2021 Golf Ball Test

[OspreyCI]

5 hours ago, JDubya89 said:

Interesting results when comparing the Tour B XS vs Tour B X

 

Seems like the XS is a better ball in most situations, which is opposite of the sentiment around here

100% agree after reading it. Loving the BX, but the BXS may just be even more of a unicorn than the BX I have enjoyed. 

[JDubya89]

3 minutes ago, OspreyCI said:

100% agree after reading it. Loving the BX, but the BXS may just be even more of a unicorn than the BX I have enjoyed. 

I made the switch this season from BX to BXS and have zero regrets

 

Although I could happily play both, I prioritize iron play (and holding small tight greens) over driving distance, and the XS is noticeably better with irons for me 

[NRJyzr]

8 minutes ago, JDubya89 said:

I made the switch this season from BX to BXS and have zero regrets

 

Although I could happily play both, I prioritize iron play (and holding small tight greens) over driving distance, and the XS is noticeably better with irons for me 

 

Was gifted one B-XS ball by a friend, played it for a round and a half.  I was really impressed with it.  Better distance than I expected, and the mid range pitch spin was like velcro.

 

If only i weren't so cheap.  LOL

 

[North Butte]

26 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

Was gifted one B-XS ball by a friend, played it for a round and a half.  I was really impressed with it.  Better distance than I expected, and the mid range pitch spin was like velcro.

 

If only i weren't so cheap.  LOL

 

Yeah, I actually bought a sleeve of them and on a basic 30-40 yard pitch with a sand wedge it makes me look like I know how to spin the ball. Which I actually don't. 

 

Overall I felt like they were actually spinning more than I want. Which is extremely unusual. Normally I say there's no such thing as too much spin.

[Tupperwolf]

Here's a link to the raw data table so you can look at it without the rest of the stuff from the article in the way.

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/golfspy.t/viz/MyGolfSpy2021GolfBallTest/2021GolfBallData

 

Also the one for compression/distance:

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/golfspy.t/viz/MyGolfSpy2021GolfBallTest-CompressionBallSpeed/CompressionDashboard

[JDIL]

8 Irons for the slow swing speed groups, with 15-20. yards of rollout. Is that normal?  In fact all the speed groups for the 8 iron had a lot of rollout I thought.

[Quasimoto]

Interesting for me to see the evolution in the series of golf balls.

At some point all of the major brands top balls have been the “best” for me.

Now I just narrow it down to several choices and essentially play one of those based on instinct of the weather. High wind? Bridgestone. Very warm? ProV1x. Rain? Maxfli Tour. Not a science by any means but it works - somewhat - LOL.

[North Butte]

My own wish list for a ball is distance (of course) along with stopping power on irons and spin on wedges.

 

My idea of "distance" in these test results would be total distance off the driver plus carry distance off 8-iron at the 85mph "slow" speed. Unless I overlooked something I think the AVX was the best by that metric 236.10+125.47=361.57 total. The ball I'm currently playing is Chrome Soft X and the numbers are 230.60+123.10=353.70 total.

 

That almost exactly matches my memory of playing AVX in the past (the original version) which rolled about 10 extra yards off the driver but had driver and iron carry distances pretty much like other urethane balls. 

 

Off the 8-iron Chrome Soft X has 5,805spin and 36.45 descent angle which is in the upper echelons for stopping power. That's about 200rpm less spin than the KIRKLAND and within half a degree of descent angle of the steepest-landing balls in the test. Wedge spin is 7,601rpm again toward the top of the list and only a couple hundred rpm less than the highest wedge spin balls. 

 

If I wanted to switch to AVX in hopes of getting that extra distance (in theory I'd be nearly able to hit one less club into greens on average) I'd have to give up some wedge spin (7,155 instead of 7,601) but a pretty good bit of stopping power. The 8-iron spin of AVX is 400rpm less and the descent angle is 35.34 instead of 36.45 so that combination could possible lead to a bit more release. I do think the current AVX seems to fly higher and possibly stop better than the original version but I'm not tempted. Mostly because the increase in distance is almost entirely rollout with the driver which is unreliable in my experience (it depends on the ball staying the fairway and the fairway being firm). 

 

P.S. Tour Speed, which apparently was being hyped ahead of time as a big surprise, certainly isn't any big deal at the 85mph "slow" speed. Compared to the AVX it is pretty much inferior for slow swingers. My distance metric for Tour Speed is 233.81+124.10=357.91 total or about 3-1/2 yards shorter than AVX. The 8-iron spin is 5,502 (vs. 5,393 for AVX), descent angle is 35.58 (vs. 35.34 for AVX) and wedge spin is a paltry 6,620rpm (vs. 7,155 for AVX). 

[North Butte]

Postscript to my comments above...

 

I just realized I can substract the Carry distance from Total distance for 8-iron to get an idea of stopping power. It's kind of amazing that just through random trial and error I settled on Chrome Soft X where the rollout (85mph equiv.) was about 15 yards which is one of the quickest stopping balls on the list. 

 

The balls I'd played previously are Pro V1 and Pro V1x and they're around 16 yards. Still quicker stopping than most.

 

And the Chrome Soft (not X) that I tried and thought didn't hold greens well enough comes in at nearly 18 yards rollout with their test 8-iron setup. AVX is similar with just over 18 yards rollout

 

I know we're talking about stopping maybe 8 feet quicker with an 8-iron, less than a 20% difference. Not the end of the world if every shot rolls out that little bit extra. But I'll be darned if, with no launch monitor, I didn't eventually end up liking balls that stop quicker than average and being disappointed with the ones that don't. 

[Fairways_and_Greens]

15 hours ago, gioreeko said:

it's all relative, just use the spin numbers given, and they would react the same when working the ball

I completely disagree. Some balls absolutely work/flight better, and some balls are better in the wind. Aero is a big deal.

[North Butte]

8 minutes ago, Fairways_and_Greens said:

I completely disagree. Some balls absolutely work/flight better, and some balls are better in the wind. Aero is a big deal.

I think aerodynamic performance is very, very good nowadays on even the cheapest white-label Asian factory knockoff ball. 

 

But I do think there are still differences that matter in the dimple designs of various models. But aero performance is a second-order type thing that only really comes into consideration after you've found a ball that suits in terms of ball speed and spin with various clubs. A ball that's slow off the club or doesn't spin enough (or spins too much) for me isn't going to be bailed out by having better dimples. But among balls that are otherwise similar, I do perceive some subtle differences in ball flight from the "aero package".

 

I also think the whole aerodynamic thing becomes a bigger issue for players with the ability to choose and control their trajectory with all their clubs. Moreso than duffers like me who just want to hit a decent shot as often as possible and who don't/can't consciously "flight" the ball.

[Fairways_and_Greens]

3 minutes ago, North Butte said:

I think aerodynamic performance is very, very good nowadays on even the cheapest white-label Asian factory knockoff ball. 

 

But I do think there are still differences that matter in the dimple designs of various models. But aero performance is a second-order type thing that only really comes into consideration after you've found a ball that suits in terms of ball speed and spin with various clubs. A ball that's slow off the club or doesn't spin enough (or spins too much) for me isn't going to be bailed out by having better dimples. But among balls that are otherwise similar, I do perceive some subtle differences in ball flight from the "aero package".

 

I also think the whole aerodynamic thing becomes a bigger issue for players with the ability to choose and control their trajectory with all their clubs. Moreso than duffers like me who just want to hit a decent shot as often as possible and who don't/can't consciously "flight" the ball.

I completely agree that there's probably not a ton new with aero. I work in aerospace and have done some reading on cover design. If I understand it correctly it essentially comes down to dimple depth. Deeper dimples create less lift/drag and shallower dimples create more lift/drag.

 

It's not like there is a perfect cover, it's more of a trade that has to be optimized for the ball's launch conditions. I'm a higher speed guy that generates a lot of spin, so I get murdered in the wind. How a ball plays in the wind means quite a bit to me.

 

In the data, it seems like an outlier is the Chrome Soft X. It clearly spins more on driver/irons, but it still has decent carry numbers. I tried the CSX-LS earlier this year but wasn't in love with the wedge spin and greenside feel. I might have to give a sleeve of CSX a shot, but I'd probably back the irons/full wedges up more than I'd want to.

[tsecor]

On 8/7/2021 at 8:32 AM, Nessism said:

 

I don't like Titleist because in my view they promote elitism.  

🤣🤣🤣

[tsecor]

On 8/9/2021 at 2:01 PM, ShowMe said:

A MAP policy is one in which a supplier or manufacturer limits the ability of their distributors to advertise prices below a certain level. Unlike a resale-price-maintenance agreement, a MAP policy does not stop a retailer from actually selling below any minimum price.  

 

In a resale price maintenance policy or agreement, by contrast, the manufacturer doesn’t allow distributors to sell the products below a certain price.

 

Titleist and Ping de facto don't allow retailers to sell below a certain price.  If a retailer does, then their account gets pulled.  That is a de facto resale price maintenance agreement.

 

That said, here is some more insight into why Titleist and Ping are allowed to get away with this anti-consumer behavior.  Hint - they've implemented a "Colgate policy."

 

Resale Price Maintenance

Before we go further, let’s review a little bit. A resale price maintenance agreement is a deal between a manufacturer and some sort of distributor (including a retailer that sells to the end user) that the distributor will not sell the product for less than a set price. Up until the US Supreme Court decided Leegin in 2007, these types of agreements were per se illegal under the federal antitrust laws.

Resale price maintenance agreements are no longer per se federal antitrust violations, but several states, including California, New York, and Maryland may consider them per se antitrust violations under state law, so most national manufacturers avoid the risk and implement a unilateral Colgate policy instead.

Under federal law, courts now usually analyze resale-price-maintenance agreements under the antitrust rule of reason.

Colgate Policies

Colgate policies are named after a 1919 Supreme Court decision that held that it is not a federal antitrust violation for a manufacturer to unilaterally announce in advance the prices at which it will allow its product to be resold, then refuse to deal with any distributors that violate that policy. You can read our article about Colgate policies here.

The bottom line with Colgate is that in most situations the federal antitrust laws do not forbid one company from unilaterally refusing to deal with another. There are, of course, exceptions, so don’t rely on this point without consulting an antitrust lawyer.

OMG......you guys are WAY OFF course. Move it to another thread

[NoTalentLefty]

What I get from all this? Confusion , I will continue with the E12 Contact and I will like it. 

[North Butte]

35 minutes ago, Fairways_and_Greens said:

I completely agree that there's probably not a ton new with aero. I work in aerospace and have done some reading on cover design. If I understand it correctly it essentially comes down to dimple depth. Deeper dimples create less lift/drag and shallower dimples create more lift/drag.

 

It's not like there is a perfect cover, it's more of a trade that has to be optimized for the ball's launch conditions. I'm a higher speed guy that generates a lot of spin, so I get murdered in the wind. How a ball plays in the wind means quite a bit to me.

 

In the data, it seems like an outlier is the Chrome Soft X. It clearly spins more on driver/irons, but it still has decent carry numbers. I tried the CSX-LS earlier this year but wasn't in love with the wedge spin and greenside feel. I might have to give a sleeve of CSX a shot, but I'd probably back the irons/full wedges up more than I'd want to.

Let me say this, with the caveat that I'm a pretty low clubhead speed player (compared to their test results for "85mph" I hit my irons a tiny bit farther and my driver slightly shorter) and a 15-ish handicap... 

 

The Chrome Soft has never suited me quite right even though I did play one of the earlier generations for a year or so. Flight seemed kind of flat and green holding power seemed borderline. I also kind of thought that earlier version I played was a bit disappointing in driver distance. 

 

I played just a few holes with CXS-LS alongside the Chrome Soft X (as in hitting all shots with both balls) and didn't bother with the LS for any longer. It just didn't perform at all for me.

 

But the Chrome Soft X and I just immediately hit it off. It's just as long as a Pro V1 or Pro V1x, nice high flight (by my low-hitter standards) and it had none of the ball releasing too much issues or the occasional "10 yards longer" hot iron shots that I had experienced with regular Chrome Soft. When I look at the 85mph test results it does seem a bit unique, although actually two of the balls most similar to it are Pro V1 and Pro V1x both of which I've played a lot and liked. 

 

Give it a try. 

[Jeff58]

1 hour ago, Fairways_and_Greens said:

I completely agree that there's probably not a ton new with aero. I work in aerospace and have done some reading on cover design. If I understand it correctly it essentially comes down to dimple depth. Deeper dimples create less lift/drag and shallower dimples create more lift/drag.

It’s the opposite -

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705816306415

 

If you follow the link, it will eventually allow you to download or view the entire article.

 

[DLiver]

12 hours ago, JDIL said:

8 Irons for the slow swing speed groups, with 15-20. yards of rollout. Is that normal?  In fact all the speed groups for the 8 iron had a lot of rollout I thought.

The rollout on the irons seems way off to me. Much of the time, my course has really firm greens and I've never had an 8 iron roll out 45 feet.

 

I really miss the dispersion data from last time around. That was always the tie-breaker for me between balls that otherwise performed similarly. It was also interesting how many of the top "tour" balls were noticeably more accurate then others.

[Jeff58]

5 minutes ago, DLiver said:

The rollout on the irons seems way off to me. Much of the time, my course has really firm greens and I've never had an 8 iron roll out 45 feet.

 

I really miss the dispersion data from last time around. That was always the tie-breaker for me between balls that otherwise performed similarly. It was also interesting how many of the top "tour" balls were noticeably more accurate then others.

The most obvious issue with their dispersion data IMO was that a ball with poor shot area numbers on one test (the ChromeSoft being an obvious example) would have terrible dispersion on one test and excellent results on another. If dispersion were a function of the ball’s inherent stability and/or construction quality, the results should have been repeatable. It seems likely that the OEM’s may have pointed out that what they were actually measuring was environmental impact. To verify this, all they would have to have done was repeat the same test, and they either didn’t or did and won’t provide the results.

 

There are irregularities this time as well, but in a test of this size, that’s just going to happen. The effect of temperature increase during the day is mentioned and the ability to hit 285 yard drives at 100mph swing speed has me wondering, but overall it’s a serious effort that produces good quality results.

[arbeck]

23 minutes ago, DLiver said:

The rollout on the irons seems way off to me. Much of the time, my course has really firm greens and I've never had an 8 iron roll out 45 feet.

 

I really miss the dispersion data from last time around. That was always the tie-breaker for me between balls that otherwise performed similarly. It was also interesting how many of the top "tour" balls were noticeably more accurate then others.

They aren't hitting their irons to a green. They're landing them on the range. I wouldn't read much into roll out at all. They've given you the information you need spin/descent angle to figure out how the balls are going to stop. Unless you are hitting 8 irons off the tee into the fairway, how much it rolls out in that situation is pretty irrelevant.

[DLiver]

16 minutes ago, arbeck said:

They aren't hitting their irons to a green. They're landing them on the range. I wouldn't read much into roll out at all. They've given you the information you need spin/descent angle to figure out how the balls are going to stop. Unless you are hitting 8 irons off the tee into the fairway, how much it rolls out in that situation is pretty irrelevant.

Why thanks for pointing that out to me!

 

My point is that if the data isn't relevent, it seem silly to include it.

[The Pearl]

Spend all my time with the "slow" swing speed data.  The Vice Pro Plus is the pretty big winner here in terms of performance and price.  

[arbeck]

4 minutes ago, DLiver said:

Why thanks for pointing that out to me!

 

My point is that if the data isn't relevent, it seem silly to include it.

When they're trying to show the data for drivers, irons, and wedges in one table, you are going to run into issues like that.

[JJFWebster]

Who's swing were they emulating for the test? You've got to be kidding me with the roll out data on an 8 iron. Most of us will stop a Top-Flite in that distance.

[arbeck]

1 minute ago, JJFWebster said:

Who's swing were they emulating for the test? You've got to be kidding me with the roll out data on an 8 iron. Most of us will stop a Top-Flite in that distance.

As has been said in the thread, they aren't hitting balls to greens. They are launching them down a driving range, in Arizona, in the summer. Things are going to roll out a ton there and you should ignore the total roll out and just compare the roll out from ball to ball.

[North Butte]

4 minutes ago, arbeck said:

As has been said in the thread, they aren't hitting balls to greens. They are launching them down a driving range, in Arizona, in the summer. Things are going to roll out a ton there and you should ignore the total roll out and just compare the roll out from ball to ball.

And if you spend way too much time transcribing their 8-iron numbers you'll see that the relative Total-Carry differences are just about always what you'd expect given the relevant spin and descent angle when comparing two balls. 

[tsecor]

who hits 8 irons off a tee anyway? lol

 

the results would be much different if the robot hit off a grass lie each time....or a hitting mat....

 

the data is awesome regardless....

[tsecor]

18 hours ago, tyorke1 said:

I am confused , into the wind is this saying a chrome soft will be better than a pro v x especially for iron shots . I am a high spin iron player . What ball would be the best?

chromesoft without a doubt. The V1X spins a lot more and will probably balloon for you into the wind. 

[arbeck]

35 minutes ago, tsecor said:

who hits 8 irons off a tee anyway? lol

 

the results would be much different if the robot hit off a grass lie each time....or a hitting mat....

 

the data is awesome regardless....

Robots have to hit off tees

[OspreyCI]

I’ll be switching from the BX to the BXS after looking at the data.