ryanokeefe

I run a double wide TT with the lines filled in black and a golfpride tour snsr grip.. Works well for me though I do feel that the head can be a little easy to turn.. Have tried heavier weights but then the head weighs too much.. I would like to try the heavier weights with a heavier butt weight to counter this.

Thanks Mike. My question isn't about what shafts they have available. The question is whether or not the stock shafts are the same as the aftermarket shafts with the same name. Many manufacturers have shafts that are branded the same as aftermarket shafts, however the shaft itself is quite different to one you would get if you bought the shaft as an aftermarket upgrade.

I know a lot of stock shafts are "Made for" shafts, sometimes with quite large differences to the actual aftermarket shafts.. For example, the stock Ventus shafts in the new TM drivers have the 'same' bend characteristics but none of the velocore unicorn magic is present in the shaft (IMO making it as much of a ventus as any other standard shaft is, on the market). I'm just wondering if anyone knows if there are any differences between the stock MotoreX F1 shafts in the Cobra Rad drivers vs an aftermarket MotoreX F1? I'm looking at a new shaft since gaining 10mph in swing speed over the last year and this shaft is on my radar. But if I can get the exact same shaft in a brand new head for $200 more, I might as well get a whole new driver and sell my existing setup to cover the difference.

It's worth noting that those carpet/velvet style mats will hold a 'groove' that the proceeding balls will follow, especially when using them on a soft carpet surface below. You'll find that if you miss one slightly left, the next few will be slightly left as well. If you make one, it will be easier to make the next putts.

I think you missed the part about basically every other driver being constructed in the same way. If you have major concerns about the Sim 2's construction, you should have/had major concerns about a lot of other drivers. Particularly the Cobra Speedzone.

The engineers designed the ball... they didn't design the lack of QA in the ball factory. You're ignoring a lot of existing technology that shares the same concept, as well as the fact that there is nothing to support your assumption. I'm looking at my Cobra Speedzone Xtreme driver right now.. It's got a CNC milled face, a carbon crown that wraps around the sides of the head and is bonded to a titanium (what I'm going to call) 'T-plate'. The 'T-plate' is also bonded to the CNC milled face. The SIM was carbon/steel/titanium construction, the M6 was carbon/titanium/steel. Callaway's are carbon/titanium/steel. Nearly every manufacturer uses a driver head that is part carbon, part steel that is bonded together. There is literally nothing that supports your assumption of the "Shell" having any structural integrity issues. This is all not to mention that carbon fibre is FAR more resilient than steel and has nearly equal strength to weight properties to titanium, whilst being far easy to make into unique shapes. In summary; Carbon fibre is not weak. It is as strong or stronger than any other material used in nearly every driver head. Every driver on the market is constructed of multiple materials that are bonded together to form the head. Taylormade engineers are smarter than you and I when it comes to designing golf clubs. Unfounded statements, based purely on assumption, like your first comment, aren't warranted or needed.

They're not held together by a screw.. They're glued on the mating surfaces, just as all other drivers are.

Value isn't a price point.. it's a cost vs performance metric. The brands you've listed are "cheap".. whether or not that are "value" is a different story. I could 3D print drivers and sell them for $2.50. Doesn't mean that they're "value" drivers. The reason the clubs in TXG's review are listed as "value" is because the performance is on par (if not, better) with clubs that are from $100-$300 more. If a club from a brand that is cheaper than the Srixon/Cobra/Mizuno trio, performs as well, it could be considered value.

Was looking into the Cerakote/ing product (completely unrelated to golf), and noticed they had a few putters in their gallery. A few of the putters in the gallery are "Brooklyn Golf Company" putters. So I jumped on google and found the website.. $250 for the cheapest version. And jeez, do they look unforgiving or what!? Surely they're just a talking piece sort of thing!? BKGOLFCO Putters

Usually a new grip that isn't the same weight as the original will result in distance control being off.. All putts tending to one sided miss makes me think that the grip just isn't straight. Was the grip that you replaced it with, the same weight? Also worth checking the alignment of the grip. I always do my own grip and use a laser line to get the alignment perfect. 1 or 2° can have you missing the hole instead of dropping the ball in the centre of the cup at 8ft.

I started playing again in January this year after 10 years off.. I wouldn't even say I was a "golfer" 10 years ago. I just played once a month or so with mates and/or my Father. I never shot lower than 100. The bug bit me hard after playing a corporate golf day at the beginning of the year, and I've been practicing and playing every chance I can get since then. My goal was to break 90 by July and 80 by New Years. Ended up breaking 90 in February but then things went down hill after things got crazy at work. Since July, I've been back into it hard! got a skytrak setup in the garage and found a new coach that seemed like he was happy to be doing his job rather than the previous. I broke 90 again within 2 weeks and ever since, I've been focused on breaking 80. I've always lacked touch around the greens so that's been my major focus the last few months. Improving this side of my game has literally overhauled my game. Not just because I get up & down more often, but following an up & down; I'm heading to the next tee with confidence. Last week I was playing fairly well until I bogied the 7th, double bogied the 8th and bogied the 9th. I knew breaking 80 was a long shot as my local's back 9 is much less forgiving, with lots more water and a few challenging holes! I managed to play the last 8 holes without what I would call a "mistake". By "mistake" I mean, a shank, chunk, slice, hook, 3 putt, etc (basically unforced errors). Each stroke I made felt like I was playing 'how I should be'. I made it through to the 17th with 5 strokes in hand and a par 4 in my way to breaking 80. Duck hook OOB left. 3 from the tee. Made the left rough and hit a tree. 4 iron to the fringe and a 3 putt later and I finish with 81. There are 20 different ways that I'd play the hole if I had it over again. I was hitting the ball well, with the way I was playing and I didn't want to change things that appeared to be working. My playing partner summed it up for me. He said "Ryan... Golf. is. hard" s*** yeah it is!

Grass on a golf course is fairly soft. I'm guessing the softer floor more closely resembles what you're going to experience when you're actually playing golf.

I'm guessing the tests that you're referring to are in the driver shootout/bracket. The higher ball speeds were him ripping the driver as hard as he could during the shootout. Club head speed averaged over 125mph within the shootout test. Matt's 'gamer' swing is around 115-118mph. These are the speeds seen in the ZX driver test (and the majority of other tests outside of the driver shootout). Always best to ensure you're comparing apples to apples.

I was hoping to see it in use by the tour players, but Rickie was still using the F9 at Mayakoba.. He really does love that thing.

-Another Update- I played 9 holes with one of the brand new balls, to see how it faired after some use. I played horribly so the ball saw 2 adventures into the water (retrieved with my I GOTCHA JAWZ), multiple bunker shots and a lot of chips after missed approach shots. I also went overboard with the ball washer on every tee box. The images below show the #8 "New" ball after 9 holes, in between two of the "Mint used" golf balls. Visually, I would consider the #8 ball to be in worse condition than the used balls, after the 9 holes of play. As you can see, there is still an even glow over the hole ball and no signs of any reduction in the surface illumination under the UV light, apart from sections that are affected by nicks from club grooves. I spoke to lostgolfballs.com.au via phone, today. Their rep vehemently denies that the ball is refinished. I asked how they wash their balls and was advised that the process is simply soapy water and a scrub. If I take lostgolfballs.com.au's word for it; the only thing I can think of, that could cause the difference between the "used" and "new" balls is either: the extended stay in muddy water OR extended exposure to the sun. I'm interested to hear of any other theories. Either way, it's got me stumped.

The UV light shows a surprising amount of additional detail that is tough to pick up with the naked eye. Below image shows the same fresh-from-the-box Pro-V1. A basically invisible surface defect can easily be seen under the UV light.

No, There are "recycled" and then there are "refinished" (so they say). https://www.lostgolfballs.com.au/grading-system/ shows the stupid "A, AA, AAA, AAAA, AAAAA" system that this particular company uses for both styles.

these are from lostgolfballs.com.au the balls were "2020 Pro V1 - AAAAA Mint Grade" .. I've just checked and only the "AAAA Near Mint Grade" are available right now.

Another note: I've cut 2 of them apart and they are the latest model Pro V1's at the core. So I guess it just leaves the refinishing vs very weird wear question.

Update - purchased a sleeve of fresh 2020 ProV1's. They are the 3 x #8 balls on the top row. The surface under UV Light is uniform and bright. I would assume that if the ununiform finish of the other balls was caused by cleaning/use, the "wear" wouldn't be as consistent or as gradual. I could be wrong though. There is also a ProV1X in the bunch that is well used and maintains it's illumination all over. The parts that do illuminate on the used balls are similar in look to the fresh-out-of-the-box balls. Given that the illumination appear to be coming from the clear coat (in this situation), you would think that the parts of the balls that aren't illuminating over the entire surface would either have; no clear coat in the darker spots(doesn't appear to be the case) or that these balls may be refinished after having some minor surface defects removed and then a different type of clearcoat applied.

The X's are just some I had laying around. The purchase was of the 2020 Pro V1's only. Strangely, the middle and right balls on the bottom row are 2020 Pro V1's from the used order and they don't show much illumination at all.

Recently purchased 2 dozen "Mint Grade" used balls.. They're performing a little weird but I put it down to my inconsistency, not the balls. I also happened to purchase a UV torch recently (unrelated to the hype of finding lost balls at the moment). Messing around, I discovered that the used Pro V1's I purchased have a weird finish under the UV light that doesn't align with some of the older model Pro V1/1x's I have lying around. I don't have any 2020 balls to compare these to so I'm going to grab a sleeve of fresh ProV1's tomorrow to see if they have the same irregular finish. Until then, my conclusion is that I've either been duped with refinished balls or the finish on new ProV's are odd, to say the least.