NON-URETHANE- Best approach/short game spin?

[wantacigar]

Really, the two or three ionomer 3 pc balls I've really liked are the Vice Tour and Callaway Diablo Tour.  The two piece balls I've enjoyed playing were the Callaway Supersoft, TF D2 Feels and Noodle Long and Soft.  Haven't tried any Maxfli.  I've recently tried the new TF Gamer.  Not thrilled with them.  Distance seems a little short and the cover gets beat up quickly for a non urethane ball.

[NoTalentLefty]

Titleist TruFeel or the Callaway SuperSoft 

[MarcellusW]

14 hours ago, North Butte said:

It's an enduring mystery why so many people (apparently) follow a line of reasoning something like this...

 

1) I'm not good enough to use Pro V1's or TP5's or Chrome Softs. They're too expensive for my game.

2) So I will save a dollar a ball and use a Tour Speed or ERC Soft

 

and if the suggestion is made to perhaps use a urethane ball costs half as much a name-brand one and far less than ERC Soft or Tour Speed...

 

3) No, I'm not good enough to use urethane balls. They'd be a waste of money for my game.

 

Somehow the idea of cheap urethane balls does not keep people from buying expensive non-urethane balls. I'd have thought that was a no-brainer but it shows how little I know about golf consumer psychology. 

I have a different opinion. Price is only part of the equation.

 

Some golfers want less spin.  If you are looking for straighter shots, or perhaps more distance, surlyn/ionomer is an attractive option. For years, I played the balls that were considered to be just below the urethane balls - Burner TP, NXT tour, Callaway Superhot, Gamer, etc.  At times, these balls gave me a lot of confidence, and that is something worth paying for.  

 

 

[cristphoto]

On 8/21/2020 at 10:08 PM, Flyers99 said:

I do want a ball with lower spin but do not need the lowest. Was just seeing if people found a non-urethane ball with some spin around the greens. Not looking for a lot but just curious as to what was maybe out there that spins a little more than the Maxfli. 

 

For the short shots around the greens you're going to see a good discrepancy between urethane and surlyn.  On full shots with 7, 8, 9, PW the spin numbers get a bit closer but still always higher for the urethane balls.  Off the driver spin numbers are pretty close between the two.  That's why the 3 and 4 piece urethane balls are a good choice - spin where you need it but not where you don't.  Some players can play as good (or sometimes better) playing a surlyn ball but you take a few types of shot out of your arsenal.  Somewhat like taking a couple irons out of your bag and attempting to play the same.     

[rwbloom93]

20 hours ago, North Butte said:

It's an enduring mystery why so many people (apparently) follow a line of reasoning something like this...

 

1) I'm not good enough to use Pro V1's or TP5's or Chrome Softs. They're too expensive for my game.

2) So I will save a dollar a ball and use a Tour Speed or ERC Soft

 

and if the suggestion is made to perhaps use a urethane ball costs half as much a name-brand one and far less than ERC Soft or Tour Speed...

 

3) No, I'm not good enough to use urethane balls. They'd be a waste of money for my game.

 

Somehow the idea of cheap urethane balls does not keep people from buying expensive non-urethane balls. I'd have thought that was a no-brainer but it shows how little I know about golf consumer psychology. 

 

 

While I haven't read every post in every thread, I don't think the prevailing argument is "I'm not good enough to play a $4 ball so i play a $3.00 or 3.33 cent ball instead."

 

 I'm not anti-urethane, I play the premium mid compression urethane balls whenever I play a very nice fast course (which is not very often) because a little extra spin seems helpful for 50 yards and in. There is no need for extra spin for 90 % of the courses I play.

 

General summary for not playing the cheap urethane balls (But I do agree about high priced Ionomer...no thanks):

 

1. The vast majority of casual golfers can't work the ball off the tee shot so urethane adds little. Bad swings with urethane balls can still be more penalizing than Ionomer (side spin). 

2. The vast majority of casual golfers can't work the ball on approach shots or make clean enough contact to really spin it (on the line they are aiming) so urethane adds little here also. And as with the driver, a poor swing can be more penalizing (side spin) 

3. Durability 

4. Gary Player's tips for amateurs to score better around the greens includes replacing the pitch and check chip with a bump and run using a less lofted club.   I suppose this doesn't favor either urethane or Ionomer but ionomer certainly is not a bad choice for the bump and run short game.

5.Anecdotally, most golfers also leave approach shots short. I've found (and I think most agree) low compression ionomer balls fly a little further than the higher compression urethane for mid irons.. 

6. Also anecdotally, I find Ionomer balls livelier off the club face in the short game as opposed the firmer urethane.  This helps me chip a little better on the slower shaggy municipal courses in my area.  It causes a big problem on fast courses which is why I switch to urethane balls in that situation.

 

Regards  

[Flyers99]

5 hours ago, rwbloom93 said:

 

 

While I haven't read every post in every thread, I don't think the prevailing argument is "I'm not good enough to play a $4 ball so i play a $3.00 or 3.33 cent ball instead."

 

 I'm not anti-urethane, I play the premium mid compression urethane balls whenever I play a very nice fast course (which is not very often) because a little extra spin seems helpful for 50 yards and in. There is no need for extra spin for 90 % of the courses I play.

 

General summary for not playing the cheap urethane balls (But I do agree about high priced Ionomer...no thanks):

 

1. The vast majority of casual golfers can't work the ball off the tee shot so urethane adds little. Bad swings with urethane balls can still be more penalizing than Ionomer (side spin). 

2. The vast majority of casual golfers can't work the ball on approach shots or make clean enough contact to really spin it (on the line they are aiming) so urethane adds little here also. And as with the driver, a poor swing can be more penalizing (side spin) 

3. Durability 

4. Gary Player's tips for amateurs to score better around the greens includes replacing the pitch and check chip with a bump and run using a less lofted club.   I suppose this doesn't favor either urethane or Ionomer but ionomer certainly is not a bad choice for the bump and run short game.

5.Anecdotally, most golfers also leave approach shots short. I've found (and I think most agree) low compression ionomer balls fly a little further than the higher compression urethane for mid irons.. 

6. Also anecdotally, I find Ionomer balls livelier off the club face in the short game as opposed the firmer urethane.  This helps me chip a little better on the slower shaggy municipal courses in my area.  It causes a big problem on fast courses which is why I switch to urethane balls in that situation.

 

Regards  

This is very true. Not all players have a skill set to take advantage of urethane. It is not always about price. 

[Moby]

Maxfli Softfli or Srixon QStar Tour

[Justsomeguy]

On 8/30/2020 at 4:04 PM, rwbloom93 said:

 

 

While I haven't read every post in every thread, I don't think the prevailing argument is "I'm not good enough to play a $4 ball so i play a $3.00 or 3.33 cent ball instead."

 

 I'm not anti-urethane, I play the premium mid compression urethane balls whenever I play a very nice fast course (which is not very often) because a little extra spin seems helpful for 50 yards and in. There is no need for extra spin for 90 % of the courses I play.

 

General summary for not playing the cheap urethane balls (But I do agree about high priced Ionomer...no thanks):

 

1. The vast majority of casual golfers can't work the ball off the tee shot so urethane adds little. Bad swings with urethane balls can still be more penalizing than Ionomer (side spin). 

2. The vast majority of casual golfers can't work the ball on approach shots or make clean enough contact to really spin it (on the line they are aiming) so urethane adds little here also. And as with the driver, a poor swing can be more penalizing (side spin) 

3. Durability 

4. Gary Player's tips for amateurs to score better around the greens includes replacing the pitch and check chip with a bump and run using a less lofted club.   I suppose this doesn't favor either urethane or Ionomer but ionomer certainly is not a bad choice for the bump and run short game.

5.Anecdotally, most golfers also leave approach shots short. I've found (and I think most agree) low compression ionomer balls fly a little further than the higher compression urethane for mid irons.. 

6. Also anecdotally, I find Ionomer balls livelier off the club face in the short game as opposed the firmer urethane.  This helps me chip a little better on the slower shaggy municipal courses in my area.  It causes a big problem on fast courses which is why I switch to urethane balls in that situation.

 

Regards  

Mostly agree, but there's a category of player that plays classic old man golf. Everything is straight, but kinda short, with above average short game.

When you short the 450 yard par 4 after a driver and 3wood, or just miss left or right, you need to play at the pin to save par.

I miss pin high left or right a lot, and for long par 4s I might be as far as 60 yards short depending on contact or club choice. I like a urethane ball bc I can stop my SW where I land it from 60, or flop my LW over a bunker without it running all the way across the green.

But I agree w the tee and irons working the ball is overrated and most ams don't need it or can't do it, myself included. I can hit a draw or a fade with a teed up wood, but if I get too fancy with an iron it rarely ends well.

[rwbloom93]

56 minutes ago, Justsomeguy said:

Mostly agree, but there's a category of player that plays classic old man golf. Everything is straight, but kinda short, with above average short game.

When you short the 450 yard par 4 after a driver and 3wood, or just miss left or right, you need to play at the pin to save par.

I miss pin high left or right a lot, and for long par 4s I might be as far as 60 yards short depending on contact or club choice. I like a urethane ball bc I can stop my SW where I land it from 60, or flop my LW over a bunker without it running all the way across the green.

But I agree w the tee and irons working the ball is overrated and most ams don't need it or can't do it, myself included. I can hit a draw or a fade with a teed up wood, but if I get too fancy with an iron it rarely ends well.

 

Nice post, good point...

 

Regards

[kevinmdowney]

On 8/27/2020 at 12:06 PM, flushem said:

why bother with surlyn cover balls when you can buy Costco balls for the same or cheaper price?

Spin WAY too much.

 

But I did buy a box of 50 kirklands for my shag bag I use for short game practice.

[Golf64]

Had a hole in one with a TruFeel. Great ball. Loved the feel and performance for the money. Tour Soft is one of my favourite balls, but not at that price! Reading good tings about the e12 contact, but have never gamed one yet.

[gioreeko]

On 8/21/2020 at 9:20 AM, Flyers99 said:

So I have decided to go with a non-urethane ball. Not looking to get into prices and why one is better. For me, I can honestly say over the last 5 years I just simply score better with non-urethane. Not every round, not drastically but over a half or full season it is noticeable. May be my swing or game or all but I do better. In the past have played QStars, TriSpeed Tours, Maxfli Softfi, Titleist Tour S. Last night I had my best round of the season with a Maxfli Softfli. Anybody can comment on newer balls I terms of which provide good approach and green side spin?  Thanks. 

Can you recommend which Ferrari is best for off roading?

[gioreeko]

On 8/21/2020 at 9:20 AM, Flyers99 said:

So I have decided to go with a non-urethane ball. Not looking to get into prices and why one is better. For me, I can honestly say over the last 5 years I just simply score better with non-urethane. Not every round, not drastically but over a half or full season it is noticeable. May be my swing or game or all but I do better. In the past have played QStars, TriSpeed Tours, Maxfli Softfi, Titleist Tour S. Last night I had my best round of the season with a Maxfli Softfli. Anybody can comment on newer balls I terms of which provide good approach and green side spin?  Thanks. 

double post, delete

Edited August 15, 2022 by gioreeko
double post

[elwhippy]

Tour Soft isn't great value for money but performs better than other 2 piece balls from 100 yards in.