storm319

Tuesday at 09:34 PM

The AIR looks to be replacing the Pro Soft so it will be the lowest compression cast urethane offering.

Saturday at 03:22 AM

13 hours ago, FightingScot82 said:

I'm not aware of a DTC brand that manufactures their own balls - and the only OEMs I know of producing their own balls is TaylorMade and Titleist. The only balls I know of made in the USA are *most* Titleist. Nearly all golf balls are made in two separate plants in Taiwan.

@Tony Covey MGS may be able to provide more accurate info.

Only Acushnet, Bridgestone, and Callaway are producing complete balls at volume in the US (Bridgestone/Callaway US production is limited to their multilayer urethane models and outsource the rest to Asian white label factories, Acushnet produces all models in Massachusetts in addition to some of their ProV1 volume in Thailand).

Taylormade’s Liberty, SC plant is limited to cast thermoset cover assembly and painting/stamping from core/mantle assemblies produced at Nassau (South Korea) and Foremost (Taiwan).

As for the OP, no DTCs currently produced in the US (Acushnet’s Union Green DTC brand was but I believe the brand was shelved).

April 8

Cut: +3

LA: Neal Shipley

April 2

On 3/31/2024 at 4:36 PM, RickyBobby_PR said:

There isn’t a profile that’s similar to this shaft. The black has pretty unique profile.

If you don’t mind a counterbalance the the original hzrdus yellow or smoke yellow would be something to look at.

But you could also look at a ventus velocore blue tr or black. Rogue white, tensei 1k white, black.

HZRDUS RDX Red maybe? The profile is suppose to be similar butt to mid with a softer tip than the Black (possibly softer than the OP is looking for but tipping is always an option).

April 1

On 3/29/2024 at 5:24 PM, HalloweenGrinch said:

The HZRDUS is a 0$ upgrade.

Let's try this again.

If I had to sell both of these shaft brand new on marketplace. Which one would be the most expensive shaft. The Made For Ventus or the 0$ upgrade HZRDUS

If you are primarily concerned with resale value, the HZRDUS Red RDX will likely fetch more given the higher volume of TM Ventus shafts in existence and due to the persisting perception of “made for” shafts that some have.

With that said, these are likely on a similar level from a quality perspective (keeping in mind that quality is really defined as the manufacturers ability to deliver as close to the same spec consistently…more simply put quality = consistency).

RickyBobby_PR · March 29

Keep in mind that the M3 was released 6 years ago so I wouldn’t expect much when contacting Taylormade (warranty for most OEMs is 1-2 years). Really no way to fix, but you should be able to find a fairly inexpensive replacement.

GregGarner · March 12

The new tpu AVX or the Tour B RX are probably going to be closest.

bekgolf · February 26

13 hours ago, bekgolf said:

Raising this from the dead, hoping for more info on the silver TEE 4T core.

What I know is that the TEE version is listed at 3.3 degrees of torque vs 3.8 for the TM blue and 3.1 for the Velocore.

Something that's interesting is that the TEE Ventus Red 4T core s flex has the same torque as the now discontinued original silver TEE version of 3.3. The TEE Blue Ventus is 3.7 which is just about the same as the TM and Callaway versions.

I have a TEE Blue version and it's quite different than the Red 4T core, I'm pretty sure that it's the same shaft as TM and Callaway have used.

With all of that said I'm hoping that someone has more info on the 4T versions. I'm wondering if the TEE red 4T core is the same as the original silver 4T core with different paint? I've read that the original TEE silver 4T core was modeled after the OG Blue Velocore with the exception of 40 ton vs 70.

Thanks

I believe that the 4T shafts a physically the same with the only difference being the cosmetics to align with the next TEE release’s color scheme (similar to Ping with the ALTA).

Golf2Much · February 12

Regular retail of $40 per dozen ($160 for the 4 dozen pack) has remained unchanged from last year, but these are almost always on sale which clouds the actual intended price points (generally 2 for $70 or 4 for $120, the 4 for $99.98 late last year was not the norm).

This time of year is not generally a time for sales, but my guess is that DSG is trying to compete with some of the new release buzz from the big OEMs.

February 8

7 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

There isn’t a wood shaft similar to the PX LZ.

Some counterbalanced options that might work are the px hzrdus rdx blue, tensei orange. Some higher balance point shafts would be Aldila rogue.

If you don’t want something this is as stiff and stout as the hzrdus black then there are lots of blue profile options from graphite design, tensei raw blue, Diamana tb.

the best bet if you are planning to get a new driver is to find a reputable fitter and let them get you on the right head including loft and shaft

I believe the XR stock offering was a made for version of the LZ Blue (lighter, softer, higher torque), so not really sure what would be similar (definitely not anything from the HZRDUS line).

Either way, 100% agree that getting fit is better than trying to find something similar to a shaft that may not even be an optimal fit now.

downlowkey · February 2

Prices on these sites are highly dependent on demand, available inventory, and age. They have had approximately 3 years of collection for the 2021 model vs 1 year for the 2023 and the demand is generally higher for the current generation. Ultimately the material performance difference probably doesn’t warrant the price difference (granted Titleist has been making the ProV1 lower in both spin/apex over the past few cycles which some are not a fan of).

Rob Person · January 18

10 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Well to be fair they aren’t using the white box tests for this release or in any year for the release for that year(example for the 2023 release of the prov1). they get pro feedback along with their testing and get some white box testing but that’s usually after they have a planned release date

They are getting the feedback for the ball and using that for future updates to the ball or to maybe not continue that line.

Exactly. The “test” cycle is way too late to have an impact on the upcoming release (granted it is a fairly inexpensive marketing and customer feedback effort).

Beakbryce · January 10

32 minutes ago, sman3115 said:

My ultimate point, which I think we are losing the thread on is, there is a problem at the highest level of competition with distance. The solution the governing bodies came up with was to roll the ball back on a case by case basis using a MLR. The PGA tour threw a hissy fit and blew the whole thing up so now the 100% has to suffer the rollback because of a problem with the top .01% of golfers. That's just a bad solution and saying it's confusing to have a different rule for such vastly separate populations as a reason to do it, is such a bad faith argument.

In addition to the professional tours, there was doubt as to whether the NCAA and many local/state organizations that host elite amateur competitions were going to adopt the MLR which would have resulted in inconsistent regulation at the intended level.

Given that the ruling bodies would not have had full control on where/when the MLR would be adopted (and it ultimately not been adopted in all scenarios that they intended it to be), a universal change was simpler long term (and preferred by the majority of the biggest stakeholders vs permanent bifurcation).

January 9

9 hours ago, sman3115 said:

Not really seeing your point as to why being an individual vs a team sport has anything to do with requiring professionals and amateurs to play by the exact same rules. My point was, most every other sport has variations on the rules based on the level of competition and it doesn't ruin the sport.

Not the team sport element, but the interactive element between players makes the comparison to golf pointless.

No one is saying that golf would cease to exist if the ruling bodies were to bifurcate, but IMHO it would be worse off without a uniform set of regulations (and most sports would be better off with a global set of regulations at least at adult levels).

Also, the other non-interactive sports have much clearer lines of separation between different levels of play whereas those lines are blurred in the game of golf (how often do you see amateurs competing in random games in any of the professional sports you mentioned?). Bifurcation adds complexity/cost to an already complex/expensive game and the game is better off under a uniform set of rules (the ruling bodies making changes like this definitely threatens that).

January 9

2 hours ago, sman3115 said:

100% play the equipment the pros play, give me a break we already don't really! Play what fits your swing not what Scottie does.

Plus beyond the bat comparison, the NCAA basketball and footballs are smaller, the NCAA three point line is closer, NCAA hockey players have to wear facemasks, you only need one foot down in college football for a reception. These are all bifurcated rules that don't ruin the game. No one is out there threatening to quit basketball because the ball is smaller. Get over it dude, you lose more distance from the weather than you will from this rollback let's chill.

Again, these are all interactive team sports so not really comparable (golf has no direct player interaction and the ball is always stationary when struck).

As for baseball bats, it is possible to produce a bat from metal or composite materials that performs similarly to wood (COR limits in baseball are also for safety purposes given the proximity of the pitcher and batter). The reason that the MLB requires wood is for tradition/aesthetics (mainly sound).

Beakbryce · January 8

1 hour ago, Hlaj78 said:

If the USGA wants to roll back distance for those with high velocity swings, why don’t they reduce the maximum hardness of any layer of the ball to around 85? Then, only the golfers who take advantage of the harder, faster balls will be affected. Remember, according to MGS’s own studies, harder balls are faster and softer ones are slower.

Softer = slower, but not necessarily shorter. I would be willing to bet that most of the major OEM multilayer models above 80 compression would not pass the new test conditions.

Additionally, limiting the effect of the ball helps to protect against future advancements that could circumvent the goal of the regulation. Ultimately, if a compression limit were an effective solution for limiting distance, the ruling bodies never would have introduced the ODS and maintained it for the past nearly 50 years.

Beakbryce · January 8

5 hours ago, Beakbryce said:

Sure, it could just be R&D. R&D now is about modifying the current ball within given parameters. This ball will be a whole new ball. But still just R&D.

The new ball could also require major retooling. Ball centers and layers may be different sizes. The chemical composition of the layers may change. Dimples will probably change. I mean, something has to change.

As you say, we won't know for years.

The other consideration is how many are going to buy the ball between 2028 and 2030 if they don't have to. The companies are going to have to fund those 2 years. They could just offer the new ball and hope for the best in 2028. Best guess is they will produce both balls. That will have to be more expensive. Will the companies absorb the cost or pass it on?

Yes, it's a jump to assume they will be more expensive, but kind of a logical one.

I think you are over exaggerating. The big OEMs are already producing several different models today and the white label factories are constantly shifting production lines to accommodate different customer models (granted they generally maintain a limited number of dimple patterns) and they are able to handle it.

R&D targeting on the 2004 ODS revision will likely end sometime in 2027 since the ruling bodies plan to end conformance testing using that methodology in the Fall of 2027 (basically the December 2027 conforming list will remain up until 2030 for recreational play but that will effectively be it within the rules of golf for anything that exceeds the 2028 ODS conditions).

As for retooling, unlikely that much will change that doesn’t already change with each new cycle today (most likely molds but keep in mind that those are constantly being replaced). Heck, prior to Callaway’s recent major renovation at their Chicopee plant, they had production equipment that dated back decades that was acquired by Spalding. Again, the majority of their production methods will not change, the goal is just making a less efficient ball (which btw every one of the major OEMs has done in the past).

January 8

10 hours ago, Subdiver1 said:

Ummm...with a background and experience in R&D and manufacturing I can tell you that ANY time you shift from one path to another, the initial cost is exponential. That gets passed onto the customer, whether it be A specific customer for A specific item and eventuallybtheri customers, or a customer base. Why do you think the cost of moving from CRT to LCD to LED and OLED to LED initially cost so much more than the predecessor? According to your argument it should not have cost anymore since the products were all still TVs and the companies had already been making TVs. ANY change from the current model costs, and any shift from the current path costs even more. This creates a change in path and process

Your TV example is not a good analogy given that those were technological paradigm shifts which is not the case with golf balls (btw, LCD and LED tvs are the same basic display technology, the main difference is CCFLs vs LEDs for the backlight).

While OEMs will likely see increased R&D costs initially due to having parallel targets for a few years (which should level out by the time this is universally adopted), the basic construction/assembly methods will be the same as what we have seen for the past 2+ decades. Basically it shouldn’t be hard to make a ball that conforms to the new test conditions (some balls currently sold at retail would probably pass today), what will be difficult will be maximizing distance for other conditions but that is not much different than what OEMs attempt today.

Another Steve · January 8

10 hours ago, Subdiver1 said:

Has anyone seen/listened to this December Kostis and McCord podcast?

apologies if someone has already cited it, I may have missed it in the 109 pages if discussion. They do a great job of breaking this topic down and provide a couple of interesting points I hadn't heard before. The actual disucssion on the Roll Back starts at the 10 minute mark.

Cheers

Sounded more like two old guys doing an improvised podcast not having done any prior research or paid any attention to the topic over the past 5 years.

cnosil · January 5

If you are concerned with maintaining conformance, avoid any sharpening tool. The reality is to make any noticeable difference, you will invariably end up removing some material making the groove larger and risk either exceeding the volume limit or groove gap minimum.

Rob Person · December 31, 2023

This is not accurate and Barath’s article was taken down.

Based on USGA’s guidance from their groove rollback FAQ, four year prior notice was to be given prior to universal adoption under the official equipment rules. Since this notice was never given, the pre-2010 conformance standard still stands for any playing condition that does not adopt MLR G-2 (at least until 2028). Basically 1/1/2024 was a soft target date, however as of now the ruling bodies have not made a final decision on universal adoption.

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules-hub/grooves/common-questions-answers.html

When will Model Local Rule G-2 become a part of the Equipment Rules?

Clubs available prior to January 1, 2010, which conformed to the Rules of Golf in effect in 2009, but not the Rules of Golf effective from January 1, 2010, may continue to be used when playing under the Rules of Golf, except where a Committee has introduced a Local Rule requiring that the grooves and punch marks must conform to the Rules of Golf effective from January 1, 2010. We continue to keep this matter under review and, in the future, will make a final decision as to whether the groove and punch mark Rules effective from January 1, 2010 will apply to all golfers, including those playing at the non-elite level, at which point certain brands and models could be considered non-conforming. However, it is important to note that if we determine that the 2010 groove and punch mark rules will apply to all golfers, any such change would not become effective until at least four years from the date of that decision.

mynerds · December 28, 2023

FYI, I believe that Lamkin discontinued the Comfort Plus, so their most dampened current offering is likely the Sonar+.

One thing to keep in mind with Winn’s softest grips is the horrible durability, so expect to change those more often.

Golf Pride’s most dampened offering is likely the CPX, but those are odd feeling IMHO. If I were struggling with this I would either go with the CP2 Pro or Sonar+ along with prosoft inserts.

https://www.golfworks.com/prosoft-shaft-dampening-inserts/p/ps5003/

With that said, grips and/or dampening inserts help but won’t get steel to the level of typical graphite, so if your problem is to the point where it is preventing you from playing it may be worth the investment.

December 27, 2023

21 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

I’m still trying to figure out what the integrity of the game means.

The goal of the game is to score as low as possible when playing and in competitive golf it’s to be the lowest when the competition ends. Not sure how it affects that. Especially when you consider pga tour professionals have a +5 or better handicap, they are going to make a bunch of birdies over the course of 4 rounds and not going to make many big numbers

Integrity = play the game in a specific way

Franc38 · December 26, 2023

1 hour ago, Another Steve said:

The NFL moved the goal posts - literally - 10 yards back (to the back edge of the end zone, IIRC they then narrowed the goal post and corresponding hash mark spacing.
The football has gotten a bit more streamlined over the years, and if yiu wanna talk about “nerfing the football” (pun intended) then you gotta talk to the 1970’s raiders or Brady and the Patriots.

Moving the goal post doesn’t effect the stats he shared (an attempt from the 50 yard line to a front goal post and an attempt from the 40 to a back goal post are both 50 yards in length). Ultimately the goal post move had the following effects 1) less field goal attempts from certain parts of the field (granted this has not held up long term) 2) reduction in potential injury from players running into the goals posts 3) opened up red zone passing as the goal post was no longer an obstacle.

The parallel we have in golf is that adding distance is only a short term solution that ultimately entices players to attempt to hit it farther (just as what we have seen with longer field goal attempts in recent years in the NFL). Ultimately adding length is not a long term solution to the perceived problem.

Franc38 · December 24, 2023

8 hours ago, Another Steve said:

Like it or not the USGA and R&A are the bodies that are responsible for making the rules and protecting the integrity of the game. They are well within the scope of their duties to rule on equipment performance and legality. They have the unenviable job of trying to reign in the technology and They’ve been trying to manage these technology advances for 80 plus years….as i listed above . At some point maybe they gotta just draw a thick red line and say it stops here….. the problem is that they waited to long and there are now too many self important narcissists out there who’s needs, wants, and feelings are more important than the integrity of the game…..

nd someone tell those clouds to get off my lawn, I’m tired of yelling at them!

They already drew lines decades ago with equipment and have regulated pretty much everything that is meaningful to distance. This rollback is more akin moving the line back further. Limiting something that hasn’t been reached yet is not as big of a deal since people won’t really miss what they never had, however people tend to not like it when something is taken away from them especially when it has been the norm for so long.

To be honest, the rbs had more justification for a ball rollback in the early 2000s (not to mention should have adopted a more aggressive head size limit earlier), but the data over the past two decades does not support their course lengthening/sustainability claims thus making this universal decision irresponsible.

Log In

Profiles

Forums

Articles

FAQ

Tests

Classifieds

Store

Group Buys

Posts posted by storm319