xxio

I alternate between a Tour Bx and the AVX depending on the firmness of the greens that day. I can spin the Bx around the greens. Once in a while I'll try a different ball but that is getting rare.

^careful. There was a negative review about linksoul in another thread and the OP/reviewer was blasted by guys on here I appreciate the feedback though, can you tell us more. How did it feel? Was it spinny? Etc.

Why is the OP being bashed? He is doing a review on the inconsistency of the product sizing and how the company moderates reviews. We all applauded when MGS got Callaway to get its ball act together when they gave it a negative review because of bad manufacturing. LinkSoul should get their act together as well. I am also overseas with limited local purchase options. I buy a lot of things online and irks me as well when there big inconsistencies in manufacturing for same model. It's called quality control.

20 then.

Pros love softer fairways. Keep fairways firm then make them 30 yards at the widest spot. Pros will start hitting 5woods off the tee.

So in essence (comparing the Rx and the Bx) its not that big a difference. Good to know.

"Delivers more of the incredibly soft feel" I guess I misconstrued that to mean this AVX is softer than the previous AVX. Otherwise they are just restating the obvious and previous line that the AVX is softer than the V and VX. They also say "faster and longer", yet softer. Confusing. The only way it makes sense then is if "faster and longer" is compared to older version and the "softer" is compared to V Vx?

So you disagree with the soft is slow notion propounded by MGS? I even remember them posting a video on IG(?) asking a Titliest rep about "soft is slow" and the implied answer was it is. Personally I don't have a horse in the soft is slow race. I have played soft compression balls as far back as the MC Lady. My favorite balls have been softish tour balls. I am interested in the 20 AvX because it is basically a better feeling and slightly longer BX which is my ball of choice. It just lacks a little greenside spin. They just can't tease me with more greenside spin but then take it away softer, which some say is slower.

My point was, that does this mean that this newer version is slower than the original.

Softer? I thought soft is slow?

39pts

To each his own. I react the same way when any movies are way off. If someone wants to do that storyline, use a different or an original character. It is a disservice to the originators of the character. If at least it was close I wouldn't mind. I say the same things when Shakespeare plots using Shakespeare characters go way off as well. Re: Reacher, I never read the books but enjoyed the movies. I heard the criticism as to size but aside from that reviews say the character was true to Reacher. However as you put it, choices were made for the sake of the box office. It has been mentioned Joker is truly just a violent remorseless maniac, this film does not depict him as such. There lies the problem vs Reacher being the wrong size.

Seems to be a good film. Just not "the Joker". As a huge comic nerd in the 80s-90s, it seems to me a lot of comic turned movie scripts seem to go along this path of veering away from the comic storyline. DC moreso. Justice League and Batman v Superman were such a warped combinations of several plots into 120minutes. For comic geeks, the Joker is just as iconic and "sacred" as Batman, Superman, and Luthor. DC destroys another one.

-10

Jazz Janewattananond -7