Views on 'direct-to-consumer' golf balls?

[Jtgavigan]

I generally like the low spin versions of golf balls. I have played the Bridgestone Tour BXS, TP5X, and Srixon Z-Star XV. I started playing the Maxfli Tour X a few rounds ago and I really like them. I haven't done any head to head comparisons yet, but I haven't noticed no loss of distance off the tee and the spin off shorter clubs seem fine as well. For the price point, they are a good deal.

[phil75070]

As someone 76 years old with a swing speed somewhat typical for someone my age (slooow), it is somewhat surprising that the best performing ball for me is the Vice Pro Plus! The Pro is pretty good as well, but the Pro Plus is definitely a little longer off the driver for me.

 

I really liked the original Snell MTB, then the MTB Black, too. I think you have to be careful with DTC balls as only some actually have any input into the design and do their own testing. There are many who can cheaply get into the DTC ball business just by buying standard offerings from various factories, just with their own brand marked on them.

[phizzy30]

1 hour ago, Jtgavigan said:

I generally like the low spin versions of golf balls. I have played the Bridgestone Tour BXS, TP5X, and Srixon Z-Star XV. I started playing the Maxfli Tour X a few rounds ago and I really like them. I haven't done any head to head comparisons yet, but I haven't noticed no loss of distance off the tee and the spin off shorter clubs seem fine as well. For the price point, they are a good deal.

The balls you mentioned are actually higher spinning.  BX, TP5  and Z-Star are the lower spinning versions. 

[Jtgavigan]

Just now, phizzy30 said:

The balls you mentioned are actually higher spinning.  BX, TP5  and Z-Star are the lower spinning versions. 

TP5 is NOT the low spinning model, nor is the XV. Pretty sure I am correct on the Bridgestone also, but has been a few years. 

 

Just played with a friend of mine yesterday who is as long as me and I was hitting my 3 wood to where he was hitting driver because the TP5 was spinning too much.

 

Trottie has addressed this many times on his YouTube channel.

[Jtgavigan]

https://www.taylormadegolf.com/clubhouse/130645-comparison-new-2021-tp5-vs-tp5x-choosing-the-best-ball-for-your-game.html?lang=en_US

[MtlJeff]

The Vice Pro for me performed as well on a trackman as basically any big name ball. I also found short game to be pretty comparable , and it's a very durable ball

 

Regardless of price, i think it's one of the best overall balls on the market

[phizzy30]

Just now, Jtgavigan said:

TP5 is NOT the low spinning model, nor is the XV. Pretty sure I am correct on the Bridgestone also, but has been a few years. 

 

Just played with a friend of mine yesterday who is as long as me and I was hitting my 3 wood to where he was hitting driver because the TP5 was spinning too much.

 

Trottie has addressed this many times on his YouTube channel.

BX S is the ball that Tiger did use in the past and it was higher spinning.  He mentioned it himself.  Z-Star diamond is the highest spinning followed by the XV then regular Z-Star.  TP5x spins more with irons compared to the TP5.  I've played all three balls and have seen numbers on GC Quad.

[MtlJeff]

6 minutes ago, Jtgavigan said:

TP5 is NOT the low spinning model, nor is the XV. Pretty sure I am correct on the Bridgestone also, but has been a few years. 

 

Just played with a friend of mine yesterday who is as long as me and I was hitting my 3 wood to where he was hitting driver because the TP5 was spinning too much.

 

Trottie has addressed this many times on his YouTube channel.

 

Maybe it's just me but i've found very little spin differences on full swings with the Tp5X vs Tp5 , or the ProV versus ProV1x

 

Short game a bit more maybe on pitches but i haven't fully tested that

 

But full swings, very little difference for me. Biggest difference is firmer feel in the X balls

[J_Tizzle]

I think the Vice Pro is just as good as the Pro V1 without a doubt.  

 

I'll probably make my bulk purchase of golf balls this year being Vice vs Pro Vs.  The only thing the Pro V has over the Vice is the yellow of the Pro V is essentially in the cover of the ball so it doesn't get chipped off, while the Vice is more of a coating that I'll scuff up throughout the round.

[NCLancer]

I have a question...with Vice balls being available at WalMart should they still considered a DTC ball?  I've liked the Vice Pro Plus balls I've found and have been playing different Vice balls for a few months.  Rather lose one of them in the leaves than an expensive balls but actually all balls I play have the same cost as I play balls I've found on the course.  Please keep hitting your Pro V's into the woods and I thank you in advance!

 

[EddieEdwards]

I find them to be just as good for the most part.

 

I've been playing the  mg c4 which is no longer available.  I believe taylormade bought thier factory.

 

I can only think of 2 I had issues with:

 

Cut golf, I found to come up a little short on shots.  It was confirmed by the mgs ball test.

 

Top flight gamer urethane, no longer available, I really wanted these to work, but they didn't spin.

[Jtgavigan]

41 minutes ago, MtlJeff said:

 

Maybe it's just me but i've found very little spin differences on full swings with the Tp5X vs Tp5 , or the ProV versus ProV1x

 

Short game a bit more maybe on pitches but i haven't fully tested that

 

But full swings, very little difference for me. Biggest difference is firmer feel in the X balls

Like anything else, it is all individual. 

 

However, I stand by what I said about the intentions of the ball company and their designs, regardless of anyone's individual numbers. We all deliver the club differently. The intentions of the companies is that a certain ball feels softer and spins more versus feels firmer and spins less. I stand by my statements above and even reread Taylormade's and Srixons own claims as to which ball spins more or less. I would make the assumption that they have a caveat of "for most golfers" as individual results may vary as Phizzy says for him. I cannot dispute his own experiences,  but just relay what the manufacturers say.

 

I am much shorter with a TP5 than a TP5X. I didn't need a quad or trackman to tell me. I could see the ball flight and see where balls ended up. I have tended to get along with the balls that they design to be firmer and lower spinning. 

[Jtgavigan]

59 minutes ago, phizzy30 said:

BX S is the ball that Tiger did use in the past and it was higher spinning.  He mentioned it himself.  Z-Star diamond is the highest spinning followed by the XV then regular Z-Star.  TP5x spins more with irons compared to the TP5.  I've played all three balls and have seen numbers on GC Quad.

From a certain company that does extensive ball testing:

 

"Once considered a high-spin golf ball, the Z-Star XV ha become more of a middle-of-the-road offering. Off the driver, it’s not dissimilar from the Pro V1x and, while that’s a high-spin ball by Titleist standards, you can expect less spin than you’ll find with the Z-Star Diamond and stock Z-Star.

 

The same holds true for irons where the XV spins less than the others in the Srixon Z-Star lineup."

 

As I stated above, your individual results can vary. I cannot dispute your numbers. What holds true for you may not match their design intentions and that doesn't make it wrong. I am only quoting what the intentions are. 

 

This is why we all test golf balls and I just made the statement that I tend to get along with manufacturer's "low spin" offerings.

Edited January 6 by Jtgavigan
Removed a name

[JohnKHawk]

I have been bouncing between the Maxfli Tour & Oncore VeroX1 for last couple of years. Maxfli Tour can be found at a great price quite often. Oncore does have some sales periodically where you can save a few bucks. I don't really see any performance drop off using either of these compared to OEM golf balls where my golf swing is concerned. Plus I don't have the angst of standing over a tee shot & worrying about hitting a $5 golf ball in the water or woods etc. I don't see how most recreational golfers could go wrong with the current Maxfli Tour.

[jamesr007]

I bought 5 dozen of the new Snell prime balls in December for a good price. Unfortunately, I have been disappointed with the feel and overall performance of the ball. One ball cracked when struck with the driver. The cover is hard and feels cheap.

 

I really liked the Vice pro and the EnCore Vero X1 balls. 
I don’t think you can beat when Titleist does the buy three dozen get one free in March.

[glm]

they sell the Vice ball at my home course

they say it's their best seller by far

[JohnKHawk]

4 hours ago, jamesr007 said:

I bought 5 dozen of the new Snell prime balls in December for a good price. Unfortunately, I have been disappointed with the feel and overall performance of the ball. One ball cracked when struck with the driver. The cover is hard and feels cheap.

 

I really liked the Vice pro and the EnCore Vero X1 balls. 
I don’t think you can beat when Titleist does the buy three dozen get one free in March.

I think I read somewhere that the Snell ball is being revised for 2024.

[JohnnyO3478]

In general, the factories that make the DTC balls seem to be really competent at making 3 pc urathane covered balls - and a little less competent making 4 pc urathane covered balls.  Seems as if they cannot produce 4 pc balls of the same compression consistency that they can with the 3 pc balls.  If consistency is important to you - you should factor that into your decision.

[betarhoalphadelta]

IMHO there are two very important things that I believe when it comes to golf balls:

1. You should always play the same brand/model of golf ball (or if you play multiple, play them consistently enough that you know their characteristics). Golf is a difficult game, and inconsistency in golf ball characteristics from hole to hole if you're changing balls makes it difficult to discern how much of the result of the shot is due to the golfer and how much is due to the ball. By playing the same ball all the time, you learn its characteristics, good or bad, and can plan for its behavior, because it's consistent. 
2. For most golfers (those who aren't + cap or earning a living from the game), it's really not important to find the "right" ball. What's really important is not to play the wrong ball. Which is to say that for a golfer, there are a LOT of golf ball models that are in the correct range for your swing, and as long as you pick one in that range, it really doesn't matter which one. Unless you're a unicorn, you probably don't need the Pro LS V17x left-arrow right-star Chrome Tour BSRXT and NO other ball works for you. Pick a damn ball and just go with it.

With those two said, clearly I'm not one that believes that you need to be paying premium ball prices ($48/doz) to get a quality ball that is within the acceptable range for your swing. So I'm a fan of DTC / budget brands. 

 

Personally, I'm a pretty middle-of-the-road swinger. Driver ~100 mph, 7i distance 170, playing on public SoCal courses so the greens are mostly receptive. I get good trajectory on my shots (when I hit the center) and I have no difficulty holding greens. At my index, the biggest determinant of my score is my ability to put a good swing on a ball, so as long as I can find a middle of the road ball for my middle of the road swing, I feel like I've done my job. 

 

I went away from the Kirkland V2 due to the high spin. I think spin is good, but in no world does my swing require a ball that is an extreme outlier for spin. I looked at the other site ball test and saw that the Snell MTB-X was a very "middle of the road" ball and at $30/doz in bulk, seemed like a good option. Of course it's now discontinued, and the Kirkland V3 is available, less of an outlier for spin, available in Yellow, and $14/doz. So I've got that on deck once I run out of MTB-X. 

 

It's entirely possible that DTC might have slightly worse quality control than the big OEMs. However I rarely get through one round on the same ball, so I'm not too worried if I get an occasional outlier ball that isn't "perfect". I'll lose it quickly enough anyway. 

[ottrad1]

Do you buy or use generic medication?  would seem funny to use generic 80% of 'real effect' meds on yourself, yet then demand a high priced but excellent golf ball for your golf game over a DTC ball.  Especially at most of our handicaps.  just sayin.  But golf is supposed to be fun and make us feel good. use whatever you like best.

[grm24]

On 1/6/2024 at 10:05 AM, J_Tizzle said:

I think the Vice Pro is just as good as the Pro V1 without a doubt.  

I've seen other comments here like this about DTC golf balls being directly compared to OEM offerings. @J_Tizzlewhile this isn't only and specifically directed towards yourself but if you feel that way would you pay $55/dozen for Vice golf balls if they raised prices ASAP to match that of other OEM tour level golf balls? Just curious on yours and others opinions on this. 

Edited January 9 by grm24

[J_Tizzle]

33 minutes ago, grm24 said:

I've seen other comments here like this about DTC golf balls being directly compared to OEM offerings. @JTizzle while this isn't only and specifically directed towards yourself but if you feel that way would you pay $55/dozen for Vice golf balls if they raised prices ASAP to match that of other OEM tour level golf balls? Just curious on yours and others opinions on this. 

 

Thats an interesting question for sure.

 

Personally I probably wouldn't just because primarily I play yellow golf balls and the yellow Titleist are much more durable than the Vice.  A dozen Vice cost about $39 (just buying a single dozen, the 5 dozen price hits it closer to $31) while a dozen Pro Vs run $55 so I mean thats $16 a dozen and the durability isn't worth it for me there, so not sure at what price I'd make the switch.  Honestly, I usually end up just buying my years worth of balls when some company runs a "buy x dozen get a dozen free" and those TYPICALLY last me most of the year.

 

End of the day I'd probably stick with Titleist just because they're tried and true and the gold standard if price is the same, but we're in the beautiful world where a very similar product is available at a drastically lower price!

 

Plus I'll add, I mostly stock up on my golf balls with proshop credit, another big reason I end up mostly playing Titleist.

[hidrives]

3 hours ago, J_Tizzle said:

 

Thats an interesting question for sure.

 

Personally I probably wouldn't just because primarily I play yellow golf balls and the yellow Titleist are much more durable than the Vice.  A dozen Vice cost about $39 (just buying a single dozen, the 5 dozen price hits it closer to $31) while a dozen Pro Vs run $55 so I mean thats $16 a dozen and the durability isn't worth it for me there, so not sure at what price I'd make the switch.  Honestly, I usually end up just buying my years worth of balls when some company runs a "buy x dozen get a dozen free" and those TYPICALLY last me most of the year.

 

End of the day I'd probably stick with Titleist just because they're tried and true and the gold standard if price is the same, but we're in the beautiful world where a very similar product is available at a drastically lower price!

 

Plus I'll add, I mostly stock up on my golf balls with proshop credit, another big reason I end up mostly playing Titleist.

Wasn't asked of me, but this would be my answer as well. While I think I play as well using some of the DTC balls, I also know ProV1 is consistently rated as the best and has the QA/QC to ensure I am getting the best quality balls. I trust many of the DTC makers, but I'm not willing to fully trust them if I'm paying top dollar. Part of the allure of a DTC is finding a ball that replicates the performance of a top quality ball, without the top quality price. If the prices are the same, I'm not going to find as much worth in hoping the DTC is as good. 

Good test question though.

[grm24]

22 hours ago, J_Tizzle said:

 

Thats an interesting question for sure.

 

Personally I probably wouldn't just because primarily I play yellow golf balls and the yellow Titleist are much more durable than the Vice.  A dozen Vice cost about $39 (just buying a single dozen, the 5 dozen price hits it closer to $31) while a dozen Pro Vs run $55 so I mean thats $16 a dozen and the durability isn't worth it for me there, so not sure at what price I'd make the switch.  Honestly, I usually end up just buying my years worth of balls when some company runs a "buy x dozen get a dozen free" and those TYPICALLY last me most of the year.

 

End of the day I'd probably stick with Titleist just because they're tried and true and the gold standard if price is the same, but we're in the beautiful world where a very similar product is available at a drastically lower price!

 

Plus I'll add, I mostly stock up on my golf balls with proshop credit, another big reason I end up mostly playing Titleist.

Thank for for the honest thorough reply. Especially when it comes to the price factor. At times price can sometimes cause some people to be super hyperbolic when comparing like items. The original K-Sig was a prime example of that.

 

Buying OEM balls when they have their specials is the only way to go especially given the prices there days if you play that ball all the time. I was that way with Srixon for some time.

 

Agree that it's great that there are DTC options that are excellent balls. However that can not be said for all of them. Regardless of price. IMO Cut balls are junk. Just a bad product. Even the better quality DTC balls can be iffy from model to model. Especially when some of them are not designing their own product and are at the whim of the ball manufacturer for what's available.

 

I wonder outside of Snell what DTC's actually have their own in house ball designers? Guessing few if any. Regardless of what they might claim on their website story they provide. 

 

Using pro shop credit is a great way to go as well. Back when the PGA Value Guide allowed you to use your club credit for equipment at DSG if you didn't take the cash option. I always got golf balls with my PGAVG credit at DSG. Never felt like I was spending "real" cash if that makes sense. It may be possible they still do that. I have not used them for years when getting rid of clubs. 

 

I've played so many different balls over the years. Both OEM and DTC. One time some years back I was going to play at a course around here in the fall when the leaves are are everywhere. I didn't feel like losing my gamers so I stopped at a Dunhams' Sporting goods store on the way to the course. For laughs I bought some cheapo Wilson Ultra model for $7/dozen. Two piece distance rock. Ended up shooting a 74 and never lost a ball. This is the ball I bought. The Wilson Ultra Volt lol! Never used the rest of them!

 

Edited January 10 by grm24

[betarhoalphadelta]

4 hours ago, grm24 said:

Thank for for the honest thorough reply. Especially when it comes to the price factor. At times price can sometimes cause some people to be super hyperbolic when comparing like items. The original K-Sig was a prime example of that.

 

Buying OEM balls when they have their specials is the only way to go especially given the prices there days if you play that ball all the time. I was that way with Srixon for some time.

 

Agree that it's great that there are DTC options that are excellent balls. However that can not be said for all of them. Regardless of price. IMO Cut balls are junk. Just a bad product. Even the better quality DTC balls can be iffy from model to model. Especially when some of them are not designing their own product and are at the whim of the ball manufacturer for what's available.

 

 

For me similar to @hidrives -- if pricing is at parity, I'm going to go with the more trustworthy brand. I believe that Titleist, for example, has more control over their process than a DTC that is farming out their design to a third-party for production, or a DTC that is merely having their name slapped on a third-party's "recipe". 

 

But there's a limit. I know that Titleist's prices are also inflated by their brand, their sponsorship of golfers, their advertising / marketing budget, etc. There's higher volume to amortize that cost, but without a doubt, I know that that money isn't going into ball R&D or engineering or production process improvements. 

 

I mentioned that I was playing Snell. At $31/doz in bulk (maybe a little higher adding shipping) compared to $55/doz, and knowing Dean's pedigree in the golf ball world, it seemed like an excellent deal. There is a level of trust in there that comes with the Snell name. But that comes to a limit probably as the price with shipping starts approaching $40/doz. 

 

Likewise I know that Kirkland is a company that cares very deeply about the "Kirkland Signature" brand representing a high-quality product, and I have a significant level of trust in that. The 3pc V2 unfortunately was a ball that I didn't think the characteristics were going to be right, but I believe that it was a quality ball. And the way they handled it when they had a ball that was clearly NOT quality (proactively refunding all 4pc V2 buyers w/o even asking them to return the balls) built that trust even further. For that, $14/doz for the 3pc V3 is wonderful, and I'd easily pay twice that and still think it a good deal over Titleist at $55/doz. 

 

The bigger issue I think DTC / Kirkland often have is that the inherent bias of some golfers that a lower priced product is inherently inferior. I.e. that Titleist must be really good because it's $55/doz, and you're giving something up if you play Snell at $31/doz or Kirkland at $14/doz. I think potentially you're giving up a small level of QC capability and ball-to-ball variance, but beyond that, I think if the ball works for your game, you're not giving up anything important unless you're making a living playing this game. 

[grm24]

35 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

But there's a limit. I know that Titleist's prices are also inflated by their brand, their sponsorship of golfers, their advertising / marketing budget, etc. There's higher volume to amortize that cost, but without a doubt, I know that that money isn't going into ball R&D or engineering or production process improvements. 

Another well thought out reply. Thank You. 

 

The only point I disagree on is what I've highlighted above. You really don't think that Titleist (or Callaway, TM, Bridgestone, Srixon, etc) aren't spending anything on ball R&D, engineering, etc? What am I missing on this? Please explain. 

[cardigan]

8 minutes ago, grm24 said:

Another well thought out reply. Thank You. 

 

The only point I disagree on is what I've highlighted above. You really don't think that Titleist (or Callaway, TM, Bridgestone, Srixon, etc) aren't spending anything on ball R&D, engineering, etc? What am I missing on this? Please explain. 

For public companies, R&D expenses should be listed in their financial reports.  I know Acushnet lists it.

[betarhoalphadelta]

1 hour ago, grm24 said:

Another well thought out reply. Thank You. 

 

The only point I disagree on is what I've highlighted above. You really don't think that Titleist (or Callaway, TM, Bridgestone, Srixon, etc) aren't spending anything on ball R&D, engineering, etc? What am I missing on this? Please explain. 

 

Oh, they're definitely spending on R&D/engineering/etc.

 

My point was that any dollar that's spent on sponsoring players, on marketing/advertising, etc is a dollar that's not spent on ball R&D/engineering/etc. It's good business sense for them to do it, because they are widely known as "the #1 ball in golf" and that's serious brand value. 

 

I'd even go further--being much larger companies with much larger volume of sales, they likely outspend guys like Snell and/or other DTC on an R&D/engineering basis by a significant multiple. Because even if they're throwing a ton of money at sponsoring pros, they HAVE a ton of money relative to the DTCs. Especially when they price their premium balls at almost 2:1. I'm sure their gross margin on ball sales is massive. 

 

----------------

 

Although all that aside, it's a golf ball. Every golf ball has to meet a standard. I'm sure Titleist with their R&D could design golf balls that would be FAR superior on course to what they produce today--and they would be non-conforming. To an extent with my game, I don't know that any of that R&D really makes a difference for my scoring. All the companies, whether Titleist or DTC, have to paint within the lines that the USGA/R&A have drawn. So to an extent that limits IMHO the actual value to the consumer of that R&D & engineering budget. Where I think they could have an advantage, as I've said, is in process and QC. They can probably produce a more consistent ball to more exacting tolerances than DTC. But is that worth $55/doz when I can hook a 9i that starts at the pin and ends up 40 yards left of the green? That's me, not the ball lol 😉 

[Socrates]

2 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Oh, they're definitely spending on R&D/engineering/etc.

 

My point was that any dollar that's spent on sponsoring players, on marketing/advertising, etc is a dollar that's not spent on ball R&D/engineering/etc. It's good business sense for them to do it, because they are widely known as "the #1 ball in golf" and that's serious brand value. 

 

I'd even go further--being much larger companies with much larger volume of sales, they likely outspend guys like Snell and/or other DTC on an R&D/engineering basis by a significant multiple. Because even if they're throwing a ton of money at sponsoring pros, they HAVE a ton of money relative to the DTCs. Especially when they price their premium balls at almost 2:1. I'm sure their gross margin on ball sales is massive. 

 

----------------

 

Although all that aside, it's a golf ball. Every golf ball has to meet a standard. I'm sure Titleist with their R&D could design golf balls that would be FAR superior on course to what they produce today--and they would be non-conforming. To an extent with my game, I don't know that any of that R&D really makes a difference for my scoring. All the companies, whether Titleist or DTC, have to paint within the lines that the USGA/R&A have drawn. So to an extent that limits IMHO the actual value to the consumer of that R&D & engineering budget. Where I think they could have an advantage, as I've said, is in process and QC. They can probably produce a more consistent ball to more exacting tolerances than DTC. But is that worth $55/doz when I can hook a 9i that starts at the pin and ends up 40 yards left of the green? That's me, not the ball lol 😉 

The one thing you don't touch on is that most of the DTC companies likely don't do diddly-squat in terms of R&D other than reverse engineering other balls.  They are literally ripping off the developments of the companies like Titleist, Srixon, TaylorMade or Bridgestone to produce and sell balls.  You mention Kirkland having high standards (which is good), but whose technological developments are they using?

[st1800e]

Other than a few I’ve found, really haven’t tried DTC Balls.  Although I did once buy some Ksigs Gen 1 and Maxfli.  Didn’t really notice any difference.  I’m sure they are good for a lot of people.   

I played 140 games last season.    Club dues, a trip to Ireland and one other trip, a new driver(the old one failed), lots of green fees, and some other golf expenditures. Don’t want to add it all up. 
I think I went through 10 dozen premium balls @$55 us. Could’ve used DTC balls @ what $30-40?   So I spent $200 extra on balls.  Pales in comparison to all the other golf costs.  
 

I do understand others appreciate a deal, I’ve no problem with that. I just like to know what I have without second guessing my choice of a ball.