2021 Golf Ball Test

[bluedot]

8 minutes ago, Nessism said:

 

If you watch the Deals forum various nice ball deals come up regularly, or at least they used to pre covid-19.  Srixon runs buy one get one free promos roughly once a year, and there were lots of deals on the old version when they came out with something new.  Taylormade takes excess inventory and stamps them PRATICE and drop the price in half.  Callaway deals were out there fairly regularly too.  I remember they sold a ton of balls to MG Golf one time because they changed their mind about releasing that model in their normal supply chain.  It was a somewhat harder ball back when they were pushing their Chromesoft ball.  Anyway, MG sold these Callaway's for about $20 a dozen.  I similarly stocked up on bulk packed Bridgestone tour balls as sold by Budget Golf.  Wilson had various deals too.  

 

Point is, there are deals to be had on lots of great urethane tour level balls for cheap...except for Titleist.  A "sale" with Titleist is $5 off.  

You might want to go back and actually read my post; you are listing EXACTLY what I listed as ways to buy ProV1's below full retail but just substituting other companies.

 

And you are just 100% dead wrong about the $5 thing.  Titleist knocks a full $10 off the previous year's model, and a buy three, get one free deal on the current year model is more than that!  The Titleist loyalty program comes around every spring, and EVERY retailer sells the balls that way; it comes out to under $38 a dozen.  I don't know how many golf balls you use each year, but I can buy enough at that price to last me until the next spring when the program comes around again.

 

If you don't want to play Titleist, have at it; lots of good players don't.  But you might want to just say that instead of cooking the books or talking about "elitism" or whatever else. 

[bluedot]

2 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

Titleist is a little too close to a cult.  LOL

 

Not just golfballs, either...

 

 

Huh?

[North Butte]

5 minutes ago, bluedot said:

 

Huh?

I think he meant to say that Titleist haters are a cult. 

[bluedot]

28 minutes ago, phil75070 said:

Do you think if ProV1's were selling for $39.99/dz that TP5's, Chrome Softs and Bridgestones would still be $47.99 or would they be $37.99? I think Titleist sets the high end price that others follow.

 

I think you may be overestimating the margins on golf balls; I don't think any of the manufacturers can sell their premium balls at the prices you suggest.

 

If Callaway and TM and Bridgestone could afford to, wouldn't they have more that $2 as a pricing difference from the 800 lb gorilla that is the ProV1?  I think the price of those balls helps Titleist more than it does the other companies; there have to be more golfers who look at $2 as insignificant in a $45-50 purchase than there are golfers who get excited by saving $2. 

 

I've got somewhere in the neighborhood of $3k in clubs, pay a LOT of money for greens fees, clothing, shoes, etc; saving $2 on a dozen golf balls is NOT exciting to me.

[Nessism]

 

Titleist spends millions of dollars to maintain their tour associations.  The pros get free balls, custom Vokey's & Cammeron Putters (the most famous of which are Ping knockoffs,) etc.  And it's not just the PGA tour, they heavily stock the feeding arteries to the tour as well such as on the college level.  All these giveaways cost a lot of money to maintain.  Titleist does this to associate themselves with the Pro's and they promote heavily as "the pro's brand"  Crap like that.  No thanks.

 

As far as $38 Pro V1's are concern, why would I play those when I can get Z Stars for $22?  I shoot 80's golf and have for decades so I'm not horrible, but I'm not good enough to see performance differences between tour level balls.  Hell, I don't score any different when playing with something like a Supersoft or similar either.  I roll my eyes when guys talk about needing "consistency" when their skill level has them missing more greens than they hit.  Whatever though. 

 

Play what you want.  I can respect the analogy that golf is not a cheap sport and even at $50/dozen, using Pro V1's won't move a persons budget very much.  There you have it.  

[phil75070]

36 minutes ago, bluedot said:

If Callaway and TM and Bridgestone could afford to, wouldn't they have more that $2 as a pricing difference from the 800 lb gorilla that is the ProV1?

I don't think so. There is a fine line in regard to pricing where many will think that if the price difference is too much then the ball must be inferior. If I am Callaway or TM or Bridgestone, I want to get as much for my top tier ball as I can for as long as I can. I think they even acknowledge that Titleist is the king and has been for many, many years when it comes to golf balls and there is no way golfers will pay the same, much less more, for their offerings. Thus the slight discount by comaprison.

[bluedot]

45 minutes ago, Nessism said:

 

Titleist spends millions of dollars to maintain their tour associations.  The pros get free balls, custom Vokey's & Cammeron Putters (the most famous of which are Ping knockoffs,) etc.  And it's not just the PGA tour, they heavily stock the feeding arteries to the tour as well such as on the college level.  All these giveaways cost a lot of money to maintain.  Titleist does this to associate themselves with the Pro's and they promote heavily as "the pro's brand"  Crap like that.  No thanks.

 

As far as $38 Pro V1's are concern, why would I play those when I can get Z Stars for $22?  I shoot 80's golf and have for decades so I'm not horrible, but I'm not good enough to see performance differences between tour level balls.  Hell, I don't score any different when playing with something like a Supersoft or similar either.  I roll my eyes when guys talk about needing "consistency" when their skill level has them missing more greens than they hit.  Whatever though. 

 

Play what you want.  I can respect the analogy that golf is not a cheap sport and even at $50/dozen, using Pro V1's won't move a persons budget very much.  There you have it.  

Nothing you wrote in the first paragraph separates Titleist from any of the others, except MAYBE by degree, and I don’t if that’s even true. If you have the figures, please share.

 

But obviously the second paragraph is the real point; you don’t want to buy top-of-the-line balls from Titleist or anybody else, which is perfectly fine and understandable.  It seems odd, though, to demonize Titleist for selling premium golf balls at premium prices, just as all the others do, when the real issue isn’t the difference between $50 and $48 at all.  
 

Out of pure curiosity, how much would the $22 Srixons cost if Srixon didn’t pay endorsement money to their Tour staff, given that they list about a hundred from the various tours on their website?  Why, I suppose they could give them away!

[North Butte]

5 minutes ago, bluedot said:

Out of pure curiosity, how much would the $22 Srixons cost if Srixon didn’t pay endorsement money to their Tour staff, given that they list about a hundred from the various tours on their website?  Why, I suppose they could give them away!

If Srixon could sell enough balls at $45 that’s what they would charge. The fact they pay a bunch of Tour endorsers AND run as many ads as anyone AND still have to run sales for $22 or whatever…it just means they’re playing exactly the same game as all the other brands but failing at it. They can’t all be winners you know!

[Nessism]

18 minutes ago, bluedot said:

Nothing you wrote in the first paragraph separates Titleist from any of the others, except MAYBE by degree, and I don’t if that’s even true. If you have the figures, please share.

 

But obviously the second paragraph is the real point; you don’t want to buy top-of-the-line balls from Titleist or anybody else, which is perfectly fine and understandable.  It seems odd, though, to demonize Titleist for selling premium golf balls at premium prices, just as all the others do, when the real issue isn’t the difference between $50 and $48 at all.  
 

Out of pure curiosity, how much would the $22 Srixons cost if Srixon didn’t pay endorsement money to their Tour staff, given that they list about a hundred from the various tours on their website?  Why, I suppose they could give them away!

 

No other equipment company spends like Titleist does to promote their tour association.  It's the cornerstone of their entire promotion scheme because they want to create a facade of being "the best."   

 

And I'm not talking about $50 vs $48.  I'm talking about $40 (on discount) Pro V1 vs. lots of other urethane tour balls I've been able to buy for $22 or less.  That's a big price difference.

 

BUT even if there wasn't the price difference, I just don't like Titleist for their BS "what the pro's play" scheme.  Cameron putters wouldn't even be a brand if it weren't for Ping since pretty much every putter he made early in his career was a knockoff.

Edited August 7, 2021 by Nessism

[gsxrdn]

Refurbished golf ball will save you money and you will lose distance and consistency. 

I like the older generation of TP5x and TP5. 

[realmfg]

1 hour ago, gsxrdn said:

Refurbished golf ball will save you money and you will lose distance and consistency. 

I like the older generation of TP5x and TP5. 

Rick Shiels did a full test and the refurbished ball was no different on distance and consistency.

Edited August 7, 2021 by realmfg

[ChipNRun]

On 7/28/2021 at 7:35 PM, 03trdblack said:

Don't play Matte finish golf balls 

 

Matte finish balls fly OK, they just absorb mud and grass stains quickly.

[bluedot]

1 hour ago, Nessism said:

 

No other equipment company spends like Titleist does to promote their tour association.  It's the cornerstone of their entire promotion scheme because they want to create a facade of being "the best."   

 

And I'm not talking about $50 vs $48.  I'm talking about $40 (on discount) Pro V1 vs. lots of other urethane tour balls I've been able to buy for $22 or less.  That's a big price difference.

 

BUT even if there wasn't the price difference, I just don't like Titleist for their BS "what the pro's play" scheme.  Cameron putters wouldn't even be a brand if it weren't for Ping since pretty much every putter he made early in his career was a knockoff.

Can you document your first sentence? It may be true, but I’d love to see real numbers.  A link will suffice; thanks in advance.

[bluedot]

1 hour ago, gsxrdn said:

Refurbished golf ball will save you money and you will lose distance and consistency. 

I like the older generation of TP5x and TP5. 

I believe the MGS guys may have done some testing on refurbs this time around? They do mention refurbs in the video round table that is available on their website.

 

The thing that has always worried me about refurbs is water. I’ve seen divers pulling THOUSANDS of balls out of ponds, and I would think it safe to assume some of them have been down there awhile. Maybe a LONG while…

[Nessism]

37 minutes ago, bluedot said:

Can you document your first sentence? It may be true, but I’d love to see real numbers.  A link will suffice; thanks in advance.

https://s21.q4cdn.com/797008351/files/doc_financials/2020/ar/P51452_ACUSHNET-HOLDINGS-CORP._10K_2021_V5.pdf

 

Cut and paste from Acushnet's financial report last year.

 

Key takeaway: their gross margin was over 50%.  This is beyond huge.  Also, they make note in the introductory comments of the report highlighting "Trust at the games highest level" in other words, the tour.  They spend heavily to get pros to use their products and it's working.

 

I can't find anything at the moment comparing their advertising spending on balls, but previous research showed that Titleist profit is hugely skewed toward the ball.  

 

 

 

[gioreeko]

15 hours ago, ShowMe said:

For me, Pro Vs are very consistent.  Consistently bad, that is.  Very poor performers off the tee and with full iron shots.  I'd much rather have a ball that will consistently get me on the green in regulation and not have to worry about chipping.  I can name several $25-$30/doz balls that do that better for me than Pro Vs.

 

Just because a ball works for you, doesn't mean it works for everybody.

I love how you blame the ball, lol

[gibbiesmalls]

8 hours ago, North Butte said:

How could a scruff on a golf ball NOT cause the flight to change?

 

Manufacturers optimize dimple shape and the thickness of the paint layer on golf balls to a fraction of a thousandth of an inch. They wouldn't go to all that expense and trouble if it didn't matter. 

I understand it would make a difference, but I just assumed that the difference would be negligible and probably statistically unquantifiable at the speeds and rpm balls travel. 

 

MGS seemed to have found otherwise. 

 

Their findings will change my behavior on the golf course as it relates to golf ball blemishes. Heck I just removed a few of them from my bag that I had still deemed "that's playable".

[crazygolfnut]

Titleist had a loyalty program at the first of the year so that you could purchase 4 dozen Pro V1 or 1X for the price of 3 dozen.  In round numbers it was $150 / 4 = $37.50 a dozen. Nice savings. 

 

Let’s say you had $100 pro shop credit so the price would be about $50 / 4 = $12.50 a dozen.  Really nice savings and at about $13 per dozen, it makes it easy to explain to your wife why you are playing a high price ball.   

Edited August 7, 2021 by crazygolfnut

[bluedot]

1 hour ago, Nessism said:

https://s21.q4cdn.com/797008351/files/doc_financials/2020/ar/P51452_ACUSHNET-HOLDINGS-CORP._10K_2021_V5.pdf

 

Cut and paste from Acushnet's financial report last year.

 

Key takeaway: their gross margin was over 50%.  This is beyond huge.  Also, they make note in the introductory comments of the report highlighting "Trust at the games highest level" in other words, the tour.  They spend heavily to get pros to use their products and it's working.

 

I can't find anything at the moment comparing their advertising spending on balls, but previous research showed that Titleist profit is hugely skewed toward the ball.  

 

 

 

And, of course, this has nothing WHATSOEVER to do with your contention that ProV1s are overpriced because of Titleist endorsement money to Tour pros.

 

You claimed Titleist SPENDS more on endorsements on Tour, presumably compared to other companies; this is about Acushnet profit margins on ALL products, with nothing to compare it to any other company, and ZERO information about golf balls per se.  

 

How about if I just agree that Achusnet is a profitable company that has dealings with Tour pros?  Can we move on and talk about golf ball testing and performance?

[Nessism]

21 minutes ago, bluedot said:

And, of course, this has nothing WHATSOEVER to do with your contention that ProV1s are overpriced because of Titleist endorsement money to Tour pros.

 

You claimed Titleist SPENDS more on endorsements on Tour, presumably compared to other companies; this is about Acushnet profit margins on ALL products, with nothing to compare it to any other company, and ZERO information about golf balls per se.  

 

How about if I just agree that Achusnet is a profitable company that has dealings with Tour pros?  Can we move on and talk about golf ball testing and performance?

 

Pro V1's ARE overpriced.  The 51.5% margin they realize is clear evidence of that.

 

If you choose to pay their exorbitant prices, that's your choice.  

 

Enjoy your overpriced balls.

 

As for me, I picked up two dozen Kirklands yesterday for $25.  Urethane cover, plenty of spin, I'm happy.  I've got dozens of Bridgestone, Z Stars, and Wilson's in the cabinet laying in wait too.  All purchased at less than $25/dozen.  I hope you are scratch or near otherwise you are wasting your money.

 

 

 

Edited August 7, 2021 by Nessism

[gsxrdn]

3 hours ago, realmfg said:

Rick Shiels did a full test and the refurbished ball was no different on distance and consistency.

He only tested the ProV1. He also mentioned that he felt it seem to be harder, clickier than brand new ProV1. I did played with refurbished TP5x and experienced lost of distance and also wider dispersion than original. Let wait for the review to come out.

[gsxrdn]

16 minutes ago, Nessism said:

 

Pro V1's ARE overpriced.  The 51.5% margin they realize is clear evidence of that.

 

If you choose to pay their exorbitant prices, that's your choice.  

 

Enjoy your overpriced balls.

 

As for me, I picked up two dozen Kirklands yesterday for $25.  Urethane cover, plenty of spin, I'm happy.  I've got dozens of Bridgestone, Z Stars, and Wilson's in the cabinet laying in wait too.  All purchased at less than $25/dozen.  I hope you are scratch or near otherwise you are wasting your money.

 

 

 

 

IMO ProV1 is the best value ball out there if you are playing consistently and not losing ball. 1 ball can last you more than 2 rounds easily. But losing ProV1 sucks.

 

The same cannot be said for the Kirkland balls. I used up to 2 sleeves per round just due to ball getting easily scratch after bunker or high spin shot. I dont mind losing these vs losing ProV1

[bluedot]

1 hour ago, Nessism said:

 

Pro V1's ARE overpriced.  The 51.5% margin they realize is clear evidence of that.

 

If you choose to pay their exorbitant prices, that's your choice.  

 

Enjoy your overpriced balls.

 

As for me, I picked up two dozen Kirklands yesterday for $25.  Urethane cover, plenty of spin, I'm happy.  I've got dozens of Bridgestone, Z Stars, and Wilson's in the cabinet laying in wait too.  All purchased at less than $25/dozen.  I hope you are scratch or near otherwise you are wasting your money.

 

 

 

I’ve already said ProV1s are overpriced; they cost seventeen cents a ball more than Chromesofts, Tp5s, or premium Bridgestones! Seventeen whole cents! 

 

I’d probably feel like a sucker when I ponied up that seventeen cents IF I ever paid full retail.  Which I don’t; already said THAT, too.

 

I think we’re done here.

[Rocky Ball-boa]

20 hours ago, nsxguy said:

Now if one is losing a sleeve per round that player probably can't tell the difference between balls anyway and by all means should be playing the cheapest ball they can find. Wouldn't make any difference.

 

I'll have you know that I'm perfectly capable of hitting the sweet spot but still have a swing path resulting in a 40 yard wayward "power fade" into a water hazard. But I'll be damned if I'm hitting a poor shot and have it feel bad on top of it!

[tsecor]

23 hours ago, ShowMe said:

Well, it's not the right ball for you, but for somebody else it could be the best ball they've ever used.  For example, Pro Vs are horrible for me.  Just don't get along with them.  That doesn't mean they'll be horrible for anybody else though.

I didnt say anything about anyone else.  

[The Pearl]

5 hours ago, Nessism said:

 

Pro V1's ARE overpriced.  The 51.5% margin they realize is clear evidence of that.

 

If you choose to pay their exorbitant prices, that's your choice.  

 

Enjoy your overpriced balls.

 

As for me, I picked up two dozen Kirklands yesterday for $25.  Urethane cover, plenty of spin, I'm happy.  I've got dozens of Bridgestone, Z Stars, and Wilson's in the cabinet laying in wait too.  All purchased at less than $25/dozen.  I hope you are scratch or near otherwise you are wasting your money.

 

 

 

 

 

Callaway Golf runs Gross Margins between 40% and 45%.   The gross margin numbers for the companies include the entire product line.   Both companies metrics are pretty close in terms of % of money spent on R&D, Inventory Turnover, Cash Flow, & Return on Equity.  Return on Equity is generally considered a pretty nice proxy for shareholder return:

 

Titleist is 10%, Callaway is 9%.

 

Honda has an ROE of 8%.

 

If you are viewing this forum on Windows, Microsoft has an ROE of 47%.  If you viewing this forum on your IPhone, Apple has a ROE of 74%.

 

If you bought your clubs on Ebay, you contributed to their  76% ROE. 

[The Pearl]

6 hours ago, Nessism said:

 

Pro V1's ARE overpriced.  The 51.5% margin they realize is clear evidence of that.

 

If you choose to pay their exorbitant prices, that's your choice.  

 

Enjoy your overpriced balls.

 

As for me, I picked up two dozen Kirklands yesterday for $25.  Urethane cover, plenty of spin, I'm happy.  I've got dozens of Bridgestone, Z Stars, and Wilson's in the cabinet laying in wait too.  All purchased at less than $25/dozen.  I hope you are scratch or near otherwise you are wasting your money.

 

 

 

 

 

Lostgolfballs.com routinely sells 5A ProV1s for about 2 bucks a ball.  The 5As are nearly new and I have never had a problem with a single ball over the years. 

 

People pay rack retail for all kinds of products from Candy Bars to Tesla cars. 

[ShowMe]

14 hours ago, bluedot said:

And finally, as to Ping and Titleist/Footjoy and pricing.  Both companies have the same goal with their pricing structure; to protect their retailers from unfair competition FROM OTHER RETAILERS.  The PGA Superstore lost the Titleist/Footjoy account for almost two years; no clubs, no shoes, no apparel, and no golf balls because they sold ProV1's below the MSRP.  They were using the ProV1, in effect, as a loss leader, and smaller stores, not to mention green grass pro shops, would suffer because they were too small to take a loss on golf balls, so Titleist pulled the account.  The PGA Superstore made a decision, and Titleist made a decision; if you think that is somehow "anti-capitalistic", you need to take an Econ class right away.  Private ownership and a price system ARE capitalism, for crying out loud, and Ping and Titleist/Footjoy simply tell retailers that if they choose to sell below the MSRP, they will choose not to sell them any more product.  Welcome to the free market!

 

 

Well, I took a few econ courses when I was in college, both at the undergrad and the grad level.  With true capitalism, the market sets the price.  Not the government, not the manufacturer, not anybody but the market.  Any outside force that tries to manipulate the price set by the market, is by definition anti-capitalistic.  Titleist forcing retailers to sell their products at a given price, is trying to manipulate the price of the product.  That is anti-capitalistic and it hurts consumers.

 

With true capitalism, businesses will fail if they can't match the price set by the market.  It sucks, but it's true.  Over time, the market will reach an equilibrium, and a more equitable price point will be achieved.  I don't recall PGATSS losing the Titleist account in recent history, maybe it was just the ones in your area, but if they did, being the largest golf retail chain the country, it probably hurt Titleist more than it did them. 

 

Regarding private ownership, once I buy the balls from Titleist, they are my property and I get to determine at what price I want to sell them.  That is true capitalism.  Any time, let me repeat, ANY TIME a government or a manufacturer tries to manipulate the price of a good by forcing private owners of that good to sell it at a specific price, that is being anti-capitalistic.

 

True capitalism means true free markets.  Price manipulation of any kind is not a true free market and hurts the consumer in the end.  Welcome to the correct definition of a free market!

[ShowMe]

1 hour ago, The Pearl said:

 

 

Callaway Golf runs Gross Margins between 40% and 45%.   The gross margin numbers for the companies include the entire product line.   Both companies metrics are pretty close in terms of % of money spent on R&D, Inventory Turnover, Cash Flow, & Return on Equity.  Return on Equity is generally considered a pretty nice proxy for shareholder return:

 

Titleist is 10%, Callaway is 9%.

 

Honda has an ROE of 8%.

 

If you are viewing this forum on Windows, Microsoft has an ROE of 47%.  If you viewing this forum on your IPhone, Apple has a ROE of 74%.

 

If you bought your clubs on Ebay, you contributed to their  76% ROE. 

ROE - The Return On Equity ratio essentially measures the rate of return that the owners of common stock of a company receive on their shareholdings. Return on equity signifies how good the company is in generating returns on the investment it received from its shareholders.

 

You have to look at ROE within a given industry.  You can't compare a golf company with a technology company.

 

Gross Margin = Total Revenue minus Cost of Goods Sold.  If your gross margin is 50%, then you make 50 cents in profit for every dollar of goods you sell. 

 

Callaway's and Titleist's profit margins are huge.  Granted, not as high as pharmaceutical companies' 76% profit margin, but a lot higher than most any other kind of manufacturer.

[ShowMe]

7 hours ago, Nessism said:

 

Pro V1's ARE overpriced.  The 51.5% margin they realize is clear evidence of that.

 

If you choose to pay their exorbitant prices, that's your choice.  

 

Enjoy your overpriced balls.

 

As for me, I picked up two dozen Kirklands yesterday for $25.  Urethane cover, plenty of spin, I'm happy.  I've got dozens of Bridgestone, Z Stars, and Wilson's in the cabinet laying in wait too.  All purchased at less than $25/dozen.  I hope you are scratch or near otherwise you are wasting your money.

 

 

 

Spot on.  I am forever amazed by the number of people who buy into Titleist's marketing campaign.  I mean look at the number of people on this forum who defend Titleist's anti-consumer pricing policies.  And they do it FOR FREE!  It's group think gone wild.  They've all drunk the Kool-Aid.

Edited August 8, 2021 by ShowMe