storm319

With ionomer covered balls, anyone would be hard pressed to perceive any difference between colors. Cast thermoset urethane balls on the other hand are a different story as the actual urethane formulation is different.

It won’t be in Rickie’s bag unless it shows up on the USGA conforming list next Monday.

In reference to Douglas DuFaux, most of his patents are not golf related and the ones that are refer to the hollow metal core design which Oncore no longer produces. Oncore’s balls are produced in Taiwan by Foremost who produces balls for a few big OEMs in addition to several DTCs. The 318 dimple pattern and basic construction is the same that was used on the 10 or so DTCs that were party to the Acushnet lawsuit a few years ago (all produced by Foremost). Does any of this make their ball inferior? Not at all, but it definitely raises questions on how involved they really are in the R&D and manufacturing processes (and if the answer is not very much that is fine as long as they are transparent). Also, not picking on Oncore, there are many DTCs in the same boat (even Snell with the MTB Red given the fact that it was a molded TPU cover which is strange given Dean’s history with cast thermoset urethane and the 336 dimple pattern which was actually Nike’s).

I have been a member of WRX for nearly 10 years and just recently joined the MGS forum. I will say from a forum perspective, WRX is still king of the hill even with the wildly unpopular migration to Vanilla and also provides the best coverage of the PGA Merchandise Show IMHO. However, from an original content standpoint, MGS is on an entirely different level. The key there really comes down to the investment in facilities, testing equipment, data presentation software, video equipment/editing that WRX does not seem too interested in making. On the perception of the rise in negativity over there, I think that has to do with A) the increase in membership size over the years (more people, more problems) and B) the increase in negativity over the past few years on internet/social media in general. If/when the MGS forum reaches the size of WRX, it will likely experience similar problems. The one thing that really can't stand is when a small number of bad seeds end up berating a valuable sponsor, OEM rep, or industry expert over something stupid that ends up scaring them off permanently as that only ends up hurting the community. Ultimately both have their strengths and weaknesses so I will continue to contribute to/learn from both for the foreseeable future.

First of all, you are taking a YouTube video of a single human playing 3 holes side by side as fact? Distance differences are more quality of strike than anything. I would not expect to see a big difference in distance for anyone other than extremely fast swing speeds. Next, on his first hole, he hits a mid iron from thick rough into the green and both balls landed less than a foot a part. The ProV1 held the green vs TruFeel rolling off the green and into the rough leaving him short sided with a difficult chip vs a putt. For the average golfer, that difference could mean 1-2 strokes. If if you watch other videos of similar tests, you find similar full shot spin rates but still struggled with runout on shorter shots with the ionomer covered balls (RS compared both Chromesoft balls vs the Supersoft a while ago and saw very similar full wedge spin rates on GCQuad but noticeably longer rollout on the course). There will be some human tests showing little difference and some showing a huge difference but there are way too many variables at play to definitively say that this 2-piece ball performs the same as a multilayer urethane ball. Ultimately, play what works best for your game. If you are hitting a high percentage of GIR and play courses with relatively soft greens, you are probably fine with a 2-piece ionomer ball. However, if you miss a lot of greens and play on firm/fast greens, you may appreciate the urethane cover greenside. Lastly, people need to stop using cost as a prohibitive excuse for not playing a multilayer urethane ball. Relative to the past, there are options at very reasonable prices as well as opportunities to stock up on good deals to the point where there is no excuse any longer (I got 5 dozen Srixon ZStars for $7 / dozen at Walmart earlier this year, you just need to keep your eyes peeled).

What Titleist ball is priced lower than a common DTC equivalent? Make sure you are comparing apples to apples because obviously something like the 2-piece ionomer TruFeel will be cheaper than a multilayer urethane ball like the Snell MTB-X (in this case the Snell Get Sum would be a better comparison which is priced lower than the TruFeel). Also you end up paying the higher MSRP if you order direct from Titleist’s site vs buying from a retailer which just doesn’t make sense given the retail availability of Titleist products (with exception to their recent limited releases).

Golf Galaxy online has a $10 off QStar Tour. With the current clearance price, it ends up being $9.98 per dozen (reflects when you view in cart). https://www.golfgalaxy.com/p/srixon-2018-q-star-tour-2-golf-balls-18srxu2018qstrtr2gbl/18srxu2018qstrtr2gbl

Already a big thread on this: https://forum.mygolfspy.com/topic/17365-the-one-and-only-kirkland-signature-ball-thread/

No, it is still an ionomer cover and no amount of basting will make it perform like urethane. BTW, the ZStar is my favorite ball.

OP, Generally the difference in spin around the greens between a urethane covered multilayer ball vs a 2-piece ionomer covered ball will be far greater than the difference between the two off the tee. The only time I recommend 2-piece ionomer balls over multilayer urethane is when a golfers swing speed/launch are extremely low or if they lose a lot of balls and cannot personally tell the difference. Your slice is a swing flaw that no ball will be able to correct. There is an abundance of swing instruction resources on the various forums and youtube that will be far more helpful to fixing this problem than a ball change ever will. Next comes price. Used ball re-sellers like LostGolfBalls are contracting with divers to pull balls out of ponds at courses all over the country. Now if you are buying a fairly recent model, it likely wasn’t in the pond for very long and will likely be fine. Also with exception to the ProV1, they are often providing a mix of multiple generations of balls from companies that reuse names (ex B330, ZStar), so you may end up with some balls that are significantly older than the others. Many of these re-sellers also refurbish/refinish balls which means they strip the paint from the urethane cover and repaint/stamp before selling. Stay away from these mainly because you never know what you are going to get under that cover. Ultimately there are often good deals on prior generation models or lower cost alternatives where it is often not much of a savings to go with used water balls over new. When it comes to choosing between similarly constructed balls, specs and tests can help narrow down choices, but nothing can replace personal testing on the course. Below are a couple of recent tests that may help narrow a few choices down: https://mygolfspy.com/most-wanted-golf-ball/ https://www.todaysgolfer.co.uk/features/equipment-features/2019/september/robot-tested-which-golf-bal-suits-my-game/

I think you are referring to the 2-piece ionomer covered QStar vs the OP referencing the 3-piece urethane covered QStar Tour.

You hit the nail on the head. The guidelines are absolutely focused on ease of maintenance for the USGA (I would do the same if I were in the same position although I think 24 months is more reasonable than 12). Ultimately the USGA has been using the conditional local rule paradigm for years to avoid bifurcation as many of these rules are focused on reigning in players at the highest levels while not interfering with the majority of amateur play. As for why Costco/SM Global are not continually resubmitting the original ball, the reality is there is no incentive for them to pay to resubmit a ball that they are no longer selling ($1200 per submission is nothing for Costco, but they are getting nothing for it). Also with limited stock that was available, there would be very few people playing this ball in an event that has the list enforced via a local rule.

The ball is not non-conforming in the sense that it failed one or more of the conformance tests, it just cannot be used in any event where the list has been adopted as a local rule (one ball rule often accompanies this). That would be all events hosted by the USGA, R&A, PGA of America, PGA Tour, and ANGC amping others. Basically if the ball is not being actively played on tour nor actively marketed at retail, it likely won’t last long on this list but can still be played where the local rule is not adopted. Simply the USGAs way of keeping the list tidy and making it easier to maintain (personally I think the inclusion period should be longer).

Submissions expire after 12 months on the list. After that, OEMs must resubmit for the ball to be used for competitions enforcing the one ball rule. https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/2019/equipment-standards/2019-usga-golf-ball-submission-guidelines.pdf

Dean Snell is a pretty good source...check out the Kirkland thread on WRX if you are interested.

SM Global LLC is a packaging and logistics company that packages and imports some of the asian produced Kirkland brand products for Costco (the packaging on the Callaway 3 pack gloves also had this company’s name on it). 180S filed a patent infringement lawsuit related to earmuffs with Costco and SM Global as the defendants several years ago so the products are not exclusive to golf. Ultimately, they are not actually producing the balls.

Callaway didn’t “steal” the Hogan brand so much as got “stuck” with it when buying Spaulding’s golf business when they were in bankruptcy. The reality is they bought it for the ball IP and infrastructure (TaylorMade was outbid and had to settle for Maxfli as a consolation). While Hogan did have a minor resurgence in popularity with their Spaulding led late 90’s releases, the brand had already been suffering a slow death for years before Callaway came along.

Objectively from a basic construction, overall construction, and common performance standpoint, the closest for years has been the Srixon ZStar. The ZStar’s cover being TPU is a bit harder vs the ProV1’s cast thermoset urethane cover which to me has meant greater durability and negligible less spin on lower speed shots.

In reference to TaylorMade, production of cores and mantles outsourced somewhere in Asia (was Nassau based in South Korea at one point but not sure if they still produce the TP5 line). Then urethane cover assembly, painting/stamping, and packaging is handled in SC. I believe their ionomer covered balls are fully produced in Asia.

The stamp above was used for both the 2015 (sent late 2014) and 2017 (sent late 2016) test balls. Black number is the ProV1 and Red number is the ProV1x. This late in the DEV process means that these were exactly what was coming to retail for the following year.

A live video of the entire test would be mind numbingly boring. A short, edited video detailing the testing approach and a few sample shots would be more useful to most people.