PRACTICE balls from Taylor Made

[chisag]

... I do think it is important to have the official interpretation from the OEM's. Whether or not they are being completely honest is for the individual to decide. Obviously MGS uncovered some misdirection with the original Chrome Soft balls. Personally I have found no problems with the PRACTICE balls I have played from either TaylorMade or Titleist. Because I can play up to 6 times a week and the desert can really chew up golf balls I like to have PRACTICE balls on hand for some casual and especially practice rounds. If I have a serious round or am playing a championship quality course I do not use PRACTICE balls.

... I also agree that to a certain extent, you get what you pay for. I do not expect balls that sell for $47.99 to be exactly the same as balls that sell for $19.99. Unless they are a discontinued version. But for me at least, having a ball that is constructed the same as my gamer is important for practice rounds, as opposed to hitting a ball that will react differently with different shots. This has been very interesting and as I said, a review of PRACTICE balls by Tony would be extremely interesting. But even if they prove to be of inferior quality, I will still use them for practice rounds. 

... Since I recommended these balls on this forum based on the OEM's claims, it is nice to see anyone checking the accuracy of their claims. I too would like to see at least a dozen full retail TP5x compared to a dozen TP5x PRACTICE balls. 

[PMookie]

Yep, Titleist, not TM, but here you go:

“1. 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.

2. Pro V1 X-Out golf balls are also conforming products. However, they usually have a cosmetic blemish and/or occasionally have a minor physical defect that should not significantly affect its performance. More often than not, the physical condition causing the ball to be stamped as an X-Out is so minute that it is not recognizable by the player.“

The only issue I’d have with a TM “practice” ball is that Tony has already shown that TM has some inconsistencies in construction. I moved away from TM balls to Titleist for that reason, so to add possible blemishes as well, I just couldn’t put one in-play. To “practice”? Sure!!!!

[edingc]

I don't have much to add to this thread, but I'm not bashful to admit I Check-Go-Pro all of the balls that I put into play. I need to use lines for putting alignment (if I don't, I aim too right), and the C-G-P process only takes a few additional minutes per box so I don't have an issue putting in the bit of work. I do think there is something to CG balancing, and the ball lab tests seem to show that ball balance is certainly an issue.

[Nolan220]

1 hour ago, edingc said:

I don't have much to add to this thread, but I'm not bashful to admit I Check-Go-Pro all of the balls that I put into play. I need to use lines for putting alignment (if I don't, I aim too right), and the C-G-P process only takes a few additional minutes per box so I don't have an issue putting in the bit of work. I do think there is something to CG balancing, and the ball lab tests seem to show that ball balance is certainly an issue.

 

the C-G-P is interesting I heard of them but never really looked into it until I just read your post I think I will most purchase one, I usually put a line on my ball anyway so this will just make it better .. Do you use the line off the tee ? since it centers the ball  ?

[edingc]

9 minutes ago, Nolan220 said:

the C-G-P is interesting I heard of them but never really looked into it until I just read your post I think I will most purchase one, I usually put a line on my ball anyway so this will just make it better .. Do you use the line off the tee ? since it centers the ball  ?

I use the line off the tee and on the green.

One tip: The included marker is garbage. I also don't like having the line all the way around the ball. So, I bought some "washable" thin-tipped Crayola markers and use them to mark the ball initially. After the balls are marked, I use the cup on the bottom of the C-G-P to go over the washable marker with Sharpie on about 1/3-1/2 of the ball. A quick rub with a wet paper towel removes the washable marker but leaves the Sharpie.

[Nolan220]

24 minutes ago, edingc said:

I use the line off the tee and on the green.

One tip: The included marker is garbage. I also don't like having the line all the way around the ball. So, I bought some "washable" thin-tipped Crayola markers and use them to mark the ball initially. After the balls are marked, I use the cup on the bottom of the C-G-P to go over the washable marker with Sharpie on about 1/3-1/2 of the ball. A quick rub with a wet paper towel removes the washable marker but leaves the Sharpie.

okay cool I think I will go purchase it .. I dont mind the line all the way around the ball ... but thats a good tip if I end up not liking it .. thanks 

[golfish!]

1 hour ago, edingc said:

I use the line off the tee and on the green.

One tip: The included marker is garbage. I also don't like having the line all the way around the ball. So, I bought some "washable" thin-tipped Crayola markers and use them to mark the ball initially. After the balls are marked, I use the cup on the bottom of the C-G-P to go over the washable marker with Sharpie on about 1/3-1/2 of the ball. A quick rub with a wet paper towel removes the washable marker but leaves the Sharpie.

@edingc I just ordered a CGP for myself after being on the fence for a while but now hearing all this about ball balancing etc. From the videos I watched, it looks like the heaviest part of the ball (if it not balanced) gets thrown to the outside due to centrifugal force. So in essence you would put the line along the equator of the ball with heaviest and lightest sides being the poles correct? I read on some reviews people using a drill bit to widen the hole so you can put a sharpie or markzall in there. Have you tried?

[edingc]

8 minutes ago, golfish! said:

@edingc I just ordered a CGP for myself after being on the fence for a while but now hearing all this about ball balancing etc. From the videos I watched, it looks like the heaviest part of the ball (if it not balanced) gets thrown to the outside due to centrifugal force. So in essence you would put the line along the equator of the ball with heaviest and lightest sides being the poles correct? I read on some reviews people using a drill bit to widen the hole so you can put a sharpie or markzall in there. Have you tried?

Correct. It spins the ball horizontally so the force will pull the ball out to the side. I have not tried to widen the holes, I'm sure it could be done. The fine-tipped Crayola markers fit as is, maybe not perfectly but close enough for my tolerance level.

[HeathS16]

I ordered some of the TM practice balls this last winter and fall as my off season ball. I wanted something urethane but I didn't want to pay more than $30 per doz. These worked very well.  I did a simple performance test on Trackman comparing the TP5 to my gamer (Maxfli Tour) and I found them to be fairly similar; the Maxfli was more consistent.  For practice rounds and casual play I think this is a GREAT deal.  Like some have said on here already, the Titleist practice and X-Outs would probably be more consistent than TM if you're wanting a budget gamer from a big OEM. Happy hitting everyone! 

[MaxEntropy]

I am very tempted to order some of the TM practice balls - Srixons have gone up in price (of course, the usual Father's Day special is likely coming) and Snell is chronically out of the yellow MTB-X. I'm sure if your ball-striking skills are good (better than me, anyway) any balance issues could have an effect, but I would think that someone like me with a very wide dispersion cone may never notice.

[DriverBreaker]

Here is a video some may find interesting.  Ralph Maltby discusses how the balance of balls would affect his putting robot tests.  He found wound balls were very inconsistent.  Sometimes, a two or three piece ball was out of balance enough to miss the hole on a 24ft putt.

I did my own test (as best as I could).  I found no differences at 5ft.  I’ll do it again today at 6ft (max length I’ve got).  Where the pros make/miss 50/50 from 8ft and make % over 20ft is extremely low, I wonder how impactful this truly is for everyday golfers putting on less than pristine greens.  I’m all for reducing variables, and I do balance my golf balls and putt with the light side up, but I really want to see the balance and how it affects full swings with a robot. Like how the MGS ball study found random balls to go 40yds offline, cut those open and see what’s going on inside.  Better yet, pre-balance them before, measure with lead tape how off balance they are, then hit with the light side up, light side on east/west poles, and see the difference.

Edited May 20, 2021 by ChasingScratch

[DriverBreaker]

Alright, here is the test I ran.

Started with the light side up, then moved to light side on left/right (just like the Maltby video above).

I used my putting training aid and a piece of tape I placed the ball on (for consistent ball placement) to remove those variables as much as possible.  Obvious variables would be speed and clubface open/closed at impact. 

At 5ft on a smooth fast green, no real difference (unless I left the face open/closed, some were obvious). 

Here's where my head is at.  First, when putting, you have to predict the line/speed correctly, then hit it on that line with that speed.  At 8ft, pros are 50/50 with perfect greens, practice rounds, etc.  The Maltby video showed the ball just missing at 24ft.  The make rate at 20+ feet on the PGA Tour is only 10% or so, so they aren't making a ton regardless.  At that distance, most of us should be more concerned with speed so we don't three putt than trying to legitimately hole it.  Unless our putting stroke is that of a robot, there are so many other variables that contribute to made/missed putts from distance. 

Second, even with as tight of tolerances as Bryson holds his golf balls to, he still has swings where the ball goes miles off line (drives, irons).  He misses putts as well.

Again, I would really like to see how this affects the full swing.  I love that @downlowkey raised the balance issue.  I enjoy these types of discussions and doing tests, so anytime I have an excuse to do them, I'm down.  The next step would be to test what degree of out-of-balance impacts the roll of a putt (e.g., 100mg out of balance leads to missing the hole from X distance).  Probably too much, but would be fun!  Let's keep the discussion rolling and continue to investigate!

 

Edited May 20, 2021 by ChasingScratch

[golfish!]

56 minutes ago, ChasingScratch said:

Alright, here is the test I ran.

Started with the light side up, then moved to light side on left/right (just like the Maltby video above).

I used my putting training aid and a piece of tape I placed the ball on (for consistent ball placement) to remove those variables as much as possible.  Obvious variables would be speed and clubface open/closed at impact. 

At 5ft on a smooth fast green, no real difference (unless I left the face open/closed, some were obvious). 

Here's where my head is at.  First, when putting, you have to predict the line/speed correctly, then hit it on that line with that speed.  At 8ft, pros are 50/50 with perfect greens, practice rounds, etc.  The Maltby video showed the ball just missing at 24ft.  The make rate at 20+ feet on the PGA Tour is only 10% or so, so they aren't making a ton regardless.  At that distance, most of us should be more concerned with speed so we don't three putt than trying to legitimately hole it.  Unless our putting stroke is that of a robot, there are so many other variables that contribute to made/missed putts from distance. 

Second, even with as tight of tolerances as Bryson holds his golf balls to, he still has swings where the ball goes miles off line (drives, irons).  He misses putts as well.

Again, I would really like to see how this affects the full swing.  I love that @downlowkey raised the balance issue.  I enjoy these types of discussions and doing tests, so anytime I have an excuse to do them, I'm down.  The next step would be to test what degree of out-of-balance impacts the roll of a putt (e.g., 100mg out of balance leads to missing the hole from X distance).  Probably too much, but would be fun!  Let's keep the discussion rolling and continue to investigate!

 

great video! not sure if it was the angle of the camera or your putting stroke but looked like majority of the putts went to the left side of the hole. would be interesting to see if you drew lines on the video with an app to see where all the putts actually went and see if there was any correlation?

[DriverBreaker]

6 minutes ago, golfish! said:

great video! not sure if it was the angle of the camera or your putting stroke but looked like majority of the putts went to the left side of the hole. would be interesting to see if you drew lines on the video with an app to see where all the putts actually went and see if there was any correlation?

Yes, I noticed the same.  Could be one of two things:

1) Camera off to the left of the hole (notice the hole is more on the left side of the screen), even slightly, thus giving the illusion that the balls rolled to the left side.

2) Slight break to the putt.  I just aligned to where the putts went into the cup.  I could have gotten out a level to see exactly how flat it was.

I did my best to eliminate variables with what I had to work with. 

Edited May 20, 2021 by ChasingScratch

[chisag]

1 hour ago, ChasingScratch said:

Alright, here is the test I ran.

Started with the light side up, then moved to light side on left/right (just like the Maltby video above).

I used my putting training aid and a piece of tape I placed the ball on (for consistent ball placement) to remove those variables as much as possible.  Obvious variables would be speed and clubface open/closed at impact. 

At 5ft on a smooth fast green, no real difference (unless I left the face open/closed, some were obvious). 

Here's where my head is at.  First, when putting, you have to predict the line/speed correctly, then hit it on that line with that speed.  At 8ft, pros are 50/50 with perfect greens, practice rounds, etc.  The Maltby video showed the ball just missing at 24ft.  The make rate at 20+ feet on the PGA Tour is only 10% or so, so they aren't making a ton regardless.  At that distance, most of us should be more concerned with speed so we don't three putt than trying to legitimately hole it.  Unless our putting stroke is that of a robot, there are so many other variables that contribute to made/missed putts from distance. 

Again, I would really like to see how this affects the full swing.  I love that @downlowkey raised the balance issue.  I enjoy these types of discussions and doing tests, so anytime I have an excuse to do them, I'm down.  The next step would be to test what degree of out-of-balance impacts the roll of a putt (e.g., 100mg out of balance leads to missing the hole from X distance).  Probably too much, but would be fun!  Let's keep the discussion rolling and continue to investigate!

 

 

... Great stuff! I love we don't just talk about it but do our best to find the truth for our game and you have taken it to another level.   Fwiw, I have emailed a contact in the Ball Engineering Dept at Taylor Made. Sales reps and Marketing guys have a job to do but I have found Engineers are much more reliable. For instance Sales Reps are usually left in the dark about updates and changes until absolutely necessary because it is tough to walk into a store and say "you only have one set of T100 iron in stock so let me send you 2 more sets so you have some to display when these are sold" if they know Titleist is just about to issue a press release about a new T100 series iron. 

... I will always remember the original Hi Bore driver that the VP's of Engineering were so excited about BUT were not quite ready to be released because they had not finalized the design. It performed very well on center hits but not high on the face or on the toe and they needed more time. They were over ridden by Sales and the Hi Bore was released to lots of good AND bad reviews. The 2nd generation fixed the toe hits and was better in every way with the exception of balls hit high on the face did not perform well and again the engineers did not want it released. So it got even more bad reviews and by the time Cleveland released the 3rd version that was what the engineers had envisioned performing very well on center and all mishits, the damage had already been done and few bought it so the design was scrapped. The engineers were furious. 

... So I am hoping to get a response from the engineers in the ball department concerning exactly what balls are released as PRACTICE balls. They may not be able to respond but I am hoping to hear something by next week.  

[DriverBreaker]

1 minute ago, chisag said:

 

... Great stuff! I love we don't just talk about it but do our best to find the truth for our game and you have taken it to another level.   Fwiw, I have emailed a contact in the Ball Engineering Dept at Taylor Made. Sales reps and Marketing guys have a job to do but I have found Engineers are much more reliable. For instance Sales Reps are usually left in the dark about updates and changes until absolutely necessary because it is tough to walk into a store and say "you only have one set of T100 iron in stock so let me send you 2 more sets so you have some to display when these are sold" if they know Titleist is just about to issue a press release about a new T100 series iron. 

... I will always remember the original Hi Bore driver that the VP's of Engineering were so excited about BUT were not quite ready to be released because they had not finalized the design. It performed very well on center hits but not high on the face or on the toe and they needed more time. They were over ridden by Sales and the Hi Bore was released to lots of good AND bad reviews. The 2nd generation fixed the toe hits and was better in every way with the exception of balls hit high on the face did not perform well and again the engineers did not want it released. So it got even more bad reviews and by the time Cleveland released the 3rd version that was what the engineers had envisioned performing very well on center and all mishits, the damage had already been done and few bought it so the design was scrapped. The engineers were furious. 

... So I am hoping to get a response from the engineers in the ball department concerning exactly what balls are released as PRACTICE balls. They may not be able to respond but I am hoping to hear something by next week.  

AWESOME!!!  We will await patiently/excitedly to see if you hear back from the Engineers!  I had a HiBore XL back in the day.  Heck of a loud driver if I remember correctly. 

[MrBandit]

That was an excellent video, you did alot of work to test the balance of the balls.

I never really thought about testing them before, but after reading this threat I may start to do so. Am just curious now how many of my Snell MTB-X and TaylorMade TP5x are unbalance and see how much of a difference I notice.

I know QC is base on a percentage for each Company and Titleist having their companies here in the U.S. have more control.
All of other companies have their manufacturing companies out in Korean, China, etc and their QC may not have as much control over it.

Went back to reading the Ball Report again, and notice the MaxFli was the second best ball on the list. Which I found interesting.

 

[DriverBreaker]

11 minutes ago, MrBandit said:

That was an excellent video, you did alot of work to test the balance of the balls.

I never really thought about testing them before, but after reading this threat I may start to do so. Am just curious now how many of my Snell MTB-X and TaylorMade TP5x are unbalance and see how much of a difference I notice.

I know QC is base on a percentage for each Company and Titleist having their companies here in the U.S. have more control.
All of other companies have their manufacturing companies out in Korean, China, etc and their QC may not have as much control over it.

Went back to reading the Ball Report again, and notice the MaxFli was the second best ball on the list. Which I found interesting.

 

Thanks for the kind words, but it wasn't that much work really.  I did it after the kiddos went to bed.  Just a few minutes.  I just wanted to see what happened. 

Good point about QC in the states vs overseas, but perhaps the companies have some personnel over there dedicated to it.  My bigger question is just how much out of balance does it have to be to make a significant and practical difference.  Like I mentioned with Bryson and how tight his tolerances are, he still misses shots way offline and putts offline as well.  Of the total variance of a round of golf, an unbalanced ball might account for what?  Less than 1%?  Who knows.  Can we ever know?  It reminds me of the book, "Golf is not a game of Perfect" by Bob Rotella. 

Edited May 20, 2021 by ChasingScratch

[golfish!]

@chisag what does one need to study to become a ball engineer?! Sounds like a fun/boring job depending on your perspective lol.

[chisag]

4 minutes ago, golfish! said:

@chisag what does one need to study to become a ball engineer?! Sounds like a fun/boring job depending on your perspective lol.

 

... True dat. I am guessing an Engineering Degree?  Most of the Engineers I know really enjoy their work but of course those are the ones willing to meet the public at the PGA Show or like to be interviewed from their labs. I probably know the guys from Cobra the best and all of them are avid golfers and pretty passionate about their work.

[golfish!]

4 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

... True dat. I am guessing an Engineering Degree?  Most of the Engineers I know really enjoy their work but of course those are the ones willing to meet the public at the PGA Show or like to be interviewed from their labs. I probably know the guys from Cobra the best and all of them are avid golfers and pretty passionate about their work.

Lol I may message you one day when I get tired of my current job as an engineering manager for a food and beverage company! 

[DriverBreaker]

18 minutes ago, golfish! said:

@chisag what does one need to study to become a ball engineer?! Sounds like a fun/boring job depending on your perspective lol.

Golf Ball Engineer meeting

Aright guys, we're limited by how hot the ball can be.  We already know to make it out of rubber and urethane.  We already know about dimples.  Sooooooooooo, whose got any new ideas?!?!  *crickets*  New guy, "What if we paint half the ball yellow and half the ball red?"  *crickets*  Someone from marketing, "I LOVE IT!!!!!"   LOL

Edited May 20, 2021 by ChasingScratch

[golfish!]

6 minutes ago, ChasingScratch said:

Golf Ball Engineer meeting

Aright guys, we're limited by how hot the ball can be.  We already know to make it out of rubber and urethane.  We already know about dimples.  Sooooooooooo, whose got any new ideas?!?!  *crickets*  New guy, "What if we paint half the ball yellow and half the ball red?"  *crickets*  Someone from marketing, "I LOVE IT!!!!!"   LOL

Don't forget what they say at the start of every meeting when they introduce a new ball to the marketing team:

"SO WHO'S READY TO PLAY WITH MY BALLS TODAY???"

[chisag]

2 minutes ago, ChasingScratch said:

Golf Ball Engineer meeting

Aright guys, we're limited by how hot the ball can be.  We already know to make it out of rubber and urethane.  We already know about dimples.  Sooooooooooo, whose got any new ideas?!?!  *crickets*  New guy, "What if we paint half the ball yellow and half the ball red?"  *crickets*  Someone from marketing, "I LOVE IT!!!!!"   LOL

 

... Golf ball engineering, like all golf equipment, must be so crazy difficult when trying to fine tune for golfers that all need something different. I have to imagine everything is a trade off. New drivers that reduce spin work great for high speed studs that generate too much spin but that same driver does not produce enough spin for us modest players and a disaster for slow swing speed players.

... Same with the ball. I was playing the TP5x two years ago and in Chicago had my best driving year ever. Irons also flew high and long with reduced spin that worked great in Chicago winds with soft greens. Then wintering in Phoenix the combination of P790's and TP5x did not produce enough spin to hold the hard fast desert greens and I double switched to the TP5 and P-760 irons producing enough spin to play in the desert. I am just one guy and my needs changed radically from the Midwest to the Southwest. 

... When the Lethal ball first came out I was talking to the VP of Golf Ball Design at the show and was amazed by what they go through. According to him changing the dimple depth by 5/1000 changed the flight and spin. Same for dimple circumference. So combining dimple depth with dimple size created millions of combinations and fine tuning those to a ball that optimized carry and spin took years. At that time I thought it was the best wind ball I ever played. Then of course you have Titleist changing the ProV1/ProV1x every cycle and the guys on tour that are mind boggling good either like the new ball better or not as much as what they are playing and some are still playing balls that are 5 years old. Rory said the reason he switched to TaylorMade was primarily the TP5 ball. 

... So what a wide range of players from high index average golfers that rarely hit the ball the same way twice to guys on tour that hit it almost the same every swing and every kind of golfer in-between. And of course Sales demanding a new ball every 2 years they can promote as "improved" because improved for one means worst performing for another. It is really one of the most complicated areas in the golf world I would want nothing to do with LOL. 

 

[DriverBreaker]

5 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

... Golf ball engineering, like all golf equipment, must be so crazy difficult when trying to fine tune for golfers that all need something different. I have to imagine everything is a trade off. New drivers that reduce spin work great for high speed studs that generate too much spin but that same driver does not produce enough spin for us modest players and a disaster for slow swing speed players.

... Same with the ball. I was playing the TP5x two years ago and in Chicago had my best driving year ever. Irons also flew high and long with reduced spin that worked great in Chicago winds with soft greens. Then wintering in Phoenix the combination of P790's and TP5x did not produce enough spin to hold the hard fast desert greens and I double switched to the TP5 and P-760 irons producing enough spin to play in the desert. I am just one guy and my needs changed radically from the Midwest to the Southwest. 

... When the Lethal ball first came out I was talking to the VP of Golf Ball Design at the show and was amazed by what they go through. According to him changing the dimple depth by 5/1000 changed the flight and spin. Same for dimple circumference. So combining dimple depth with dimple size created millions of combinations and fine tuning those to a ball that optimized carry and spin took years. At that time I thought it was the best wind ball I ever played. Then of course you have Titleist changing the ProV1/ProV1x every cycle and the guys on tour that are mind boggling good either like the new ball better or not as much as what they are playing and some are still playing balls that are 5 years old. Rory said the reason he switched to TaylorMade was primarily the TP5 ball. 

... So what a wide range of players from high index average golfers that rarely hit the ball the same way twice to guys on tour that hit it almost the same every swing and every kind of golfer in-between. And of course Sales demanding a new ball every 2 years they can promote as "improved" because improved for one means worst performing for another. It is really one of the most complicated areas in the golf world I would want nothing to do with LOL. 

 

Yup, simply mind boggling.  Take Odyssey bringing back the original white hot insert.  I at least give them credit for not marketing it as some new invention.

[golfish!]

@edingc and anyone else who has a CGP. My CGP arrived today. Been testing on the TP5 Practice balls and some new 2021 ProV1x balls. Does your unit cause the ball to wobble once it gets to high speed and the green light stays steady? I have to let go and then restart to get it to stabilize but eventually it will start to wobble again if I hold the button. Happens with both balls. Does this mean the balls are that far off balance it is causing wobble? I have been testing by using a washable marker to mark the top of the ball and then stopping and rotating the ball and then spinning a second time and seeing the dot comes back to the top. What I have been finding with the ProV1x so far is that I end up marking the top in 2 locations but they are directly on opposites sides of the ball. I then use the bottom guide to draw a full line connecting the 2 dots. Then I turn the ball until the first line is perpendicular to the edge of the guide and draw a second line. I do this all with a dry erase marker. Then I mark with permanent marker using a different guide lol because I like having perpendicular marks to my aim line for face alignment during putting. I mark along the second line that I drew. Also so far I have not found a ball that comes up with a different mark for the high point every time indicating a perfectly balanced ball in theory. Anyone find one using the CGP yet?

Ok so after doing all of that...I found that if you rotate the dome so the hole for the pen is facing the back of the unit (the penholder for the included pen) the hole is actually close to the ball and I can use the same dry erase marker to make the line which I can then use as a guide for my actual permanent marker line!

[MaxEntropy]

I ordered a couple dozen 2020 TP5x Pix yesterday. I'll report back on my thoughts.

[sirchunksalot]

Like @ChasingScratch, I want to thank @downlowkey for bringing up the balance issue and prompting me to do one. I can honestly say, I have never done this. As someone who's currently sporting a 26 handicap, I have prioritized other issues but it's nice to know if there's a issue with these balls. 

I've got 5 dozen of the TP5x Pix but for the purpose of this test I only opened 2 dozen of them. These will be the ones that get priority to go in my bag and should last for a while. 

The first bag I opened, I found 7 that were perfectly balanced, 4 that tended to return slowly to the same general area, and one that was bad. The second bag, all 12 had balance points (I looked for 4) that were in different areas and separated pretty well. I did relegate one to the practice bag due to a defect in the cover. 

 

[DriverBreaker]

2 hours ago, sirchunksalot said:

Like @ChasingScratch, I want to thank @downlowkey for bringing up the balance issue and prompting me to do one. I can honestly say, I have never done this. As someone who's currently sporting a 26 handicap, I have prioritized other issues but it's nice to know if there's a issue with these balls. 

I've got 5 dozen of the TP5x Pix but for the purpose of this test I only opened 2 dozen of them. These will be the ones that get priority to go in my bag and should last for a while. 

The first bag I opened, I found 7 that were perfectly balanced, 4 that tended to return slowly to the same general area, and one that was bad. The second bag, all 12 had balance points (I looked for 4) that were in different areas and separated pretty well. I did relegate one to the practice bag due to a defect in the cover. 

 

You used epsom salt to float them?  Or a check go pro?

[sirchunksalot]

16 minutes ago, ChasingScratch said:

You used epsom salt to float them?  Or a check go pro?

I used Epsom salt. I was amazed at how much it took, but it worked good.