Don't throw away those old ProV1's

[cristphoto]

A test comparing current ProV1 with original (new) 20 year old ProV1.  Pretty surprising results.  This somewhat strengthens my belief that the marketing group is always ahead of the engineering group.

 

(140) I DIDN'T expect this! | 20 year golf ball test! - YouTube

 

[swagee]

40 minutes ago, cristphoto said:

A test comparing current ProV1 with original (new) 20 year old ProV1.  Pretty surprising results.  This somewhat strengthens my belief that the marketing group is always ahead of the engineering group.

 

(140) I DIDN'T expect this! | 20 year golf ball test! - YouTube

 

No kidding...

That surprised me a bit. 2 long decades and the only thing they improved on is durability.

It does highlight the quality and consistency of their balls tho. 
Maybe Titleist should consider hiring new engineers. 

[03trdblack]

I don't consider anything Rick Shiels "tests" anything I'd draw a conclusion from. It's entertainment, not science in any way shape or form. 

[Stanks]

I still say, other than Bridgestone, PROVs have an excellent cover. Probably the best. 

[cristphoto]

2 hours ago, swagee said:

No kidding...

That surprised me a bit. 2 long decades and the only thing they improved on is durability.

It does highlight the quality and consistency of their balls tho. 
Maybe Titleist should consider hiring new engineers. 

 

True.  The advertising boys are doing fine though.  

[kasting333]

Distance hasn’t changed since before the pro v. The whole distance debate is a farce 

[pallmall]

I am not sure about the overall distance standard back in 2000. If it is same as today (317+3 yards), then OEM balls' distance should be as close to the limit, despite of the age differences.

Edited December 11, 2020 by pallmall

[madeintheshade]

I think this speaks more to the fact that the balls do not break down when left sitting on the shelf for 20 years. 

[OhYeahPlayer]

18 hours ago, 03trdblack said:

I don't consider anything Rick Shiels "tests" anything I'd draw a conclusion from. It's entertainment, not science in any way shape or form. 

While I agree, I feel the fact this informal sample was this close in performance says something. I don't watch Shiels/pay attention to his stuff but this one was surprising. 

[Socrates]

Should've tried "seaming" one of the originals.  Wasn't that the issue that you could seam it and get more out of it?

[Jc0]

On 12/11/2020 at 1:29 PM, arenapoutine said:

While I agree, I feel the fact this informal sample was this close in performance says something. I don't watch Shiels/pay attention to his stuff but this one was surprising. 

 

The ball speed and spin were similar. Ball speed is limited by the USGA guidelines so the ball speeds should be similar. Spin is a determined by by what the designers think it should be for the audience. So you would expect spin to be similar as well. Aerodynamic advances are the major gains now that everything is solid core. The ball isn't allowed to be any faster. 

[cristphoto]

On 12/11/2020 at 2:16 PM, madeintheshade said:

I think this speaks more to the fact that the balls do not break down when left sitting on the shelf for 20 years. 

 

This must be perplexing for Titleist.  They would love to come out and say how long lasting their balls are but they've been saying for years that the shelf life is only five years.  

[Socrates]

5 hours ago, cristphoto said:

 

This must be perplexing for Titleist.  They would love to come out and say how long lasting their balls are but they've been saying for years that the shelf life is only five years.  

It's like the best before date on almost everything.  The object is to keep stock moving and increase sales.  Golfer's are suckers for new and shiny objects.  I'm surprised that there is a single golfer that stays married more than an 18 month cycle.

[BigD]

On 12/11/2020 at 1:45 PM, Socrates said:

Should've tried "seaming" one of the originals.  Wasn't that the issue that you could seam it and get more out of it?

Absolutely!  I believe it was the original and maybe the following year where if you aligned the seam on a tee shot you would get a little “extra”. I know they changed this but not sure when. 

[Sean2]

12 hours ago, cristphoto said:

 

This must be perplexing for Titleist.  They would love to come out and say how long lasting their balls are but they've been saying for years that the shelf life is only five years.  

I remember reading that. They also said you should replace your wedges every 65 rounds. 

[OhYeahPlayer]

7 hours ago, BigD said:

Absolutely!  I believe it was the original and maybe the following year where if you aligned the seam on a tee shot you would get a little “extra”. I know they changed this but not sure when. 

Can you do this on the Srixon Z Star line with how their seams are...?

[BigD]

2 hours ago, arenapoutine said:

Can you do this on the Srixon Z Star line with how their seams are...?

I haven’t really heard of any other ball that had this “feature” since the ProV1 release. I can’t really remember if there was a explanation why you were able to do this with the ProV1. 

[phizzy30]

On 12/10/2020 at 7:48 PM, kasting333 said:

Distance hasn’t changed since before the pro v. The whole distance debate is a farce 

I disagree.  If you look at the driving distance for PGA Tour between back then and now, you will see that the guys now are hitting it farther than ever.  However with that being said,  there are other factors besides the ball such as better fitness, equipment, etc. 

[RainShadow]

I've got a sleeve of 09's that will be getting dumped in the bag this week.

[Red4282]

Ive got a 99 OG, mint. The shiels test was not surprising at all to me and any of us thats been around the game since 99. They were good, and yes, seaming was a thing, and i swear it was legit. 
 

Edited December 18, 2020 by Red4282

[Red4282]

On 12/14/2020 at 11:12 AM, phizzy30 said:

I disagree.  If you look at the driving distance for PGA Tour between back then and now, you will see that the guys now are hitting it farther than ever.  However with that being said,  there are other factors besides the ball such as better fitness, equipment, etc. 

Very marginally from equipment. A yard or two from balls. From drivers, on flushed hits, no extra distance. Drivers HAVE become more forgiving though. 

[Red4282]

On 12/13/2020 at 3:26 PM, BigD said:

I haven’t really heard of any other ball that had this “feature” since the ProV1 release. I can’t really remember if there was a explanation why you were able to do this with the ProV1. 

Im not saying this is why, but i always had a theory that it would spin more if the seam was flying end over end causing drag. By seaming it, you reduce the drag caused by the seam. 🤷‍♂️😂

[Golfrnut]

37 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

Im not saying this is why, but i always had a theory that it would spin more if the seam was flying end over end causing drag. By seaming it, you reduce the drag caused by the seam. 🤷‍♂️😂

 

 

My guess would be that it was simply a more rigid with higher compression when it was on the seem.

[cristphoto]

Obviously balls and clubs are made within USGA specs.  However the specs are now below what Tour players are capable of.  If I recall from prior videos Rick Shiels club head speed with driver is about 106-108 mph.  This is well below Tour players today. So Shiels hits both balls similar distance as he is in the lower end of pro swing speeds.  I believe the ball manufacturers have figured out how to make a ball that meets USGA specs but when todays pros with high swing speeds (120'ish plus) hit them they get extra "kick" and thus the increased distance gains compared with 20 years ago.   

[Red4282]

12 minutes ago, cristphoto said:

Obviously balls and clubs are made within USGA specs.  However the specs are now below what Tour players are capable of.  If I recall from prior videos Rick Shiels club head speed with driver is about 106-108 mph.  This is well below Tour players today. So Shiels hits both balls similar distance as he is in the lower end of pro swing speeds.  I believe the ball manufacturers have figured out how to make a ball that meets USGA specs but when todays pros with high swing speeds (120'ish plus) hit them they get extra "kick" and thus the increased distance gains compared with 20 years ago.   

This is not true at all, in fact at those speeds they can actually over compress and lose a little bit of speed.

[Golfrnut]

Yeah, ball compression is not really your friend when it comes to distance.  The face is made to flex so the ball doesn't have to.

[cristphoto]

5 hours ago, Red4282 said:

This is not true at all, in fact at those speeds they can actually over compress and lose a little bit of speed.

 

Then how is it that the average golfer (100'ish) hasn't gained any distance but the pros have gained a disproportionate amount?  This has been discussed on many forums over the past couple years. This is one reason the USGA wants to step in and possibly roll back the ball.  The average Joe isn't saying they hit the ball too far or courses need to be lengthened.   

 

And over-compression is a non-issue.  Explain why so many pros are switching back to the non-X model golf balls which are softer.   

[GBBM]

The pros are completely different athletes than they were 20 years ago. Night and day. Meanwhile most recreational golfers have statistically gotten fatter and less healthy over that same time period. 

Edited December 19, 2020 by GBBM

[Red4282]

3 hours ago, cristphoto said:

 

Then how is it that the average golfer (100'ish) hasn't gained any distance but the pros have gained a disproportionate amount?  This has been discussed on many forums over the past couple years. This is one reason the USGA wants to step in and possibly roll back the ball.  The average Joe isn't saying they hit the ball too far or courses need to be lengthened.   

 

And over-compression is a non-issue.  Explain why so many pros are switching back to the non-X model golf balls which are softer.   

Tiger. Since tiger came on the scene, the average tour player has become younger and fitter. Who was “long” in tigers day? Daly? Keuhne? Maybe els and vjay? After that you have a bunch of hal suttons, bob mays, and goosens.  Now we have dj, rory, bryson, cam champ, rahm, wolfe...it goes on and on. Its not the ball or the equipment. Its just more dudes. The rollback thing is stupid, and not necessary.

[cristphoto]

I totally agree. Todays pro golfers are starting to resemble rugby players, and spend lots of time in the gym. In years past they spent lots of time at the bar.  So even if the USGA rolls back the ball (dumb idea) the guys will still hit it further than amateurs. Then what - outlaw pros going to the gym?