My Golf Spy Ball Lab Report-QStar Tour

[2puttbogey]

It seems to be a little unfair to not do the z star as the first Srixon ball. All others have been the premium balls, but this is more of a "budget" ball. So until we see that the results of the other balls from this category from the other company's, and the results of a premium Srixon ball I'm not sure it's fair to judge every OEM from only one ball being tested.

[Getoffmylawn]

6 minutes ago, 2puttbogey said:

It seems to be a little unfair to not do the z star as the first Srixon ball. All others have been the premium balls, but this is more of a "budget" ball. So until we see that the results of the other balls from this category from the other company's, and the results of a premium Srixon ball I'm not sure it's fair to judge every OEM from only one ball being tested.

Not sure I agree with that.  The test is specific to the model.  They tested the Pro V1; that doesn't mean (nor do they suggest) that the findings from that test apply to the Velocity, Tour Soft, etc.  Similarly, this doesn't in and of itself mean a Z Star must have roundness issues too.  it simply means a Q Star Tour does, and yes, "antennas up" for when Z Star gets tested.

Put simply, MGS has never suggested we should draw conclusions about Srixon as a whole, just this ball.

[russtopherb]

5 minutes ago, Getoffmylawn said:

Not sure I agree with that.  The test is specific to the model.  They tested the Pro V1; that doesn't mean (nor do they suggest) that the findings from that test apply to the Velocity, Tour Soft, etc.  Similarly, this doesn't in and of itself mean a Z Star must have roundness issues too.  it simply means a Q Star Tour does, and yes, "antennas up" for when Z Star gets tested.

Put simply, MGS has never suggested we should draw conclusions about Srixon as a whole, just this ball.

Agreed. The QST is a pretty popular ball, and MGS from what I've seen is looking to do a wide cross-section of balls in their testing. There's nothing unfair about that, at all.

[Golfspy_CG2]

1 hour ago, 2puttbogey said:

It seems to be a little unfair to not do the z star as the first Srixon ball. All others have been the premium balls, but this is more of a "budget" ball. So until we see that the results of the other balls from this category from the other company's, and the results of a premium Srixon ball I'm not sure it's fair to judge every OEM from only one ball being tested.

Tony has said early on the order of testing was as much determined by the popularity of use of ball by the readers and public in general.  I think if we were to have access to Srixon sales numbers, we'd see the Q Star/Q Star Tour is probably the biggest selling ball link it's lineup 

Titleist is know for it's Tour line ProV so that's what everyone wanted to see,  Srixon Z Star while a very good ball, is not really the first ball that comes to mind for the company when you factor in ALL golfers, not just forum readers which is really like 1% of the golf playing market. 

[2puttbogey]

55 minutes ago, Getoffmylawn said:

Not sure I agree with that.  The test is specific to the model.  They tested the Pro V1; that doesn't mean (nor do they suggest) that the findings from that test apply to the Velocity, Tour Soft, etc.  Similarly, this doesn't in and of itself mean a Z Star must have roundness issues too.  it simply means a Q Star Tour does, and yes, "antennas up" for when Z Star gets tested.

Put simply, MGS has never suggested we should draw conclusions about Srixon as a whole, just this ball.

This was not a hot take of MGS, it's about some of the reactions and judgment made about Srixon, when Titlist and others may have similar issues. 

[Getoffmylawn]

18 minutes ago, 2puttbogey said:

This was not a hot take of MGS, it's about some of the reactions and judgment made about Srixon, when Titlist and others may have similar issues. 

I understand that, I'm simply saying I don't think it's accurate to call it "unfair" of Tony or MGS to not test Srixon's premium ball first.  They tested a premium ball from Titleist and Bridgestone because, as @Golfspy_CG2points out, those are the big volume balls...the Pro V1 and the Tour B XS "Tiger Ball".  If anyone walked away from those tests assuming the evaluations applied to all Titleist balls or all Bridgestone balls, then they drastically missed the point and are making some big inferences. Similarly, one shouldn't make blanket assumptions about all Srixon balls now.

MGS' decision to select and prioritize testing based on volume of sales is consistent with their intent to focus on the consumer and do what's most helpful to the consumer.  Put another way, fairness to the consumer before fairness to the OEM. (And again, I don't see how this is unfair.)

[Micah T]

Doesn’t look good for Srixon, but I still don’t know what these results mean for the person playing the Q-star. Another archer vs arrow debate I’m sure.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[Getoffmylawn]

1 minute ago, Micah T said:

Doesn’t look good for Srixon, but I still don’t know what these results mean for the person playing the Q-star. Another archer vs arrow debate I’m sure.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

I don't know, kind of settles the debate in this case.  If the ball isn't round, you could have a great read, great contact, great pace, and great line, and still miss!  That's an arrow problem all the way.

[2puttbogey]

9 minutes ago, Micah T said:

Doesn’t look good for Srixon, but I still don’t know what these results mean for the person playing the Q-star. Another archer vs arrow debate I’m sure.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

This has been my point all along. However the rest of the tests come out there is now a bias against the quality of Srixon in general for some people. Even if the tour speed, pro response, and others in this category are similar, and the z star is just as quality as the pro v and tp5 the initial perception has already been established for some.

[Golfspy_CG2]

2 minutes ago, 2puttbogey said:

This has been my point all along. However the rest of the tests come out there is now a bias against the quality of Srixon in general for some people. Even if the tour speed, pro response, and others in this category are similar, and the z star is just as quality as the pro v and tp5 the initial perception has already been established for some.

I don't think this is the case at all

Coincidental note.

I met with a company rep today that its  ball is one of the "Big Boys" He came into my office literally an hour or so after I read the report.   We talked about the results and his companies results in the test.  And he thinks the Z Star is a very  good ball and is interested to see how it fairs.

But he brought up a very good point.  The average Joe consumer that buys golf balls will never see or hear about this report or any of the Ball Lab reports.  They aren't on forums.  And those of us that are on the forums and read these reports are in tune with the industry enough to know there is a difference between the Z-Star and Q Star manufacturing process.   And it's fair to say the majority on here will not hold this test against Srixon as a whole or judge the Z Star by this, we'll wait and see the report for it.

 

[Berg Ryman]

5 minutes ago, 2puttbogey said:

This has been my point all along. However the rest of the tests come out there is now a bias against the quality of Srixon in general for some people. Even if the tour speed, pro response, and others in this category are similar, and the z star is just as quality as the pro v and tp5 the initial perception has already been established for some.

Perhaps you are correct to those who don't think critically about these things and take them at face value as being there across the brand. Of course, the inverse could also be true. People could be more intrigued and awaiting the result of those premium balls now to either prove that the issues are at lower price points, or that the issues are across the brand, when most might have not been interested in the Z line at all.

Also, not to blow smoke, but I agree with the direction @Golfspy_CG2 is taking the conversation as as why Q Star Tour before Z Star. Looking back at all the balls that came before, all had a reason for being picked.

Chrome Soft: Whole reason this thing exists, Pro V1: The standard against all balls are judged, Tour B XS: Tiger's Ball famously stated to be the same ball regardless if off the truck or the shelf, TP5: Arguably the #2 ball on tour(?) used by DJ, Rors, and Rahm, MTB-X: The 800 pound DTC Gorilla in the room, Costco: The ball that nearly changed everything, until it changed, Maxfli: Shock performer of the Ball Test, and Store Brand Marvel, and now Q-Star Tour: arguably the mid-tier ball of choice by most golfers.

[2puttbogey]

8 minutes ago, Berg Ryman said:

Perhaps you are correct to those who don't think critically about these things and take them at face value as being there across the brand. Of course, the inverse could also be true. People could be more intrigued and awaiting the result of those premium balls now to either prove that the issues are at lower price points, or that the issues are across the brand, when most might have not been interested in the Z line at all.

Also, not to blow smoke, but I agree with the direction @Golfspy_CG2 is taking the conversation as as why Q Star Tour before Z Star. Looking back at all the balls that came before, all had a reason for being picked.

Chrome Soft: Whole reason this thing exists, Pro V1: The standard against all balls are judged, Tour B XS: Tiger's Ball famously stated to be the same ball regardless if off the truck or the shelf, TP5: Arguably the #2 ball on tour(?) used by DJ, Rors, and Rahm, MTB-X: The 800 pound DTC Gorilla in the room, Costco: The ball that nearly changed everything, until it changed, Maxfli: Shock performer of the Ball Test, and Store Brand Marvel, and now Q-Star Tour: arguably the mid-tier ball of choice by most golfers.

Thanks for seeing my point on this, and unfortunately there's many that don't think critically now a days. I get the point of how it was selected. My experience with this ball lines up with the results I got from it as well (not good). I have used the other balls tested at some point as well and it seemed to line up with the testing as well.

[DiscipleofPenick]

I am paying a tremendous amount of attention to all these test results. The data MGS is compiling its fantastic and it's just about everything I want to know about a ball in one place.

I love Pro V1s, but can't afford to play that ball all the time. I think the Z Star is the replacement, but we'll see if that's true when this is all said and done. Keep up the good work guys.

Take Dead Aim

[tony@CIC]

I am paying a tremendous amount of attention to all these test results. The data MGS is compiling its fantastic and it's just about everything I want to know about a ball in one place.

I love Pro V1s, but can't afford to play that ball all the time. I think the Z Star is the replacement, but we'll see if that's true when this is all said and done. Keep up the good work guys.

Take Dead Aim

I was playing the Pro Vs and switched to Srixon on our head Pro's recommendation. They had a lot of shelf space at our Pro shop so they must have gotten a great deal. I just didn't care for them and ended up switching to MTB-X which I really like.


Sent from my iPad using MyGolfSpy

[VtheGNMan]

Thanks for the honest reporting.  Good or bad the results are what they are.  

[DiscipleofPenick]

I was playing the Pro Vs and switched to Srixon on our head Pro's recommendation. They had a lot of shelf space at our Pro shop so they must have gotten a great deal. I just didn't care for them and ended up switching to MTB-X which I really like.


Sent from my iPad using MyGolfSpy

After the MGS report, a dozen MTB-X is the first thing I'm buying when Ohio thaws in the spring. I need to try that ball. I think the Z-Stars are great, so that's my Pro V1 alternative right now. Hard to pass up when 2 dozen Z-stars are cheaper than 1 dozen Pro V1.

Take Dead Aim

[Malaka]

I usually play Z-Star but have played the QST, and the regular Ionomer Q-Star. Its hard to come to a conclusion based on my performance,  but definitely a noticeable difference in consistency across the box between the premium balls, and the budget balls.

[fozcycle]

I don't think this is the case at all
Coincidental note.
I met with a company rep today that its  ball is one of the "Big Boys" He came into my office literally an hour or so after I read the report.   We talked about the results and his companies results in the test.  And he thinks the Z Star is a very  good ball and is interested to see how it fairs.
But he brought up a very good point.  The average Joe consumer that buys golf balls will never see or hear about this report or any of the Ball Lab reports.  They aren't on forums.  And those of us that are on the forums and read these reports are in tune with the industry enough to know there is a difference between the Z-Star and Q Star manufacturing process.   And it's fair to say the majority on here will not hold this test against Srixon as a whole or judge the Z Star by this, we'll wait and see the report for it.
 

Nicely stated Rob. I have three dozen of the Q Stars in my closet and now I am fearful of using them.

Currently gaming Wilson Staff Professionals and Maxfli Tour CG.


Using Tour Edge Exotics EXS Driver w/ Mitsubishi Tense ck Blue regular shaft; Cobra King F8 4W & 6W w/Mitsubishi Tense ck Blue regular shaft; Tour Edge CVX 119 4 Hybrid , Irons 5-PW Wilson Staff D-7 w/Recoil 460 regular shafts; Cobra King wedges 50/54/58 & Bellum Winmore 707 putter.

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[Micah T]

I don't know, kind of settles the debate in this case.  If the ball isn't round, you could have a great read, great contact, great pace, and great line, and still miss!  That's an arrow problem all the way.

My point is: if you liked them and played well with them, does this change the fact you scored well? If you didn’t like them, now you feel justified: obviously no one is going to switch to a QST now, but if you bought them on deal, what now?

 

Data is always good, and I love reading these articles, but I’ll be damned if 20 out of 30 lowest all time rounds from the last 2 years aren’t all with chromesoft...

 

Does that mean the test is wrong? No, of course not. But it doesn’t invalidate anyone’s individual experience either.

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

 

[TR1PTIK]

9 hours ago, Tsmithjr9 said:

I hope the Z Stars get better results.

I may have misread, but was IBCR weighted the same for all the previous ball tests? I understand that the standard deviation was far worse here, but I want to know if those same deviations in IBCR contributed to the overall % of bad balls in the previous tests.


Take Dead Aim
 

IBCR wasn't an issue for other ball test because the range was so small by comparison. Remember, IBCR is short for "In-Ball Compression Range". As Tony noted, it's common to see a range of 2 or 3 compression points for a single premium ball, but with the Q-Star Tour he was seeing ranges as high as 9.5 on the single worst ball measured.

I didn't see anywhere that said if IBCR on its own caused any balls to be considered bad, but I'd imagine that another production related issue would have.