The New Pro V-1/x

[hokey]

The giant elephant in the room?

Ok, I can understand if Titleist doesn't want to draw attention to the fact that the 09 balls were redesigned, at least in part, because of the patent dispute with Callaway.

But, what I don't get is that every single golf magazine writeup about the "new pro v1" goes on and on about how its filled with angel dust and that it will make instantly drop 10 strokes off your game (ok, maybe I exaggerate), without mentioning one whit about the fact that the balls were essentially redesigned because of the patent infringement.

Are the magazines choosing to focus on what they think golfers want (i.e. equipment performance) or have the massive Titleist marketing dollars managed to spin the story?

[pavlam05]

Are the magazines choosing to focus on what they think golfers want (i.e. equipment performance) or have the massive Titleist marketing dollars managed to spin the story?

 

It's all about the money. Every last bit of golf coverage I've watched this year has had at least one Titleist commercial at every break in the action.

 

Saying something bad about a top sponsor would be stupid. That being said, I wish one of the networks out there would have the nads to say something about it.

[jwbartelt]

They simply make better golf balls than anybody else, advertising or no advertising.

[tdk8180]

They simply make better golf balls than anybody else, advertising or no advertising.

 

Exactly. Callaway knows they can't produce a competitive ball in terms of feel. They couldn't produce one back when they had the "special formula" that makes the Pro-V1 so great. If they had the "special formula", then why aren't there balls the exact same or better than the Pro-V1.

 

Personally, I think Titleist would have still came up with a better ball, even if that "Special Formula" was never exploited by Callaway.

[golfdad907]

Obviously, Titleist's marketing money is well spent, as some of the posters here demonstrate....where do I get the Acushnet Kool-aid y'all are drinking?

 

I wonder who's gaining market share, who's staying even, and who's losing? There are many tour quality golf balls, Titleist just spends the most marketing (including ads, sponsorships). They're good at it, that's why the have to copy other's tech.

[bunana3]

without mentioning one whit about the fact that the balls were essentially redesigned because of the patent infringement.

 

The balls were slated to be redesigned this year before the whole lawsuit deal, the patent infringement dealt with how they were manufactured

[hogan64]

They simply make better golf balls than anybody else, advertising or no advertising.

 

That's a pretty bold statement. I have no brand love for golf balls and I've played Prov's but I think the Srixon ball is as good if not better for me. JMO ;)

[Hondabuff]

I still think the new ProV1 is the old B330-S. +1 for Titleist!!!

[BugsyinNC]

They simply make better golf balls than anybody else, advertising or no advertising.

 

That's a pretty bold statement. I have no brand love for golf balls and I've played Prov's but I think the Srixon ball is as good if not better for me. JMO ;)

 

+1, it is what is best for YOU and YOUR swing. (I also play PRO V's because I think it is best for me).

It is worth noting the best player in the world plays something other than PRO V's, of course he would still be the best even playing an old balata ball. :rolleyes:

[Terpman]

The fact that the tour players accept money, and lots of it, to play a particular brand of ball should tell you that there are several very comparable tour quality balls out there. Would Tiger, Cink, Casey et al all play the Nike balls if they thought the Titleist ball was superior and would help their game? I don't think so. Would Vijay have switched to Srixon if he thought he'd play better with the Titleist? No. A pro golfer simply would not give up an advantage like that. The tour level golf balls are all similar and all have performance characteristics so technically and scientifically close that it really doesn't matter which ball the tour guys play. So, whereas the tour players chose to play the ball that comes with the most money attached to it, we select the ball that feels the best and seems to perform the best for each of us. There simply is no right and wrong or best and second best in golf balls, only what's either paid for or best for a particular swing and preference.

[pjccjp]

The fact that the tour players accept money, and lots of it, to play a particular brand of ball should tell you that there are several very comparable tour quality balls out there. Would Tiger, Cink, Casey et al all play the Nike balls if they thought the Titleist ball was superior and would help their game? I don't think so. Would Vijay have switched to Srixon if he thought he'd play better with the Titleist? No. A pro golfer simply would not give up an advantage like that. The tour level golf balls are all similar and all have performance characteristics so technically and scientifically close that it really doesn't matter which ball the tour guys play. So, whereas the tour players chose to play the ball that comes with the most money attached to it, we select the ball that feels the best and seems to perform the best for each of us. There simply is no right and wrong or best and second best in golf balls, only what's either paid for or best for a particular swing and preference.

 

I believe this is generally correct and agree with it. One other point for consideration: I played with a Cleveland staffer Nationwide tour) on Sunday and he was telling me that Vijay is actually using a proto Srixon that is approved, but not available to the public. I was asking him about his experience with the ProV s and Srixons. For him, he said the ProVx was 5 yards longer than the Zstar X, but he was using the Srixon because it was "more beneficial to him financially" (his words). The takaway for me was that he didn't feel there was any appreciable difference that would disadvantage him, therefore it became a monetary decision.

[Slapjax7s]

They simply make better golf balls than anybody else, advertising or no advertising.

 

That's a pretty bold statement. I have no brand love for golf balls and I've played Prov's but I think the Srixon ball is as good if not better for me. JMO ;)

 

 

Im not knocking you in anyway, but Titleist golf balls are the most popular ball sold worldwide. When people come into a golf store/pro shop Titleist is ALWAYS mentioned and bought.

[Oldnavycdr]

That is really the question being asked. Is the ProV's the ball most asked for because they have bought their market share through ads, sponsorships, marketing or is their market share earned by the ProV's being truly superior. And while the answer is a little of both it is an interesting question to wonder how much of it is $ and how much is performance? I'm not anti-capitalism, I'm just curious as to how big a stooge I'm being played for.

[Terpman]

I think the answr you seek young grasshopper is founded in the passage of time. For, in a time not long ago, the Titleist was, indeed, a superior product and performer, able to travel and spin in ways only the other balls could dream of. Yet, as time moved forward and technologies were shared, stolen and further developed, the bridge between the Titleist and the others was narrowed. And now, in the present time, there is no such gap, no such bridge. So we are left to ponder what both time and money have wrought. For, the masses still believe in the superiority of the Titleist when, in truth, that belief exists only because it was once true and the legend is forever perpetrated through the expenditure of advertising dollars. It is still among the best; it simply is no longer THE best. And, if it feels to you, seems to you that it still is THE best, then it is THE best and you, young retired sea captain grasshopper, are not a fool at all--just a believer.

[jwolfe910]

The new Golf Digest I just received finally had the golf ball hot list. And once again the pro v1 was the winner. If you haven't read it yet they did a blind ball test that was calculated into how each ball was rated. I don't think there is any Kool aid going around. The pro v1's are still the best ball around.

[Terpman]

Then I suggest you read it again. Carefully. For, the Srixon Z Star/Z Star X was rated equal to the Pro V1/Pro v1x in every category that matters by the raters. The GD editors then put in the last 10% of the rating, DEMAND, which has nothing to do with performance or the blind test they just ran, and gave the Srixon 1 star and Titleist 5 (probably about right for right now for this ridiculous category) which gave the Titleist the only Gold medal. So, the blind test didn't exactly distinguish the Titleist as THE best golf ball. And, may I ask, was the guy who tallied the results of the blind test also blind? Not accusing--just asking.

[thenation48]

theZSTAR cometh..........................

[e-dog9]

I think the prov1 commercials have gotten very good. They used to be dumb and focused on the pros who used them. But about midway through last year, they started talking about the properties of the ball that benefit us all, and how these properties are only common and unique to the prov1.

 

However, I did get some zstar samples from Srixon, great way to promote. By the way, I played it for 4 holes this week at a par three and loved it. I'm not convinced its the right ball for me, but their sample has got me thinking I need to buy at least one box of theirs this season to show my support.

[Lefty4par2]

They simply make better golf balls than anybody else, advertising or no advertising.

 

:cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy:

[Lefty4par2]

They simply make better golf balls than anybody else, advertising or no advertising.

 

That's a pretty bold statement. I have no brand love for golf balls and I've played Prov's but I think the Srixon ball is as good if not better for me. JMO ;)

 

 

Im not knocking you in anyway, but Titleist golf balls are the most popular ball sold worldwide. When people come into a golf store/pro shop Titleist is ALWAYS mentioned and bought.

 

I have been working at a local pro-shop for 2 years now... Titleist is NOT always mentioned... learn to NOT overgeneralize. We don't even sell them, and almost no one misses them!!!!!!

[Lefty4par2]

The new Golf Digest I just received finally had the golf ball hot list. And once again the pro v1 was the winner. If you haven't read it yet they did a blind ball test that was calculated into how each ball was rated. I don't think there is any Kool aid going around. The pro v1's are still the best ball around.

 

(notice the sig everyone....)

 

Ya, as stated previously... look closer to the review stats that matter in your magazine. Prov1 is NOT the winner, just a copy!

[Oldnavycdr]

I think the answr you seek young grasshopper is founded in the passage of time. For, in a time not long ago, the Titleist was, indeed, a superior product and performer, able to travel and spin in ways only the other balls could dream of. Yet, as time moved forward and technologies were shared, stolen and further developed, the bridge between the Titleist and the others was narrowed. And now, in the present time, there is no such gap, no such bridge. So we are left to ponder what both time and money have wrought. For, the masses still believe in the superiority of the Titleist when, in truth, that belief exists only because it was once true and the legend is forever perpetrated through the expenditure of advertising dollars. It is still among the best; it simply is no longer THE best. And, if it feels to you, seems to you that it still is THE best, then it is THE best and you, young retired sea captain grasshopper, are not a fool at all--just a believer.

 

I began to wonder when Titleist offered me big money to play....Noodles.

[D'KRUSHER]

The Older Teaching Pro's of the 2 clubs I frequent are BIG Titleist supporters. These Titleist Loyalists are Pissed at the Cally Legal Battle and wont , dont sell any Cally stuff. One of the Pro's told me Taylormade made him buy more than he wanted and now he has 1/2 year old stuff, with a NO return or credit policy.

 

The Prov's this year, are truly a step up from last year, especially in durability and a lil in length

Where the Prov's went a step up, the ZStar is 2 steps up from their ZURS , ZURC .

 

I wish GoodYear would make a Golf Ball ! They are starting to make Golf Shoe Soles, Golf Grips, and their # 1 competitor, Bridgestone is already in the Biz. I buy American when I can. Maybe a GoodYear/ Titeist joint venture would make a super-primo Ball.

[JD3]

im thankful for the lawsuit. the redesigned ProV1 is so good it made me switch back to it from Callaway Tour iX.

 

:ok:

[jwolfe910]

Then I suggest you read it again. Carefully. For, the Srixon Z Star/Z Star X was rated equal to the Pro V1/Pro v1x in every category that matters by the raters. The GD editors then put in the last 10% of the rating, DEMAND, which has nothing to do with performance or the blind test they just ran, and gave the Srixon 1 star and Titleist 5 (probably about right for right now for this ridiculous category) which gave the Titleist the only Gold medal. So, the blind test didn't exactly distinguish the Titleist as THE best golf ball. And, may I ask, was the guy who tallied the results of the blind test also blind? Not accusing--just asking.

I did look at it again! Yes Srixon got 5 stars but Titleist got 5 stars plus the category leader star which means they scored more overall in that catagory.

[hogan64]

The fact that the tour players accept money, and lots of it, to play a particular brand of ball should tell you that there are several very comparable tour quality balls out there. Would Tiger, Cink, Casey et al all play the Nike balls if they thought the Titleist ball was superior and would help their game? I don't think so. Would Vijay have switched to Srixon if he thought he'd play better with the Titleist? No. A pro golfer simply would not give up an advantage like that. The tour level golf balls are all similar and all have performance characteristics so technically and scientifically close that it really doesn't matter which ball the tour guys play. So, whereas the tour players chose to play the ball that comes with the most money attached to it, we select the ball that feels the best and seems to perform the best for each of us. There simply is no right and wrong or best and second best in golf balls, only what's either paid for or best for a particular swing and preference.

 

I believe this is generally correct and agree with it. One other point for consideration: I played with a Cleveland staffer Nationwide tour) on Sunday and he was telling me that Vijay is actually using a proto Srixon that is approved, but not available to the public. I was asking him about his experience with the ProV s and Srixons. For him, he said the ProVx was 5 yards longer than the Zstar X, but he was using the Srixon because it was "more beneficial to him financially" (his words). The takaway for me was that he didn't feel there was any appreciable difference that would disadvantage him, therefore it became a monetary decision.

 

This is interesting because my Cleveland Rep just told me this week that the money VJ is getting from Srixon is the same as what he was getting from Titleist. He also told me that VJ's last win was with a Srixon even though he was still under Titleist contract. Just telling you what I was told.

[hogan64]

Then I suggest you read it again. Carefully. For, the Srixon Z Star/Z Star X was rated equal to the Pro V1/Pro v1x in every category that matters by the raters. The GD editors then put in the last 10% of the rating, DEMAND, which has nothing to do with performance or the blind test they just ran, and gave the Srixon 1 star and Titleist 5 (probably about right for right now for this ridiculous category) which gave the Titleist the only Gold medal. So, the blind test didn't exactly distinguish the Titleist as THE best golf ball. And, may I ask, was the guy who tallied the results of the blind test also blind? Not accusing--just asking.

The Srixon actually rated higher in the performance categories than the Prov. The demand issue has a lot to do with the fact the test was done before the Z star was even on the market.

[minimal45]

titleist needs to invent something new like tm did with LDP

[tuna12]

Has anyone noticed how many of the worlds top players no longer play the Titleist balls? Many golfers I play with no longer play them also. The 09 ProV's may be pretty good but so are some others.

[D'KRUSHER]

I hate to start a rumor... BUT, I heard that Tiger in his first couple years with Nike was actually playin a Titleist restamped "Nike". I tend to think that Tiger is playin last years platinum- a much softer/spinnier than the current 09 Tour ball.