Favorite Non-Urethane Ball?

[BostonSal]

4 minutes ago, Riverboat said:

Respectfully but completely disagree. I think most players would benefit from playing lower shots with more bounce and roll and stop trying to fly the ball all the way to the hole. Stats say amateurs come up short at least 70% of the time. The last thing they need is a ball that spins more and stops faster. 

Quick story. The first time I shot under par I showed up at the course on a day with 20+ mph winds only to discover I had no golf balls in my bag. I found a scuffed up top flite about 30 yards from the first tee and started the round. About 3 hours and 69 strokes later I promised myself I would never stress out about what ball I was using again, and I would certainly never pay 4 bucks a ball again. It ain't the ball, it's the swing. If you're not scratch, you're throwing money away on premium balls. Just my opinion, but backed by 25 years as a coach and teacher.

My own experience, Riverboat, is that playing on the ground and playing in the air isn't entirely handicap related.

It's a matter of which comes more intuitively.

I was never a scratch player, but right from the beginning, I felt better hitting to the pin.  I just had a feel for it.

Also, if you short side yourself, the hole is cut nine feet from the near side, and you're hitting from just the other side of a yawning greenside bunker,

the successful bump and run would be quite the feat, no?

 

 

[BostonSal]

5 minutes ago, Riverboat said:

I have no problem with your decision to play the ball in the air. My problem comes when people blindly encourage others to waste 50 bucks on balls that are unlikely to help their game. Based on my experience, i don't doubt your decision is best for you, but I do think you are in the minority. I said MOST players would benefit from the slower stopping ball, not all. 

I shot two over this morning. Two of my birdies came on 9 irons that I landed 7 or 8 yards short of the pin.  Each released and rolled to within a foot of the pin. Playing the air game, I would have had to hit harder or go to 8 iron, both of which would have made me one club less accurate. Those shots are far more common than the flop over the bunker you describe. 

By the way, I was playing a Wilson fifty elite ( my favorite ball) that I paid about 87 cents for. 

I would agree that playing on the ground suits more players, and that the games of higher handicap players aren't hyper ball dependent..

The Wilson Fifty Elite, by the way, is the favorite ball of my friend who plays hickory shafted clubs from Louisville Golf and Tad Moore.

Those nostalgia sticks are expensive, so he's obviously not trying to save money.  

He really likes the ball and plays quite well with them.

 

 

Edited August 29, 2021 by BostonSal

[BostonSal]

7 minutes ago, Riverboat said:

 Again, my issue is with those who encourage people to spend blindly without considering what's actually best for their game. 

I agree. 

As for the flop shot, I played it long before I knew it's name, and didn't know how hard it was until I tried to play it with a wedge with bounce.

With a zero bounce lob wedge, the catastrophe only comes in when people get afraid and decelerate. 

And that's easy to do if the shot isn't intuitive to you.

[GolfSpy TCB]

After I rinsed my TaylorMade Tour Response today on 6, I grabbed the Titleist Velocity and finished the round. 

• Different feel putting?  Yes. 
• Different release on approach shots to the green?  Yes. 
• At least middle of the green distance on approach shots (even when missing to the right or left)?  Yes. 
• Was I chipping or putting back to the hole more often than from short of the hole.  Yes. 
• Is there an advantage or disadvantage to be long vs. short on the holes (for example putting downhill vs. uphilll)?  Inconclusive
• Does it take a few holes (specifically chips and putts) to get used to compared to a Urethane ball?  Yes. 
• Will I grab the Velocity the next time I walk to #1... Yes.
• Do I need to spend time at the putting green working on drills?  Most definitely Yes.  (But this has nothing to do with the ball, to my knowledge a non-urethane ball doesn't make you close the toe and dead pull a putt..... or 6 ) 

This is my experience, YMMV.

This is not to say I'm not happy with the TMTR... I think it is a good fit for me as well.

[GolfSpy TCB]

3 hours ago, Riverboat said:

Love the fifty elite. I've done side by side comparisons with all of the "premium" balls, and with my 95mph driver swing it's 10 yards longer than any of them.

I really like this ball too.  I felt like I was losing a little distance with it compared to some of the higher compression balls in my bag, but my swing isn't consistent enough to hit 3 or 4 drives and expect that the distance difference is the ball, and not my swing.  I really like the feel of this ball tee to hole.  

[storm319]

10 hours ago, Riverboat said:

I have no problem with your decision to play the ball in the air. My problem comes when people blindly encourage others to waste 50 bucks on balls that are unlikely to help their game. Based on my experience, i don't doubt your decision is best for you, but I do think you are in the minority. I said MOST players would benefit from the slower stopping ball, not all. 

I shot two over this morning. Two of my birdies came on 9 irons that I landed 7 or 8 yards short of the pin.  Each released and rolled to within a foot of the pin. Playing the air game, I would have had to hit harder or go to 8 iron, both of which would have made me one club less accurate. Those shots are far more common than the flop over the bunker you describe. 

By the way, I was playing a Wilson fifty elite ( my favorite ball) that I paid about 87 cents for. 

I must have missed where I “blindly encouraged others to waste 50 bucks on balls”. And if cost is the primary concern, you can walk into Costco and get the Kirkland Performance+ (TPU cover) for less per dozen than you can find nearly any other ball regardless of construction. 

I personally am far more confident controlling bump and run shots with a urethane ball than I am with an ionomer ball let alone a short sided flop (and those short forced carries over a bunker have far more blowup potential than the occasional shot that checks up short IMHO). Additionally my putting suffers dramatically with most ionomer covered balls with low compression, 2-piece, hard covered balls being the worst.

Also, regularly playing for 20 ft of rollout on a full 9 iron shot seems unusual to me regardless of the type of ball used. Are the greens you regularly play ridiculously hard/fast or do you just launch your irons really low? 

[GregGarner]

Not willing to wade into the waters of whether or not there are logical leaps being made regarding who should play what kind of ball, but I don't mind answering the original question to say, add me to the TruFeel-in-the-winter crew.

I have a pretty high ball flight, so the lower spin compared to my gamer is slightly less noticeable on full shots, especially in the winter when everything's soft anyways. I typically play more of a bump and run game around the green, so the only time I wish I wasn't playing the TruFeel is with elevated greens or when I'm short-sided.

[Brian Parkinson]

Still so disappointed MSG only tested urethane balls.  Anywho, I just bought a couple of dozen of the E12 Contact to try.  Feels like such a miss that they didn't include some popular mid-grade balls to compare against the urethane.  Seems like a lot of what MSG is about is getting the right data regardless of stereotype. 

[BostonSal]

Although I never [on a regular basis] used natural balata covered balls, I now use urethane covered balls that replaced them.

I had no trouble spinning rock hard surlyn covered balls with box grooves, but with v-shaped grooves,

it's a different story. 

And if f it isn't the grooves, I suppose it could just be an older Sal,

but as I like to play the game up in the air,

the urethane covered balls are worth the extra expense to me.

 

 

[Londo]

Not here to argue about the MGS test or tell people who should be playing what ball. From reading around here I definitely would consider trying the TruFeel or Srixon Soft Feel if I am looking for something different! I really liked the old e6s, not sure what exactly they changed and tried a couple e12s but I just don't think they are for me if I am looking at using something other than urethane.

Edited September 3, 2021 by Londo

[TBT]

I LOVED the old e6 ball, wish they would have never changed it. I need to try the e12 since a few compare it to the e6.

the TM Tour Response is a decent ball too.

right now I’m playing my way through 4 dozen Kirkland balls that my wife bought me

[PBH3]

I picked up a sleeve of Titleist Tour Speeds yesterday before my round to try.  The are the longest ball I have ever played!  Probably about half a club longer than the Snell MTB-X on my irons and at least 10 yards longer on the driver.  They are straight as an arrow, but have almost no feel or spin going into the greens.  The extra distance is fun, but I don't think I will stick with Tour Speed with the short game downsides except for fall and spring golf when the greens are very slow.

[fixyurdivot]

On 8/22/2021 at 7:05 PM, DiscipleofPenick said:

Velocity. That ball is longggg.

Took the HRC "long drive" title with it a couple years ago.  The flame orange are the longest .  @TiftaaftI share your dilemma trying to find a preferred ball.  I've been testing balls for a few years now and nothing is really standing out as a clear winner.  I do note that some wear better than others and, with the price of top shelf balls, that is important.  

I've never really delved into urethane vs. non-urethane options and not sure I'd notice the difference. Most recently I tested a Srixon Soft Feel vs. a ProV1 while playing a 2 ball round. Throw a hat over the results. The Duo and Gamer get lots of praise, so I plan to try them.

I suppose this is good in that I can play well (and bad) with many different balls.... could be a real blessing if the predicted "ball shortage" happens.  

[GolfSpy TCB]

On 9/2/2021 at 4:47 PM, Riverboat said:

Agreed. MGS seems to have decided to ignore that not everyone wants the ball to stop as quickly as possible in every circumstance. I'm also not sure about all their techniques, because I'm not the only midspeed golfer who has done enough side by side testing to be absolutely convinced that "premium" balls are not their best option for distance.  Love MGS's overall work, but they are off base with their "urethane is better for everyone" mantra. 

I think this thread and your comments are even more relevant now that there may be a Urethane supply issue for the '22 season.  No denying the advantages that Urethane gives.  They really are a quality of ball that a tour player and many non professionals can use to improve their scores.  Having said that, I'm not convinced that I gain enough with my mediocre game to take full advantage.  Swing speed, ball striking, consistency all areas that I wish I was better at, but alas... still chasing that dream.

Actually Mike Yagley in the Cobra Q&A eluded to this phenomenon... he said walk down the range and see the clubs that are being played... then mentioned forged irons that many are playing, and how much they can gain by more game improvement tech implemented in their clubs... I'm not exactly quoting, but the takeaway for me was that many players are leaving lower scores on the table by choosing to play tour level equipment.  A non-urethane ball is just as "game improvement" for certain aspects.  Distance, accuracy (defined by straighter ball flight, durability - these are all things that game improvement clubs give you as well... not to mention cost (though not necessarily game improvement, but definitely wallet improvement).  

I really think, for a guy like me, I have more opportunity to shave strokes playing a longer and straighter ball, and learning how to adjust for the limited spin around the greens, than I do playing a $3-4 ball (as much as I want to be the guy playing Musclebacks and ProV1 left dots (at $16 a ball currently :)).

All of the comments above are great options and I can't wait to work through them all in my own testing.

[GolfSpy TCB]

On 9/7/2021 at 6:42 PM, fixyurdivot said:

@TiftaaftI share your dilemma trying to find a preferred ball.  I've been testing balls for a few years now and nothing is really standing out as a clear winner.  I do note that some wear better than others and, with the price of top shelf balls, that is important.  

I hear you FYD.  I have been playing the Velocity against some of the Urethane balls at the top of the distance list from the ball test.  I do see some distance advantage (though I'm playing white... maybe I should have tried the flame orange  ).  Not exactly sure how I feel about the action on the greens yet (approaches, chipping, putting), but I haven't been compelled to put the remaining sleeves in my shag bag... I want to say the WilsonStaff Elite 50 is a little shorter than the Velocity, but I need to do some more side by side testing with them.  I haven't tried the Gamer yet either, but I want to... and the Duo as well.  Lots of options out there... I'm hoping to find my ball for '22 before '22 - be that Urethane or Non-Urethane... 50/50 at this point.

[alii1959]

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but here goes.  I have been trying real hard to like the more Pro oriented balls.  Whether Titleist, Bridgestone, TM, or the myriad of others I can't seem to stop them....especially on relatively short shots on fast greens.  However, the cheap 2 or 3 piece balls are predictable.  Off the driver or irons the urethane ball flights are extremely low.  It is almost as if the ball sticks to the face of the club and doesn't "jump" into the air.  As a feel player, who used cheap balls for years, this just doesn't seem right.  I watch others, try different techniques, and the results are mostly the same.

This past few months I have been ball testing.  Everything I am willing to try (afford) from ProVs, Gamers, TF Bombs, e12s, Q-Star, Volvik Vivid, etc.  I find that the balls that are the most predictable for me are the Wilson Zips.  I know, I know.  They are cheap.  But, I have shot some low scores (for me that is) with them.  I find that much like the e12s the ball jumps off the club face and has a predictable roll-out.  

As others have said before, maybe my swing speed isn't high enough to get the urethane balls to act properly, or I just got accustomed to the cheaper side of things.

I do think that even the cheaper balls today are much better than those I used 20+ years ago.  Thus, it is conceivable that one of the lower echelon  balls may be just fine for most of us.  Years ago I, my swing speed was much higher, was able to get great spin out of non-tour balls.  I am not sure that most of us couldn't today as well.  Further, the testing done on launch monitors doesn't always equal the experience on the course, IMHO.

[HAC]

On 8/25/2021 at 6:43 PM, gmmiddle said:

I actually find the Maxfli Tour surprisingly good, for 24 balls/$55 (last years model).

These are urethane, right?  One reason I don’t see price as a reason to play nonurethane

[GolfSpy TCB]

I agree with all the comments above @alii1959, @Riverboat , @HAC  as it relates to my game (all of us have different reasons for seeking the right ball for us).  

For me, I am looking for a ball that matches my swing to get the highest personal rating (A combination of distance off the tee, feel and spin into the greens, and feel on the greens).  This is really what we all are looking for... maybe with shot shaping ability thrown in as well for those that want to control that.  However, throw in the last variable... the golfer's swing style (Speed, AoA, path, etc) - not to mention the condition of the course each of us are playing (firm, soft, tight fairways, long rough etc), and you have no way to find your ball on paper... only trial and error.  

Personally I have found higher compression balls check the boxes for me better than a softer compression ball - even with my slow swing speed, and I am not afraid to game a Ionomer or Surlyn two piece over a Urethane if I feel confident in it.  I have been playing the Maxfli Tour because I like that ball - not because of price (but my wife appreciates that aspect ;)), or because it has a urethane cover... I like the way it reacts to my swing.   I also enjoyed the TM Tour Response last season, as well as the Velocity (looking forward to trying out the new model this season).  I gave the Wilson Elite 50 a go last season... good ball, I'm not mad at it... seemed to be a little shorter off the tee than some other options I played - but also didn't curve as much... which could be an advantage depending on how I'm swinging at the time.  I also loved the left dot - and still have a couple sleeves left to pull out this season while waiting for a larger release from Titleist.  I also recently gave the Srixon Diamond a test out and it is a good ball as well.

Anyway - just a few of my thoughts... YM-will-V.  

 

[Middler]

14 hours ago, HAC said:

These are urethane, right?  One reason I don’t see price as a reason to play nonurethane

+1. I don’t doubt Riverboats assertion (despite pulling % out of thin air) that many people can be perfectly happy with cheaper ionomer/Surlyn cover balls. But acting like urethane balls are all “50 bucks” like Riverboat - that’s a false choice. You can easily find very good urethane 3-pc balls for $25-35/dozen, many here do (self included). And you can spend $25-35/dozen on a better ionomer ball. So the price difference does not have to be that much. I play $25-35/dozen urethane 3-pc balls because I have a high ball flight and I prefer to hit at pins with spin, and most ionomer balls feel like hitting a rock to me. Playing a 2-pc ionomer ball probably wouldn’t cost me more than a couple strokes a round, but I really don’t like the feel. We should all play exactly whatever ball we like best whether it’s $50/dozen or free balls others have left for us…without sweeping generalizations to either end of the spectrum.

[Middler]

6 minutes ago, Riverboat said:

I was referring to those who recommend prov1 to every golfer with the $50 comment. I guess you felt the need to "sweepingly generalize" that I was talking about all urethane balls. Have a lovely day, troll.

I’ve read this forum for years, show us who recommended every golfer should play Pro V1’s (besides Titleist themselves for obvious reasons)? Pretty rare IME. Anyone with a different POV than yours is a troll? Lovely…

[Middler]

1 hour ago, Riverboat said:

No, only those who can't seem to share a different opinion without being exceedingly snarky about it are trolls. You know I'm not the only one who has pointed out to you that your responses veer from disagreements to attacks.  I've only run across 2 trolls on MGS. You made the cut. Congrats. 

Then you’ll want to include yourself as a troll to be fair. Still waiting for who said everyone should play a Pro V1…

[GolfSpy TCB]

Titleist Velocity.

[Jeremy26]

I used to love Wilson SmartCore. Played that ball for years. I’d happily play them again. Not as easy to find anymore.

[Olmsted421]

Been playing the Wilson Staff Duo and 50 Elite for several years. Haven’t found a ball that feels or performs better in the price range. I honestly don’t have any issues with spinning it either, so there’s that. 

[NC Golfer]

soft feel

[Krls032022]

The Srixon Q-Star 2021 works well for me.

[will golf for food]

13 handicap - slow swing speed (80s), getting older

2015-2019 Wilson Zip - played this for 3-4 years, supposedly "0" compression.   straight, long and stops on the green for me. similar or better than other urethane balls, but Im typically short of the hole so if it rolls 5 feet I'm normally happy.   Was given a sleeve from a friend never looked back.   $10 a dozen in 24 packs a few years ago (Walmart) but now you have to look harder to get that price.   I see them ranging between 20-30 for a double dozen.

2021-present Bridgestone E12 Contact - started this after my course pro shop closed and I had to quickly pend $200 in script from their in-stock items.  Still have a couple dozen left I like it but the Zip is still my favorite.  

pre-2015 Costco Callaways before that then they stopped carrying them.  the Kirklands 3 pc were ok but didn't really do anything for me.  I thought the kirklands were short relatively

 

my advice is pick a decent ball and stick with it.   you'll know what to expect and how to deal with it then you can develop some consistency

 

 

separately

I volunteered for a LPGA tournament as a walking scorer in 2012.  the ladies/girls gave me a ball each (9 total)

I forgot who they were as no one really famous at the time and forgot to id what came from who.  this year I said WTH  and used them.   OMG the Titleists seemed to have specially powers, long, straight, ... even after 10 years in my closet.  but stranger yet I gave 2 Volviks to a friend who was complaining about his Titleists.   He birdied the first 3 holes.   so it seems the balls the pros use are NOT the same as we buy off the shelf.  He said he's switching to Volvik now.

Now I just give the "gift balls" to kid spectators after I write down who they came from.

 

 

 

[HAC]

13 hours ago, Tiftaaft said:

I agree with all the comments above @alii1959, @Riverboat , @HAC  as it relates to my game (all of us have different reasons for seeking the right ball for us).  

For me, I am looking for a ball that matches my swing to get the highest personal rating (A combination of distance off the tee, feel and spin into the greens, and feel on the greens).  This is really what we all are looking for... maybe with shot shaping ability thrown in as well for those that want to control that.  However, throw in the last variable... the golfer's swing style (Speed, AoA, path, etc) - not to mention the condition of the course each of us are playing (firm, soft, tight fairways, long rough etc), and you have no way to find your ball on paper... only trial and error.  

Personally I have found higher compression balls check the boxes for me better than a softer compression ball - even with my slow swing speed, and I am not afraid to game a Ionomer or Surlyn two piece over a Urethane if I feel confident in it.  I have been playing the Maxfli Tour because I like that ball - not because of price (but my wife appreciates that aspect ;)), or because it has a urethane cover... I like the way it reacts to my swing.   I also enjoyed the TM Tour Response last season, as well as the Velocity (looking forward to trying out the new model this season).  I gave the Wilson Elite 50 a go last season... good ball, I'm not mad at it... seemed to be a little shorter off the tee than some other options I played - but also didn't curve as much... which could be an advantage depending on how I'm swinging at the time.  I also loved the left dot - and still have a couple sleeves left to pull out this season while waiting for a larger release from Titleist.  I also recently gave the Srixon Diamond a test out and it is a good ball as well.

Anyway - just a few of my thoughts... YM-will-V.  

 

I understood from your earlier post that you look at non-urethane balls to get a performance benefit and not just price. Interesting to me as I find the urethane balls helpful in holding greens. Our course has fast greens and lots of traps.  So spin on iron shots is important for me.  Interesting to see your contrary views for sound reasons.

Given balls like Q star Tour and Maxflis with urethane covers and occasional deals (including Dick’s coupons) where I can find urethane balls for $20-30, I find using balls without urethane for economic reasons less compelling.  When I have bought Pro V1s, it has been on pre-season 4 for 3 deals where price is under $40.

[Deepred]

7 hours ago, Jeremy26 said:

I used to love Wilson SmartCore. Played that ball for years. I’d happily play them again. Not as easy to find anymore.

Which SmartCore? I really liked the spin version, I think it was the green box.

 

i think lower spin balls are more predictable if less precise on chip shots. To quote a very famous teacher when asked by a golfer if he could teach him to get more backspin, “ do you usually fly the ball past the hole”? No. Then why do you want backspin?

 

[GolfSpy TCB]

Thanks HAC, fair comments all. 

9 hours ago, HAC said:

I understood from your earlier post that you look at non-urethane balls to get a performance benefit and not just price. Interesting to me as I find the urethane balls helpful in holding greens. Our course has fast greens and lots of traps.  So spin on iron shots is important for me.  Interesting to see your contrary views for sound reasons.

Well that is partially true... I look at ANY ball to get a performance benefit, whether that be Urethane or other.  And just as you outlined in your post, that "performance benefit" can be weighted differently for each player.  for you and the course you play,  I can see why you rank feel and spin high on your decision tree... Distance off the tee is pretty high priority for my game, mainly because I'm a slower swinger than I would like to be.  But I know that I might need to sacrifice that soft touch around the greens to get it.   But that is just how I weight it.  So your right, I do bounce all over the place looking for a ball that I don't feel like I'm giving away performance (as it relates to my specific swing) to the field.  If I can spend less to get it... ok, but that isn't going to be a high factor in my decision.

You are exactly right, there are a lot of options out there with urethane covers at all price points.  I play the Maxfli Tour and the Pro V mostly because they check my boxes the best so far (and if you buy the 48 ball box of Maxflis for ~$105 we are probably talking both ends of the cost extreme there)... but as I noted above... I also like the Titleist Velocity... great distance, and I can still hold the greens... maybe not spinning back a 7 iron, but certainly a hop, stop and trickle, that I can get used to.  A lot of other good options noted in this tread as well.  I also like Srixon (as you can see from my equipment), and their line of Q-Stars and Z-Stars which I will be continuing to try out this year, including the ionomer covers.  

Having said all that... as I sit here today, on the injured reserve from my golf game, I am considering my options for 2022, and thinking that I may focus less on trying to get maximum distance from my swings (Tee and Approach) and accept my old age fate of never again hitting a 280 yard drive or a 165 yard 7 iron.  So that will shift my focus to fairway woods, hybrids, and wedges.... so my "performance equation" may need to be updated to match, and those soft spinny balls will be my desire (honestly, I played some of the best golf in my life with a balata... but then, my playing competitors weren't using Pro V's either ;)).  I appreciate everyone's comments about what works for them and why