Looks like you can blame your Titleist for frequent OB shots. Many players exonerated for twirling after skanking one

[cardia10]

6 minutes ago, bluedot said:

 

There is exactly ONE ball on the market that costs anywhere close to half of a ProV1 AND gives comparable performance, and that's the Snell MTB.  Part of the issue with the Chrome Soft, at least for me, was the price; the CS is only a couple of dollars cheaper than the ProV1.

 

There are LOTS of golf ball out there that cost $25/doz at full retail, and they perform like a cheap golf ball, too.  Not that there's anything wrong with that...

In all the testing I’ve seen, Cut, Vice,Kirkland and Maxfli perform almost exactly as the Pro V. Of course, we all have to pay the extra $25 per dozen due to marketing and tour sponsorships for Titleist. At least they don’t have to pay Bridgestone for every dozen sold anymore...

[bluedot]

12 minutes ago, cardia10 said:

In all the testing I’ve seen, Cut, Vice,Kirkland and Maxfli perform almost exactly as the Pro V. Of course, we all have to pay the extra $25 per dozen due to marketing and tour sponsorships for Titleist. At least they don’t have to pay Bridgestone for every dozen sold anymore...

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on this.  I look at testing data as hard as I can, and NONE of those balls perform across the board like a premium ball.  And I don't mean just the ProV when I say premium ball.

[cardia10]

30 minutes ago, bluedot said:

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on this.  I look at testing data as hard as I can, and NONE of those balls perform across the board like a premium ball.  And I don't mean just the ProV when I say premium ball.

There are hundred of videos out there testing every ball, premium or not. Other forums also do extensive testing and premium balls almost never come out on top. No doubt, premium balls are good, but we pay extra for all the marketing of them telling us how great they are. They should invest more in performance and maybe then we could see a measurable difference. It isn’t free to drive a trailer around and give out hundreds of dozens for free to pros every week. The consumer pays for all that. We don’t pay $50 for a dozen. We pay $15 then $35 for marketing, CEO salaries, print ads, social media marketing and all of the other BS. 

[cardia10]

I’m not even sure what the discussion is here. The topic is that someone cut new Titleist balls open and they are off centered. We can argue all day about the best ball or cost of balls but Titleist better be doing damage control before some of the forums that do actual independent testing start in on them. Will be interesting to see if their sponsorship

dollars to certain forums and testers overcome some real testing. The only brand you don’t hear a ton of negatives about is Bridgestone. I’m sure Titleist wishes they were still “borrowing” that technology without paying for it. 

Edited January 31, 2021 by cardia10

[North Texas]

So in the MSG ball test, the Callaway balls were one of the worst balls when came to shot dispersion. And that's being attributed to it being off-center. 

 

And now, it's being claimed that the Titleist ball is off-center. Yet, in the same test, the Titleist ball was one of the better balls when it came to dispersion. 

 

How come one ball goes off-line because it's off-center while another ball that's off-center doesn't?

[dubbelbogey]

1 hour ago, North Texas said:

So in the MSG ball test, the Callaway balls were one of the worst balls when came to shot dispersion. And that's being attributed to it being off-center. 

 

And now, it's being claimed that the Titleist ball is off-center. Yet, in the same test, the Titleist ball was one of the better balls when it came to dispersion. 

 

How come one ball goes off-line because it's off-center while another ball that's off-center doesn't?

I don't have any data to say this is the case or not, but one possibility is that the density differences in the different colored core pieces are greater in one brand than the other. If the density differences doesn't change much between the two colored sections, then it'll be less sensitive to core misalignment.

 

Taken to the extreme - if the blue inner core is exactly the same stuff (density, compression, composition, etc...) as the orange surrounding layer, with the only difference being color, then it wouldn't matter at all how off centered it was. Of course, I wouldn't expect this to be the actual case, but it could explain why one off-centered ball performed worse than another, with the same amount of off-centered-ness.

 

 

[North Texas]

53 minutes ago, dubbelbogey said:

I don't have any data to say this is the case or not, but one possibility is that the density differences in the different colored core pieces are greater in one brand than the other. If the density differences doesn't change much between the two colored sections, then it'll be less sensitive to core misalignment.

 

Taken to the extreme - if the blue inner core is exactly the same stuff (density, compression, composition, etc...) as the orange surrounding layer, with the only difference being color, then it wouldn't matter at all how off centered it was. Of course, I wouldn't expect this to be the actual case, but it could explain why one off-centered ball performed worse than another, with the same amount of off-centered-ness.

 

 

 

I really starting to lean toward thinking that a ball being off-center has little effect on the performance. 

[storm319]

1 hour ago, dubbelbogey said:

I don't have any data to say this is the case or not, but one possibility is that the density differences in the different colored core pieces are greater in one brand than the other. If the density differences doesn't change much between the two colored sections, then it'll be less sensitive to core misalignment.

 

Taken to the extreme - if the blue inner core is exactly the same stuff (density, compression, composition, etc...) as the orange surrounding layer, with the only difference being color, then it wouldn't matter at all how off centered it was. Of course, I wouldn't expect this to be the actual case, but it could explain why one off-centered ball performed worse than another, with the same amount of off-centered-ness.

 

 

More than likely the results were based on the centricity of the testing sample of each model (ProV1x was more centered vs Chrome Soft in that particular sample). 
 

Additionally, Acushnet sells X-outs at a discount which are batches that fail the core and mantle uniformity/centricity QC checks so a box of those is almost guaranteed to have a higher instance of off centered cores. 
 

As for Callaway, they are clearly only going to post results that show them come out on top. The ambiguous graphic they posted hardly shares enough information about the test for it to be considered comprehensive. Basically any test results from a party that has a vested interest in the outcome will be viewed as biased. 
 

 

[bluedot]

5 hours ago, North Texas said:

So in the MSG ball test, the Callaway balls were one of the worst balls when came to shot dispersion. And that's being attributed to it being off-center. 

 

And now, it's being claimed that the Titleist ball is off-center. Yet, in the same test, the Titleist ball was one of the better balls when it came to dispersion. 

 

How come one ball goes off-line because it's off-center while another ball that's off-center doesn't?

 

One possible explanation is the source of information for each ball.  MGS is pretty well-respected, I think, and their data, as well as that of Today's Golfer, shows the CS to have extremely poor dispersion numbers for a high-priced premium ball, while the ProV1's are close to the top in every dispersion category; drivers, irons, wedges.  You can attribute that to the off-center cores in the CS, or to whatever else you want; it really doesn't much matter.  The 2019 CS was just a poor performer in anybody's testing. and the 2019 ProV1's were stellar.

 

I don't know if the problem with the CS was off-center cores; I have no way of knowing that, much less quantifying it.  I think I DO know that the overall performance of the ball was a deal breaker for me, and I didn't need to cut it open to figure that out; independent testing did that for me.

 

By the same token, I don't think I need to cut a ProV1 open, or to look at pictures that somebody posted online who cut ProV1's open.  The ball is the industry standard for dispersion, and that's just a fact.  (Note: The ProV1's are NOT the industry standard for distance, so it's not a "perfect" golf ball.)

 

I don't know the tolerances that are allowable in the production of golf balls, including centering the core; I don't know that for Callaway or for Titleist.  And I suspect that if I did, the numbers would be meaningless to me anyway.  This is probably true in all parts of the production process; I imagine that there are microscopic differences in with throughout the cover, and I don't know the tolerances for that, either. 

 

But I can read a chart that tells the results of testing.  And what Titleist, and TM, and Bridgestone were doing in 2019 produced better products than Callaway was producing at comparable prices.   There's no way around that, and it doesn't change because of some random pictures of a ProV1 that somebody cut in half.

[Fairways_and_Greens]

7 hours ago, North Texas said:

So in the MSG ball test, the Callaway balls were one of the worst balls when came to shot dispersion. And that's being attributed to it being off-center. 

 

And now, it's being claimed that the Titleist ball is off-center. Yet, in the same test, the Titleist ball was one of the better balls when it came to dispersion. 

 

How come one ball goes off-line because it's off-center while another ball that's off-center doesn't?

That test was 2 years ago. Callaway has invested a ton in their manufacturing process. Hopefully there will be another ball test this year and Callaway puts out a killer ball. Same goes for Taylormade and every.

 

Rooting/b&#^@ing about any manufacturer is dumb. The more great options out there the better.

 

 

[Fairways_and_Greens]

5 hours ago, dubbelbogey said:

I don't have any data to say this is the case or not, but one possibility is that the density differences in the different colored core pieces are greater in one brand than the other. If the density differences doesn't change much between the two colored sections, then it'll be less sensitive to core misalignment.

 

Taken to the extreme - if the blue inner core is exactly the same stuff (density, compression, composition, etc...) as the orange surrounding layer, with the only difference being color, then it wouldn't matter at all how off centered it was. Of course, I wouldn't expect this to be the actual case, but it could explain why one off-centered ball performed worse than another, with the same amount of off-centered-ness.

 

 

Absolutely true. If the density was the same, the only difference would be ballspeed/spin based on what side was struck. There was however marketing from various manufacturers over the years that more weight towards the mantle of a ball would have a higher MOI and retain spin over the duration of the flight. 

 

Would be awesome for someone like @Snell Golf to weigh in on core centricity and if there is any advantage for more density towards the surface or not.

 

 

[North Texas]

22 hours ago, SwingBlues said:

 

I've seen this for years but really have not tested any of my balls - until last night.

 

Just for fun, here are the results as I tested the balls in the bag and the stock pile.

 

Some interesting notes:

1. All my Srixons XVs Version 5 & 6s ALL passed.

2. Chrome Supersoft (red) - 2 out of 5 failed.

3. Snell MTB X and Black, all passed except for 1 MTB Black

4. First gen Titlesit AVX, all passed except 1.

 

I mostly play the yellow Snells and Srixon just because of my eyes. The LA skyline is bad so I lose the ball in flight. However, toying with the red balls to see if it's any better.

 

So today I played with one of the "unbalanced" red Chrome Supersoft in a round. This ball was like in the video - quick and always came up to the surface at the same spot. I put a dot on the top and then drew a line like in the video.

 

It behaved pretty well. Nothing UFO bizzare flight that I could see. Hit it well and baby draw with the driver (line on top). The irons I played as is, sometimes line is on side, bottom etc and really nothing bizzaro weird there either. Putted fine as well. Chip and pitch fine as well. It felt like a regular ball but it's suppose to be UNBALANCED?!?!

 

So may be this unbalanced thing isn't as bad as it's made out to be...🤷‍♂️

 

"So may be this unbalanced thing isn't as bad as it's made out to be."

 

I'm thinking more and more that I agree with you. Seems more and more like that this is a classic case of "a mountain out of a mole hill".

[extrastiff]

L

Edited January 31, 2021 by extrastiff

[cardia10]

7 hours ago, North Texas said:

So in the MSG ball test, the Callaway balls were one of the worst balls when came to shot dispersion. And that's being attributed to it being off-center. 

 

And now, it's being claimed that the Titleist ball is off-center. Yet, in the same test, the Titleist ball was one of the better balls when it came to dispersion. 

 

How come one ball goes off-line because it's off-center while another ball that's off-center doesn't?

I think the Titleist balls cut are the newest ones, not the prior ones tested. Not sure why they would be any worse or different unless they have equipment out of spec. 

[North Texas]

7 minutes ago, cardia10 said:

I think the Titleist balls cut are the newest ones, not the prior ones tested. Not sure why they would be any worse or different unless they have equipment out of spec. 

 

The pictures in the OP look like it shows 3 different Titleist versions. 

[phil75070]

14 hours ago, bluedot said:

The ball is the industry standard for dispersion, and that's just a fact. 

That may be true of the ProV1x based on the Today's Golfer test and based on dispersion across all three swing speeds tested. However, that is far the case when it came to the ProV1 which was middle of the pack and not all that much better than the Callaway offerings. So, are you basing that comment on reputation and perception without looking at the data or is there data you can point to that makes that a fact as you state?

[bluedot]

1 hour ago, phil75070 said:

That may be true of the ProV1x based on the Today's Golfer test and based on dispersion across all three swing speeds tested. However, that is far the case when it came to the ProV1 which was middle of the pack and not all that much better than the Callaway offerings. So, are you basing that comment on reputation and perception without looking at the data or is there data you can point to that makes that a fact as you state?

 

You are correct about the difference between the V1x and the V1 off the driver.  But the Today's Golfer testing puts the two ProV1's in a class by themselves for wedge accuracy.  And I think it's fair to say that the V1 fared better in the MGS test for driver dispersion; very close to the ProV1x, and MUCH better than the Chrome Soft.

 

Really, I don't want to do a Titleist commercial here.  But the original premise of the thread that showed internet pictures of three Titleist balls cut in half is pretty meaningless, isn't it?  And I'm not claiming that the Chrome Soft problems are CAUSED by off-center cores, either.  But the testing data is just as clear as it can be; the ProV1's are in one class, along with several others, and the 2019 Chrome Soft was in a class by itself as a pretty terrible premium price golf ball, whatever the cause.

 

If there were pictures posted that showed three CS's with PERFECT cores, would that change the data?  Of course not, just like random pictures of ANY other ball with cores that appear to off center doesn't change the data, either.  I'm not sure it's more complicated than that.

[cardia10]

1 hour ago, bluedot said:

 

You are correct about the difference between the V1x and the V1 off the driver.  But the Today's Golfer testing puts the two ProV1's in a class by themselves for wedge accuracy.  And I think it's fair to say that the V1 fared better in the MGS test for driver dispersion; very close to the ProV1x, and MUCH better than the Chrome Soft.

 

Really, I don't want to do a Titleist commercial here.  But the original premise of the thread that showed internet pictures of three Titleist balls cut in half is pretty meaningless, isn't it?  And I'm not claiming that the Chrome Soft problems are CAUSED by off-center cores, either.  But the testing data is just as clear as it can be; the ProV1's are in one class, along with several others, and the 2019 Chrome Soft was in a class by itself as a pretty terrible premium price golf ball, whatever the cause.

 

If there were pictures posted that showed three CS's with PERFECT cores, would that change the data?  Of course not, just like random pictures of ANY other ball with cores that appear to off center doesn't change the data, either.  I'm not sure it's more complicated than that.

No arguing that the Callaway ball performed terribly. I think the argument lies in the fact that everyone blasted Callaway over their cores assuming that was the issue. Now Titleist is found to have similar cores and everyone says cores are no big deal. You can't have it both ways. If Titleist claims and costs to be the most premium ball in golf, I expect the most premium product. I watch ball review videos with data every day and the Pro V is always a solid performer, but barely above the relabled made in Taiwan brands. 

[bluedot]

3 minutes ago, cardia10 said:

No arguing that the Callaway ball performed terribly. I think the argument lies in the fact that everyone blasted Callaway over their cores assuming that was the issue. Now Titleist is found to have similar cores and everyone says cores are no big deal. You can't have it both ways. If Titleist claims and costs to be the most premium ball in golf, I expect the most premium product. I watch ball review videos with data every day and the Pro V is always a solid performer, but barely above the relabled made in Taiwan brands. 

 

I don't think anybody has said that cores aren't a big deal.  I think there ARE questions about the significance of the pictures posted in the OP of this thread vs. the work that MGS did on the CS.  Forgive me, but I just don't see those pictures as even remotely comparable to what MGS's work.  And there's been ample discussion as to what might be misleading about those pictures.

 

If you say that you expect a "premium product" at the price Titleist charges, then I guess your decision is whether you go with the testing data, or pictures on the internet.  How large the margins are depends on what ball and what test, but I don't know of ANY test that shows either of the ProV1's to be a below-average performer in ANY category. 

 

I think that you can save about $5/doz, assuming full retail, and get a ball that is comparable to the ProV1's, specifically the TP5's and the Bridgestones, and I think you can spend a LOT less if you buy the Snell MTB-X in bulk.  But I think you'll have a REALLY hard time providing any objective data that says that there is a MORE consistent ball on the market than the ProV1's.  In that regard, you get what you pay for with any of the top tier of golf balls.

[cardia10]

21 minutes ago, bluedot said:

 

I don't think anybody has said that cores aren't a big deal.  I think there ARE questions about the significance of the pictures posted in the OP of this thread vs. the work that MGS did on the CS.  Forgive me, but I just don't see those pictures as even remotely comparable to what MGS's work.  And there's been ample discussion as to what might be misleading about those pictures.

 

If you say that you expect a "premium product" at the price Titleist charges, then I guess your decision is whether you go with the testing data, or pictures on the internet.  How large the margins are depends on what ball and what test, but I don't know of ANY test that shows either of the ProV1's to be a below-average performer in ANY category. 

 

I think that you can save about $5/doz, assuming full retail, and get a ball that is comparable to the ProV1's, specifically the TP5's and the Bridgestones, and I think you can spend a LOT less if you buy the Snell MTB-X in bulk.  But I think you'll have a REALLY hard time providing any objective data that says that there is a MORE consistent ball on the market than the ProV1's.  In that regard, you get what you pay for with any of the top tier of golf balls.

Totally agree that we should "get what we pay for." We have been sold perfect balls and better that the "competitors (Callaway)"  yet their marketing just falls flat. I'm not talking saving $5 per dozen, look at the Maxfli data, You can save $25 per dozen and get a very comparable ball. Probably not as perfect, but for anything scratch and above, not noticeable unless you look at the logo. The logo and name is all we are paying for and the more readily available data is, the more we see much less difference. That is why everyone went nuts when the Kirkland ball came out. It was as good or better in many categories than the Pro V and significantly cheaper. The buzz died down when we found out it was made in the same factory that makes every other rebranded ball, but before we knew, you would have thought we all got to meet baby Jesus. 

Edited February 1, 2021 by cardia10

[Stanks]

1 hour ago, bluedot said:

 

I don't think anybody has said that cores aren't a big deal.  I think there ARE questions about the significance of the pictures posted in the OP of this thread vs. the work that MGS did on the CS.  Forgive me, but I just don't see those pictures as even remotely comparable to what MGS's work.  And there's been ample discussion as to what might be misleading about those pictures.

 

If you say that you expect a "premium product" at the price Titleist charges, then I guess your decision is whether you go with the testing data, or pictures on the internet.  How large the margins are depends on what ball and what test, but I don't know of ANY test that shows either of the ProV1's to be a below-average performer in ANY category. 

 

I think that you can save about $5/doz, assuming full retail, and get a ball that is comparable to the ProV1's, specifically the TP5's and the Bridgestones, and I think you can spend a LOT less if you buy the Snell MTB-X in bulk.  But I think you'll have a REALLY hard time providing any objective data that says that there is a MORE consistent ball on the market than the ProV1's.  In that regard, you get what you pay for with any of the top tier of golf balls.

That consistent ball you just noted failed to meet the QC standards that should be expected of ever consumer willing to pay ~4$ a ball. 
Testing data can always be ripped apart. No one is consistent enough in golf to put the ball in the air for 285 yards and expect it bounce 10 yards and roll a little longer. Every swing is different. Every condition is different. 
An off center core, uneven cover, etc etc. will not be the blame for a ball flying an extra 5 yards right. No one is ever gonna say, “cut that ball open right now!!!”. 
I think we should all understand that every company out there makes a great product but can always do better. But ill never agree that ProV1 is the best ball made across the board and you have “testing” to prove it.

[theglide]

I'll just stick to 3 piece balls. Ha

[Stanks]

1 hour ago, theglide said:

I'll just stick to 3 piece balls. Ha

Though I don’t like to support the big brand generic balls (Kirkland), their new V2 3 piece is solid. Pleasantly impressed.

[bluedot]

7 hours ago, Stanks said:

That consistent ball you just noted failed to meet the QC standards that should be expected of ever consumer willing to pay ~4$ a ball. 
Testing data can always be ripped apart. No one is consistent enough in golf to put the ball in the air for 285 yards and expect it bounce 10 yards and roll a little longer. Every swing is different. Every condition is different. 
An off center core, uneven cover, etc etc. will not be the blame for a ball flying an extra 5 yards right. No one is ever gonna say, “cut that ball open right now!!!”. 
I think we should all understand that every company out there makes a great product but can always do better. But ill never agree that ProV1 is the best ball made across the board and you have “testing” to prove it.

Ok.  I'd suggest that you continue to not buy or play ProV1's.  It's possible that the world will continue to spin regardless of what you do or do not believe.

[Stanks]

2 hours ago, bluedot said:

Ok.  I'd suggest that you continue to not buy or play ProV1's.  It's possible that the world will continue to spin regardless of what you do or do not believe.

Jokes on you. The world is flat. Im

just kidding. You can really go both sides on this topic. I respect your opinion but don’t quite agree. 

[95124hacker]

Kudos to Callaway for investing in a new ball factory to improve their product. The consumer wins by having another option at their disposal.

[xkilgorextroutx]

6 hours ago, 95124hacker said:

Kudos to Callaway for investing in a new ball factory to improve their product. The consumer wins by having another option at their disposal.

 

It's the same ball factory as before, nothing new about it. It's been making balls for 20+ years for various brands. They already had an improvement plan in place anyways but the spy test just forced them to talk about it more and speed up the process. 

 

They should probably take some of the money spent on this dumb ad campaign and put THAT towards even more QC, they'd be better served. 

[Brooks_Cupcake]

Here’s a pretty good review for the average golfer from a speed perspective, but interesting when he cuts apart the new 2021 and 2019 versions.

 

[cleverprimate24]

Yeaaa. Just because a #hashtag on twitter has a bunch of off-centered ProV1s doesn't mean much. MGS's test had 2.78% of 2019 balls with significant concentricity issues. I think they use 3 dozen of each ball, so that's not a perfect sample, but a reasonably good sample size for a online test. 

 

I use 2020 Vice Pro, I think it had 11% bad balls, while not ideal, is still 5.5% better than Chromesoft.

 

If you do an epsom salt float with Vice and toss the bads, it still comes out significantly cheaper than the competition. If money was no object, I'd play a Bridgestone Tour variant or one of the Pro Vs. 

 

I don't want to dump on Callaway as a company, I got a used Mavrik driver for Xmas that I adore. I even nabbed a Mavrik 4wood afterwards that I've been pretty pleased with. I just think they counted their chickens before hatching by calling out Titleist ball quality. I hope they back the big talk up, but not gonna believe it until I see it. 

 

Edited February 2, 2021 by cleverprimate24

[VyctoryDendy]

I like this review, thank you for sharing.