Jump to content

Why so many refinished and surplus pro v’s


Mes

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, Riverboat said:

In my experience, people playing other titleists say titleist. Those playing prov1 say prov1, my prov1, prov1 of course, prov1 is there any other ball, or something equally proud, as if the ball you buy is something to be proud of??? What's your score, I don't care about your ball. Oh you had a95? I shot 75 with a ball that cost 1/4 as much. Just saying. 

No one I play with. I guess my 20+ regular golf buddies are more secure/less ego. I play Pro V1's from time to time as do some of my buds, and none of us would ever say more than "Titleist" - and then only if asked. We know each others ball marks, so there's almost never a reason to ask even if we're looking for each others lost ball.

  • Like 2
  • Callaway Rogue 10.5° & 3W
  • Mizuno CLK 3H 19°, JPX900 Forged 4-GW, S18 56.10, S18 60.06
  • Evnroll ER5B ER2
  • Maxfli Tour Snell MTB-Black
  • Ping Pioneer - MGI Zip Navigator AT
Link to comment

I'm just going to throw this out as a last comment on this.  Now I am not professing that anyone needs to use new Pro V1's.  I'm just pointing this math out should one choose to use Refurbished Pro V1's.  Now I'm sure some can find them for less.  Most places I looked them up on the internet, they are around 25$ a dozen for very good or "mint", some are more per dozen some are less.  I'm going to go with 25$ a dozen, basically half price.  I'm going to give two examples other than the Refurbished Pro V's.  This is assuming someone will lose 3 dozen balls in 30 rounds.

30 rounds a year x cost per round +cost of 3 dozen lost balls divided by number of rounds again = cost per round 

30 x $35(random cost per round)= $1,050 + $75 (3 dozen refurb ProV)= $1,125 divided by 30 rounds = $37.50 per round (this is including the cost of all lost balls.

30 x $35 =$1,050 + $150 (3 dozen new ProV)= $1200 divided by 30 rounds = $40 per round

Now if Urethane cover is important to you, Dicks had Srixon Z Star XV for $33 a dozen brand new.  (4 piece ball, urethane cover)

30x $35 = $1050 + $99(3 dozen lost Z-Stars) = $1,149 divided by 30 rounds = $38.30 per round.  

I'm  just trying to point out that if you play more than 25  rounds a year, that the actual cost per round of using even new Titleist Pro V1's  works out to about the cost of 1/2 new pro V1 per round, over 30 rounds. 

Given some of the recent articles about the "quality" of what you are actually buying, and getting with refurbed Pro V's, is it worth half a new one a  round.   

And if you are not hung up on playing the Pro V1 name then Z-Star XV's will cost you 80 cents a round to play a brand new Urethane Covered 4 piece ball, instead of Refurbished. 

If you only play 5 rounds a year and are going to lose 2 dozen new Pro' V's then it would be cost prohibitive, and really increase the cost per round

  • Like 3

Driver: :nike-small:VR Pro

Irons:  :callaway-small: Mavrik 4-GW

Wedges:  :cleveland-small: CG-14 56 & RTX 52

Putter:  :ping-small: Scottsdale Wolverine

Woods:  Gigagolf  3W, 2H, 3H

Ball:  :bridgestone-small: E12 Soft Yellow 

Link to comment

I don't understand why people buy refurb balls when they can go with a DTC brand for the same price or less and actually know what they're getting vs. possible lake balls.

Brand name recognition is a hell of a drug I guess.

  • Driver - :taylormade-small: SIM (10.5°) - Project X HZRDUS Smoke Black (S)
  • 3 Hybrid - :srixon-small: Z H85 (19°) - Project X HZRDUS Black (S)
  • 5 Hybrid - :honma: XP-1 (25°) - Vizard (R)
  • 4I-GW - :mizuno-small: JPX 900 Hot Metal - Nippon NS (R - +0.5)
  • SW - :honma: TW-w4 (56°/12 - Nippon Modus 125)
  • LW - :honma: TW-w4 (60°/8 - Nippon Modus 125)
  • Putter - Kirkland Signature KS-1
  • Ball - :bridgestone-small: Tour B X
Link to comment
On 9/22/2021 at 4:51 AM, Riverboat said:

There is a difference in feel between any two balls. By difference in game, I basically meant score. The ball is not going to change the score for most players. I've shot under par with brand new tp5's and scuffed up top flites and everything in between. I play low compression balls now because they are easier on my joints and I like the way they react off the driver and on the greens. But this constant harping that urethane is a must and is better for every player is utter nonsense. It is, at its core, largely snob appeal. Most players would never notice a difference in scores playing a less expensive ball unless their subconscious is causing it. It would take a player far better than me for something like that to make a real difference. We are talking scratch players trying to save 1/2 a stroke a round or so. Most other players would be just as likely to benefit from playing a ball that spins less and learning to play for more release. Most higher handicappers come up short of the hole more than 70 percent of the time.  They don't benefit from a ball that stops faster. 

I honestly agree with part of this. I think many golfers actually benefit from higher launching balls that run out more. Most golfers don't know how to properly control spin around the green and urethane balls have a tendency to be very inconsistent around the greens for non-highly skilled golfers. In some cases playing with a Noodle is superior to a Pro-VI

22 hours ago, stuka44 said:

I'm just going to throw this out as a last comment on this.  Now I am not professing that anyone needs to use new Pro V1's.  I'm just pointing this math out should one choose to use Refurbished Pro V1's.  Now I'm sure some can find them for less.  Most places I looked them up on the internet, they are around 25$ a dozen for very good or "mint", some are more per dozen some are less.  I'm going to go with 25$ a dozen, basically half price.  I'm going to give two examples other than the Refurbished Pro V's.  This is assuming someone will lose 3 dozen balls in 30 rounds.

30 rounds a year x cost per round +cost of 3 dozen lost balls divided by number of rounds again = cost per round 

30 x $35(random cost per round)= $1,050 + $75 (3 dozen refurb ProV)= $1,125 divided by 30 rounds = $37.50 per round (this is including the cost of all lost balls.

30 x $35 =$1,050 + $150 (3 dozen new ProV)= $1200 divided by 30 rounds = $40 per round

Now if Urethane cover is important to you, Dicks had Srixon Z Star XV for $33 a dozen brand new.  (4 piece ball, urethane cover)

30x $35 = $1050 + $99(3 dozen lost Z-Stars) = $1,149 divided by 30 rounds = $38.30 per round.  

I'm  just trying to point out that if you play more than 25  rounds a year, that the actual cost per round of using even new Titleist Pro V1's  works out to about the cost of 1/2 new pro V1 per round, over 30 rounds. 

Given some of the recent articles about the "quality" of what you are actually buying, and getting with refurbed Pro V's, is it worth half a new one a  round.   

And if you are not hung up on playing the Pro V1 name then Z-Star XV's will cost you 80 cents a round to play a brand new Urethane Covered 4 piece ball, instead of Refurbished. 

If you only play 5 rounds a year and are going to lose 2 dozen new Pro' V's then it would be cost prohibitive, and really increase the cost per round

This may be the case for you. However, I know many golfers that lose a sleeve of balls per round. It's really going to be course dependent. If you're a average golfer playing on a course with lots of natural brush or a links course, only losing one ball, every other round is not realistic. Plus, regardless of the "per round" cost, $75 is $75. For many people, that is a material amount of money that they will want to spend elsewhere if they can. If someone going out on the weekends with friends, they probably don't really care about performance that much. Just because doing something is expensive, like golf, it doesn't mean that it justifies spending even more.

13 minutes ago, mizunocorgi said:

I don't understand why people buy refurb balls when they can go with a DTC brand for the same price or less and actually know what they're getting vs. possible lake balls.

Brand name recognition is a hell of a drug I guess.

Brand name recognition is a thing because many people don't spend the time or have the time to do the research. They know Pro-V1s are good so they will buy used/refurbs before they even consider putting in the time and research to buy a DTC ball. Heck, many don't even know what the actual difference is between urethane and surlyn, they just know the brand. Why do you think so many people played the Nike Mojo, often what I think of being one of the worst "name brand" balls ever made?

It's all about branding. If anyone is on this forum or thread, they likely know more about golf and golf equipment than 95% of other golfers out there. There is only so much time in the day. We happen to enjoy researching golf but many others just want a no fuss round where they may not even care about the equipment they're using. They just trust the brands. This isn't a bad thing either. I'm a researcher when it comes to buying anything but there are times when I just don't care or have the time, and I will buy the brand name thing regardless of price (assuming it's within reason).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Kansas King said:

I honestly agree with part of this. I think many golfers actually benefit from higher launching balls that run out more. Most golfers don't know how to properly control spin around the green and urethane balls have a tendency to be very inconsistent around the greens for non-highly skilled golfers. In some cases playing with a Noodle is superior to a Pro-VI

Thanks for chiming in. Maybe if more good players would be willing to tell their high handicap and slower swing speed playing partners that "premium" balls aren't doing them any favors and do not match their skill set, more would at least try some other balls. But probably not, the snob appeal factor is very difficult to overcome. 

  • Like 1

😧 Wilson Triton

3w: PXG 341

5W: Cleveland launcher 

3H: Wilson Deep Red

5-GW: PXG 0211

SW LW: Mizuno MP T5

P: Scott Cameron Newport

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Riverboat said:

Thanks for chiming in. Maybe if more good players would be willing to tell their high handicap and slower swing speed playing partners that "premium" balls aren't doing them any favors and do not match their skill set, more would at least try some other balls. But probably not, the snob appeal factor is very difficult to overcome. 

I would never tell my high handicap friends to play a non premium ball unless I thought it would benefit them more than a premium ball. My brother has good success with the avx because of his spin off the driver and it doesn’t hurt him around the green since he’s not trying to spin the ball and plays more get it in the green and play it like a putt.

Two friends of mine don’t like super soft feeling golf balls and one benefitted from playing the original chromesoft instead of rhe 2015 and earlier versions of the prov1 and it allowed him to maintain his short game strategy which was his strong suit.

Putting another golf buddy in the original bridgestone rx helped him hit it further off the tee. 
 

All my recommendations to my friends are based on what they want around the green and off the tee. Most don’t practice so there’s not going to be any testing side by side 

Driver: PXG 0811 X+ Proto w/UST Helium 5F4

Wood: TaylorMade M5 5W w/Accra TZ5 +1/2”, TaylorMade Sim 3W w/Aldila rogue white

Hybrid: PXG Gen2 22* w/AD hybrid

Irons: PXG Gen3 0311T w/Nippon modus 120

Wedges: TaylorMade MG2 50*, Tiger grind 56/60

Putter: Scotty Caemeron Super Rat1

Ball: Titleist Prov1

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

I would never tell my high handicap friends to play a non premium ball unless I thought it would benefit them more than a premium ball. My brother has good success with the avx because of his spin off the driver and it doesn’t hurt him around the green since he’s not trying to spin the ball and plays more get it in the green and play it like a putt.

Two friends of mine don’t like super soft feeling golf balls and one benefitted from playing the original chromesoft instead of rhe 2015 and earlier versions of the prov1 and it allowed him to maintain his short game strategy which was his strong suit.

Putting another golf buddy in the original bridgestone rx helped him hit it further off the tee. 
 

All my recommendations to my friends are based on what they want around the green and off the tee. Most don’t practice so there’s not going to be any testing side by side 

If they are not going to practice or do any side by side testing, I'm betting they are not benefiting from those very expensive ball choices. I have had numerous friends try low compression balls against their current premium ball in consecutive rounds (I give them the cheaper balls so they are more willing to try them). Virtually none have had significantly better scores with their premium balls. Most have been shocked at how much they liked the feel and performance of the balls I gave them once they got used to it, especially the number of shots that they thought they had left short that bounced onto the green instead of stopping short like they were used to. Some immediately went out and bought "their new ball. " Others stuck with their original because of feel, short game style, or admitted snob factor. Most who switched have improved their scoring. 

I am not saying cheaper, softer balls are for everyone. Rather, I am fighting the preconception of many that urethane balls are better for all. By all means, golfers should try both, giving both an actual extended trial to see which works better for them. If they do that, based on my experience, most golfers swinging at medium to slow swing speeds will find that low compression is a better match for their swing. Cheaper and better for your game is hard to beat, unless the biggest thrill you get in the game is telling people you play provs.

  • Like 1

😧 Wilson Triton

3w: PXG 341

5W: Cleveland launcher 

3H: Wilson Deep Red

5-GW: PXG 0211

SW LW: Mizuno MP T5

P: Scott Cameron Newport

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Riverboat said:

If they are not going to practice or do any side by side testing, I'm betting they are not benefiting from those very expensive ball choices. I have had numerous friends try low compression balls against their current premium ball in consecutive rounds (I give them the cheaper balls so they are more willing to try them). Virtually none have had significantly better scores with their premium balls. Most have been shocked at how much they liked the feel and performance of the balls I gave them once they got used to it, especially the number of shots that they thought they had left short that bounced onto the green instead of stopping short like they were used to. Some immediately went out and bought "their new ball. " Others stuck with their original because of feel, short game style, or admitted snob factor. Most who switched have improved their scoring. 

I am not saying cheaper, softer balls are for everyone. Rather, I am fighting the preconception of many that urethane balls are better for all. By all means, golfers should try both, giving both an actual extended trial to see which works better for them. If they do that, based on my experience, most golfers swinging at medium to slow swing speeds will find that low compression is a better match for their swing. Cheaper and better for your game is hard to beat, unless the biggest thrill you get in the game is telling people you play provs.

It all depends on the what the golfer needs and/or wants the ball to do. 
 

@Golfspy_CG2 who is a slower swing speed mid to high handicap recently did a ball fitting and was put into the prov1x via an actual in person ball fitting.

Some of the guys that don’t practice they play 2-3x a week depending on weather on the same courses all year. Their games are what their games are and most are retired. They actually do see better performance with higher end balls. Especially off the driver. 
 

My brother has tried the lower compression balls and the cheaper route he plays better with the avx. He’s tried other premium balls that didn’t work for him like the tp5 and 5x. 
 

If people don’t want to spend money on the premium ball or like the sound of the softer balls, nothing wrong with that. The ball test lends to that being an acceptable option but to say nobody in Thats a high handicap or slower swing speed shouldn’t play a premium ball is nonsense 

 

  • Like 1

Driver: PXG 0811 X+ Proto w/UST Helium 5F4

Wood: TaylorMade M5 5W w/Accra TZ5 +1/2”, TaylorMade Sim 3W w/Aldila rogue white

Hybrid: PXG Gen2 22* w/AD hybrid

Irons: PXG Gen3 0311T w/Nippon modus 120

Wedges: TaylorMade MG2 50*, Tiger grind 56/60

Putter: Scotty Caemeron Super Rat1

Ball: Titleist Prov1

Link to comment
3 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:


 

@Golfspy_CG2 to say nobody in Thats a high handicap or slower swing speed shouldn’t play a premium ball is nonsense 

 

I never said that.  I simply said we shouldn't assume all players benefit from urethane balls, and to rule out all others without even trying them is foolish. I am sure there are some slow swingers and high handicappers who benefit from high end urethane balls, but I do think they are in the minority, so buying those balls without giving the others a real go is hurting lots of games (and wallets). Playing a ball for vanity or simply because "That's what I play" is just not smart. 

Final comment... if a fitter is also the one selling you the equipment, it would not be surprising if they put you in the highest priced option available as many who have commented about club champion have said. Not saying all fitters do it, but to not go in with a little suspicion is not wise. 

😧 Wilson Triton

3w: PXG 341

5W: Cleveland launcher 

3H: Wilson Deep Red

5-GW: PXG 0211

SW LW: Mizuno MP T5

P: Scott Cameron Newport

Link to comment
22 hours ago, Riverboat said:

I never said that.  I simply said we shouldn't assume all players benefit from urethane balls, and to rule out all others without even trying them is foolish. I am sure there are some slow swingers and high handicappers who benefit from high end urethane balls, but I do think they are in the minority, so buying those balls without giving the others a real go is hurting lots of games (and wallets). Playing a ball for vanity or simply because "That's what I play" is just not smart. 

Final comment... if a fitter is also the one selling you the equipment, it would not be surprising if they put you in the highest priced option available as many who have commented about club champion have said. Not saying all fitters do it, but to not go in with a little suspicion is not wise. 

I play regularly with 20+ seniors, and only about 1/3rd of them rely on any spin on approach shots. The other 2/3rds plan to land short and release, they couldn't back a ball up under any circumstances. The latter group might as well play any decent two piece ionomer ball, the former group mostly uses urethane balls.

And at least 80% of the guys I play with rarely or never buy new balls, they play what they find, some selectively, others anything that looks to be in good condition. [I play new urethane balls mostly, though I will play a found Pro V1-VX when I find them]

  • Callaway Rogue 10.5° & 3W
  • Mizuno CLK 3H 19°, JPX900 Forged 4-GW, S18 56.10, S18 60.06
  • Evnroll ER5B ER2
  • Maxfli Tour Snell MTB-Black
  • Ping Pioneer - MGI Zip Navigator AT
Link to comment
On 9/23/2021 at 5:43 PM, Riverboat said:

Thanks for chiming in. Maybe if more good players would be willing to tell their high handicap and slower swing speed playing partners that "premium" balls aren't doing them any favors and do not match their skill set, more would at least try some other balls. But probably not, the snob appeal factor is very difficult to overcome. 

I wouldn't say playing a urethane ball is bad necessarily, I just think they have a tendency to decrease consistency, especially around the greens. The higher launch off the irons can also be a benefit for some but urethane balls and Noodles are going to perform similarly if the irons aren't being struck correctly anyway. I've personally always found that golfers that don't know how to hit wedges get in trouble with urethane balls because the amount of spin can be wildly different from shot to shot even if they are trying to hit something similar leading to very inconsistent results. However, I do think the ceiling for golfers is higher with a urethane ball depending on the course. Even an unskilled golfer will hit a shot or two during a round that simply couldn't have been achieved with a surlyn ball. Maybe the golfer holds onto the back of a green or gets lucky and really sucks a wedge shot back. Those types of shots are what bring golfers back. 

Golf is kind of like bowling or billiards. In bowling, you can have plastic, urethane (there it is again), and reactive balls. The average unskilled recreational bowler really has no business playing with a urethane or reactive ball but many do, including myself who hasn't rolled a bowling ball for over a year. I never really got into bowling but their is nothing more fun than throwing a banana down the lane and making all the pins explode. Would I play better with a plastic ball? Almost certainly, but hey, I'm there to have fun. You can also compare golf balls to pool in certain ways. Should an unskilled pool player use a narrower cue tip that has the more rounded "dime" tip shape? Probably not because it leads to more inconsistency on imperfect strokes. However, people are still going to do it because it's fun to draw the cue ball all around the table even if it's not for the best. I could go on with a Ping Pong example but I think we get the point. 

The best choice for the golfer and what is the most fun isn't always the same. I would argue that playing a urethane vs surlyn ball doesn't necessarily have as big of an impact on consistency as some of the other examples I mentioned but it still changes things. I do believe a lot of golfers, including myself, may actually shoot some better scores by playing a noodle for a few rounds. When you're playing a noodle, you typically have to play more conservatively. You can't try to throw a dart at the pin in the corner and you can't really throw low spinny wedge shots from the fairway. Most golfers would be forced to take what the course gives you and honestly, it may lower some scores in the short-term. Many golfers, including myself, tend for forget just how aggressive they are being with their shots when playing with a good urethane ball. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Kansas King said:

 I do believe a lot of golfers, including myself, may actually shoot some better scores by playing a noodle for a few rounds. When you're playing a noodle, you typically have to play more conservatively. You can't try to throw a dart at the pin in the corner and you can't really throw low spinny wedge shots from the fairway. 

Exactly the argument I've made repeatedly. Most golfers who attempt these shots rarely pull them off. When they miss, they wind up in the bunker they were attempting to flop over, over the green, or barely on the green. A more conservative, less spin dependent shot would leave a makeable putt on most shots. Not to mention the shots that actually get to the hole instead of coming up short 70-80%of the time, as statistics tell us amateurs do, and the shots that bound onto the green instead of stopping short on mishit irons. For all of these reasons and more, I firmly believe most amateurs do not benefit from premium urethane balls. 

Aside from the short side flop, there really is no shot that is inherently better suited to a urethane ball. Virtually every other shot can be gotten just as close by allowing for some release with a lower spinning ball. It doesn't take long to adjust to this, and the fact that you can hit less club actually makes you more accurate, not less. Seriously, who wouldn't rather hit 9 iron than 8? You are able to do this in all but the wettest weather by simply changing balls. It's not for every golfer, but if you haven't tried it, maybe it's time you did. 

😧 Wilson Triton

3w: PXG 341

5W: Cleveland launcher 

3H: Wilson Deep Red

5-GW: PXG 0211

SW LW: Mizuno MP T5

P: Scott Cameron Newport

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Riverboat said:

Exactly the argument I've made repeatedly. Most golfers who attempt these shots rarely pull them off. When they miss, they wind up in the bunker they were attempting to flop over, over the green, or barely on the green. A more conservative, less spin dependent shot would leave a makeable putt on most shots. Not to mention the shots that actually get to the hole instead of coming up short 70-80%of the time, as statistics tell us amateurs do, and the shots that bound onto the green instead of stopping short on mishit irons. For all of these reasons and more, I firmly believe most amateurs do not benefit from premium urethane balls. 

Aside from the short side flop, there really is no shot that is inherently better suited to a urethane ball. Virtually every other shot can be gotten just as close by allowing for some release with a lower spinning ball. It doesn't take long to adjust to this, and the fact that you can hit less club actually makes you more accurate, not less. Seriously, who wouldn't rather hit 9 iron than 8? You are able to do this in all but the wettest weather by simply changing balls. It's not for every golfer, but if you haven't tried it, maybe it's time you did. 

I would argue that there certainly are advantages to playing urethane balls. I would only really encourage people that play very little golf or those with really bad wedge and iron games to play something else. For amateurs that do have some level of skill (say sub-20 handicap and they play a couple times a month), then urethane balls can be beneficial. I personally would never play with a surlyn ball for more than a round or two. Urethane tour balls allow golfers to much better control trajectory and spin with irons and wedges and can even be beneficial off the tee depending on how they are fit. Being able to confidently throw the ball at the hole and know it will stop on shorter shots is important. The real benefit of urethane is actually not on the flop shots but the lower ones. If you're 100 yards out and have a urethane ball on the fairway, you can actually really flight the ball down and control spin so it hops and stops wherever it hits on the green. Can't do that with a Noodle. Nothing wrong with playing the middle of the green with a Noodle and at 100 yards, there may not even be much roll out but the trajectory of the shot can be a problem. Surlyn balls always launch high and there isn't much you can do about it. Higher spinning lower launching balls will improve your ability to control the shot way better than any surlyn ball. I think this shines the most on shots from 50 - 150 yards. Inside 50 yards, urethane is great if you know how to properly use a wedge or if you are consistent with how you do use your wedge. 

Really, I think one of the biggest thing about playing urethane balls is a golfers intention during the round. If you're out to have fun and you're content by just being on the golf course, then surlyn is fine. However, if you get joy out of playing controlled golf shots or spinny wedge shots, then urethane is the answer. If you're trying to improve and work towards a lower handicap, urethane is the answer. Urethane is not required to play good golf but with the lower cost of urethane balls today, there is no reason not to be playing them if you're really trying to improve because they do help. My big thing with the earlier post is mostly encouraging the least skilled golfers to play surlyn. I even note that surlyn is okay in the short term for better golfers but I didn't encourage full-time use.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Kansas King said:

I would argue that there certainly are advantages to playing urethane balls. I would only really encourage people that play very little golf or those with really bad wedge and iron games to play something else. For amateurs that do have some level of skill (say sub-20 handicap and they play a couple times a month), then urethane balls can be beneficial. I personally would never play with a surlyn ball for more than a round or two. Urethane tour balls allow golfers to much better control trajectory and spin with irons and wedges and can even be beneficial off the tee depending on how they are fit. Being able to confidently throw the ball at the hole and know it will stop on shorter shots is important. The real benefit of urethane is actually not on the flop shots but the lower ones. If you're 100 yards out and have a urethane ball on the fairway, you can actually really flight the ball down and control spin so it hops and stops wherever it hits on the green. Can't do that with a Noodle. Nothing wrong with playing the middle of the green with a Noodle and at 100 yards, there may not even be much roll out but the trajectory of the shot can be a problem. Surlyn balls always launch high and there isn't much you can do about it. Higher spinning lower launching balls will improve your ability to control the shot way better than any surlyn ball. I think this shines the most on shots from 50 - 150 yards. Inside 50 yards, urethane is great if you know how to properly use a wedge or if you are consistent with how you do use your wedge. 

Really, I think one of the biggest thing about playing urethane balls is a golfers intention during the round. If you're out to have fun and you're content by just being on the golf course, then surlyn is fine. However, if you get joy out of playing controlled golf shots or spinny wedge shots, then urethane is the answer. If you're trying to improve and work towards a lower handicap, urethane is the answer. Urethane is not required to play good golf but with the lower cost of urethane balls today, there is no reason not to be playing them if you're really trying to improve because they do help. My big thing with the earlier post is mostly encouraging the least skilled golfers to play surlyn. I even note that surlyn is okay in the short term for better golfers but I didn't encourage full-time use.

Now I totally disagree with you. I'm a 6, fresh off a 2 over 74 from the regular men's tees today at age 59, playing vice drive...2 piece at 12 bucks a dozen.  I have no interest at all in playing urethane. I know from experience that it does not benefit my game. I don't want to stop it quick. I want release and a very soft feel. Your assumption that everyone should desire to play the same way is simply erroneous. I don't disagree that some benefit from that style of play, but based on 25 years of coaching and helping players of all ability levels, I have found that most players, including all talent levels, can benefit from getting away from the American "everything through the air" style of play. While I agree with your assessment that low skill players should almost definitely play 2 piece, you're belief that virtually everyone else should be using urethane is, in my opinion, way off base. Players should experiment with both, with no preconceived notions of outcome, and see which is best for their game. 

  • Like 1

😧 Wilson Triton

3w: PXG 341

5W: Cleveland launcher 

3H: Wilson Deep Red

5-GW: PXG 0211

SW LW: Mizuno MP T5

P: Scott Cameron Newport

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Riverboat said:

Now I totally disagree with you. I'm a 6, fresh off a 2 over 74 from the regular men's tees today at age 59, playing vice drive...2 piece at 12 bucks a dozen.  I have no interest at all in playing urethane. I know from experience that it does not benefit my game. I don't want to stop it quick. I want release and a very soft feel. Your assumption that everyone should desire to play the same way is simply erroneous. I don't disagree that some benefit from that style of play, but based on 25 years of coaching and helping players of all ability levels, I have found that most players, including all talent levels, can benefit from getting away from the American "everything through the air" style of play. While I agree with your assessment that low skill players should almost definitely play 2 piece, you're belief that virtually everyone else should be using urethane is, in my opinion, way off base. Players should experiment with both, with no preconceived notions of outcome, and see which is best for their game. 

I honestly think we're on two sides of the same coin but I have a feeling we may be playing different courses. In my part of the world, I'm used to "American" courses where the control and stopping power of urethane is hugely beneficial. Many of the courses I've spent a lot of time on do not typically support playing a ball that rolls out. There are also courses around me that are flatter and have a more open entry into the flatter greens that would potentially make running the ball easier. I'm not saying you can't stick shots with a two piece ball but depending on the greens, the stopping power of urethane can be a huge benefit. I think the question about urethane is really almost as much about the course as it is the player. I grew up playing two piece surlyn balls on a course with soft greens, so they certainly worked fine. I didn't play urethane balls much really until college when I started playing other courses that really needed balls that could hold the green. I worked at a country club in Nebraska my first year at college that had great greens that were well guarded, very firm, rarely played under a 12 on the stimp, and held spin incredibly well. Playing two piece balls on that course was a struggle, especially on chips and pitches around the greens. It was a necessity to be able to put some strong check on chips and pitches because trying to roll surlyn balls to the hole was extremely tedious. Like most things in golf, the decision on any piece of equipment is never simple. I think the surlyn/ionomer balls today are rather decent and would work at any course but I think there are many courses where having the extra control with urethane is an absolute must if you want to be competitive with those at your relative skill level. If you know how to strike the ball well and have a decent mental game, urethane can remove some of the guess work.

Link to comment

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...