2021 Golf Ball Test

[ShowMe]

Just now, The Pearl said:

 

Nice try.  

I know.  It hurts when your words get turned against you.  Don't be a hypocrite.

[gioreeko]

It's not the balls fault, it's just the wrong model for you. Let's say your driver SS is 85, and you try using an X stiff shaft with an 8 degree head, and you hit your drives 170 yards. Is that the clubs fault, or yours for using something that isn't right for you? 

[crazygolfnut]

"Time Out On The Field"

 

I thought this was supposed to be about the 2021 Golf Ball Test?

[The Pearl]

2 minutes ago, ShowMe said:

I know.  It hurts when your words get turned against you.  Don't be a hypocrite.

You got me there Mr. Wizard.  

[cristphoto]

On 8/6/2021 at 8:32 PM, North Butte said:

Yes, Titleist balls are pretty much the most expensive mainstream brand (in USA at least). But they are, for instance, a just $2/dozen more expensive than Callaway. And Callaway also enforces MAP on their balls (and clubs) just like Titleist. 

 

If someone really prefers a Pro V1x to a Chrome Soft it's hard to imagine they buy the Chrome Soft for $48 because the Pro V1x is too expensive. But sure, they might buy a K-Sig just because it's so much cheaper.

 

What you're really objecting to is companies which price their products at a higher price point. You prefer not to pay premium prices, like a lot of other people. Nothing wrong with that, my wife would probably rather I wasn't quite so willing to pay list price for golf stuff when there's cheaper alternatives!

 

P.S. As for Titleist sponsoring Tour players the advertising the fact that Tour players play Titleist balls and clubs, I mean c'mon. That's been done for decades by all the big golf equipment companies. In fact, the "big" companies get that way in part because the Tour endorsement thing is so effective. I personally share your belief that the entire concept is hogwash but you and I thinking it doesn't mean it doesn't pay off. That's not a Titleist thing, that's an industry-wide thing.

 

P.P.S. And companies suing each other is hardly news. 

 

 

 

I currently play the ProV1X and have played ProV1 in older models prior to the characteristics flipping a while back.  What I thought was ironic was that Titleist sued Costco over Costco's calling their first ball "Tour Performance".  It was a urethane 4 piece ball that by all tests performed pretty well.  Yet Titleist often includes the word Tour in many of their models which are in no way "tour" performance - they're actually surlyn covered. The old NXT-Tour, and the current Tour Soft models come to mind.  Titleist makes a good quality ball but I don't like some of their bullying tactics.  

[bluedot]

1 hour ago, Nessism said:

 

I don't care what it's called but when a manufacturer is making more than a 50% margin on their product and they force their dealers to hold the line on pricing that leaves a bad taste in my mouth and I won't support.  Enjoy your $50/dozen golf balls. 

 

I’ve never paid more than $40 for ProV1s.  I think I mentioned that.

[ShowMe]

24 minutes ago, gioreeko said:

It's not the balls fault, it's just the wrong model for you. Let's say your driver SS is 85, and you try using an X stiff shaft with an 8 degree head, and you hit your drives 170 yards. Is that the clubs fault, or yours for using something that isn't right for you? 

If you go back to my original post, I never "blamed" the ball.  That was your characterization.  A ball is an inanimate object and cannot have blame.  I stated that it performed poorly for me.  Obviously, it is not the right ball for me.  I don't think comparing a ball to a club or shaft is a fair comparison.

 

Plus, in your scenario, I would have hit the ProV 20 yards shorter than most any other ball.  🙂

Edited August 8, 2021 by ShowMe

[bluedot]

1 hour ago, ShowMe said:

Let's put it a different way, beyond the argument of capitalism.

 

Titleist and Ping hurt the consumer by not allowing retailers to sell their products at lower prices.  Sure they may "protect the small retailer" and more importantly to them, protect their huge profit margins, but it's at the expense of the consumer's wallet.  That said, it doesn't bother me as much when Ping does it, as their clubs are already reasonably priced compared to their competitors.

 

Price fixing by any manufacturer is anti-consumer.

Price fixing, which is illegal, is collusion between two or more suppliers.  I believe you mean price making, which many, many firms do, depending on the market structure in which they find themselves. Farmers are price takers; golf manufacturers are not.

[ShowMe]

3 minutes ago, bluedot said:

Price fixing, which is illegal, is collusion between two or more suppliers.  I believe you mean price making, which many, many firms do, depending on the market structure in which they find themselves. Farmers are price takers; golf manufacturers are not.

You are describing horizontal price-fixing.  There is also something called Vertical price-fixing:

 

Vertical price-fixing arrangements include agreements by manufacturers to set minimum or maximum resale (i.e., retail) prices for their products. Minimum resale price-fixing is often termed resale price maintenance. Direct agreements to maintain resale prices are per se illegal in the United States and subject to “hard-core restriction” in Europe. In both places, however, it is possible for manufacturers to achieve de facto resale price maintenance through indirect means—for example, by refusing to deal with retailers who discount their goods or by offering rebate programs that gear rebate amounts to pricing levels. Those indirect means are especially difficult for courts to sort out when the vertical pricing arrangements are combined with other vertical restraints, such as geographic exclusivity deals, service and parts agreements, promotional agreements, and so on.

 

Titleist uses de facto vertical price-fixing.  

[bluedot]

34 minutes ago, crazygolfnut said:

"Time Out On The Field"

 

I thought this was supposed to be about the 2021 Golf Ball Test?

Believe it or not, I agree and even suggested that sometime back.  It’s just tough with continual misinformation being posted.  I’ll try to do better.

 

I watched the entire video, and really enjoyed it; really looking forward to the data being released.  Their take on the TP5 was surprising to me, as it as to them.  Their take that Titleist might have made the Tour Speed too good, though perhaps tongue in cheek, is also revealing; it mirrors what one of my buddies thinks about that ball, which he just loves.

 

I’m a gear-head; fitted clubs, own a Flightscope, keep crazy detailed stats, and so on. I study the ball tests like I’m cramming for finals.  Can’t wait for the data,

[bluedot]

23 minutes ago, ShowMe said:

You are describing horizontal price-fixing.  There is also something called Vertical price-fixing:

 

Vertical price-fixing arrangements include agreements by manufacturers to set minimum or maximum resale (i.e., retail) prices for their products. Minimum resale price-fixing is often termed resale price maintenance. Direct agreements to maintain resale prices are per se illegal in the United States and subject to “hard-core restriction” in Europe. In both places, however, it is possible for manufacturers to achieve de facto resale price maintenance through indirect means—for example, by refusing to deal with retailers who discount their goods or by offering rebate programs that gear rebate amounts to pricing levels. Those indirect means are especially difficult for courts to sort out when the vertical pricing arrangements are combined with other vertical restraints, such as geographic exclusivity deals, service and parts agreements, promotional agreements, and so on.

 

Titleist uses de facto vertical price-fixing.  

Read your own cut and paste, bro; you’re still talking about agreements between manufacturers, which nobody even alleges is going on in the golf ball market.

 

What Titleist and Ping do with pricing has been ruled on before by the courts; it’s perfectly legal. It’s not price fixing, it’s not anti-competitive, it’s not collusion. 

 

Can we please move on to real life and away from the golf ball version of The X Files?

[gioreeko]

1 hour ago, ShowMe said:

If you go back to my original post, I never "blamed" the ball.  That was your characterization.  A ball is an inanimate object and cannot have blame.  I stated that it performed poorly for me.  Obviously, it is not the right ball for me.  I don't think comparing a ball to a club or shaft is a fair comparison.

 

Plus, in your scenario, I would have hit the ProV 20 yards shorter than most any other ball.  🙂

Here's your quote:

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.

 

"consistently bad".....

seems like you're blaming the ball for being bad. The most widely used ball in pro golf, "consistently bad" 

[nsxguy]

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-competitors/price-fixing

Price Fixing

Price fixing is an agreement (written, verbal, or inferred from conduct) among competitors that raises, lowers, or stabilizes prices or competitive terms.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 8, 2021 by nsxguy

[nsxguy]

11 hours ago, North Butte said:

You're just throwing words out there without regard to their actual meaning.

 

Next we'll get,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[nsxguy]

2 hours ago, Nessism said:

 

You might want to do some research on your own instead of expecting me to answer regarding Costco's pricing policy's.  That said, for most items a non member can buy things off their website for a small cost increase.  Kirkland balls are 1/4 the cost of Pro V1's so with the increase for non members they would be roughly 1/3 the cost.  

 

I seem to recall you saying Kirkland's were $25/doz ?

 

Or am I misremembering ?

 

Or is my calculator broken ?

 

 

 

Edited August 8, 2021 by nsxguy

[JJFWebster]

If you're complaining about the price of premium balls, it's because you are losing too many of them. Spend some money on lessons because you've got much larger problems.

 

For Pro V's, wait for the 4 dozen for 3 deal. My course also does an odd Titleist deal near the end of July. 5 free balls for every dozen, 1 day sale. I mark it in my calendar and fill the locker that day. 🤷‍♂️

[gioreeko]

41 minutes ago, JJFWebster said:

If you're complaining about the price of premium balls, it's because you are losing too many of them. Spend some money on lessons because you've got much larger problems.

 

For Pro V's, wait for the 4 dozen for 3 deal. My course also does an odd Titleist deal near the end of July. 5 free balls for every dozen, 1 day sale. I mark it in my calendar and fill the locker that day. 🤷‍♂️

I don't know if I could commit to that many, someone on here says they're "consistently bad" 🤣🤣

[Frohlich]

I know when I want to learn more about capitalism, price fixing, English lessons, pissing matches,  golf companies I love/hate...the first place I check is this thread.   😋

Edited August 8, 2021 by Frohlich

[Nessism]

1 hour ago, nsxguy said:

 

I seem to recall you saying Kirkland's were $25/doz ?

 

Or am I misremembering ?

 

Or is my calculator broken ?

 

 

 

 

Kirkland balls are $25 for two dozen.  If I said otherwise, I apologize.

[nsxguy]

2 minutes ago, Nessism said:

 

Kirkland balls are $25 for two dozen.  If I said otherwise, I apologize.

 

Fair enough, perhaps I did remember incorrectly.

[Nessism]

1 minute ago, nsxguy said:

 

Fair enough, perhaps I did remember incorrectly.

 

I played with the Kirklands today and liked them.  I've played with the older version but today was my first round with the 2nd generation version.  I'm curious what the "Ball Test" will say about them.  

[Rocky Ball-boa]

These arguments.. start new threads! Fwiw, even if one of you some how do come out "victorious".. trust me, you're not victorious at this point. Everyone's already lost.. including those of us who has had to parse through the drivel to look for stuff about a ball test, so please just leave it! 😂

 

On the topic - I can't wait to see the data. It's really interesting. I'm mainly interested in the consistency of manufacturing - I reckon a lot of factories has stepped up QC since the last test as a result of that.

We'd probably would have had a hint about it by now, but I kinda also hope there's some upset. Like a $20 ball being way up there with the big boys or something.

 

I struggle with the MGS fellas in general. Just not my cup of tea.. they seem a bit full of themselves and nonchalant. But I have to give it to them, their ball test is very interesting and well presented.
 

[nsxguy]

4 hours ago, ShowMe said:

You are describing horizontal price-fixing.  There is also something called Vertical price-fixing:

 

Vertical price-fixing arrangements include agreements by manufacturers to set minimum or maximum resale (i.e., retail) prices for their products.

 

[snip]

 

Direct agreements to maintain resale prices are per se illegal in the United States

 

 

Titleist uses de facto vertical price-fixing.  

 

 You've already messed up "capitalism" and "price fixing" so now you give it another try with "vertical price fixing" ?

 

Per your own description, copied from elsewhere, the "vertical price fixing" you claim, just like the definition of "price fixing" itself, is between multiple companies.

 

"De facto" or not, Titleist can't "price fix" their own product(s). They CAN set minimum retail prices for their products, which is what they and other manufacturers have done.

 

And since it's supposedly illegal in the U.S., per your post, how do you suppose they get away with it ?

[The Pearl]

1 hour ago, Nessism said:

 

I played with the Kirklands today and liked them.  I've played with the older version but today was my first round with the 2nd generation version.  I'm curious what the "Ball Test" will say about them.  

My buddy plays the 2nd gen version.  He is a good player, long off the tee.  They perform excellent for him and he has not noticed any difference from any of the other tour balls he has played. 

 

I don't think you will be disappointed.

[Pmookie]

On 7/29/2021 at 11:28 AM, Kentendo said:

I take their "scientific tests" with a grain of salt.  I've never been a fan, but I was over their content completely when they "tested" golf ball retrievers and tried to make it sound professional.

 

All of the ball tests are redundant and ignore two critical pieces:  trajectory and overall playability.  A golf ball is much more than its driver ball speed and wedge spin rate.

 

 

 

As a heads-up, that was posted on “April Fools”, so the joke went over your head… Wasn’t “serious” at all.

[North Butte]

2 hours ago, Rocky Ball-boa said:

I struggle with the MGS fellas in general. Just not my cup of tea.. they seem a bit full of themselves and nonchalant. But I have to give it to them, their ball test is very interesting and well presented.
 

I really appreciate these big tests they've done in recent years. Just an extraordinary amount of effort and trouble involved on their part.

 

But I totally have to go straight to the Tableau tables of the numbers. All the hyped "findings", exaggerations and other dreck they write are awful. But the actual information is unique and interesting.

[NoTalentLefty]

In all this it’s amazing how there isn’t much difference in  distance in most golf balls. In the 1970s when I started, durability was an issue and distance was all over the place on golf balls. Titleist cut so easy I couldn’t afford to use them and with the Hugh spin numbers it didn’t go no where with the ugly swing I had. The best ball for me then was the molitor or it’s brother top flite but they were too expensive for me. We would use a ball called the eagle or the kro flite.  Also back then you sliced you could end up over a fairway or more over even with an iron. 
  Glad all this has changed. One thing is a constant though, still complaining about the cost of Titleist….. lol

Edited August 9, 2021 by NoTalentLefty

[The Pearl]

3 minutes ago, NoTalentLefty said:

In all this it’s amazing how there isn’t much difference in  distance in most golf balls. In the 1970s when I started, durability was an issue and distance was all over the place on golf balls. Titleist cut so easy I couldn’t afford to use them and with the Hugh spin numbers it didn’t go no where with the ugly swing I had. The best ball for me then was the molitor or it’s brother top flite but they were too expensive for me. We would use a ball called the eagle or the kro flite.  Also back then you sliced you could end up over a fairway or more over even with an iron. 
  Glad all this has changed. One thing is a constant though, still complaining about the cost of Titleist….. lol

Kro Flite goes waaaaay back.

[North Butte]

14 minutes ago, NoTalentLefty said:

In all this it’s amazing how there isn’t much difference in  distance in most golf balls. In the 1970s when I started, durability was an issue and distance was all over the place on golf balls. Titleist cut so easy I couldn’t afford to use them and with the Hugh spin numbers it didn’t go no where with the ugly swing I had. The best ball for me then was the molitor or it’s brother top flite but they were too expensive for me. We would use a ball called the eagle or the kro flite.  Also back then you sliced you could end up over a fairway or more over even with an iron. 
  Glad all this has changed. One thing is a constant though, still complaining about the cost of Titleist….. lol

In my experience, it took until around 2010 or 2011 for the urethane multi-layer balls to become universally better performing. As recently as 2007 or 2009 most of the Tour balls did in fact have limitations for my games and I could find a little extra distance from some of the Surlyn covered ones. 

 

For about a decade now they've pretty much cracked the code. They can maximize distance and spin separation both in the same ball and make it work for a wide range of golfers. I think there are still throwbacks out there. For instance the Tour B XS seems to an outlier in that is extra-optimized for high speed players who also want the highest possible spin separation. 

 

But for the mainstream models from TM/Callaway/Titleist/Srixon/Bridgestone/etc you can pick the one you like best otherwise (feel, spin, trajectory, etc.) and not worry about giving up a whole lot of distance. 

[NoTalentLefty]

27 minutes ago, North Butte said:

In my experience, it took until around 2010 or 2011 for the urethane multi-layer balls to become universally better performing. As recently as 2007 or 2009 most of the Tour balls did in fact have limitations for my games and I could find a little extra distance from some of the Surlyn covered ones. 

 

For about a decade now they've pretty much cracked the code. They can maximize distance and spin separation both in the same ball and make it work for a wide range of golfers. I think there are still throwbacks out there. For instance the Tour B XS seems to an outlier in that is extra-optimized for high speed players who also want the highest possible spin separation. 

 

But for the mainstream models from TM/Callaway/Titleist/Srixon/Bridgestone/etc you can pick the one you like best otherwise (feel, spin, trajectory, etc.) and not worry about giving up a whole lot of distance. 

You learned quicker than I did. It took me about 5 years ago before getting away from a 2 piece ball goes longer mentality. Found out that the Pro V1 was actually a playable ball for me, then started trying some cheaper surlyn 3 piece like the Vice Tour and now the E12 contact are great for my game. They bite very well on my local greens conpared to my preferred 2 piece.