Jump to content

PRACTICE balls from Taylor Made


Recommended Posts

Got 5 dozen from golfdiscount.  3 dozen Pix to try them out both on course and for my skytrak to see if it assists in the reads.  Also 2 dozen standard tp5x.  Great deal on a great ball.  

  • Like 4

Driver:  image.png.3c6db1120d888f669e07d4a8f890b3f1.pngMavrik Sub Zero 9* (Set to 10) Ventus Blue 6X

2 Hybrid: :titelist-small: 818 H2 Hybrid Tensei Blue 80 X

3 Hybrid: :titelist-small: 818H2 Fujikura Atmos TS Blue 8X

4 Iron - Srixon ZX 23* Recoil F5

Irons 5-PW: :mizuno-small: MP 18 SC Dynamic Gold AMT X

Gap/Sand Wedge:  :titelist-small: Vokey SM6 49*  SM8 54* 

Lob Wedge:  image.png.3c6db1120d888f669e07d4a8f890b3f1.pngJaws 5 Wedge 58* DG Tour Issue Stiff

Putter:  image.png.cca2328f4144a299c795aa9b8f3bf677.png Inovai 6.0              :scotty-small: Pro Platinum Newport 2 35"  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

... Other than Allen Iverson I will never understand why people pay for AAA Used balls having no idea where they came from when you can buy PRACTICE balls for less than 50% of the new price. For those

What practice ball?.. the more I practice, the luckier I seem to get..

... You are welcome. To be fair there are occasional QC issues but only with printing not construction. I ran across a great example today. This PIX ball is missing a black triangle on top and bottom.

Posted Images

Got some last year. If they do the same discount with this year’s version, I am definitely game

  • Like 1

Driver: :callaway-small: Epic Flash SZ with Tensei Orange Pro S (1" tipped) at 44.5"

2H: :callaway-small: Super Hybrid with Tensei Orange Pro Hyb 80 Stiff 

3H: :Sub70: 939X UST proforce V2 black F3 hybrid soft stepped XStiff UPRT setting 

4-AW: th.jpg.d6e2abdaeb04f007fd259c979f389de6.jpg  0211  with KBS Tour Stiff 2.5* up 1/4" long Unofficial Review

Wedges     :cleveland-small: Zipcore Tour Rack 54/full and 58/mid (review here)  (Backup 54*,60*: :ping-small:  S Tour KBS Tour Stiff 3* up)

Putter: :taylormade-small: Corza Ghost 35" ( Benched :odyssey-small: Toulon Las Vegas Stroke Lab  34") Soon to be testing TAIII Impact #2 Putter

Ball: :Snell:MTB-X

:Arccos:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, juspoole said:

Got 5 dozen from golfdiscount.  3 dozen Pix to try them out both on course and for my skytrak to see if it assists in the reads.  Also 2 dozen standard tp5x.  Great deal on a great ball.  

That's a great point in potentially helping launch monitors pick up more accurate numbers, keep is updated on how that works for you!

Right Handed

Driver (9°): :cobra-small: Speedzone (HZRDUS Smoke Green 70g X-Stiff shaft)

2 Hybrid (18°): :tour-edge: Exotics EXS Pro (Evenflow Black 6.5) (2020 MGS Official Review here)

3/Driving Iron (18°): :Hogan: UiHi Iron (KBS Tour V 110g shaft)

Irons (4-PW)  post-76102-0-38507100-1525284411_thumb.jpg TS-1's (KBS $-Taper 120g Stiff shafts)

Wedges (50°, 54° & 58°) post-76102-0-38507100-1525284411_thumb.jpg TSW Forged (Dynamic Gold S300)

Putter: :EVNROLL: ER2B (2019 MGS Official Review here)

Ball: :Snell: MTB-Black OR MAXFLI Tour OR TP5X

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m all about over this!!


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

:cobra-small:  Speedzone White 10.5*

:callaway-small:Mavrik 4W - 16.5*

:titelist-small: 818 H1 19* Hybrid 😍

:Sub70: 939X 22* Hybrid

:Sub70: 699 Pro Black 5-AW

:cleveland-small: RTX Zipcore 54* and 58*

:taylormade-small: Spider Tour Black on Black on Black

Ball: Whatever I find in the woods 😉

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, ncwoz said:

That's a great point in potentially helping launch monitors pick up more accurate numbers, keep is updated on how that works for you!

Will do - I bought a dozen PIX balls for a buddy that has a Mevo + on the way, so I'll give feedback from him too.  

  • Like 1

Driver:  image.png.3c6db1120d888f669e07d4a8f890b3f1.pngMavrik Sub Zero 9* (Set to 10) Ventus Blue 6X

2 Hybrid: :titelist-small: 818 H2 Hybrid Tensei Blue 80 X

3 Hybrid: :titelist-small: 818H2 Fujikura Atmos TS Blue 8X

4 Iron - Srixon ZX 23* Recoil F5

Irons 5-PW: :mizuno-small: MP 18 SC Dynamic Gold AMT X

Gap/Sand Wedge:  :titelist-small: Vokey SM6 49*  SM8 54* 

Lob Wedge:  image.png.3c6db1120d888f669e07d4a8f890b3f1.pngJaws 5 Wedge 58* DG Tour Issue Stiff

Putter:  image.png.cca2328f4144a299c795aa9b8f3bf677.png Inovai 6.0              :scotty-small: Pro Platinum Newport 2 35"  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in the process of testing balls to game this year and happened across a box of the TP5 Practice balls. I didn't know that existed. I bought a dozen to use in my home sim. Nice to be able to use a premium ball without having to pay premium price. 

  • Like 2
Driver: :titelist-small: TSi4 8* w/ Tensei AV Raw White 65gr X shaft set to D-1 Hosel
3 wood: :taylormade-small: M1 13.5* Head set open w/ Fade bias weights. 
Irons: :ping-small: I-Blades PW-3i, 2* up standard length.
Wedges: :ping-small:Glide 1.0 TS 60*, :ping-small: Glide 2.0 56 ES, :titelist-small:Vokey 52* 
Putter: :ping-small: Sigma G Kushin .
Ball: Various: Testing: :titelist-small: AVX, :bridgestone-small: BX, :taylormade-small: TP5x 
Link to post
Share on other sites

5dz TP5 Pix on the way. I havent bought new balls in years because I buy them used for $1 but his stock is up and down and the risk always being you never know how long those balls have been in play/under water etc. At this price point, it is worth it to buy these practice balls as they are the same construction and only have cosmetic blems that would not affect performance...unless your eyes tell you otherwise xP. Great work on finding the deal @chisag

  • Like 3

Driver : :taylormade-small: SIM2 Max 9* MC Kuro Kago Silver 60 Stiff

Woods : :benhogan-small: GS53 3 Wood 14* Mitsubish Tensei Blue 73g Regular

Hybrids: :callaway-small: XR Project X Stiff (3&4)

Irons : sub70logo.png.3c207e4e90c1eeca7b9a917b5fa4b848.png 600 Pro Black 5-AW 1* flat KBS Tour V 90 Stiff Shafts 

Wedges : File:Kirkland Signature logo.svg - Wikimedia Commons 52, 56, 60 

Putter : :taylormade-small:Spider Red

Bag : datrek-brand_1456761019__86876.original.jpg.7c24f9ae71c7730ce29a828226731487.jpg lightweight cart bag | motocaddy.jpg.258c0b46e60c2804fc6b1f64bca0aef3.jpgDry Series Bag

Ball :  :taylormade-small: TP5 PIX (2019) | Screen-Shot-2017-07-20-at-7_24.05-AM-300x118.png.9f1c4cb1d62511ee40a05bd6d5795f97.png ProV1x (2021)

Rangefinder : 836d5c8b9e44880db86abcd3b735255d.w2480_h836.jpg.bcd4050c642957abbdca7453a6cb0469.jpg ULT-X

Pushcart : Currently Testing motocaddy.jpg.258c0b46e60c2804fc6b1f64bca0aef3.jpgM5 GPS DHC Electric Push Cart

SoCal, USA

Right handed HDCP 16.4

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
On 9/21/2020 at 10:03 AM, chisag said:

... Other than Allen Iverson I will never understand why people pay for AAA Used balls having no idea where they came from when you can buy PRACTICE balls for less than 50% of the new price. For those unfamiliar, they are the same as brand new balls they just have PRACTICE stamped on them. Not second quality, not blemished just PRACTICE. Here is a great deal on some TP5 Pix PRACTICE balls and they also have the TP5 and TP5x in plain white for $19.99 and if you buy 5 dozen the shipping is free...

On your advice, I pulled the trigger on 5 dozen ‘19 TP5X white and ~85% appear to be aesthetically perfect. So in the words of Allen Iverson “Why we talking bout PRACTICE?”

On 10/10/2020 at 6:01 PM, chisag said:

...To be fair there are occasional QC issues but only with printing not construction. I ran across a great example today. This PIX ball is missing a black triangle on top and bottom. Perfect ball but they can't sell it as new with this kind of cosmetic mistake. For $19.95 compared to $44.95 I can live with a missing triangle.

To be fair... I put the entire batch through an epsom salt float balance test. Without fail, the balls that had no cover or printing defects behaved like farm eggs in the bath. The handful with obvious scuffs, bubbles, gouges or printing defects were better balanced but still failed. Because that bears repeating - not only was _every single ball_ wonky, there was a statistically significant difference in balance between the balls that appeared to be perfect and those with minor external flaws.

I am subsequently comfortable hypothesizing that Tmag’s “PRACTICE” balls are QC sorted for a variety of reasons beyond printing and minor external cover defects. IMO these are trash and I’m sending them all back. This is an example of getting exactly what you pay for. If it’s seems too good to be true then it’s probably wrapped in a lie - literally a pearly white one in this case. So if practice hounds want to fill their shag bags with this 5-piece urethane ammo, go right ahead. But for golfers that truly care about shaving shots on the course, Tmag’s quality statements on their “PRACTICE” balls are disingenuous.

With this particular 60 ball data set, determining a MGS Ball Lab “True Cost” was incalculable. But I can safely say it’s north of $100/dozen and based on my testing there is likely no ceiling.

Moral of the story - trust if you must, but verify.

  • Like 1

:cobra-small:______S9-1 Pro D - Matrix Ozik XCON 6 S
:cobra-small:______S9-1 Pro 15* - Matrix Ozik XCON 7 S
:nickent-small:________3DX 17* - Matrix Ozik Altus Hybrid SG
:Hogan:______ICON Black 4-PW - KBS Tour V S
:cleveland-small:__________588 RTG 49  RTX 52.10  56.12 - DG S400
BobbyGrace.png.1dc40002fcec0eee8603b71b3e706e89.png______Amazing Grace NYC Tour CS
:taylormade-small:_______'19 TP5X
(the preceding have all been gamer approved)

"The most important shot in golf is the next one“ - Ben Hogan

Link to post
Share on other sites

... It would indeed be awesome to have MGS do a PRACTICE ball test. I have talked about this with both TM and Titleist at the PGA Show and they are uniform in their insistence that PRACTICE balls are not a performance but a cosmetic issue: 

"Each box of TP5/TP5x Practice balls includes a dozen assorted balls, with each batch likely containing the same model. TP5/TP5x Practice balls are USGA conforming products that differ only due to a cosmetic blemish such as paint, ink or registration of stamping. The golf balls all have “Practice” stamped on the side but do not have any construction or performance deficiencies."

"Pro V1 Practice golf balls are conforming products that differ only due to a cosmetic blemish such as paint, ink or registration of stamping. Pro V1 Practice golf balls do not have any construction or performance deficiencies." 

 

  • Like 3

Driver:   TaylorMade SIM2 Max 10.5* ... Diamana Limited 60R
Fairway:  TaylorMade SIM2 Max 15* ... Tensei Raw Blue 60R
Utility:   Callaway Super Hybrid 17*   ... Diamana Limited 65R
               TaylorMade DHy 19* ... Diamana Limited 65R
Irons:    4-Pw Cobra King Tour MIM ... Nippon 950gh r-flex
Wedges:  Cobra Snakebite 50* ... Nippon 950gh r-flex
                 Mizuno T20 58* ... Nippon 950gh r-flex
Putter:  Cleveland Hunting Beach Soft 11S 33.5"
Ball:      TaylorMade TP5x (2021)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, downlowkey said:

On your advice, I pulled the trigger on 5 dozen ‘19 TP5X white and ~85% appear to be aesthetically perfect. So in the words of Allen Iverson “Why we talking bout PRACTICE?”

To be fair... I put the entire batch through an epsom salt float balance test. Without fail, the balls that had no cover or printing defects behaved like farm eggs in the bath. The handful with obvious scuffs, bubbles, gouges or printing defects were better balanced but still failed. Because that bears repeating - not only was _every single ball_ wonky, there was a statistically significant difference in balance between the balls that appeared to be perfect and those with minor external flaws.

I am subsequently comfortable hypothesizing that Tmag’s “PRACTICE” balls are QC sorted for a variety of reasons beyond printing and minor external cover defects. IMO these are trash and I’m sending them all back. This is an example of getting exactly what you pay for. If it’s seems too good to be true then it’s probably wrapped in a lie - literally a pearly white one in this case. So if practice hounds want to fill their shag bags with this 5-piece urethane ammo, go right ahead. But for golfers that truly care about shaving shots on the course, Tmag’s quality statements on their “PRACTICE” balls are disingenuous.

With this particular 60 ball data set, determining a MGS Ball Lab “True Cost” was incalculable. But I can safely say it’s north of $100/dozen and based on my testing there is likely no ceiling.

Moral of the story - trust if you must, but verify.

What does the epsom salt bath actually verify though? I have watched videos on it on YouTube but whether a poor test result there correlates to actual poor performance on the course I have yet to see proven. Sure the experiment with the robotic putter and the putts going offline is out there but other than seems like the other data is anecdotal at best. Also, wouldn't the balls be out of balance after your first drive? Seems like the amount of compression these balls undergo would throw the balance off. Not to mention hitting trees, cart paths, etc for those of us that dont always find the fairway! Has anyone tried this test with PRACTICE balls from any other OEM? 

  • Like 1

Driver : :taylormade-small: SIM2 Max 9* MC Kuro Kago Silver 60 Stiff

Woods : :benhogan-small: GS53 3 Wood 14* Mitsubish Tensei Blue 73g Regular

Hybrids: :callaway-small: XR Project X Stiff (3&4)

Irons : sub70logo.png.3c207e4e90c1eeca7b9a917b5fa4b848.png 600 Pro Black 5-AW 1* flat KBS Tour V 90 Stiff Shafts 

Wedges : File:Kirkland Signature logo.svg - Wikimedia Commons 52, 56, 60 

Putter : :taylormade-small:Spider Red

Bag : datrek-brand_1456761019__86876.original.jpg.7c24f9ae71c7730ce29a828226731487.jpg lightweight cart bag | motocaddy.jpg.258c0b46e60c2804fc6b1f64bca0aef3.jpgDry Series Bag

Ball :  :taylormade-small: TP5 PIX (2019) | Screen-Shot-2017-07-20-at-7_24.05-AM-300x118.png.9f1c4cb1d62511ee40a05bd6d5795f97.png ProV1x (2021)

Rangefinder : 836d5c8b9e44880db86abcd3b735255d.w2480_h836.jpg.bcd4050c642957abbdca7453a6cb0469.jpg ULT-X

Pushcart : Currently Testing motocaddy.jpg.258c0b46e60c2804fc6b1f64bca0aef3.jpgM5 GPS DHC Electric Push Cart

SoCal, USA

Right handed HDCP 16.4

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chisag said:

... It would indeed be awesome to have MGS do a PRACTICE ball test. I have talked about this with both TM and Titleist at the PGA Show and they are uniform in their insistence that PRACTICE balls are not a performance but a cosmetic issue...

I’m not refuting Titleist’s claims, IMO they walk the talk.

19 minutes ago, golfish! said:

What does the epsom salt bath actually verify though? I have watched videos on it on YouTube but whether a poor test result there correlates to actual poor performance on the course I have yet to see proven. Sure the experiment with the robotic putter and the putts going offline is out there but other than seems like the other data is anecdotal at best. Also, wouldn't the balls be out of balance after your first drive? Seems like the amount of compression these balls undergo would throw the balance off. Not to mention hitting trees, cart paths, etc for those of us that dont always find the fairway! Has anyone tried this test with PRACTICE balls from any other OEM? 

The float test verifies whether the core placement is centered. And the flight characteristics of a golf ball spinning at a few thousand RPM is absolutely affected by poor core placement.

I personally wouldn’t classify the results of the 2019 robot ball testing as anecdotal. The whole video is worth watching but @GolfSpy_X and Tony get into the specifics of QC as it relates to dispersion starting around the 13:30 mark. They had drives 40 yards wide of the center line with the robot... seemingly out of nowhere.

Just to clarify, if a golfer wants to save some dough playing urethane farm eggs I think that’s fine. But I take issue with certain brands telling a budget minded player not to worry about a “PRACTICE” label when a simple balance test demonstrates otherwise. And to my knowledge, an otherwise balanced golf ball doesn’t immediately lose that quality as a result of being typically compressed. Cover abrasions from tree/cart path strikes are another matter entirely.

  • Like 2

:cobra-small:______S9-1 Pro D - Matrix Ozik XCON 6 S
:cobra-small:______S9-1 Pro 15* - Matrix Ozik XCON 7 S
:nickent-small:________3DX 17* - Matrix Ozik Altus Hybrid SG
:Hogan:______ICON Black 4-PW - KBS Tour V S
:cleveland-small:__________588 RTG 49  RTX 52.10  56.12 - DG S400
BobbyGrace.png.1dc40002fcec0eee8603b71b3e706e89.png______Amazing Grace NYC Tour CS
:taylormade-small:_______'19 TP5X
(the preceding have all been gamer approved)

"The most important shot in golf is the next one“ - Ben Hogan

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, downlowkey said:

I’m not refuting Titleist’s claims, IMO they walk the talk.

The float test verifies whether the core placement is centered. And the flight characteristics of a golf ball spinning at a few thousand RPM is absolutely affected by poor core placement.

I personally wouldn’t classify the results of the 2019 robot ball testing as anecdotal. The whole video is worth watching but @GolfSpy_X and Tony get into the specifics of QC as it relates to dispersion starting around the 13:30 mark. They had drives 40 yards wide of the center line with the robot... seemingly out of nowhere.

Just to clarify, if a golfer wants to save some dough playing urethane farm eggs I think that’s fine. But I take issue with certain brands telling a budget minded player not to worry about a “PRACTICE” label when a simple balance test demonstrates otherwise. And to my knowledge, an otherwise balanced golf ball doesn’t immediately lose that quality as a result of being typically compressed. Cover abrasions from tree/cart path strikes are another matter entirely.

Ok so you believe Titleist PRACTICE balls are the real deal but TM is not? I did try comparing TP5 to ProV1X and I could not really tell the difference so maybe I will look into Titleist ProV1 practice balls. Also, have you tried to Check Go tool? Do you think it is worth it and more than a gimmick?

  • Like 1

Driver : :taylormade-small: SIM2 Max 9* MC Kuro Kago Silver 60 Stiff

Woods : :benhogan-small: GS53 3 Wood 14* Mitsubish Tensei Blue 73g Regular

Hybrids: :callaway-small: XR Project X Stiff (3&4)

Irons : sub70logo.png.3c207e4e90c1eeca7b9a917b5fa4b848.png 600 Pro Black 5-AW 1* flat KBS Tour V 90 Stiff Shafts 

Wedges : File:Kirkland Signature logo.svg - Wikimedia Commons 52, 56, 60 

Putter : :taylormade-small:Spider Red

Bag : datrek-brand_1456761019__86876.original.jpg.7c24f9ae71c7730ce29a828226731487.jpg lightweight cart bag | motocaddy.jpg.258c0b46e60c2804fc6b1f64bca0aef3.jpgDry Series Bag

Ball :  :taylormade-small: TP5 PIX (2019) | Screen-Shot-2017-07-20-at-7_24.05-AM-300x118.png.9f1c4cb1d62511ee40a05bd6d5795f97.png ProV1x (2021)

Rangefinder : 836d5c8b9e44880db86abcd3b735255d.w2480_h836.jpg.bcd4050c642957abbdca7453a6cb0469.jpg ULT-X

Pushcart : Currently Testing motocaddy.jpg.258c0b46e60c2804fc6b1f64bca0aef3.jpgM5 GPS DHC Electric Push Cart

SoCal, USA

Right handed HDCP 16.4

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, golfish! said:

Ok so you believe Titleist PRACTICE balls are the real deal but TM is not? I did try comparing TP5 to ProV1X and I could not really tell the difference so maybe I will look into Titleist ProV1 practice balls. Also, have you tried to Check Go tool? Do you think it is worth it and more than a gimmick?

I think it could be argued that Titleist has distinguished themselves somewhat both in manufacturing tolerances and willingness to cull poor QC product from retail boxes. Beyond that I don’t have any experience with their “PRACTICE” class products.

Tmag has probably made some strides in those areas over the last couple years. Their most recent retail TP5/TP5X MGS Ball Lab report was pretty solid.

The premise of this thread is a perception of great value for top tier performance with a prior generation product class, based solely on Tmag’s marketing claims. Like you, I pulled the trigger on 5 dozen because it’s a no brainer if the cosmetic blemish QC sort is the only reason they are “PRACTICE” stamped.

I’m obviously particular about my golf equipment and closely inspected this batch of ‘19 TP5X for visible defects. The overwhelming majority appeared to be perfect and were wildly unbalanced. The other ~15% that had obvious cosmetic issues were still unbalanced but not as bad. The odds of those tendencies holding true through a 60 ball data set is either an astronomically slim coincidence or Tmag’s statements about their “PRACTICE” balls are disingenuous. Perhaps it’s limited to the ‘19 TP5/TP5X whites? In this thread alone we should have plenty of product to start sussing out the legitimacy of their “PRACTICE” class QC claims.

I just wanted my fellow Spies to know what they are potentially getting into. But I understand that fooling someone is much easier than convincing someone they have been fooled. So don’t trust me, trust the scientific method.

#BUYITBALANCEIT

Re: “Check Go Pro” - I don’t like alignment aids on my golf balls but Tony gives it a nod in the ‘19 ball test video above and his job description centers around shooting straight for us consumers.

:cobra-small:______S9-1 Pro D - Matrix Ozik XCON 6 S
:cobra-small:______S9-1 Pro 15* - Matrix Ozik XCON 7 S
:nickent-small:________3DX 17* - Matrix Ozik Altus Hybrid SG
:Hogan:______ICON Black 4-PW - KBS Tour V S
:cleveland-small:__________588 RTG 49  RTX 52.10  56.12 - DG S400
BobbyGrace.png.1dc40002fcec0eee8603b71b3e706e89.png______Amazing Grace NYC Tour CS
:taylormade-small:_______'19 TP5X
(the preceding have all been gamer approved)

"The most important shot in golf is the next one“ - Ben Hogan

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, downlowkey said:

I think it could be argued that Titleist has distinguished themselves somewhat both in manufacturing tolerances and willingness to cull poor QC product from retail boxes. Beyond that I don’t have any experience with their “PRACTICE” class products.

Tmag has probably made some strides in those areas over the last couple years. Their most recent retail TP5/TP5X MGS Ball Lab report was pretty solid.

The premise of this thread is a perception of great value for top tier performance with a prior generation product class, based solely on Tmag’s marketing claims. Like you, I pulled the trigger on 5 dozen because it’s a no brainer if the cosmetic blemish QC sort is the only reason they are “PRACTICE” stamped.

I’m obviously particular about my golf equipment and closely inspected this batch of ‘19 TP5X for visible defects. The overwhelming majority appeared to be perfect and were wildly unbalanced. The other ~15% that had obvious cosmetic issues were still unbalanced but not as bad. The odds of those tendencies holding true through a 60 ball data set is either an astronomically slim coincidence or Tmag’s statements about their “PRACTICE” balls are disingenuous. Perhaps it’s limited to the ‘19 TP5/TP5X whites? In this thread alone we should have plenty of product to start sussing out the legitimacy of their “PRACTICE” class QC claims.

I just wanted my fellow Spies to know what they are potentially getting into. But I know that fooling someone is much easier than convincing someone they have been fooled. So don’t trust me, trust the scientific method.

#BUYITBALANCEIT

Re: “Check Go Pro” - I don’t like alignment aids on my golf balls but Tony gives it a nod in the ‘19 ball test video above and his job description centers around shooting straight for us consumers.

Ok I did get the TP5 PIX balls so I will run a test and balance some of those today and respond on this thread. Hoping it is limited to the plain white balls but I would think the cover design is just cosmetic and the cores are the same so good chance these may be off balance too. 

Now I feel like I need to go buy a Check Go Pro lol. "Honey I need this for testing purposes!"

  • Like 1

Driver : :taylormade-small: SIM2 Max 9* MC Kuro Kago Silver 60 Stiff

Woods : :benhogan-small: GS53 3 Wood 14* Mitsubish Tensei Blue 73g Regular

Hybrids: :callaway-small: XR Project X Stiff (3&4)

Irons : sub70logo.png.3c207e4e90c1eeca7b9a917b5fa4b848.png 600 Pro Black 5-AW 1* flat KBS Tour V 90 Stiff Shafts 

Wedges : File:Kirkland Signature logo.svg - Wikimedia Commons 52, 56, 60 

Putter : :taylormade-small:Spider Red

Bag : datrek-brand_1456761019__86876.original.jpg.7c24f9ae71c7730ce29a828226731487.jpg lightweight cart bag | motocaddy.jpg.258c0b46e60c2804fc6b1f64bca0aef3.jpgDry Series Bag

Ball :  :taylormade-small: TP5 PIX (2019) | Screen-Shot-2017-07-20-at-7_24.05-AM-300x118.png.9f1c4cb1d62511ee40a05bd6d5795f97.png ProV1x (2021)

Rangefinder : 836d5c8b9e44880db86abcd3b735255d.w2480_h836.jpg.bcd4050c642957abbdca7453a6cb0469.jpg ULT-X

Pushcart : Currently Testing motocaddy.jpg.258c0b46e60c2804fc6b1f64bca0aef3.jpgM5 GPS DHC Electric Push Cart

SoCal, USA

Right handed HDCP 16.4

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/16/2021 at 5:05 PM, downlowkey said:

On your advice, I pulled the trigger on 5 dozen ‘19 TP5X white and ~85% appear to be aesthetically perfect. So in the words of Allen Iverson “Why we talking bout PRACTICE?”

To be fair... I put the entire batch through an epsom salt float balance test. Without fail, the balls that had no cover or printing defects behaved like farm eggs in the bath. The handful with obvious scuffs, bubbles, gouges or printing defects were better balanced but still failed. Because that bears repeating - not only was _every single ball_ wonky, there was a statistically significant difference in balance between the balls that appeared to be perfect and those with minor external flaws.

I am subsequently comfortable hypothesizing that Tmag’s “PRACTICE” balls are QC sorted for a variety of reasons beyond printing and minor external cover defects. IMO these are trash and I’m sending them all back. This is an example of getting exactly what you pay for. If it’s seems too good to be true then it’s probably wrapped in a lie - literally a pearly white one in this case. So if practice hounds want to fill their shag bags with this 5-piece urethane ammo, go right ahead. But for golfers that truly care about shaving shots on the course, Tmag’s quality statements on their “PRACTICE” balls are disingenuous.

With this particular 60 ball data set, determining a MGS Ball Lab “True Cost” was incalculable. But I can safely say it’s north of $100/dozen and based on my testing there is likely no ceiling.

Moral of the story - trust if you must, but verify.

I ordered 5 dozen as well.  I read your post and put 12 through the Epsom salt test.  I observed similarly to you that there was definitely a balance issue.  I've floated lots of balls before and it is the exception rather than the rule to find a perfectly balanced ball.  When I did the official test for Srixon Z Star and XVs, I found quite a few to be unbalanced to some degree.  I've floated ProV1s as well and it seems very common to find unbalanced balls.

What is your metric for how unbalanced of a ball you'll put into play?  You're a +1, so I'm curious.  I played with the TaylorMade TP5X practice balls the other day and did not see any real difference in offline shots (I had not balanced them yet to put the light side up when driving or putting for example).  Ball flew straight and far, unless I but a bad swing on it.

I think back to the days of balata balls, wound balls, etc. in the days of Hogan, Snead, etc.  The older era golfer was pretty stellar even with less quality control/tolerance issues we see in today's process.  I just wonder how much of a difference it makes practically.  I know the MGS Robot test found some really funky things, but would need to test the balance of the balls beforehand to see how they affected offline.  

Thanks for your thoughts!

Edited by ChasingScratch
  • Like 3

Instagram:  @_chasing_scratch

YouTube: Chasing Scratch

Facebook:  Chasing Scratch

:SuperSpeed: Training

Pre training max driver speed: 124mph

Current: 130mph

WITB:

Driver: :ping-small: G400 LST 8.5* with HZRDUS SMOKE 6.5 70g 

Woods: :taylormade-small: 2007 Burner TP 3 wood and 5 wood

Irons:  :srixon-small: Z765 4-PW (1 degree flat) with KBS $-130 shafts

Wedges:  Vokey SM7 50/12/F, 54/10/S and 58/12/D

Putter: 681811256_Odysseylogo.png.499799aea6663befa411c8db1d859702.png Stroke Lab Ten S 33"

Ball:  :taylormade-small: 2019 TP5X

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Another thing to consider is TaylorMade's golf ball manufacturing process.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I read that TaylorMade makes their balls in a multi-site process, where by cores/inner layers are made in one facility and then covers put on at another facility.  So if anything, it would seem they should have more QC checks.  The first would be where the cores/inner layers are made.  If they are out of spec there, they don't make it to the next phase.  I could be way off base, and they may just put them into a different pile.  But then the cores/inner layers would be combined with the covers, and if there was a mistake there, they go elsewhere (or put into a different pile again).  The final phase would be paint/logos/graphics, and that is where TaylorMade says they differ in quality.

From this article:

image.png.fa9977a8d328487b2fefab0728f0ad3e.png

 It again, idk.  There was definitely a balance issue on the ones I tested.  I’ll play another round with them soon and see if I get and really funky ball flights. I’ll balance the rest of them and try some treats where I put light side up vs on the side as well when teeing off and putting.

Edited by ChasingScratch

Instagram:  @_chasing_scratch

YouTube: Chasing Scratch

Facebook:  Chasing Scratch

:SuperSpeed: Training

Pre training max driver speed: 124mph

Current: 130mph

WITB:

Driver: :ping-small: G400 LST 8.5* with HZRDUS SMOKE 6.5 70g 

Woods: :taylormade-small: 2007 Burner TP 3 wood and 5 wood

Irons:  :srixon-small: Z765 4-PW (1 degree flat) with KBS $-130 shafts

Wedges:  Vokey SM7 50/12/F, 54/10/S and 58/12/D

Putter: 681811256_Odysseylogo.png.499799aea6663befa411c8db1d859702.png Stroke Lab Ten S 33"

Ball:  :taylormade-small: 2019 TP5X

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, ChasingScratch said:

What is your metric for how unbalanced of a ball you'll put into play?

I just wonder how much of a difference it makes practically.

I float test all of my golf balls and agree that probably the majority are unbalanced to some degree. Based on my results, balls either go into the competition, recreational or practice pile. But it’s not really a quantifiable metric that determines the designation. I spin each ball three times, observe how long it takes to stop oscillating and note the high side. It’s pretty obvious which are perfectly balanced, mildly unbalanced and total farm eggs.

Based on the observations from my particular batch of TP5X “PRACTICE” balls: zero were perfectly balanced, ~20% were recreational quality and the rest were terrible. Going one step further, the tendency for balls with obvious cosmetic issues being appreciably better balanced than the seemingly perfect balls was clearly evident.

I was expecting ~20% “perfect”, ~60% mildly unbalanced and ~20% rejects. If Tmag is shooting straight on their QC claims that should have been the rough breakdown irrespective of outward appearance. And it’s subsequently made me curious why seemingly perfect balls were “PRACTICE” stamped.

On the subject of practical effects of less than ideal equipment, eliminating variables gives me confidence. I’m not going to hunt down the article, but I recall Nicklaus having some harsh words for the MacGregor ball factory team regarding their specific hindrance on his career stats. And Hogan also believed his maniacal standard for all the equipment bearing his name was justified.

I figured this thread was the most appropriate place to share my contrary findings and solicit additional data. @chisag seems content to repeat Tmag’s QC claims and that’s fine, I’m not trying to point a finger at him. At this point, I honestly hope Tmag is fibbing because it would make me livid to have these same balance results with 5 dozen retail priced pearls.

This is the last thing I’m going to offer in this thread - the truth can be uncomfortable and many marketers of golf equipment have demonstrated a talent for obfuscation. There’s a reason MGS put the “GOOD BALL” stat column front and center on their new tracking tool. The balance test will tell you if there are any secrets hiding under the surface.

#BUYITBALANCEIT

  • Like 1

:cobra-small:______S9-1 Pro D - Matrix Ozik XCON 6 S
:cobra-small:______S9-1 Pro 15* - Matrix Ozik XCON 7 S
:nickent-small:________3DX 17* - Matrix Ozik Altus Hybrid SG
:Hogan:______ICON Black 4-PW - KBS Tour V S
:cleveland-small:__________588 RTG 49  RTX 52.10  56.12 - DG S400
BobbyGrace.png.1dc40002fcec0eee8603b71b3e706e89.png______Amazing Grace NYC Tour CS
:taylormade-small:_______'19 TP5X
(the preceding have all been gamer approved)

"The most important shot in golf is the next one“ - Ben Hogan

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, downlowkey said:

I float test all of my golf balls and agree that probably the majority are unbalanced to some degree. Based on my results, balls either go into the competition, recreational or practice pile. But it’s not really a quantifiable metric that determines the designation. I spin each ball three times, observe how long it takes to stop oscillating and note the high side. It’s pretty obvious which are perfectly balanced, mildly unbalanced and total farm eggs.

Based on the observations from my particular batch of TP5X “PRACTICE” balls: zero were perfectly balanced, ~20% were recreational quality and the rest were terrible. Going one step further, the tendency for balls with obvious cosmetic issues being appreciably better balanced than the seemingly perfect balls was clearly evident.

I was expecting ~20% “perfect”, ~60% mildly unbalanced and ~20% rejects. If Tmag is shooting straight on their QC claims that should have been the rough breakdown irrespective of outward appearance. And it’s subsequently made me curious why seemingly perfect balls were “PRACTICE” stamped.

On the subject of practical effects of less than ideal equipment, eliminating variables gives me confidence. I’m not going to hunt down the article, but I recall Nicklaus having some harsh words for the MacGregor ball factory team regarding their specific hindrance on his career stats. And Hogan also believed his maniacal standard for all the equipment bearing his name was justified.

I figured this thread was the most appropriate place to share my contrary findings and solicit additional data. @chisag seems content to repeat Tmag’s QC claims and that’s fine, I’m not trying to point a finger at him. At this point, I honestly hope Tmag is fibbing because it would make me livid to have these same balance results with 5 dozen retail priced pearls.

This is the last thing I’m going to offer in this thread - the truth can be uncomfortable and many marketers of golf equipment have demonstrated a talent for obfuscation. There’s a reason MGS put the “GOOD BALL” stat column front and center on their new tracking tool. The balance test will tell you if there are any secrets hiding under the surface.

#BUYITBALANCEIT

Thanks for sharing your insights.  I balance my golf balls as well, so your post got me thinking about these.  I hadn’t balanced them yet and was just going to play them.  I agree some take longer to roll back to light side up than others (golf balls overall).  I do think we need a robot test where we balance balls first then put them light side up and then light side on either side to see how it affects flight with driver, iron, wedge.  I know people have done tests for putting.

This forum is the perfect place for this type of discussion.  I think all is fine and well.  Please keep sharing your thoughts. 
 

Would for sure be a shame if TM is hoodwinking us on this one. Has anyone floated non practice retail TP5X balls to see if there is a consistent balance problem with the model?

Instagram:  @_chasing_scratch

YouTube: Chasing Scratch

Facebook:  Chasing Scratch

:SuperSpeed: Training

Pre training max driver speed: 124mph

Current: 130mph

WITB:

Driver: :ping-small: G400 LST 8.5* with HZRDUS SMOKE 6.5 70g 

Woods: :taylormade-small: 2007 Burner TP 3 wood and 5 wood

Irons:  :srixon-small: Z765 4-PW (1 degree flat) with KBS $-130 shafts

Wedges:  Vokey SM7 50/12/F, 54/10/S and 58/12/D

Putter: 681811256_Odysseylogo.png.499799aea6663befa411c8db1d859702.png Stroke Lab Ten S 33"

Ball:  :taylormade-small: 2019 TP5X

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw one video where Bryson’s caddie was float balancing balls. There used lead tape to determine if a ball was too unbalanced (so many millimeters if tape = so many grams of off balance). If it was outside of that tolerance, they didn’t put them in the bag.

 

  • Like 4

Instagram:  @_chasing_scratch

YouTube: Chasing Scratch

Facebook:  Chasing Scratch

:SuperSpeed: Training

Pre training max driver speed: 124mph

Current: 130mph

WITB:

Driver: :ping-small: G400 LST 8.5* with HZRDUS SMOKE 6.5 70g 

Woods: :taylormade-small: 2007 Burner TP 3 wood and 5 wood

Irons:  :srixon-small: Z765 4-PW (1 degree flat) with KBS $-130 shafts

Wedges:  Vokey SM7 50/12/F, 54/10/S and 58/12/D

Putter: 681811256_Odysseylogo.png.499799aea6663befa411c8db1d859702.png Stroke Lab Ten S 33"

Ball:  :taylormade-small: 2019 TP5X

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...