Snell MTB-X/Black & Vice Pro/Pro Plus vs. big manufacturers' second-tier balls

[eric61]

Most of the reviews of Snell MTB-X and MTB Blacks and Vice Pro/Pro Plus/Pro Soft balls compare them to big manufacturers' top-tier balls -- Pro-V1 and Pro-V1x, for example. 

 

But price-wise, they're more comparable to the second-tier offerings from major manufacturers, such as the Titleist Tour Speed and Tour Soft, the TaylorMade Tour Response, the Callaway ERC Soft.

 

So I'm wondering how the DTC balls compare to the performance of those balls?

 

I'm sure a lot of people buy whatever they have at the pro shop or at Dick's or wherever. But is there a way in which any of those mid-priced ($2.25 or so to $3.25 or so each) balls outshines DTC offerings like the Snell MTB-X and MTB-Black or the Vice Pro, Vice Pro Plus and Vice Pro Soft? Just in terms of performance (because again, I know purchasing decisions also depend on when you need a sleeve and what's available, but that's not what I'm trying to get at), what types of golfers might find one of those Tour Speed, Tour Soft, Tour Response type balls to be better for them than one of the DTCs I mentioned? 

 

Edited October 13, 2020 by eric61

[pallmall]

IMO, performance wise, DTCs top tier balls aim at big players' top tier balls, not second tier, so they can show their values.

[eric61]

24 minutes ago, pallmall said:

IMO, performance wise, DTCs top tier balls aim at big players' top tier balls, not second tier, so they can show their values.

For sure. So I guess to put this another way: Aside from convenience, why would anybody buy those second-tier balls instead of the (similarly priced or even slightly cheaper) DTC top tier balls?

[braincramp52]

I don't have any experience with the Vice balls but it's hard to beat the Snell's at any price point.

[eric61]

1 hour ago, braincramp52 said:

I don't have any experience with the Vice balls but it's hard to beat the Snell's at any price point.

Yeah I personally agree, I play the MTB-X and love it — it’s long, durable and has plenty of spin into the green; the Black is a great ball too. I’m just curious whether the Titleist Tour Speed or TaylorMade Tour Response, for example, might fit a certain type of golfer better, and what that type would be.

[bluedot]

I think the reason that the MTB-X is compared to the top line balls from the big companies is because in terms of both construction and performance, it's a premium ball.  It's a three piece ball with distance and spin that is most comparable to the ProV1x, and it's a better performing ball than any second tier ball from any other company.  Literally the ONLY comparison between an MTB-X and a second tier ball is the price.

 

FWIW, I don't think the Vice balls compare favorably to the MTB-X, at least in terms of distance.  But to fair to Vice, not much else does, either.  Some of the independent testing data shows the MTB-X as the longest ball on the market; any company, any construction.

[eric61]

21 minutes ago, bluedot said:

I think the reason that the MTB-X is compared to the top line balls from the big companies is because in terms of both construction and performance, it's a premium ball.  It's a three piece ball with distance and spin that is most comparable to the ProV1x, and it's a better performing ball than any second tier ball from any other company.  Literally the ONLY comparison between an MTB-X and a second tier ball is the price.

 

FWIW, I don't think the Vice balls compare favorably to the MTB-X, at least in terms of distance.  But to fair to Vice, not much else does, either.  Some of the independent testing data shows the MTB-X as the longest ball on the market; any company, any construction.

Totally agree with everything you've said -- that's been my experience with the MTB-X, at least, which I've found is just a terrific ball, although I don't want to suggest in any way that what's best for me is best for anyone else. And I hear you on Vice not comparing favorably to Snell, so for the purpose of this question maybe we can narrow it down to just Snell. 

 

I know a lot of ball-buying decisions just depend on what's available in the pro shop or in the store or on Amazon. But assuming a golfer had access to all the big manufacturers' second-tier balls and the Snell balls, is there any logical reason -- anything a certain type of golfer might be looking for out of a ball's performance -- to grab the second-tier balls like the Tour Response, Tour Speed, Tour Soft, etc. over the Snell MTB Black or MTB-X? 

 

Based on my own experiences, the answer is no. But I enjoy learning about how balls are constructed and how it affects their performance based on different golfers' swings, which clubs are being used, etc., and just wanted to see if that assumption is off base. (I'm loaded up on MTB-X's for the foreseeable future, so my question is just in the spirit of learning, not figuring out what to play for me personally.) 

[brew4eagle]

Some players may fit better into these 'second tier' balls as you describe them vs  a cast urethane 'premium' ball.  But to this point, both Snell and Vice offer balls in this category as well, so the value argument would still point to Snell or Vice (or other DTC company).  I'd also disagree on the theme above that Vice doesn't compare favorably to Snell.  I've tried Snell, and really liked them, but for me I find the Vice Pro feels better (ie, slightly softer) than the premium Snell products I've tried, and performance has been identical as far as I could tell on the course.

[bluedot]

1 hour ago, eric61 said:

 

I know a lot of ball-buying decisions just depend on what's available in the pro shop or in the store or on Amazon. But assuming a golfer had access to all the big manufacturers' second-tier balls and the Snell balls, is there any logical reason -- anything a certain type of golfer might be looking for out of a ball's performance -- to grab the second-tier balls like the Tour Response, Tour Speed, Tour Soft, etc. over the Snell MTB Black or MTB-X? 

 

Based on my own experiences, the answer is no. But I enjoy learning about how balls are constructed and how it affects their performance based on different golfers' swings, which clubs are being used, etc., and just wanted to see if that assumption is off base. (I'm loaded up on MTB-X's for the foreseeable future, so my question is just in the spirit of learning, not figuring out what to play for me personally.) 

 

IMO, the answer to your question is "NO!", and said loudly.  A golfer who is buying second tier balls at the same price or higher than what Snells cost is making a mistake; he's giving up distance and spin for nothing.

 

I have a great deal of difficulty in some of the golf ball threads because so many people say something to the effect of,  "I'm a low spin player so I can't take advantage of a Tour ball."  or "I'm not consistent enough to spin the ball, so I don't need a Tour ball."  or something else similar. 

 

This is exactly backwards, of course.  The more inconsistent the player, and the less spin the player generates, the MORE help they need from the ball, not less.  And NOBODY is helped by golf balls that spin less except a tiny minority who generate too much spin around the greens.  And even those players don't want second tier golf balls; they want a Tour ball that spins a bit less; the ProV1 left dash, or the MTB Black, or the TP5-X, are examples. 

 

Premium urethane cover multilayer golf balls are just better golf balls, period.  They are more consistent and provide more control to players of ALL levels.  If the desire is to spend as little as possible, I get that, but the idea that any golfer is somehow better off with an inferior product is just silly.  It's true of clubs, and it's true of golf balls. 

[eric61]

29 minutes ago, bluedot said:

 

IMO, the answer to your question is "NO!", and said loudly.  A golfer who is buying second tier balls at the same price or higher than what Snells cost is making a mistake; he's giving up distance and spin for nothing.

 

I have a great deal of difficulty in some of the golf ball threads because so many people say something to the effect of,  "I'm a low spin player so I can't take advantage of a Tour ball."  or "I'm not consistent enough to spin the ball, so I don't need a Tour ball."  or something else similar. 

 

This is exactly backwards, of course.  The more inconsistent the player, and the less spin the player generates, the MORE help they need from the ball, not less.  And NOBODY is helped by golf balls that spin less except a tiny minority who generate too much spin around the greens.  And even those players don't want second tier golf balls; they want a Tour ball that spins a bit less; the ProV1 left dash, or the MTB Black, or the TP5-X, are examples. 

 

Premium urethane cover multilayer golf balls are just better golf balls, period.  They are more consistent and provide more control to players of ALL levels.  If the desire is to spend as little as possible, I get that, but the idea that any golfer is somehow better off with an inferior product is just silly.  It's true of clubs, and it's true of golf balls. 

This answer is interesting and makes sense! It squares with what I was thinking, but wasn't totally confident about. 

 

I'm a high handicapper, and I found that playing with higher-spin balls makes a huge difference for me. When I started (or, got back into golf after a long time off, to be more precise), I was playing cheap used balls I'd bought in bulk on eBay because I knew I'd be losing a bunch. I was having a lot of trouble holding greens on par 3s and stopping wedge shots. 

 

I got a bit better, stopped losing lots of balls, bought some Q-Star Tours, and noticed a difference. Then started playing a couple TP5-X's I'd found, and saw an even bigger difference. Bought the Snell test box and the MTB Blacks had maybe a little less stopping power than the TP5-X's but were still spinning more than the Q-Star Tours and lots better than the cheap-o balls I'd started with. Then the MTB-X turned out to be exactly what I was looking for in terms of stopping/checking on the greens, at a price point that seems super reasonable. I'm not what anyone here would consider a good golfer, but in my experience it doesn't take a ton of skill to start seeing the difference in how balls perform, especially around the greens.

 

I've played here and there with some other "premium" balls I've found -- a few Chrome Softs, a Pro-V1 -- and found basically similar results to the MTB Black. 

 

I think if anybody asked me, I'd tell them that once you get to a point where you're not losing a sleeve or more every time out, it's absolutely worth playing with a "premium" ball -- they're not just for really good golfers -- and the Snell balls as well as probably some other DTCs are a good way to keep the costs down. 

 

That said, I haven't tested the second-tier balls from major manufacturers that I've been asking about in this thread, so I was just curious!

[brew4eagle]

5 hours ago, eric61 said:

This answer is interesting and makes sense! It squares with what I was thinking, but wasn't totally confident about. 

 

I'm a high handicapper, and I found that playing with higher-spin balls makes a huge difference for me. When I started (or, got back into golf after a long time off, to be more precise), I was playing cheap used balls I'd bought in bulk on eBay because I knew I'd be losing a bunch. I was having a lot of trouble holding greens on par 3s and stopping wedge shots. 

 

I got a bit better, stopped losing lots of balls, bought some Q-Star Tours, and noticed a difference. Then started playing a couple TP5-X's I'd found, and saw an even bigger difference. Bought the Snell test box and the MTB Blacks had maybe a little less stopping power than the TP5-X's but were still spinning more than the Q-Star Tours and lots better than the cheap-o balls I'd started with. Then the MTB-X turned out to be exactly what I was looking for in terms of stopping/checking on the greens, at a price point that seems super reasonable. I'm not what anyone here would consider a good golfer, but in my experience it doesn't take a ton of skill to start seeing the difference in how balls perform, especially around the greens.

 

I've played here and there with some other "premium" balls I've found -- a few Chrome Softs, a Pro-V1 -- and found basically similar results to the MTB Black. 

 

I think if anybody asked me, I'd tell them that once you get to a point where you're not losing a sleeve or more every time out, it's absolutely worth playing with a "premium" ball -- they're not just for really good golfers -- and the Snell balls as well as probably some other DTCs are a good way to keep the costs down. 

 

That said, I haven't tested the second-tier balls from major manufacturers that I've been asking about in this thread, so I was just curious!

Fwiw, I'd consider the Q Star Tours to be '2nd tier'.  They're very good balls, I've played them a lot.

[Ger21]

I played MTB-X last year, and switched to Q Star Tours this year.

1) I prefer the softer feel of the QST.

2) I don't need the extra spin from the MTB-X.

3) With Srixon's BOGO deals, they are about half the price of the MTB-X.

 

Yes, the MTB-X is probably a better ball, but I don't believe that it saves me any strokes.

Edited October 13, 2020 by Ger21

[Pnoj]

I have tried Vice before, and they are good golf balls. But I will stick with my Chromesoft X's.

[hammergolf]

21 hours ago, eric61 said:

Most of the reviews of Snell MTB-X and MTB Blacks and Vice Pro/Pro Plus/Pro Soft balls compare them to big manufacturers' top-tier balls -- Pro-V1 and Pro-V1x, for example. 

 

But price-wise, they're more comparable to the second-tier offerings from major manufacturers, such as the Titleist Tour Speed and Tour Soft, the TaylorMade Tour Response, the Callaway ERC Soft.

 

So I'm wondering how the DTC balls compare to the performance of those balls?

 

I'm sure a lot of people buy whatever they have at the pro shop or at Dick's or wherever. But is there a way in which any of those mid-priced ($2.25 or so to $3.25 or so each) balls outshines DTC offerings like the Snell MTB-X and MTB-Black or the Vice Pro, Vice Pro Plus and Vice Pro Soft? Just in terms of performance (because again, I know purchasing decisions also depend on when you need a sleeve and what's available, but that's not what I'm trying to get at), what types of golfers might find one of those Tour Speed, Tour Soft, Tour Response type balls to be better for them than one of the DTCs I mentioned? 

 

The Snell and Vice balls perform as well as the top tier balls. So they will outperform the lower tier balls. In essence you are getting top tier performance for a lower price.

[BeerPerHole]

I played a Vice Pro Soft blue hue that I found recently. I loved it with one exception. Not nearly as long as my regular Snell off the tee. I think that Vice is for slower swing speeds. I thought it was a neat ball, and very cool looking. 

[brew4eagle]

6 hours ago, BeerPerHole said:

I played a Vice Pro Soft blue hue that I found recently. I loved it with one exception. Not nearly as long as my regular Snell off the tee. I think that Vice is for slower swing speeds. I thought it was a neat ball, and very cool looking. 

Vice recommends that ball for < 95 mph driver swing speeds, so likely a bit shorter vs Vice Pro and Pro Plus

[eric61]

On 10/13/2020 at 8:01 PM, hammergolf said:

The Snell and Vice balls perform as well as the top tier balls. So they will outperform the lower tier balls. In essence you are getting top tier performance for a lower price.

Yeah, that seems to be a pretty unanimous view so far. So I guess there's no performance-related reason a golfer should buy a Titleist Tour Speed or TaylorMade Tour Response, for example? They exist to compete price-wise with the DTC brands but -- while maybe they're close -- they don't actually match them performance-wise.

 

(I do agree with Ger21 on the Q-Star Tours, by the way. Because you can get them cheaper than the DTCs like Snell, and again you're probably not sacrificing much in terms of performance, especially if you don't need the stopping power, there are people for whom they make sense. The $35 or $40/dozen options I'm talking about, on the other hand, I just don't see an argument for.) 

[eric61]

On 10/13/2020 at 6:25 PM, Ger21 said:

I played MTB-X last year, and switched to Q Star Tours this year.

1) I prefer the softer feel of the QST.

2) I don't need the extra spin from the MTB-X.

3) With Srixon's BOGO deals, they are about half the price of the MTB-X.

 

Yes, the MTB-X is probably a better ball, but I don't believe that it saves me any strokes.

I addressed this a bit in my previous post, but yeah, I totally see why someone would buy Q-Star Tours. I have six or seven sleeves in the closet from a previous BOGO. 

 

I think the examples I'm trying to get at are situations where balls cost the same or more than the DTCs like the MTB-X. So, for example, the Titleist Tour Speeds are $40/dozen vs. $29-$33 a dozen for the MTB-X. The TaylorMade Tour Response and Titleist Tour Soft are $35/dozen. 

 

I can absolutely see someone going with a cheaper option than the DTC premium balls. Just trying to understand why anyone would pay the same/a little more for the second-tier balls from other major manufacturers, Srixon obviously excepted because of the very good point you make about the Q-Star Tour's price.

[shoot4par]

Vice Pro Plus is a good ball (slightly below a 1x) IMHO. I've only played snell mtb's that i've found but I was REALLY impressed with the MTB. 

Edited October 29, 2020 by shoot4par

[Ger21]

I'll agree with you, in that there's no real reason not to buy Snell balls. If there better than anything else, then why buy an inferior similar priced ball.

Unless there's an aspect of the ball that noticeably affects your game.

The biggest thing is probably feel. The MTB-X's do feel pretty hard at times.

[Celebros]

I'm a 0-1 handicap who plays with a lot of higher handicappers.  I routinely get comments about playing a Snell ball (MTB Black) from the higher handicap players, almost all of them vaguely suspicious, most of them assuming that I am giving up performance for some nefarious motive consisting of either being cheap or wanting to be some sort of hipster.  They almost uniformly play OEM balls and many of them are playing their premium offerings.  They literally do not believe me when I tell them the performance is the same as the name brand premium balls.  I think they will continue paying either equal money for inferior OEM balls or pay more money for equivalent OEM balls purely out of the assumption that cost=quality.

 

When I play with low handicappers, choice of ball is almost never mentioned or discussed.

 

 

Edited October 15, 2020 by Celebros

[eric61]

9 hours ago, Ger21 said:

I'll agree with you, in that there's no real reason not to buy Snell balls. If there better than anything else, then why buy an inferior similar priced ball.

Unless there's an aspect of the ball that noticeably affects your game.

The biggest thing is probably feel. The MTB-X's do feel pretty hard at times.

Yeah this is exactly what I'm getting at -- "why buy an inferior similar priced ball." I've been wondering if there was something I might be missing, some performance-related aspect of something like a Tour Speed/Tour Soft or Tour Response or ERC Soft, etc., that might be better than the Snell MTB Black or MTB-X, depending on your preference, or Vice Pro/Pro Plus. Just doesn't seem like it. 

[rwbloom93]

10 hours ago, eric61 said:

Yeah, that seems to be a pretty unanimous view so far. So I guess there's no performance-related reason a golfer should buy a Titleist Tour Speed or TaylorMade Tour Response, for example? They exist to compete price-wise with the DTC brands but -- while maybe they're close -- they don't actually match them performance-wise.

 

(I do agree with Ger21 on the Q-Star Tours, by the way. Because you can get them cheaper than the DTCs like Snell, and again you're probably not sacrificing much in terms of performance, especially if you don't need the stopping power, there are people for whom they make sense. The $35 or $40/dozen options I'm talking about, on the other hand, I just don't see an argument for.) 

 

How a ball "performs" is relative to what a golfer wants and the golfer's skill level. So there is no blanket right answer.

 

The Tour balls were engineered, designed, and made for elite players NOT for high handicappers or the weekend golfers......which is probably 99% of us. The top line Snell and Vice golf balls have design characteristics with the elite player in mind. 

 

One reason a golfer would play a TM Tour Response/TitleistTour Soft/ERC/QST/e12 over the Snell MTB (X) is feel (sound).  The Snells are firmer balls that "perform" best when struck properly. The other options are 10-25 points "softer" and some find that slight miss hits are more forgiving (distance) than the firmer compression. A miss hit with a firm ball feels much worst than a softer ball. 

 

A second reason is iron distance.  For my swing, I find mid and low compression balls travel further (Urethane or Ionomer) and this is a big help for me and my 85 mph driver speed.

 

A third reason is lower spin throughout the bag.  Most of the courses I play are slow and less spin is a plus on every club....So for me it can be course dependent.

 

Best Regards

[eric61]

5 minutes ago, rwbloom93 said:

 

How a ball "performs" is relative to what a golfer wants and the golfer's skill level. So there is no blanket right answer.

 

The Tour balls were engineered, designed, and made for elite players NOT for high handicappers or the weekend golfers......which is probably 99% of us. The top line Snell and Vice golf balls have design characteristics with the elite player in mind. 

 

One reason a golfer would play a TM Tour Response/TitleistTour Soft/ERC/QST/e12 over the Snell MTB (X) is feel (sound).  The Snells are firmer balls that "perform" best when struck properly. The other options are 10-25 points "softer" and some find that slight miss hits are more forgiving (distance) than the firmer compression. A miss hit with a firm ball feels much worst than a softer ball. 

 

A second reason is iron distance.  For my swing, I find mid and low compression balls travel further (Urethane or Ionomer) and this is a big help for me and my 85 mph driver speed.

 

A third reason is lower spin throughout the bag.  Most of the courses I play are slow and less spin is a plus on every club....So for me it can be course dependent.

 

Best Regards

Thanks, I appreciate this answer -- iron distance is a good point and I've seen some of the tests (Today's Golfer on YouTube for example) did find that the softer balls traveled further with their 7-iron tests. 

 

Personally even as a high handicapper, I've found that I benefit tremendously from the higher spin around the green of the MTB-X and other "tour" balls, and can't say I'm bothered at all by their feel. But obviously that's just my anecdotal experience and it's great to hear yours, as well. 

[rwbloom93]

On 10/13/2020 at 12:18 PM, bluedot said:

 

IMO, the answer to your question is "NO!", and said loudly.  A golfer who is buying second tier balls at the same price or higher than what Snells cost is making a mistake; he's giving up distance and spin for nothing.

 

I have a great deal of difficulty in some of the golf ball threads because so many people say something to the effect of,  "I'm a low spin player so I can't take advantage of a Tour ball."  or "I'm not consistent enough to spin the ball, so I don't need a Tour ball."  or something else similar. 

 

This is exactly backwards, of course.  The more inconsistent the player, and the less spin the player generates, the MORE help they need from the ball, not less.  And NOBODY is helped by golf balls that spin less except a tiny minority who generate too much spin around the greens.  And even those players don't want second tier golf balls; they want a Tour ball that spins a bit less; the ProV1 left dash, or the MTB Black, or the TP5-X, are examples. 

 

Premium urethane cover multilayer golf balls are just better golf balls, period.  They are more consistent and provide more control to players of ALL levels.  If the desire is to spend as little as possible, I get that, but the idea that any golfer is somehow better off with an inferior product is just silly.  It's true of clubs, and it's true of golf balls. 

 

Most of these statements are only somewhat true.

 

Snells were designed for tour level swing speed players and tour level skill. Can they also perform well for slower swing, lesser skilled, players?....Some would say absolutely yes, others would say hell no..... The robots aren't much help, they give mixed results. Plus robots are set up to strike the ball "perfectly" on a optimal swing plane.  +99% of golfers have less than optimal swing planes and less than perfect strikes.  The fact that the two robot tests produced significantly different results (in some areas) simply because different brand drivers/irons were used indicates each of us could see vastly different results based on how each of us swings and what clubs we use.

 

So to say a golfer who plays a Tour Soft instead of a Snell MTB is giving up "performance" for nothing is not accurate for everyone. Plus many players don't find extra spin desirable anyway.

 

Golfers who chose not to play a tour ball probably do so because they can't shape shots (skill) not because they are "low spin" players. They also might not like the feel of a firmer ball (many don't). Tour balls were designed to respond to golfers who have command of swing planes, 99% of us do not.

 

The more inconsistently a golfer strikes the ball (especially irons) the worst the performance may be using a tour ball over less spinning balls. 

 

Premium urethane cover balls are better balls for Premium players because they were specifically made for premium players.  Any high handicap player who plays better with a Tour ball, Good for you!, keep playing it!  I'm a 13 handicap with a 85 mph swing speed and I prefer  **any** mid/soft compression ball to a premium tour ball. They perform better for me overall, if they didn't, I wouldn't play them.

 

Best Regards

Edited October 16, 2020 by rwbloom93

[llewol007]

No reason to compare them to second tier because people want top tier at a better price. I tried the snell mtb-x and didnt like it, I tried the Vice pro plus and found it to be really better for me. I dont lose golfballs often enough but still cant see myself dropping $46 bucks for a dozen golf balls. Maybe I should. Haaaa haaa haaaa

[apex17]

On 10/13/2020 at 8:41 AM, bluedot said:

I think the reason that the MTB-X is compared to the top line balls from the big companies is because in terms of both construction and performance, it's a premium ball.  It's a three piece ball with distance and spin that is most comparable to the ProV1x, and it's a better performing ball than any second tier ball from any other company.  Literally the ONLY comparison between an MTB-X and a second tier ball is the price.

 

FWIW, I don't think the Vice balls compare favorably to the MTB-X, at least in terms of distance.  But to fair to Vice, not much else does, either.  Some of the independent testing data shows the MTB-X as the longest ball on the market; any company, any construction.

Going to disagree with you about distance. The Vice Pro Plus of 2019 was shorter, however their new 2020 Pro Plus is just as long as the Snell MTBX. Honestly I love both of them, but the Vice give me a bit extra feel and short game, for what I want. Hoping Snell has a 4 piece soon.

[crazygolfnut]

My swing speed is 85-87 mph.  I have played ProV1, MTB-X, QST, 12 & B RX and do not find much difference between most top tier or 2^nd tier balls.  Driver distance is a yard or two different while irons are a yard to a couple of feet different.  Where I find the big difference is the spin into or around the green.  For me PV1, MTB-X and QST all produce about the same spin while less expensive balls do not provide that spin so I had to make adjustments for that. 

 

For me the big question is the pocket book.  Do I spend about $33 per dozen or $50 for balls that produce about the same?  

 

And of course do they come in yellow?

[Ellis1putt]

On 10/15/2020 at 5:54 PM, Celebros said:

I'm a 0-1 handicap who plays with a lot of higher handicappers.  I routinely get comments about playing a Snell ball (MTB Black) from the higher handicap players, almost all of them vaguely suspicious, most of them assuming that I am giving up performance for some nefarious motive consisting of either being cheap or wanting to be some sort of hipster.  They almost uniformly play OEM balls and many of them are playing their premium offerings.  They literally do not believe me when I tell them the performance is the same as the name brand premium balls.  I think they will continue paying either equal money for inferior OEM balls or pay more money for equivalent OEM balls purely out of the assumption that cost=quality.

 

When I play with low handicappers, choice of ball is almost never mentioned or discussed.

 

 

Good post, any good golf ball will perform well if you’re swinging the club well and consistently.