Practical Implications of 2021 Golf Ball Test

[Babydaddy]

The prior thread got big and diffuse so I thought I would start a specific conversation about how if at all, we as golfers should take the quality control aspect of the 2021 MG S testing into account in our purchasing of golf balls. More specifically, I've been playing Bridgestone B XS, which was not perfect in terms of quality control in the lab. How does this actually translate into score, if it all? It's a durable ball and it seems like it's pretty consistent. However, now we have some data that shows Titleist makes the most consistent ball and appear to have the tightest quality control in the industry. It's pretty well accepted, regardless of what anyone thinks about Titleist, that they produce very high quality products (even people in the industry know they are the standard for quality control). So, I'm wondering how some of you have taken the quality control aspect into account, if at all. They talk about performance characteristics which I think for most of us, are pretty important. What I love about the Bridgestone balls is that for me, they are a little longer with every club in the bag. I knew that from real life, but the testing confirms what I have seen on the course. I actually love the R X, but I played some tough courses in Austin last week and opted for the B XS to navigate tricky greens. 

My takeaway is that the big three (ball manufacturers) of Titleist, Srixon and Bridgestone seem to have the best overall quality control and single digit handicappers like me will probably never notice any real issues related to quality, roundness etc.. 

I know a lot of people play Snell and love them..

 

I have to confess, the way that I am wired, a part of me said I am now going to pay for Titleist because I know the consistency is there; but the Pro V and the X have slightly different performance characteristics than what I know works well for my game

 

Still, we can get Srixon and Bridgestone on sale at times whereas Titleist never really goes on sale- except buy three get one (once a year?). 

 

Have any of you decided to just pony up for the Titleist, or do you feel the quality control focus of that testing site is overblown in terms of what it actually means on a daily basis for us non-pro golfers?

[hammergolf]

I’m a low single digit player. I have never once seen the minuscule differences show up when hitting my golf ball. I play the Bridgestone Tour BX because it performs better and feels better to me. I mean if a hit a seven iron 1 yard shorter and 7 feet more to the right one time was that me, or the ball? I’ve hit way too many great shots and bad shots to think the cause is due to one compression point or the balls core being off center .01mm. I’ve made three hole in ones, and none of them were with a Titleist. The ball test is interesting to read, but the differences are so minuscule and can’t even be proven to effect performance on robots. A interesting idea would be if included the standard deviation in speed, launch, carry, spin, and dispersion on all of the balls. That may help to show if indeed there is a demonstrable difference in consistency in performance.

Edited October 27, 2021 by hammergolf

[Londo]

1 hour ago, Babydaddy said:

The prior thread got big and diffuse so I thought I would start a specific conversation about how if at all, we as golfers should take the quality control aspect of the 2021 MG S testing into account in our purchasing of golf balls. More specifically, I've been playing Bridgestone B XS, which was not perfect in terms of quality control in the lab. How does this actually translate into score, if it all? It's a durable ball and it seems like it's pretty consistent. However, now we have some data that shows Titleist makes the most consistent ball and appear to have the tightest quality control in the industry. It's pretty well accepted, regardless of what anyone thinks about Titleist, that they produce very high quality products (even people in the industry know they are the standard for quality control). So, I'm wondering how some of you have taken the quality control aspect into account, if at all. They talk about performance characteristics which I think for most of us, are pretty important. What I love about the Bridgestone balls is that for me, they are a little longer with every club in the bag. I knew that from real life, but the testing confirms what I have seen on the course. I actually love the R X, but I played some tough courses in Austin last week and opted for the B XS to navigate tricky greens. 

My takeaway is that the big three (ball manufacturers) of Titleist, Srixon and Bridgestone seem to have the best overall quality control and single digit handicappers like me will probably never notice any real issues related to quality, roundness etc.. 

I know a lot of people play Snell and love them..

 

I have to confess, the way that I am wired, a part of me said I am now going to pay for Titleist because I know the consistency is there; but the Pro V and the X have slightly different performance characteristics than what I know works well for my game

 

Still, we can get Srixon and Bridgestone on sale at times whereas Titleist never really goes on sale- except buy three get one (once a year?). 

 

Have any of you decided to just pony up for the Titleist, or do you feel the quality control focus of that testing site is overblown in terms of what it actually means on a daily basis for us non-pro golfers?

This has been exactly what I have been thinking about as well. I think that quality control is something that should be considered and I think that is what the golf ball test was trying to accomplish by utilizing "true cost", the cost of purchasing said balls to end up with a dozen "good" golf balls. The issue is you don't know which balls are good unless you test them yourself. I think that the eventual question is, how much more are you willing to pay to reduce % of bad balls? It isn't perfectly correlated but there are marginal returns in this situation. It seems the lowest quality control since 2020 is in the low 80s, mid tier is low 90s and the best (Titleist) is right around 100%.  Performance being equal, a golfer would have to ask if they would be willing to pay $10-$20/dozen to have all 12 balls be "good" balls vs. only 10 or 11 on average. I think that most won't change what they are currently doing while a few may change to Titleist to eliminate another variable. Bottom line, the consumer is now more informed as there is now empirical data and it may challenge the industry as a whole to improve quality control.

[elwhippy]

Hideki won The Masters and blitzed the field at the Zozo using a ball they say is garbage. Read into that what you will. 

[Londo]

7 minutes ago, elwhippy said:

Hideki won The Masters and blitzed the field at the Zozo using a ball they say is garbage. Read into that what you will. 

This is fair but I would also be floored if there weren't extra quality control steps that sponsors have for balls that tour pros use..

[gioreeko]

my snobby playing partners that only play Titleist have finally gotten used to seeing my Snell and now the Vice Pro Plus I've been testing being the longest ball in our group so much that they've all bought some themselves. Once they realize who Dean Snell is, they seem to psychologically be able to handle the fact that there's other good companies out there.

[Roejye]

I find it interesting data, nothing more. Especially at my level, with how inconsistent I am, any quality control thing for a brand new ball would probably mean nothing. Because I can easily go through a sleeve of balls in just 9 holes on my home course, I pay more attention to cost. All of the ball reviews and testing out there shows that there are plenty of good balls/companies out there.

[cardigan]

1 hour ago, hammergolf said:

I’m a low single digit player. I have never once seen the minuscule differences show up when hitting my golf ball. I play the Bridgestone Tour BX because it performs better and feels better to me. I mean if a hit a seven iron 1 yard shorter and 7 feet more to the right one time was that me, or the ball? I’ve hit way too many great shots and bad shots to think the cause is due to one compression point or the balls core being off center .01mm. I’ve made three hole in ones, and none of them were with a Titleist. The ball test is interesting to read, but the differences are so minuscule and can’t even be proven to effect performance on robots. A interesting idea would be if included the standard deviation in speed, launch, carry, spin, and dispersion on all of the balls. That may help to show if indeed there is a demonstrable difference in consistency in performance.

 

They did that for the 2019 test but not for the 2021 test.  No idea why.  It's kind of disappointing that there are so many differences in how they tested each time.  You can't really compare the two tests.  They even measured compression differently.

 

See the "STD DEVS" tab at the top left: https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/golfspy.t/viz/MyGolfSpy2019MostWantedBallTest-TABLES/AVERAGES

 

 

[DFS PFD]

1 hour ago, hammergolf said:

I’m a low single digit player. I have never once seen the minuscule differences show up when hitting my golf ball. I play the Bridgestone Tour BX because it performs better and feels better to me. I mean if a hit a seven iron 1 yard shorter and 7 feet more to the right one time was that me, or the ball? I’ve hit way too many great shots and bad shots to think the cause is due to one compression point or the balls core being off center .01mm. I’ve made three hole in ones, and none of them were with a Titleist. The ball test is interesting to read, but the differences are so minuscule and can’t even be proven to effect performance on robots. A interesting idea would be if included the standard deviation in speed, launch, carry, spin, and dispersion on all of the balls. That may help to show if indeed there is a demonstrable difference in consistency in performance.

Differences become much greater at higher speed, the disparity becomes clearer as we increase ball speed and spin. For me, a Tour B and X travel 5-10 yards different distance off the face of my driver. Now hitting three B-stone balls and three Titleist off the tee together is not representative of anything other than your ball striking ability, you'd have to hit a large sample size and measure the delta between shortest, longest, and dispersion L or R, then repeat with the other ball to have findings of any significance. There are many things in golf marketing that are "smoke and mirrors" if you will, but having a golf ball that fits your game may make a bigger difference that you could imagine. 

[AngryGilmore]

I saw the results and on a whim bought some Maxfli Tour balls.  And they are good.  Very good.  Are they going to kick the Snell's out of the bag, probably not but the Maxfli was a ball I hadn't even considered before the ball test.  

 

It was a very pleasant surprise.

[Londo]

16 minutes ago, AngryGilmore said:

I saw the results and on a whim bought some Maxfli Tour balls.  And they are good.  Very good.  Are they going to kick the Snell's out of the bag, probably not but the Maxfli was a ball I hadn't even considered before the ball test.  

 

It was a very pleasant surprise.

I did the same, great ball

[cardigan]

33 minutes ago, AngryGilmore said:

I saw the results and on a whim bought some Maxfli Tour balls.  And they are good.  Very good.  Are they going to kick the Snell's out of the bag, probably not but the Maxfli was a ball I hadn't even considered before the ball test.  

 

It was a very pleasant surprise.

I did the same with the 2019 Maxfli Tour balls based on the 2019 test but haven't tried the 2021 balls.  It's unfortunate that we are currently going through all of the ball supply and distribution issues.  The occasional DSG/GG BOGO deals on the Maxfli Tour balls was extremely appealing.  One of the biggest things for me in both tests was seeing similar characteristics and ratings from balls that were priced very differently.

[Babydaddy]

Londo- I agree! I think like many of you said it’s interesting to know that there are differences but real world are we talking about one “bad” ball per dozen for Bridgestone? How does “bad” translate on the course? If you read the fine print, I care most about roundness and then compression differences. I use to play Titleist wound balls and never once wondered if I was getting a bad ball. 
I think for me the performance of the Bridgestone balls for my game outweigh anything else in terms of score. Also it’s hard for me to think that if I hit a ball in the trees or water that I just lost $4.00. For some reason 2-3 bucks feels so much better.

[hammergolf]

2 hours ago, cardigan said:

 

They did that for the 2019 test but not for the 2021 test.  No idea why.  It's kind of disappointing that there are so many differences in how they tested each time.  You can't really compare the two tests.  They even measured compression differently.

 

See the "STD DEVS" tab at the top left: https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/golfspy.t/viz/MyGolfSpy2019MostWantedBallTest-TABLES/AVERAGES

 

 

Agreed. If they would show the std deviation of each ball in speed, launch, spin, carry distance, and dispersion using a robot maybe it would lend more credence to one ball having better performance due to higher QC than another. I know when I speak to the Ping engineers about golf balls they still say that they can hit the same ball in the exact same orientation with the same club and robot swing and they still see slight deviations. What ball does Ping use to test? Titleist Pro V1x….

Edited October 27, 2021 by hammergolf

[NJBigFish22]

I don’t read much into these tests.  I’m not a good enough to notice a difference between balls.  I have always tended to buy balls in the Maxfli, Snell range than Bridgestone or Titliest.

Edited October 27, 2021 by NJBigFish22

[Duffer222]

I bought a few dozen Srixon Q stars a couple years ago, and they were the most inconsistent balls over ever played. Turned me completely off from playing any balls from them.

a few months later I read about a manufacturing problem with the W stars.

very happy with the performance of TP5’s.

[bluedot]

Why in the world would I want to wonder whether or not quality control issues are a problem for me?  If they show up in the testing, what further proof do I need?

 

I don’t want to deal with questions about the potential impact of quality control in ANY of my golf equipment; not my clubs, not my sunglasses, not my gloves, and certainly not my golf balls. That would be intentionally stupid, and I’m accidentally stupid often enough without doing it on purpose.

[RCGA]

15 hours ago, Londo said:

This is fair but I would also be floored if there weren't extra quality control steps that sponsors have for balls that tour pros use..

 

I doubt it. How many ProV1s are Titleist giving away to pros and elite ams? Each pro is going to go through hundreds, maybe thousands of balls a year. You think Titleist is testing them beyond their standard QC? Not a chance. 

[RainShadow]

16 hours ago, Duffer222 said:

I bought a few dozen Srixon Q stars a couple years ago, and they were the most inconsistent balls over ever played. Turned me completely off from playing any balls from them.

a few months later I read about a manufacturing problem with the W stars.

very happy with the performance of TP5’s.

That was my experience with Srixon Z Stars as well. 

[gioreeko]

The test got me to try Vice Pro Plus, and I'm really liking the ball. Feels very similar to a ProV1X. 

[Babydaddy]

19 hours ago, bluedot said:

Why in the world would I want to wonder whether or not quality control issues are a problem for me?  If they show up in the testing, what further proof do I need?

 

I don’t want to deal with questions about the potential impact of quality control in ANY of my golf equipment; not my clubs, not my sunglasses, not my gloves, and certainly not my golf balls. That would be intentionally stupid, and I’m accidentally stupid often enough without doing it on purpose.

Yeah- I think that's one end of the conversation. Of course, if you know something is not "perfect" then the next question is what does that mean for me? In the scheme of things, it may mean nothing discernable at all in terms of score. The testers postulated that within the major brands it's more about performance characteristics outweighing any potential quality control issues, which I tend to agree with. However, there is a part of me that say, with a Pro V1 I KNOW that I will not have a bad ball, and if it goes off line, it's on me. I think what some are saying is, how can you ever really know that because we all hit bad shots from time to time. So, is it much ado about nothing or did the testers force the hand of some manufacturers like Callaway and Srixon?

[scott406]

I have played RX, Z-Star and Snell Black for the past year and have yet to have a single ball feel or fly different than the other balls in the pack I bought.

Not a single ball has had any noticeable defects before I put it into play.

I am on my last dozen of the Z Stars from the Fathers Day deal and I have not noticed a single ball with any issues.

 

 

I do avoid the Q-Stars because of the report from a few years back, but that is about it.

If I see a ball with big problems, I scratch it off my list

 

 

I have been trying to play one ball as much as possible, but I do want to try the Maxfli balls

Good write ups all around.

 

 

 

 

[Babydaddy]

1 hour ago, scott406 said:

I have played RX, Z-Star and Snell Black for the past year and have yet to have a single ball feel or fly different than the other balls in the pack I bought.

Not a single ball has had any noticeable defects before I put it into play.

I am on my last dozen of the Z Stars from the Fathers Day deal and I have not noticed a single ball with any issues.

 

 

I do avoid the Q-Stars because of the report from a few years back, but that is about it.

If I see a ball with big problems, I scratch it off my list

 

 

I have been trying to play one ball as much as possible, but I do want to try the Maxfli balls

Good write ups all around.

 

 

 

 

Yeah- I pretty much agree. I think for most of us, it would be fairly unlikely that a ball is going to be so bad that it really costs us on the course. I mean, maybe if a ball is bad you will lose it immediately and so it won't stick around to do too much damage, haha

[dlygrisse]

I play Titleist ProV almost exclusively for several reasons.

1.  You know the quality and consistency is there.

2.  they are great around the greens and 1/2 swing pitch shots, my bread and butter.

3.  Most are Made in the USA, one of the few remaining golf products that still is, and I am willing to pay a bit extra for that.  

4.  I don't lose that many balls, so it's not uncommon for me to just use one ball per round.  

5.  I often buy the previous years closeout, or like this year a bunch of logo overruns that i filled a plastic bag with at Edwin Watts.  $3 a ball with weird logos, they work great.  

6.  I'm not a rich man, but I do okay, I only really have one hobby I spend much money on, so I don't mind splurging on good golf balls.  

 

If you like playing less expensive balls, because you like those balls fine, play em.  But let's say you lose 2 or 3 balls that cost $1 more, is saving 2 or 3 dollars that big a deal after paying $40-$60 on fees,, $500 on a driver and $1200 on a set of irons?  

Edited October 28, 2021 by dlygrisse

[jjfcpa]

When it comes to picking a ball to suite your swing characteristics, the last thing you will probably consider is a quality control evaluation.  Does it affect you mentally to look at a ball that you have been playing for a lengthy period of time when that ball ends up with poor quality control?  Perhaps for a while, but what typically happens is you'll quickly revert to the ball that you have the greatest familiarity with since the QC issues are less important than your score.

 

I've played some balls that scored pretty low and also some of the better balls (Titleist, Maxfli Tour) and my score was not affected by the ball, but more by how the ball feels and my understanding of how it performs.  

 

In other words, I could play the Titleist ProV1 (I have two boxes of them in my ball vault) or the Vice Pro Soft or the Bridgestone e12 Contact and my score will be the same, so why would I spend $20 a dozen more for the ProV1 when the Vice Pro Soft just feels better?

 

Titleist is getting rich off amateur golfers who think that playing a "tour" ball makes them a better golfer.

 

What would be interesting is to take one of the poor QC balls and one of the comparable "tour" balls and have an amateur golfer (12 handicap) play a box of both and see if their score varies.  I've done that and my score stays almost consistently the same - I'm a 12 hc.

[dalehead]

I know quality control is just a part of the story and most players are not going to see a performance difference.

 

The other side of the coin is that Titleist has set a QC standard for golf balls that no one else seems to be able to match, including big names that aren’t even close. With all the R&D and manufacturing capability these companies have it makes me wonder why this is the case. 
 

In some cases it may be leaving ball production to off shore contractors resulting in a loss of QC.

 

For me it makes me stop and think, do I really want to reward this poor performance with my dollars?

[munichop]

The quality control of various brands can be a concern but I don’t think it is something the consumer will ever get useful information on.  However if a player thinks it matters then it matters because golf is such a confidence game. Just like the putting on the edge of a dimple that Bryson spoke about. 
what I have found is certain players are titleist guys no matter what. Other guys don’t care and chase balls on sale. 
I tend to pick a ball with a lower compression because I like how they feel then try to find one that behaves consistently around the greens for me. But the scorecard is the real test and i likely will never score as well as I did with the gamer soft which was a house brand from Dick’s. 
what I do is keep a ball as long as possible if I  score well with it. If I have a bad 9 holes I will switch in case the ball is a lemon. I have had good luck with that approach.

[Londo]

16 hours ago, Babydaddy said:

Yeah- I think that's one end of the conversation. Of course, if you know something is not "perfect" then the next question is what does that mean for me? In the scheme of things, it may mean nothing discernable at all in terms of score. The testers postulated that within the major brands it's more about performance characteristics outweighing any potential quality control issues, which I tend to agree with. However, there is a part of me that say, with a Pro V1 I KNOW that I will not have a bad ball, and if it goes off line, it's on me. I think what some are saying is, how can you ever really know that because we all hit bad shots from time to time. So, is it much ado about nothing or did the testers force the hand of some manufacturers like Callaway and Srixon?

This very much articulates my feelings about it, what are the real life implications of some of the "bad" balls and is it also worth an upcharge in most cases to playing a Titleist to each golfer. Also, will this cause other manufacturers to change or would increase in quality control just push costs and prices right up to Titleist? I would argue that they would rather continue to fill their current market niche rather than raise costs and prices. 

[The Pearl]

Great discussion and everybody has made some really excellent points from their own pespective.  I have played pretty much all of the brands over the years.  I look at the QC issues from a performance perspective in that Titleist balls ALWAYS do what they are suppose to do, time after time after time.

 

I can hit, pitch, or chip a Titleist tour ball and know, based on my strike, exactly what the ball is going to do or what the result will be, good or bad.  With every other brand, I have noticed small discrepancies.  You hit a drive on the sweet spot and the bal might be 10 yds shorter than you would guess. You hit a full wedge and the bal flies 5 yds short.  You hit a chip and the ball does not check quite as much or too much.

 

Titleist balls NEVER surprise you. You crush a drive, it is going to be right where you anticipate it should be.  You nip a little pitch and the ball react EXACTLY like you think it should.

 

If you are good player and you are consistent, the ball will do the same thing every time. 

[jjfcpa]

Here's a point of view that has not been mentioned before... maybe you want to play a ball with poor QC so you have something to blame instead of your swing.

 

Personally, I could play Titleist all day long and my score would not change.  The only thing I'd have is a much thinner wallet.

 

Can anybody explain how the Maxfli Tour (2020 and 2021) scores so well in the QC tests and it's:

 

1.  A house brand of Dick's 

2. Much less expensive

3. Readily available