said:

 

Yes, it goes head to head with balls like the Callaway Chrome Soft and the Bridgestone BRX.... but the ball speeds of the Tour Speed are higher than any of those balls... so it goes further.  Also, it might be a little better around the greens spin wise. 

What have you seen ball speed with this ball compared to the Pro V1?

Ping G30 LS Tec 10* (DI-6X)
Ping G400 Crossover 19* (Tensei CK Pro Blue 80S)
Ping i20 3-UW (PXi 6.0, PX 6.0)
Ping Glide 2.0 56*SS, 60*ES (PX 6.0)
Ping Vault Arna

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

TP5/TP5x for $5 more is the real winner here

Personally, I like the new tour soft. I've had some of my best scores with it. (That's how I judge a ball.) But for that price the Bridgestone e12 balls are a much better deal and perform about as

so $3.33/ball for a Titleist golf Ball thats not a ProV, when the actual ProV prices out to $4/ball. bit of a whiff there for Titleist, packaging might as well say why not buy ProV...

On 9/3/2020 at 4:16 PM, jons1 said:

 

Yes, it goes head to head with balls like the Callaway Chrome Soft and the Bridgestone BRX.... but the ball speeds of the Tour Speed are higher than any of those balls... so it goes further.  Also, it might be a little better around the greens spin wise. 

 

I have not seen ball speed data for The TourSpeed vs. the new CS and BRX...please post for the community.

 

Also, ball speed is not the only factor in determining carry distance. Launch angle, back spin, and side spin are the other major components. For example, in the Today's Golfer test the Z-Star VX was the fastest ball for 100mph driver speed but it's carry distance was below average by a faction....Some of the softer and slower balls (ERC, Prj A, Duo, B RX) traveled further than the Z-Star VX even though they were slower off the club face.

 

The Today's Golfer robot test probably debunked a couple of the MYG** robot test "takeaways" (I'm thinking #3 and #4) listed in the beginning of their article.

 

Regards

Edited by rwbloom93
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2020 at 1:53 PM, rwbloom93 said:

 

I have not seen ball speed data for The TourSpeed vs. the new CS and BRX...please post for the community.

 

Also, ball speed is not the only factor in determining carry distance. Launch angle, back spin, and side spin are the other major components. For example, in the Today's Golfer test the Z-Star VX was the fastest ball for 100mph driver speed but it's carry distance was below average by a faction....Some of the softer and slower balls (ERC, Prj A, Duo, B RX) traveled further than the Z-Star VX even though they were slower off the club face.

 

The Today's Golfer robot test probably debunked a couple of the MYG** robot test "takeaways" (I'm thinking #3 and #4) listed in the beginning of their article.

 

Regards

I am as leery as the next person of the M.G.S. habit of creating click-bait hype that goes far beyond their actual data. But how does one online-media robot test and editorializing "debunk" another online-media robot test and editorializing?

 

Today's Golfer rented a robot, hit a bunch of balls and boiled it down to a few subjective "takes" on the results. M.G.S. rented a robot, hit a bunch of balls and boiled it down to some very different "takes" on their results. Neither of them is exactly Moses coming down from the mountain with ball recommendations written on stone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The RIck Shiels You Tube testing was interesting and showed the tour speed to be 3rd on the list of 4 balls tried in terms of speed and distance. I guess you can manipulate data to say what you want by changing the variables to fit your marketing ploy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cardia10 said:

The RIck Shiels You Tube testing was interesting and showed the tour speed to be 3rd on the list of 4 balls tried in terms of speed and distance. I guess you can manipulate data to say what you want by changing the variables to fit your marketing ploy. 

That's true, but he prefaced that with the fact that titleist's claims were based on a very specific ball speed which was 140 MPH or a mid speed golfer I would guess. I watched his review and I thought he was extremely honest with the fact the ball is not made for his swing speed or numbers which is why he likely didn't get the performance.

 

Not enough people read into claims of ball makers or even club manufactures and understand that they don't blanketly apply across the board. This ball performs better than all the rest in a specific window. Not sure why I would make a blanket claim as a marketer based on that but they seem to it alot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2020 at 5:59 AM, North Butte said:

I am as leery as the next person of the M.G.S. habit of creating click-bait hype that goes far beyond their actual data. But how does one online-media robot test and editorializing "debunk" another online-media robot test and editorializing?

 

 

One testing organization created a list of 6 takeaways based on their robot results. A second test, by a different organization, revealed results that conflict with some of that data, and therefore, takeaways (i.e. #3 and #4) from the first organization.  It can then be said #3 and #4 are not accurate "takeaways" in the eyes of the golfing public in general.

 

I suppose organization #1 can refuse to except the results of organization #2 (that's fine) but as consumers of golf information, the general public likely doesn't favor one organization or the other....They simply see two conflicting robot tests which do not allow for a "takeaway" or conclusion.

 

Hope that makes sense...

 

Regards

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2020 at 12:18 PM, Flip4000 said:

That's true, but he prefaced that with the fact that titleist's claims were based on a very specific ball speed which was 140 MPH or a mid speed golfer I would guess. I watched his review and I thought he was extremely honest with the fact the ball is not made for his swing speed or numbers which is why he likely didn't get the performance.

 

 

Yes, it appears Titleist has created a "tour" level ball for the average swing speed golfer(93 mph...assuming a smash factor of roughly 1.5).  The durability test gave credibility to the posters in this thread that reported above average cover damage from this ball.

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rwbloom93 said:

 

One testing organization created a list of 6 takeaways based on their robot results. A second test, by a different organization, revealed results that conflict with some of that data, and therefore, takeaways (i.e. #3 and #4) from the first organization.  It can then be said #3 and #4 are not accurate "takeaways" in the eyes of the golfing public in general.

 

I suppose organization #1 can refuse to except the results of organization #2 (that's fine) but as consumers of golf information, the general public likely doesn't favor one organization or the other....They simply see two conflicting robot tests which do not allow for a "takeaway" or conclusion.

 

Hope that makes sense...

 

Regards

 

 

I see two organizations competing for page views. They each hit a bunch of balls with robots and then concoct narratives around the results they think will interest their target demographic. The golfing public will see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe, as always. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2020 at 8:05 PM, North Butte said:

I see two organizations competing for page views. They each hit a bunch of balls with robots and then concoct narratives around the results they think will interest their target demographic. The golfing public will see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe, as always. 

 

What narrative did Today's golfer concoct?

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, North Butte said:

Whatever balls it was they said were "longest" or "most consistent" or whatever. You know, all the blah-blah-blah, the stuff besides the numbers. I didn't pay attention to blah-blah-blah, just skimmed through the actual results. 

 

Their article doesn't really have declarative statements like M>S<G...if you simply skim the data from both Robot tests you'll see some significant contradictions in results.  Why?  As far as I can tell the only difference is the club in the robot's "hands"....but maybe the angles of impact were different, either way, two robots swinging at the same speeds (85 and 115 mph with consistent impacts) produced very different data in some instances.  If robots can produce varying data between balls, how much varying data do you think is produced with each of our unique swings? That's why I thought MMSGG "takeaways" were a big stretch last summer.

 

What is longer for you, is not necessarily longer for me, what spins more for me does not necessarily spin more for you, etc...all because we have different swings and use different clubs....That's my takeaway from the robot tests.

 

Regards      

Link to post
Share on other sites

Picked a sleeve of these up on Sunday to try, and compared to a Pro V1x and EXP-01 just to get an idea of where it sat. Looking at the Titleist blurb I don't think it's entirely suited to me, as I am up about 155 - 160 mph so it felt a little soft off the driver compared to the Pro V1x. I did like the feel off the irons and it certainly traveled a similar distance to the Pro V1x, seemed pretty good round the greens on the 9 holes I used it for.

 

The one bit of feedback I do find interesting is on durability - after playing with it for 9 holes, it looked pretty much brand new when I unceremoniously smashed into some trees never to see it again. I did find the EXP-01 to cut quite easily, but didn't have thew same issue with the Tour Speed. If anything it held up better than the Pro V1x I'd used the day before, albeit at a different course. Definitely seemed more durable that the Tour B XS I was using earlier in the season.

 

Don't think it will kick out what's left of my RZN Collection or the Pro V1x as my choice for competitive rounds, but seems more than acceptable for social golf. Could do with being about £5 less for a dozen, but hey it's Titleist. 

The Dee Three - Titleist 917 D3 9.5 deg, Rogue Max 65x, B2 Setting

Henrik - Titleist 917 F3 15 deg, Rogue Max 75x, B2 Setting

The Walking Stick - Titleist 818 H2 19 deg, Rogue Max 85X, A1 Setting

The Blades - Nike VR Pro 4 - PW, S400 Tour Issue, +0.5 inch

The Rusties - Nike Engage 50, 54 Square Sole, 58 Dual Sole, DG Wedge Flex

The Ladies Putter - Nike Method 003 "The Oven", 33.5 inches, ex Carly Booth

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, bodhi555 said:

Picked a sleeve of these up on Sunday to try, and compared to a Pro V1x and EXP-01 just to get an idea of where it sat. Looking at the Titleist blurb I don't think it's entirely suited to me, as I am up about 155 - 160 mph so it felt a little soft off the driver compared to the Pro V1x. I did like the feel off the irons and it certainly traveled a similar distance to the Pro V1x, seemed pretty good round the greens on the 9 holes I used it for.

 

The one bit of feedback I do find interesting is on durability - after playing with it for 9 holes, it looked pretty much brand new when I unceremoniously smashed into some trees never to see it again. I did find the EXP-01 to cut quite easily, but didn't have thew same issue with the Tour Speed. If anything it held up better than the Pro V1x I'd used the day before, albeit at a different course. Definitely seemed more durable that the Tour B XS I was using earlier in the season.

 

Don't think it will kick out what's left of my RZN Collection or the Pro V1x as my choice for competitive rounds, but seems more than acceptable for social golf. Could do with being about £5 less for a dozen, but hey it's Titleist. 

only curious, Tour Speed is the EXP-01, why you compared? was there any difference?? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, monks66 said:

only curious, Tour Speed is the EXP-01, why you compared? was there any difference?? 

 

I'd heard the Tour Speed was the "Retail" version of the EXP-01, so just wanted to see if there were any huge differences. In performance there were none, both balls were broadly similar. Big difference for me was durability - my VR Pros have fairly aggressive grooves so can chew balls up quite badly at times (Tour B XS I'm looking at you) and I did notice a similar issue with the EXP-01 - none so far with the Tour Speed however.

 

If I can make one last more than 9 holes without losing it in the cabbage I will report back ?

  • Like 1

The Dee Three - Titleist 917 D3 9.5 deg, Rogue Max 65x, B2 Setting

Henrik - Titleist 917 F3 15 deg, Rogue Max 75x, B2 Setting

The Walking Stick - Titleist 818 H2 19 deg, Rogue Max 85X, A1 Setting

The Blades - Nike VR Pro 4 - PW, S400 Tour Issue, +0.5 inch

The Rusties - Nike Engage 50, 54 Square Sole, 58 Dual Sole, DG Wedge Flex

The Ladies Putter - Nike Method 003 "The Oven", 33.5 inches, ex Carly Booth

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...