How good do I need to be for the ball to make a difference in my game?

[Tanner25]

I think it is just a personal choice, getting better shouldn't matter unless you are losing a dozen a round. If that is the case, play something cheap like a Hammer Control or Straightfli. When you get better, re-evaluate. I've played a ProV and a Soft Feel. The soft feel feels better and works for me at half the cost. 

[Pepperturbo]

2 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

I have three goals right now:

1. Cheap enough to lose (at my cap, I lose balls).
2. Consistent round to round, so I know that any inconsistency in the result is my fault.
3. Enough spin that if I learn better how to control spin, I can stop the ball. 

Respectfully, there's a flaw in this thinking. It's assuming that a premium ball is by default "better", when the attributes of a premium ball don't mean that your results will be better.

 

For example, let's say you're the type of player that loses two balls each round but finds 3-4 in the search for the first two. You typically play with whatever you have. In today's world, much of what you find are going to be 2 pc distance balls. 

 

You're faced with a 50 yard partial wedge shot. Based on how you normally hit that shot [with 2 pc surlyn-covered distance balls], you know you can hit the front of the green and the ball will roll right up to the pin. Instead you found a ProV1x on the last hole, and you're playing it this hole because it's premium. You take your normal swing with that partial wedge shot, and the ProV1x stops halfway between the landing spot and the pin because it actually had spin. 

 

In this case a cheap 2 pc distance ball might be the one 3 ft from the pin while the ProV1x is 10 ft short because it spun, if you're used to the cheap distance balls. 

 

It's why I say that the biggest thing for a high-cap amateur trying to improve [as I am] is consistency, i.e. using the same ball round-to-round. It doesn't matter much whether it's a 2 pc surlyn ball or a 4 pc urethane ProV1x... It matters that it's the same every time, so you reduce one variable out of hundreds for why the shot did something different than you intended.

 

 

Not to argue, but you're reasoning is NOT sound nor founded on much more than exception. The OP asked if they are worth it, my answer is yes.  LOL

 

I've seen plenty 12-25 handicaps use a Premium balls.  I even faced some mid-high caps during match play.  You're correct.  One of their mistakes is not considering the balls behavior.  The other mistake is not anticipating sudden spin or ball run out, another is not thinking about hitting to the front of the green knowing it's going to run out.  And let's not forget, he doesn't have distance, directional control or spin control, so he doesn't think about the front of the green.  He's just hoping to hit the ball relatively straight.  If his ball ends near the pin, it was a crap-shoot.

 

True, a 2 piece ball can end up next to the pin, but honestly, it's mostly luck for high cap golfers.   You use the word consistency.  The problem there is, regardless of ball, the high-cap person's judgment is just as inconsistent or poor as his ball-striking, so a 2-piece ball can't be consistent either; it just takes the strike. 

 

Another friend is a 23 cap; he too plays what he finds.  He's either well short or long of the green and doesn't have the little pitch or chip coming back.  He's got the 2-piece that loves to run out.  I watched him play army chipping last weekend.  Least if he had a premium ball, there would have been fewer, left and right walks across the greens.  The premium ball would have stopped despite his skill, probably saved a stroke or two, as well.

 

Last weekend, on #18, using 9i, I miss hit my ProV1x ball into the green, got it a bit thin.  My playing partner was quick to think it was in the drink... I said no worries.  It bounced once short of the pin, 2nd time just after pin, then skidded till spin caused it to stop in the back of the green.  If that had been a Noodle, or some other 2 piece Callaway, TM, Titleist or Srixon it likely would have ended in the drink.

 

Two piece balls can't be trusted to do what I want the ball to do, even the last AVX wasn't reliable.  However, the new AVX is a big improvement.  Last thought, no need for you to justify your choice in ball or clubs to anyone.  Play what you want, it affects no one but you.  Just be brutally honest with yourself if you're thinking to self-measure.  Good luck.

 

 

Edited April 19, 2021 by Pepperturbo

[betarhoalphadelta]

5 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

Not to argue, but you're reasoning is NOT sound nor founded on much more than exception. The OP asked if they are worth it, my answer is yes.  LOL

 

I've seen plenty 12-25 handicaps use a Premium balls.  I even faced some mid-high caps during match play.  You're correct.  One of their mistakes is not considering the balls behavior.  The other mistake is not anticipating sudden spin or ball run out, another is not  thinking about hitting to the front of the green either.  And let's not forget, often he doesn't have distance, directional control or spin control, so he doesn't think about the front of the green, he's just hoping to hit the ball relatively straight.  If his ball ends near the pin, it was a crap-shoot.

 

True, a 2 piece ball can end up next to the pin, but honestly, it's mostly luck for high cap golfer.   You use the word consistency.  The problem there is, regardless of ball, the high-cap person's judgment is just as inconsistent or poor as his ball-striking, so a 2-piece ball can't be consistent either; it just takes the strike.  Another friend is a 23 cap; he too plays what he finds.  He's either well short or long of the green and doesn't have the little pitch or chip coming back.  He's got the 2-pience that loves to run out.  I watched him play army chipping last weekend.  Least if he had a premium ball, there would have been fewer, left and right walks across the greens.  The premium ball would have stopped despite his skill.

 

Last weekend, on #18, using 9i, I miss hit my ProV1x ball into the green, got it a bit thin.  My playing partner was quick to think it was in the drink... I said no worries.  It bounced once short of the pin, 2nd time just after pin, then skidded till spin caused it to stop in the back of the green.  If that had been a Noodle, or some other 2 piece Callaway, TM, Titleist or Srixon it likely would have ended in the drink.

 

Two piece balls can't be trusted to do what I want the ball to do, even the last AVX wasn't reliable.  However, the new AVX is a big improvement.  Last thought, no need for you to justify your choice in ball or clubs to anyone.  Play what you want, it affects no one but you.  Just be brutally honest with yourself if you're thinking to self-measure.  Good luck.

 

 

I think a higher-spin ball can help a player who is inconsistently flying too long, sure. Of course that same ball hurts that player when they're inconsistently flying too short. Admittedly often that's a better miss then the thin hit across the green that runs forever. 

 

I still disagree that a premium ball, in the hands of high-cap golfer, is going to necessarily result in being regularly closer to the pin than a 2pc distance ball. Yes, the ball spins more, and stops more effectively. That only matters if you're actually hitting it close to start. Stopping 25 feet short is just as bad as rolling out 25 feet long, right? 

 

The one bit that you didn't quote from my response (most of which was at bluedot rather than yourself) was that I agree with you to a point where I'm playing a higher-spin ball and accepting the potential higher dispersion left-right of it being more spinny because I'm trying to actually learn to use the backspin around the greens to benefit me. Your response was that to some extent playing balls or clubs that will help you improve is important, and to that I do agree. When I find balls on the course [often] I drop them in my son's golf bag so I can keep a consistent ball from round-to-round. 

 

Now, most golfers don't consider Kirkland to be premium, and I get that. But generally it's seen to be a higher-spin ball, even the 3pc. And as I stated, I plan to move to the 4pc when it's released, in the hopes that I can improve and learn to use the spin. I believe that I'll get better by using a higher spin ball, because I'll learn more. But I don't see the value in a "premium" 3pc or 4pc ball over Kirkland at my skill level. Will a $48/doz ProV1 3pc urethane cover ball make an appreciable difference to me compared to a $12.50/doz Kirkland 3pc urethane cover ball? Both are seen as high-spin, so both should stop just as well around the greens.

[munichop]

Some of you may know I am an outlier among plus handicaps in that I haven't used a urethane ball since before 2015 and have shot or tied my best rounds on courses with a surlyn ball.  I like the lower compression models because of the feedback.  My advice to you is the same as another commenter that you will have a chance to improve more by using the same ball regardless of type than buying more expensive balls thinking they will help.  When I see players who are less skilled around the green I usually see poor technique that results in inconsistent contact and bigger misses.  But most of them chip with range balls instead of their own golf balls.  This hurts two ways-one buy creating repetition with a ball you won't use and two- creating a surprise when you chip a real ball and it doesn't behave the way the range ball did.

So depending on how dedicated you are to improving find a ball that feels good when you hit it and stick to it for a few rounds and practice sessions.  It doesn't have to cost $50/ doz. to be a good ball.  

I believe 2 piece balls are fine as long as you understand their limitations.  If you want a 3 piece ball the top flite gamers are pretty good and go on sale a lot.

[North Butte]

1 hour ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

I think a higher-spin ball can help a player who is inconsistently flying too long, sure. Of course that same ball hurts that player when they're inconsistently flying too short. Admittedly often that's a better miss then the thin hit across the green that runs forever. 

 

I still disagree that a premium ball, in the hands of high-cap golfer, is going to necessarily result in being regularly closer to the pin than a 2pc distance ball. Yes, the ball spins more, and stops more effectively. That only matters if you're actually hitting it close to start. Stopping 25 feet short is just as bad as rolling out 25 feet long, right? 

 

The one bit that you didn't quote from my response (most of which was at bluedot rather than yourself) was that I agree with you to a point where I'm playing a higher-spin ball and accepting the potential higher dispersion left-right of it being more spinny because I'm trying to actually learn to use the backspin around the greens to benefit me. Your response was that to some extent playing balls or clubs that will help you improve is important, and to that I do agree. When I find balls on the course [often] I drop them in my son's golf bag so I can keep a consistent ball from round-to-round. 

 

Now, most golfers don't consider Kirkland to be premium, and I get that. But generally it's seen to be a higher-spin ball, even the 3pc. And as I stated, I plan to move to the 4pc when it's released, in the hopes that I can improve and learn to use the spin. I believe that I'll get better by using a higher spin ball, because I'll learn more. But I don't see the value in a "premium" 3pc or 4pc ball over Kirkland at my skill level. Will a $48/doz ProV1 3pc urethane cover ball make an appreciable difference to me compared to a $12.50/doz Kirkland 3pc urethane cover ball? Both are seen as high-spin, so both should stop just as well around the greens.

The word "premium" is advertising jargon for "costs more". It is not a type of ball. 

 

A Kirkland ball is what it is. A multilayer urethane cover ball which is the highest performing type of ball currently available. It doesn't perform worse because Costco sells it cheaply. At $12.50 a dozen it performs better in any way you can possibly measure than a 2pc Surlyn ball that Titleist sells for 3x the price.

 

The extra cost of a Titleist 2pc ball might make it "premium" but it still perform objectively worse than the cheap urethane Kirkland ball. And there's no class of player for whom the 2pc Surlyn ball performs worse than a urethane ball with the possible exception of extremely physically limited elderly golfers who basically are going to be rolling the ball along the ground instead of flying it through the air. 

 

I've never understood the reason behind people rationalizing that their game is bad or inconsistent therefore a ball that behaves more predictably is somehow costing them strokes compared to a lower performance ball. You no longer need to make excuses in order to play a cheap golf, low performance golf ball. There are now cheap GOOD golf balls.

[bluedot]

17 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

I have three goals right now:

1. Cheap enough to lose (at my cap, I lose balls).
2. Consistent round to round, so I know that any inconsistency in the result is my fault.
3. Enough spin that if I learn better how to control spin, I can stop the ball. 

For me that's the Kirkland 3pc right now, and probably will transition to the new Kirkland 4pc when it is released. I realize that they may be a little more spinny, which can hurt me on any shot where I'm curving the ball [and a leftward curve is something I'm trying to work out], but I'd rather accept that and try to improve my swing while getting the stopping power that I won't get with a 2pc distance ball. 

 

That said, even though I have a serious goal to get better at golf, I'm not going to punish myself and start playing blades.

 

 

Respectfully, there's a flaw in this thinking. It's assuming that a premium ball is by default "better", when the attributes of a premium ball don't mean that your results will be better.

 

For example, let's say you're the type of player that loses two balls each round but finds 3-4 in the search for the first two. You typically play with whatever you have. In today's world, much of what you find are going to be 2 pc distance balls. 

 

You're faced with a 50 yard partial wedge shot. Based on how you normally hit that shot [with 2 pc surlyn-covered distance balls], you know you can hit the front of the green and the ball will roll right up to the pin. Instead you found a ProV1x on the last hole, and you're playing it this hole because it's premium. You take your normal swing with that partial wedge shot, and the ProV1x stops halfway between the landing spot and the pin because it actually had spin. 

 

In this case a cheap 2 pc distance ball might be the one 3 ft from the pin while the ProV1x is 10 ft short because it spun, if you're used to the cheap distance balls. 

 

It's why I say that the biggest thing for a high-cap amateur trying to improve [as I am] is consistency, i.e. using the same ball round-to-round. It doesn't matter much whether it's a 2 pc surlyn ball or a 4 pc urethane ProV1x... It matters that it's the same every time, so you reduce one variable out of hundreds for why the shot did something different than you intended.

 

 

Ok, here goes...

 

First, and most importantly, we agree 100% that the most important thing about golf balls for ANY player who wants to play their best is that they use the same golf ball ALL the time; there shouldn't be any doubt about that.

 

But we disagree about whether or not it matters to the "high-cap amateur" WHICH ball they play; it does matter IF he wants to improve.  (If a high-cap am doesn't want to improve, then read no farther!).  One constant for a high cap am is missed greens, resulting in a ton of shots inside 100 yds, and that is EXACTLY where the differences in golf balls show up. 

 

The BEST way for a high-cap am to improve is to improve their golf swing so that they miss fewer greens, either because they hit it farther off the tee and have shorter clubs in, or they hit it straighter off the tee and have fewer recovery shots, or they become better iron players.  Or all of those...

 

But the QUICKEST way for the high-cap am to get better is to get better at all those shots that occur when they miss greens.  Don't miss the green with the NEXT shot.  Get the shot closer so that you don't three putt.  And so on.  One piece in that improvement is learning to control the ball on a partial shot, and having the ball behave the same way, or at least within a more predictable range.  Dean Snell likens hitting a two-piece Surlyn ball to hitting a flyer; the results are just not consistent or predictable by comparison with a multi-layer urethane cover ball, and there just isn't any way around that.  Playing a ball with a low spin rate puts MORE demands on the lesser player, exactly backwards of what needs to happen.

 

Your example is a micro example, which could just as easily work the other way.  The reason to play the same ball all the time is that golf is a macro game, and the same logic says that the lesser player needs BETTER equipment, not worse equipment.

 

One final quibble:  There is no such thing as a "distance ball" anymore; those days are long gone.  There are balls that have more or fewer layers, different covers, different compressions, different spin rates as you approach the green, and so on.  But for the most part, there are balls that spin more and cost more, and there are balls that spin less and cost less.  That's a little bit of an oversimplification, if only because of differences within the premium ball category, but a distance ball?  Not a real thing anymore.

[munichop]

The market speak of dean snell and his counterparts at Titleist is why I believe I have an advantage in my game using surlyn.  The scorecard doesn’t lie.  Additional spin on a golf ball only helps if you know how to use it.  I look at surlyn balls like perimeter weighted irons, they help most on the misses.

[North Butte]

36 minutes ago, bluedot said:

Ok, here goes...

 

First, and most importantly, we agree 100% that the most important thing about golf balls for ANY player who wants to play their best is that they use the same golf ball ALL the time; there shouldn't be any doubt about that.

 

But we disagree about whether or not it matters to the "high-cap amateur" WHICH ball they play; it does matter IF he wants to improve.  (If a high-cap am doesn't want to improve, then read no farther!).  One constant for a high cap am is missed greens, resulting in a ton of shots inside 100 yds, and that is EXACTLY where the differences in golf balls show up. 

 

The BEST way for a high-cap am to improve is to improve their golf swing so that they miss fewer greens, either because they hit it farther off the tee and have shorter clubs in, or they hit it straighter off the tee and have fewer recovery shots, or they become better iron players.  Or all of those...

 

But the QUICKEST way for the high-cap am to get better is to get better at all those shots that occur when they miss greens.  Don't miss the green with the NEXT shot.  Get the shot closer so that you don't three putt.  And so on.  One piece in that improvement is learning to control the ball on a partial shot, and having the ball behave the same way, or at least within a more predictable range.  Dean Snell likens hitting a two-piece Surlyn ball to hitting a flyer; the results are just not consistent or predictable by comparison with a multi-layer urethane cover ball, and there just isn't any way around that.  Playing a ball with a low spin rate puts MORE demands on the lesser player, exactly backwards of what needs to happen.

 

Your example is a micro example, which could just as easily work the other way.  The reason to play the same ball all the time is that golf is a macro game, and the same logic says that the lesser player needs BETTER equipment, not worse equipment.

 

One final quibble:  There is no such thing as a "distance ball" anymore; those days are long gone.  There are balls that have more or fewer layers, different covers, different compressions, different spin rates as you approach the green, and so on.  But for the most part, there are balls that spin more and cost more, and there are balls that spin less and cost less.  That's a little bit of an oversimplification, if only because of differences within the premium ball category, but a distance ball?  Not a real thing anymore.

For as bad and inconsistent as my 16 hcp is, even in a round where I play worse than bogey golf I hit anywhere from 2-3 to sometimes more shots with short to mid-irons that land about pin high, stop within a couple feet and leave me well inside 20 feet from the hole.

 

I know from my (silly) dabbling around with various golf balls over the years that the rate of those just about perfect shots decreases when I use a low-spin ball. Whether a Surlyn 2pc one or a reduced spin urethane model like the AVX. The low-spin ball varies more in the total distance it flies (averaging longer but with a wider variation) and it will vary a *lot* in how quickly it stops on our typically firm greens.

 

You've nailed the situation perfectly. There is no distance advantage to a Surlyn ball and the chances that it bounces forward an extra 20 feet on the exact shot where 20 extra feet is exactly what you needed is are very slim.

 

I mean heck, once in a great while a bladed wedge shot might hit the flagstick and go in the hole, that doesn't mean there's an advantage to blading wedge shots! That's the analogy I always think of when someone says they want an inconsistent ball because it might bounce forward on a shot that would have been short.

[betarhoalphadelta]

To be fair, I wasn't talking about low spin by definition being better--I was talking about consistency. And on that @bluedot and I clearly agree. If you're pulling a different ball every hole because it's what you picked up on the course, that's a huge problem because you don't know what the ball is going to do, and if you're a high-cap, you don't have feedback whether your result was bad because of you or because of the ball. 

 

I can see higher spin being a better optimal ball. I had a shot on my last round on a short par 3 where I hit WAY too low on the face of a PW and I was worried it was going to hit the green and bounce right over due to the trajectory--but the Kirkland bit and stopped dead. Clearly the ball saved me. I think the strike was a high-spin strike, but I'm not sure a typical 2pc surlyn would have stopped.

 

[The Pearl]

"Premium balls spin too much so as a high-handicapper, they hurt my game" doesn't seem to make any logical sense. 

[dlygrisse]

The big difference for most will be with the short game.  Once you start working on that, gaining some consistency in how you strike and control the trajectory and spin on your shots it will make a huge difference.  If you are just talking about pounding drives and hitting full irons you wont see much difference unless your game starts heading towards single digit in my opinion.  

 

I actually prefer some of the cheaper balls for full swing shots, it's the 100 yards and in, especially shots under 50 yards and around the green that make a big difference for me.  I am currently a 9 handicap, but have been as low as a 5.  My short game has always been my strength, playing a low spin ball always takes precision away from my wedge game.   

[The Pearl]

16 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

To be fair, I wasn't talking about low spin by definition being better--I was talking about consistency. And on that @bluedot and I clearly agree. If you're pulling a different ball every hole because it's what you picked up on the course, that's a huge problem because you don't know what the ball is going to do, and if you're a high-cap, you don't have feedback whether your result was bad because of you or because of the ball. 

 

I can see higher spin being a better optimal ball. I had a shot on my last round on a short par 3 where I hit WAY too low on the face of a PW and I was worried it was going to hit the green and bounce right over due to the trajectory--but the Kirkland bit and stopped dead. Clearly the ball saved me. I think the strike was a high-spin strike, but I'm not sure a typical 2pc surlyn would have stopped.

 

You can extrapolate your par-3 experience out to other holes.  The thin shot, the low runner, or the line-drive are common high-handicapper ball flights.  All of those, especially on approach shots are benefitted by playing a tour level ball.  In my case, as an average distance player, I often hit hybrids and woods into longer par 4s or longer par 3s.  Playing a tour ball that bounces in there and pops on the air brakes on the 3rd or 4th bounce is a stroke saver.  With the "distance/non-urethane" balls you often get what I call "bolters" after Navy carrier pilots that miss the wire, the ball just never checks.  

 

My buddy, a solid 7 hdcp played a Pinnacle Rush last weekend.  He hit 3 balls over the green on random approach shots. This happens with these balls once in a while, you hit one right on the "screws" and they simply take-off and go 10 yds farther than a premium ball ever would fly.  He turned a 77 into an 80.

 

I will single out Titleist for a moment.  You play a ProV1/ProV1X  and the ball does the same thing every, single time. 

[Tanner25]

Another 2 piece vs urethane ball debate! Just play what you like to play. There's no reason to prove your points over and over and try to convert someone. 2 piece works, Ksig is a good cheap 3 piece urethane ball, Prov is expensive but good, got it!!!

Edited April 21, 2021 by Tanner25

[Jeff58]

According to Titleist’s experience, the worse you are, the more using a “premium” ball matters.

[HappyGilmoresBoots]

Just my own personal anecdotes...to be taken with a grain of salt, as your mileage may vary:

I don't have a consistent swing.  I'm comfortable saying that the basic fundamentals are there, as I've gotten a lot of compliments on my form, but connecting consistently shot to shot is my battle.  I have a difficult time playing Pro V1 Xs, most Vice balls, and most balls emphasizing "control" and "spin," simply because my club interaction isn't great.  My big miss is a slice, and premium high-end balls exacerbate that slice if I hit it off-center.  To boot, I'm simply not comfortable teeing up a $4 ball at the current stage in my game.

I will say that premium balls, even at my high handicap, feel impeccable from about 100 yards in.

 

Conversely, it's worth it for me to spend just a little coin to buy an inexpensive ball from a "big name" manufacturer...that's the $20-25 per dozen box; your Srixon Soft Feels, Titleist TruSofts, Callaway Hex Diablos.  Not breaking the bank, but not going with the absolute cheapest option either.

 

Making a difference?  Yeah, I've had wonky shots from cheap balls that have cost me a few strokes.  I've saved birdie a few times with a nicely-behaved greenside chip that I like to attribute to a "premium" ball.  My inconsistent swing makes or breaks more strokes than my ball does, but as someone mentioned upthread, using the same ball over and over again gives me something consistent to work with.

Edited April 21, 2021 by HappyGilmoresBoots

[nsxguy]

If you don't recognize the difference a ball makes in your game,,,,,,, you're probably not good enough yet for the ball to make a difference.

[UKGolfer86]

I wasnt a convert to 'premium' until this weekend.  Ive been playing the Decathlon Inesis Tour 900 in the UK for about a year and thought it was good, because it spins a lot.  More than a Pro V1x based on their literature and a couple of online tests.  This is great around the greens, but ive been wondering why i seem to be hitting short for a while.  Then i noticed a couple of rounds where my ball was ballooning and stalling in the wind.  Anyway, played Friday with my Inesis, played ok, but on 2 of the par 3s my ball ballooned and went nowhere.  Im talking 100 yards with an 8iron nowhere.  Had similar on another couple of approaches.  I generate quite a bit of spin and hit the ball high as it is, so extra spin from the ball i think was killing me.

 

Saturday morning i go to book in and see the proV1s looking at me from below the cash desk.  I bite the bullet and buy a box and off i go.  First hole, take usual club, par 3, missed the green long... just.  Sat in the fringe at the back.  Not too bad and a noticeably lower ball flight.  played a few more holes, drives seem longer and straighter which was great.  On the first par 5 i hve about 50 yards to a front pin, sat on the front tier, which drops down to a lower tier at the back of the green.  Hit a nice controlled wedge, catches the fringe, 1 hop, stops dead 2 feet from the pin.  Again, the flight off the wedge was lower and more controlled.  Anyway, i played the full round with confidence, didnt balloon anything, wedges stopped where i wanted them on well struck shots.  Did have 2 triples, but both were just horrendous tee shots (both with irons on doglegs to the right funnily enough).  I shot an 87, vs my 98 (bad day) from the day before.  3 birdies (my most ever in a single round).  Im a 16 handicap so this represented a good day for me, which could have been much better for those 2 triples.

 

Ive gone ahead and bought 4 dozen on the loyalty deal and will be playing ProV1 for the season.  Il also be trying out a few of the slightly cheaper options from other brands as well to see if i can get similar performance at a lower price as even on the loyalty deal, with 10% cashback, the Pro V1s were still £30.00 a dozen (a bit over $40.00).  I play a forrest course with no water, so chances of losing balls are less, which makes me more comfortable with playing a ball at this price.

[lefthack]

I know this sounds bad and it seems a lot of "purists" don't care for them, but I really like the orange and red balls. I am buying some of the new Srixon Divide balls to see how they do. I think if anything it will make them easier to spot. Maybe not. 

[soccerjay]

I don't think I'm quite good enough to tell the performance and feel differences off tee, but I've noticed the softer premium balls feel much better around the green. (TP5, Pro V1, Chromesoft)

[betarhoalphadelta]

27 minutes ago, lefthack said:

I know this sounds bad and it seems a lot of "purists" don't care for them, but I really like the orange and red balls. I am buying some of the new Srixon Divide balls to see how they do. I think if anything it will make them easier to spot. Maybe not. 

 

I'm red-green colorblind, so those are completely out of the question for me. I'd be losing balls in the middle of the fairway. I might not be able to find one on the green.

 

6 hours ago, UKGolfer86 said:

Ive gone ahead and bought 4 dozen on the loyalty deal and will be playing ProV1 for the season.  Il also be trying out a few of the slightly cheaper options from other brands as well to see if i can get similar performance at a lower price as even on the loyalty deal, with 10% cashback, the Pro V1s were still £30.00 a dozen (a bit over $40.00).  I play a forrest course with no water, so chances of losing balls are less, which makes me more comfortable with playing a ball at this price.

 

Glad to hear you found one you like! 

 

I know there is Costco in the UK, and looking at their web site they're selling their Kirkland 3pc ball as well as the Callaway balls that Costco doesn't still sell in the US. 

 

TXG just did a test between the ProV1 and the Kirkland 3pc and the distances and launch angles were almost exactly the same, with slightly higher spin on the Kirkland. They're apparently £29.89 for 2 dozen, so half the price of the loyalty/discounted ProV1. 

 

IMHO you may still prefer the ProV1, and if you don't lose a lot of balls it may still be worth it to play the more expensive ball, but if you're looking for budget options I think it's a good place to look. 

[Bad9]

43 minutes ago, soccerjay said:

I don't think I'm quite good enough to tell the performance and feel differences off tee,

 

Anyone without an agenda of some will admit that most modern balls perform very close off the tee. Its after the tee shot that other aspects of the ball come more into play(materials, dimples, etc).

[North Butte]

59 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

I'm red-green colorblind, so those are completely out of the question for me. I'd be losing balls in the middle of the fairway. I might not be able to find one on the green.

 

 

Glad to hear you found one you like! 

 

I know there is Costco in the UK, and looking at their web site they're selling their Kirkland 3pc ball as well as the Callaway balls that Costco doesn't still sell in the US. 

 

TXG just did a test between the ProV1 and the Kirkland 3pc and the distances and launch angles were almost exactly the same, with slightly higher spin on the Kirkland. They're apparently £29.89 for 2 dozen, so half the price of the loyalty/discounted ProV1. 

 

IMHO you may still prefer the ProV1, and if you don't lose a lot of balls it may still be worth it to play the more expensive ball, but if you're looking for budget options I think it's a good place to look. 

Whether you're a Titleist fan or not, the Pro V1 is the benchmark for a "Tour" ball (meaning the highest performing ball that the industry can produce under the current Rules of Golf). That isn't to say everyone ought to use Pro V1 but it's the point of reference.

 

Between Titleist's own variants and the numerous models from other big-name makers if you are "good enough" to tell the difference between balls there's a "Tour" ball out there that will work for your game. Might be a TP5 or a Chrome Soft LS or any of a couple dozen others. 

 

And with all the direct-to-consumer balls coming out of Asian factories now, if you lose enough balls not to want to play a $4 or even a $3 ball you can shop around and find something more or less like Pro V1 for half its price or less. Or you can just cut to the chase and get a Costco membership and stock up on Ksig for well under $2/ball.

 

All the evidence that I can see whether online "tests" or one form or another or the experiences of the guys I regularly play with, a handicap golfer with modest clubhead speed isn't going to go far wrong by literally picking the cheapest urethane ball he likes the feel of. They are all, to a first approximation, pretty much like a Pro V1. Only the finer details vary. Even if you get one that doesn't perfectly suit your game, it's going to work very, very well.

Edited April 21, 2021 by North Butte

[jmo15]

On 4/19/2021 at 4:00 PM, betarhoalphadelta said:

As for my commitment to my single-ball strategy...

 

Yesterday while we were playing together a buddy tossed me a Kirkland ball that he'd found, because he knows that's what I play. So I tossed him back a ProV1 that I'd found, because I know that's what he plays. 

 

I've got no use for a ProV1 except on water holes lol...

haha now thats some commitment to your strategy

[jmo15]

On 4/19/2021 at 4:00 PM, betarhoalphadelta said:

As for my commitment to my single-ball strategy...

 

Yesterday while we were playing together a buddy tossed me a Kirkland ball that he'd found, because he knows that's what I play. So I tossed him back a ProV1 that I'd found, because I know that's what he plays. 

 

I've got no use for a ProV1 except on water holes lol...

haha now thats some commitment to your strategy

[jmo15]

On 4/19/2021 at 4:00 PM, betarhoalphadelta said:

As for my commitment to my single-ball strategy...

 

Yesterday while we were playing together a buddy tossed me a Kirkland ball that he'd found, because he knows that's what I play. So I tossed him back a ProV1 that I'd found, because I know that's what he plays. 

 

I've got no use for a ProV1 except on water holes lol...

haha now thats some commitment to your strategy

[UKGolfer86]

5 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

Glad to hear you found one you like! 

 

I know there is Costco in the UK, and looking at their web site they're selling their Kirkland 3pc ball as well as the Callaway balls that Costco doesn't still sell in the US. 

 

TXG just did a test between the ProV1 and the Kirkland 3pc and the distances and launch angles were almost exactly the same, with slightly higher spin on the Kirkland. They're apparently £29.89 for 2 dozen, so half the price of the loyalty/discounted ProV1. 

 

IMHO you may still prefer the ProV1, and if you don't lose a lot of balls it may still be worth it to play the more expensive ball, but if you're looking for budget options I think it's a good place to look. 

Ah, I hadn't even considered looking for the Kirkland ball over here.  Il grab some at some point and play one side by side on a quiet afternoon this summer.

 

Il do some reading/watch some YouTube on them before I buy them and go from there.  Thanks for the suggestion

[bluedot]

22 hours ago, munichop said:

The market speak of dean snell and his counterparts at Titleist is why I believe I have an advantage in my game using surlyn.  The scorecard doesn’t lie.  Additional spin on a golf ball only helps if you know how to use it.  I look at surlyn balls like perimeter weighted irons, they help most on the misses.

You are a plus handicap, which means that you can generate and control spin with your swing.  That's great for you, but how does that speak to the swing of a high index player? 

 

To be a plus index, you have to hit a lot of greens, which also means that when you miss a green, you miss in better places where you can get up and down consistently.  There has never been a plus index who wasn't a good ball striker, and generally, plus index players are at least relatively long off the tee and are hitting shorter clubs into greens.  Combine that with consistent contact in your short game shots, and it's no wonder that you feel that you can play just as well with a low spin golf ball.  I'll take your word for the disparity in your scores when you use a two piece Surlyn ball vs. a multilayer Urethane ball; I've read many of your posts where you say that you have proven that to your own satisfaction. 

 

None of which has anything to do with a high handicapper.  They typically don't hit it as far off the tee, they miss fairways by much more, they miss almost every green, and they frequently miss greens in terrible places.  (We won't even get into proximity to the hole and putting stats; that's another rabbit hole entirely.)

 

And with all due respect, your analogy of Surlyn balls to perimeter weighted clubs is backwards; the point of perimeter weighted clubs is to help players who need help, which is EXACTLY what a soft cover, higher spin golf ball does.  I don't think you can make the case that a ball that spins LESS around the green does that for a player who is in trouble to begin with.  That player has shortsided himself; you don't.  That player is in heavy rough; you aren't.  And so on.  Give him a perimeter weighted club and a ball with a soft cover and a high spin rate, and MAYBE he has a chance.  Not a good chance, but a chance.

 

It's probably important that you think of yourself exactly the way you characterized yourself several posts back; an "outlier".  You ARE actually MORE than an outlier if you are a plus who plays a two piece Surlyn ball; you are more of a Sasquatch or a unicorn.  I play a LOT of competitive golf, and, with all due respect, I NEVER see good players playing two piece Surlyn balls in tournament play.  I'll repeat that; NEVER!  The closest things I've seen are probably the AVX and the Callaway ERC, and even those are few and far between.  More to the point, I don't think either of those are the type of ball that you're talking about anyway. 

 

Lesser players need more help than you do, not less.  Better equipment of ALL kinds, including golf balls.

 

 

[munichop]

@bluedot

years ago golfers had a choice between Balatas and surlyn. Only the more skilled players played the spinnier  balls.  I believe that approach should still apply. 
I play with high handicap players regularly.  They waste money on premium balls but they are told again and again that if they want to get better that they should play urethane. 
Again spin is only an advantage if you can control it.

As for my game I have struggled getting urethane balls in the air whereas surlyn balls launch higher for me. I most likely have too much shaft lean and come into iron shots too steep.

The only urethane ball I liked for a long time was the e5. It launched higher for me and I shot a course record with it. My other course record was with a gamer soft, a three piece surlyn ball.

currently I am using the e12.

none of the premium balls are designed for high handicappers. They are made to optimize the games of skilled players. 

 

 

[bluedot]

8 hours ago, munichop said:

@bluedot

years ago golfers had a choice between Balatas and surlyn. Only the more skilled players played the spinnier  balls.  I believe that approach should still apply. 
I play with high handicap players regularly.  They waste money on premium balls but they are told again and again that if they want to get better that they should play urethane. 
Again spin is only an advantage if you can control it.

As for my game I have struggled getting urethane balls in the air whereas surlyn balls launch higher for me. I most likely have too much shaft lean and come into iron shots too steep.

The only urethane ball I liked for a long time was the e5. It launched higher for me and I shot a course record with it. My other course record was with a gamer soft, a three piece surlyn ball.

currently I am using the e12.

none of the premium balls are designed for high handicappers. They are made to optimize the games of skilled players. 

.

 

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.  You are generalizing your personal feelings and experience to golfers that are nothing like you because you can control a golf ball and they can't.  I don't think I'm going to convince you otherwise; I've read too many of your posts.  You insist on the idea that spin is only helpful if a player can control it; I couldn't disagree more.  High handicappers typically aren't players that can't control spin, but rather they are players who have trouble generating spin on their own.  A low spin ball just makes that worse, and there's just no way around that.  That has NO commonality with a plus handicap who is setting course records.

 

But you are mistaken about the bad old days of two choices in golf balls.  It was NOT "only more skilled players" who played balata; it was players who could AFFORD balata.  Those things were really expensive, especially on a per round cost because they cut and went out of round and scuffed to an extent that golfers today just can't imagine.  I was a HS teacher and coach, and money for golf was really, really tight, so I played Surlyn balls.  But I played them because they were cheap and relatively durable; I never kidded myself that they were better golf balls, for my game or anybody else.

 

Also, back in the bad old days, Surlyn balls were a LOT longer than balata balls; it wasn't even close.  When I played a scramble, I'd carry both kinds; Surlyn off the tee, and balata into the greens.  And, of course, now I don't have to do any of that because everything is a Pinnacle off the tee, and I can get distance AND great performance around the green as well.

[North Butte]

The Surlyn vs. Balata thing circa 1990 was a no-brainer. If you needed distance or you couldn't afford $10-$15 worth of golf balls per round then you played Surlyn balls because they were *much* longer and far more durable. If distance was not your first priority or you were on a budget you played Balata balls because they were far more controllable. 

 

Apparently some people suffer from a form of nostalgia and imagine the situation is similar today. By around 2010 the industry had found ways to make balls with 100% of the distance AND 100% of the control AND 100% of the durability all wrapped up in one type of ball. The only downside was price and now a decade later even price no longer differs meaningfully if you're not in thrall to the big-name traditional OEM's. 

 

But hey, those same big companies are happy if someone will pay them more than the cost of a DTC urethane ball for a 2pc Surlyn one they can make cheaply and market as suited to golfers who "aren't good enough" for a better ball.