New Srixon Z-Stars

[OhYeahPlayer]

I’m just here to see when the 2019 Z-Star XVs go on sale. I don’t see much of a change in this version (maybe I’m wrong and it’s too early to know for sure). I thought the last version was great - even considering seam/durability concerns, which was not a big deal for me personally. I’ll play that version all year at anything under $30/dozen. 

[Landy]

1 hour ago, Choclab said:

Can't wait to hear from someone what the differences/improvements are in this model.   @Jonesy said it maybe spun a little more, which is great, but it doesn't sound like that big a difference.  I remember the '19 Z Star didn't seem that different to me, but the XV was noticeably softer-feeling, which was huge for me as IMO the XV prior to that was too hard.  Would be great if this XV could be even better in that area.

 

Just looking at the website, it seems like they're touting a new dimple pattern (and maybe better wind performance) as much as anything.

AH!  I'm looking for less spin...Will demo once they hit the retail floor at the CC.

[J13]

Damn shame Srixon refuses to fix the seam issue because they are hellbent on having "thinskin".  They aren't listening, that much is clear.

[theglide]

Well dang was looking forward to a more durable offering from srixon.  My ball search continues 

[Choclab]

3 hours ago, Landy said:

AH!  I'm looking for less spin...Will demo once they hit the retail floor at the CC.

Ah, anytime I say that I'm talking about more spin around the greens, not on full shots.  I should have been more specific.

[SwingBlues]

3 hours ago, arenapoutine said:

I’m just here to see when the 2019 Z-Star XVs go on sale. I don’t see much of a change in this version (maybe I’m wrong and it’s too early to know for sure). I thought the last version was great - even considering seam/durability concerns, which was not a big deal for me personally. I’ll play that version all year at anything under $30/dozen. 

 

Yep. The last XV version had great performance, I cannot fault that, its long and spins as it should but I draw the line at the "spinskin" durability. I do have 3 dozen left to burn since I picked up a lot when things were on sale BEFORE I knew about the skin issue. Oh well, if the skin is an issue on a ball, I have no worries tossing it into the chipping bag.

[joliver233]

1 hour ago, SwingBlues said:

 

Yep. The last XV version had great performance, I cannot fault that, its long and spins as it should but I draw the line at the "spinskin" durability. I do have 3 dozen left to burn since I picked up a lot when things were on sale BEFORE I knew about the skin issue. Oh well, if the skin is an issue on a ball, I have no worries tossing it into the chipping bag.

That's interesting to hear about the '19 version. I never had complaints about the durability. In fact, they were more durable than pro-v1, tp5, and just about any other ball I tried. No seam issues for me either.

[OhYeahPlayer]

52 minutes ago, joliver233 said:

That's interesting to hear about the '19 version. I never had complaints about the durability. In fact, they were more durable than pro-v1, tp5, and just about any other ball I tried. No seam issues for me either.

Durability was on par (bad pun intended) with other premium balls out there for me. You could see the seam, but it was more of a discoloration than anything. The MGS guys talked about this a while back, it's largely because of the way they seal the cover. I know tour use doesn't mean much, but the fact this ball is on tour (and played by a handful of free agents) is enough to make me not worry about it.  

 

Photo below of a 2019 XV after 36 holes. Seam is discolored for sure, but no performance impact from what I could tell, nor could I really feel anything on the seam. I'm not sold on other's claims of durability issues, and I haven't experienced anything other than the seam discoloration myself. I'll keep buying and playing these as long as I can get them discounted/on BOGO.

[jas904]

39 minutes ago, arenapoutine said:

Durability was on par (bad pun intended) with other premium balls out there for me. You could see the seam, but it was more of a discoloration than anything. The MGS guys talked about this a while back, it's largely because of the way they seal the cover. I know tour use doesn't mean much, but the fact this ball is on tour (and played by a handful of free agents) is enough to make me not worry about it.  

 

Photo below of a 2019 XV after 36 holes. Seam is discolored for sure, but no performance impact from what I could tell, nor could I really feel anything on the seam. I'm not sold on other's claims of durability issues, and I haven't experienced anything other than the seam discoloration myself. I'll keep buying and playing these as long as I can get them discounted/on BOGO.

To your point about tour use. Although I don’t know much about playing on tour, I would imagine that this is no doubt a tour worthy ball. I would also imagine that no tour pro would use a ball with any sort of blemish. 
 For me, the performance is spectacular. If I had an unlimited supply of these balls I would continue to use them. As a paying consumer, after my last four dozen are gone, I’ll be switching to something else. 

[jas904]

10 hours ago, huskerturf said:

Unless I’m blind, I don’t see a crack.  

Perhaps crack is not the greatest description, some call it a seam. Either way ,you can feel it if you drag your fingernail across it. The crack/seam also gathers dirt, etc in the void. I circled it in red, depicted in the photo below. 

[lefthack]

Oh crazy. I have only hit a few of my Q Stars, but that looks really bad. If it's only a Z Star issue, no worries.

[storm319]

5 minutes ago, lefthack said:

Oh crazy. I have only hit a few of my Q Stars, but that looks really bad. If it's only a Z Star issue, no worries.

This only applies to their multilayer urethane balls based on their unique mantle/cover assembly method and cover thickness. Essentially the mantle is molded with a raised seem and the cover halves are joined around the seem then paint/coating applied before stamping (basically their approach to a seamless cover). The complaint in reality is finish wear that exposes the seem (not actual “cracking”). Below is an example of a ZStar core/mantle with the cover pealed off:

 

[huskerturf]

Interesting.  I guess I’ve never noticed that before.  

[Jonesy]

16 hours ago, Choclab said:

Can't wait to hear from someone what the differences/improvements are in this model.   @Jonesy said it maybe spun a little more, which is great, but it doesn't sound like that big a difference.  I remember the '19 Z Star didn't seem that different to me, but the XV was noticeably softer-feeling, which was huge for me as IMO the XV prior to that was too hard.  Would be great if this XV could be even better in that area.

 

Just looking at the website, it seems like they're touting a new dimple pattern (and maybe better wind performance) as much as anything.

Only 1 round in so far but the 1 shot I hit where I noticed the difference in spin was a partial lob wedge from 50m/55yards? and it stopped very quickly which was nice, basically 1 hop and stop. Around the green I'd say it's the same so far from the previous model, good check on chip shots and a slightly softer feel.

 

But I'm playing again this weekend and will try get a couple rounds in for a proper comparison. 

[cristphoto]

I rarely play the Z-Star balls.  Is this actual cracking of the seam or simply the paint not adhering at the seam?  From the photos I've seen posted on this thread is appears to be a paint flaking issue.  Could be wrong without actually seeing the ball however.  

[storm319]

47 minutes ago, cristphoto said:

I rarely play the Z-Star balls.  Is this actual cracking of the seam or simply the paint not adhering at the seam?  From the photos I've seen posted on this thread is appears to be a paint flaking issue.  Could be wrong without actually seeing the ball however.  

It’s finish wear on the raised seam line where the cover halves join. 

In all of the complaints on this topic, I have only seen a single pic of a legit crack through the cover (to be fair I have seen cracked balls from every OEM).

 

https://forums.golfwrx.com/topic/1429634-midline-cracks-with-srixon-z-star-xv/?do=findComment&comment=21855676

 

Edited February 2, 2021 by storm319

[lefthack]

Imma stick with the two piece, thanks. 

[OhYeahPlayer]

Nice summary on the new models from TXG. I'm not taking away that much has changed in the 2021 line (and will still stick to discounted 2019 XVs 😄). Partial shot testing makes sense, and I always got high spin from the XV on full wedges (MGS testing confirmed the same).
 

 

[Jonesy]

Some updates:

 

Managed 3 rounds with the ball, 1 sleeve down already. Compared to the previous model not much has changed, the cover lasts a bit longer (compared to the previous model), noticed no loss or gain with distance across the bag, feels great, same trajectory across the bag and still great in the wind. One area I think they have improved on a lot is the partial wedge shot, this new version has some zip, really gave me confidence to be aggressive and throw it all the way to flag without fear of it checking and releasing. On full wedge shots it grabs a bit easier but I never had an issue of it ripping back uncontrollably. Also around the greens it seriously grabs, left it short a couple times because I was expecting some rollout.

 

But, longevity... Played 3 rounds, used 3 balls, not once did I think I could use 1 ball for 36 holes... interested to compare against other brands when I can get my hands on them. 

 

Full sleeve, 3 rounds 3 balls. From the left 1st round, 2nd, 3rd

 

Round 2 ball took a beating... To be fair their was a brief meeting with a cart path which is the top scratch, the bottom scuff is from a 52­° wedge. Surprised there was no seam split here 

 

Round 3 ball held up fairly well

[rstlne]

For the XV, to me, 2015 and 2017 seemed very durable, but a tad bit firm but playable.  It was tough to scuff up those two versions.  2019 felt perfect but seemed a bit less durable and had the seam issue.  I may stock up a few dozen if the 2021 brings 2019 feel with better durability, and maybe less pronounce seam paint wear.  

[OhYeahPlayer]

Mark Crossfield did a ball test on this year's Z-Star/XV/ProV1/V1X. Regardless what you think of him as a person/YouTuber (I'm indifferent, don't watch often) or of his narrative in the video (I didn't agree), the data in this is fascinating. He did 50 shots with each ball at 10 yards, 50, 150, and then driver. Performance between the balls is about what you'd expect, but my biggest takeaway - the Pro V1 and ProV1X are markedly tighter in spin/distance deviation than Z Star and XV, V1 seeming the best and XV seeming the worst. I'm a big XV fan so this was a bit of a bummer.

 

Look at the below - still subject to human error, sure, but this many shots and XV's range is double Pro V1s? Srixon just seemed like they had wider ranges throughout the video. Maybe I'm making more of this than there is there, or there's another explanation - bad batch of Srixons or something, I don't know - but it's enough to make second guess my ball choice. Curious if anyone else saw this and is thinking the same thing. 

 

Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlyUR8T3NSY

 

[hammergolf]

25 minutes ago, arenapoutine said:

Mark Crossfield did a ball test on this year's Z-Star/XV/ProV1/V1X. Regardless what you think of him as a person/YouTuber (I'm indifferent, don't watch often) or of his narrative in the video (I didn't agree), the data in this is fascinating. He did 50 shots with each ball at 10 yards, 50, 150, and then driver. Performance between the balls is about what you'd expect, but my biggest takeaway - the Pro V1 and ProV1X are markedly tighter in spin/distance deviation than Z Star and XV, V1 seeming the best and XV seeming the worst. I'm a big XV fan so this was a bit of a bummer.

 

Look at the below - still subject to human error, sure, but this many shots and XV's range is double Pro V1s? Srixon just seemed like they had wider ranges throughout the video. Maybe I'm making more of this than there is there, or there's another explanation - bad batch of Srixons or something, I don't know - but it's enough to make second guess my ball choice. Curious if anyone else saw this and is thinking the same thing. 

 

Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlyUR8T3NSY

 

He is a good player, but he’s not a robot. I doubt the front to back dispersion would be that great. 

[noodle3872]

2 hours ago, arenapoutine said:

Mark Crossfield did a ball test on this year's Z-Star/XV/ProV1/V1X. Regardless what you think of him as a person/YouTuber (I'm indifferent, don't watch often) or of his narrative in the video (I didn't agree), the data in this is fascinating. He did 50 shots with each ball at 10 yards, 50, 150, and then driver. Performance between the balls is about what you'd expect, but my biggest takeaway - the Pro V1 and ProV1X are markedly tighter in spin/distance deviation than Z Star and XV, V1 seeming the best and XV seeming the worst. I'm a big XV fan so this was a bit of a bummer.

 

Look at the below - still subject to human error, sure, but this many shots and XV's range is double Pro V1s? Srixon just seemed like they had wider ranges throughout the video. Maybe I'm making more of this than there is there, or there's another explanation - bad batch of Srixons or something, I don't know - but it's enough to make second guess my ball choice. Curious if anyone else saw this and is thinking the same thing. 

 

Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlyUR8T3NSY

 

All this shows me is his performance with Pro V1 is better. Could be la few reasons for it.

[vtpachyderm]

On 2/14/2021 at 3:09 AM, arenapoutine said:

Mark Crossfield did a ball test on this year's Z-Star/XV/ProV1/V1X. Regardless what you think of him as a person/YouTuber (I'm indifferent, don't watch often) or of his narrative in the video (I didn't agree), the data in this is fascinating. He did 50 shots with each ball at 10 yards, 50, 150, and then driver. Performance between the balls is about what you'd expect, but my biggest takeaway - the Pro V1 and ProV1X are markedly tighter in spin/distance deviation than Z Star and XV, V1 seeming the best and XV seeming the worst. I'm a big XV fan so this was a bit of a bummer.

 

Look at the below - still subject to human error, sure, but this many shots and XV's range is double Pro V1s? Srixon just seemed like they had wider ranges throughout the video. Maybe I'm making more of this than there is there, or there's another explanation - bad batch of Srixons or something, I don't know - but it's enough to make second guess my ball choice. Curious if anyone else saw this and is thinking the same thing. 

 

Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlyUR8T3NSY

 

I had the exact same reaction as you did. It's an impressive data set, and I'm impressed if he was as diligent as he says he was.

 

I think it's safe to make the assumption that because he hit so many shots (sample) we can say that he overrode his personal limitations - consistency of strike, swing or skill level. This would be the biggest factor/assumption that one would have to make when analyzing the results. Compared to other youtubers, he did this part correctly by hitting as many samples as he did.

 

Where I have the biggest issue with his video is that even though he starts off by saying he's neutral, he at no point in the video acknowledges that the Pro V's are the more consistent ball, and given the sterile conditions he was testing, there is no arguing this point. So he kind of loses a bit of cred as he tries to argue why the Srixon (his sponsor) ball is still an equivalent proposition as it's 'performance' on the sim hole showed it to be better or not substantially worse - speaking of which, he included a bad strike with the Titleist in the overall DTP average which honestly was BS and actually such an outlier would be dropped when taking so few samples on which to base the average. He started off with so much right in terms of statistical analysis and sample sizes, but then ignored all of it when he tried to do an actual 'real world' test - distance to pin.

 

My takeaway form the tests is counter to what he came up, where in real world conditions, it's the consistency of the Titleist balls in terms of clean parameters which will still give more consistent results on the course and is the better ball.

 

This is what I find true with just about every single youtuber out there (with the exception of Big Al and TXG) - they have the narrative decided before hand and then ignore the facts presented and try to talk their way out of any evidence that doesn't fit their narrative.

 

I play Q-Star Tours or AD333's as I lose so many balls every year, that this is a good compromise between performance and cost and since I only play them, I kind of know their scatter in performance that I can play to it. Not optimal I know, but damn Pro V's are bloody expensive here.

[OhYeahPlayer]

57 minutes ago, vtpachyderm said:

I had the exact same reaction as you did. It's an impressive data set, and I'm impressed if he was as diligent as he says he was.

 

I'm glad it wasn't just me! The dataset really is great, and I'd argue he sells it short in that video. 

 

57 minutes ago, vtpachyderm said:

Where I have the biggest issue with his video is that even though he starts off by saying he's neutral, he at no point in the video acknowledges that the Pro V's are the more consistent ball, and given the sterile conditions he was testing, there is no arguing this point. So he kind of loses a bit of cred as he tries to argue why the Srixon (his sponsor) ball is still an equivalent proposition as it's 'performance' on the sim hole showed it to be better or not substantially worse - speaking of which, he included a bad strike with the Titleist in the overall DTP average which honestly was BS and actually such an outlier would be dropped when taking so few samples on which to base the average. He started off with so much right in terms of statistical analysis and sample sizes, but then ignored all of it when he tried to do an actual 'real world' test - distance to pin.

 

My takeaway form the tests is counter to what he came up, where in real world conditions, it's the consistency of the Titleist balls in terms of clean parameters which will still give more consistent results on the course and is the better ball.

 

I fully agree. The narrative is something I pretty strongly disagree with in the video, at least the principle of it. Titleist seemed to be more consistent in most of the datasets he displayed - not bringing that up is likely due to the Srixon hat he was being paid to wear. Which is fine, I guess, I'm just glad he still displayed all that data from his testing in the way he did. (If Srixon was paying me, I probably wouldn't have, lol) 

[c50sooner]

As a player of moderate skill level, this data makes me question whether I should continue playing an X ball.

[lefthack]

Seems like it's holding up well. If I had a ball last 3 rounds, I'd be amazed to begin with. 🤣

 

The seam issue still freaks me out, but I'm still following.

[vtpachyderm]

3 hours ago, arenapoutine said:

 

I'm glad it wasn't just me! The dataset really is great, and I'd argue he sells it short in that video. 

 

 

I fully agree. The narrative is something I pretty strongly disagree with in the video, at least the principle of it. Titleist seemed to be more consistent in most of the datasets he displayed - not bringing that up is likely due to the Srixon hat he was being paid to wear. Which is fine, I guess, I'm just glad he still displayed all that data from his testing in the way he did. (If Srixon was paying me, I probably wouldn't have, lol) 

 

I guess that's the point - it's one thing being sponsored and shilling for the company, but then to do a video where you claim this is a fair/neutral comparison and then ignore the data being presented is pretty weak. He doesn't even have to say that the Titleists win the comparison - just acknowledge that based on the simulator data and the other factors at play, the Titleist is the more consistent ball and what that means. Then you can go on and ramble about why it doesn't matter for HIM and why he chooses the Srixon - and yes, no one is going to fault you for saying that given the small difference in performance, the cost is not worth it. Bingo - you've just earned some respect then. I honestly don't think even Srixon believes there ball is 'better' than the Titleist.

 

Just to re-iterate and support what you said - the dataset is pretty darn good, and yes, he did sell it short - he actually used standard deviation correctly which the majority of the youtubers don't even interpret properly. But he also chooses to ignore the scatter/spread because it doesn't fit his narrative.

[elwhippy]

Baffled as to what you gents are doing to the balls and what type of clubs you use? I can get 3-4 rounds out of a Z-star or V1 without knocking chunks out of it. The level of damage you are doing looks like playing out of builder grade sand or bouncing off rocks. 

[vtpachyderm]

51 minutes ago, elwhippy said:

Baffled as to what you gents are doing to the balls and what type of clubs you use? I can get 3-4 rounds out of a Z-star or V1 without knocking chunks out of it. The level of damage you are doing looks like playing out of builder grade sand or bouncing off rocks. 

Same here - The way I play, and the way the rough and OB areas are at the courses I play, I'm lucky if a ball lasts me more than a round LOL. The one and only time I broke 80 at my home course - I played the same ball all the way round. Only time I damaged a ball was in the simulator with a new wedge - took that softskin right off that srixon after about 30 high spinning shots - was a PIA trying to clean the club afterwards.