PXG Golf Balls

[ajlacombe]

7 minutes ago, MGoBlue100 said:

Rick Shiels was less impressed, for what it's worth...

 

Right - I think the mistake that PXG made was with their claims. If you claim that you are better than ProV1, you better be better than ProV1. If you just said your ball was good you can allow word of mouth to build the momentum for your ball and then the community will figure out where it fits. Now they are building a negative momentum that will have to be overcome before they get back to ground zero. Big mistake IMO to make that claim when clearly the ball has issues

[Javs]

29 minutes ago, ajlacombe said:

Right - I think the mistake that PXG made was with their claims. If you claim that you are better than ProV1, you better be better than ProV1. If you just said your ball was good you can allow word of mouth to build the momentum for your ball and then the community will figure out where it fits. Now they are building a negative momentum that will have to be overcome before they get back to ground zero. Big mistake IMO to make that claim when clearly the ball has issues

I wouldn’t argue with his testing of the ball. However, I did have nice results in the two rounds I put it in play. However, I liked the lower spin of this ball. Also found it did very well in the wind. I think we all have some kind of bias when it comes to equipment. If there is a ball you love it is going to be hard for someone to move you to another brand. Thanks for sharing this video!

[G56788]

1 hour ago, ajlacombe said:

If you just said your ball was good you can allow word of mouth to build the momentum for your ball and then the community will figure out where it fits.

I think this is generally a good strategy, but if PXG had done that, would it be a PXG product? Doesn’t seem consistent with their style. 

[dinomack99]

 Every ball manufacturer compares themself to the pro v1. It's the only way to grab someone's attention. You can't market that a ball is good and charge $40 a dozen for it.

[GolfSpy SAM]

1 minute ago, dmacko99 said:

 Every ball manufacturer compares themself to the pro v1. It's the only way to grab someone's attention. You can't market that a ball is good and charge $40 a dozen for it.

I would probably buy that ball "Hey, we're not as good as the ProV-1, sure - but we're PRETTY good, and we're a LOT cheaper.  And let's be honest: you don't need a $4 ball - you're not that good..  Try us! 

Lol. 

[rvs0002]

The Rick Shiels video was interesting as that is really the only negative video I have seen. Of the 10 or so I watched (just whatever came up under "PXG Ball") they've mostly been pretty positive. His was about a complete 180 compared to the others.

Edited February 23, 2023 by rvs0002
Spelling

[FrogginBullfish]

1 hour ago, rvs0002 said:

The Rick Shiels video was interesting as that is really the only negative video I have seen. Of the 10 or so I watched (just whatever came up under "PXG Ball") they've mostly been pretty positive. His was about a complete 180 compared to the others.

I watched the Shiels video last night when it showed up in my recommended feed. The only thing he showed any real data for was the driver test and that was also the only test he did a comparison with the Pro V1. All of the other tests he didn't put it head to head and just used "I've played Pro V1 for years" as his basis on why the PXG didn't perform as well.

He also claimed it didn't perform that well on the iron test but the video contradicted that I think. He used the wrong club for the first few shots, but every shot stopped pretty quickly on the greens with a 7 and 8 iron. But again he also didn't actually do a comparison with the Pro V1 to show how the PXG underperformed to his standards.

I think he did have some valid critiques but apart from a couple of things like the driver performance, the sound of the ball, and maybe the durability of the cover, most of it was just backed up by his feelings and not any actual data.

Maybe his feelings would have been validated by more data and head to head comparisons but since he didn't do enough of those, I'm not sure how much stock I'd put into his review.

[dinomack99]

I just went back and watched reviews from James Robinson and Matt Fryer again. Both rave about this ball and show statistics off the driver that indicate it is every bit as good as the Titleist. Maybe Rick got a bad batch?? Or one man's "crisp" is another man's "clicky".

[Javs]

34 minutes ago, dmacko99 said:

I just went back and watched reviews from James Robinson and Matt Fryer again. Both rave about this ball and show statistics off the driver that indicate it is every bit as good as the Titleist. Maybe Rick got a bad batch?? Or one man's "crisp" is another man's "clicky".

Or maybe his bias took over

[BIG STU]

On 2/16/2023 at 4:29 PM, Subdiver1 said:

You know this ironically ties right back to the "bias" thread.  I do not currently play PXG clubs, but my interest has been piqued by a couple of low handicap partners that have switched to either their driver and metals or irons. So I am not one of your "PXG Boys" (yeah it's okay to give each other crap/guff/a hard time, routinely even. My last feeling fell out of my hip pocket about 20 years ago whole I was being hung upside down for various reasons so I'm not kicking you for titles or monikers), BUT I have a hard time when people arbitrarily disparage something, or someone falsely.  I actually game a G400 so I guess I have a Chinese made club that doesn't meet your criteria for quality golf equipment. All that being expressed, PLEASE cite your reference source that PXG is "made in China." I'll stop short of going directly to the PXG site, but here are several sources that cite PXG as Made in USA; granted they do NOT include citations and sources with direct, facts, like address of metal billet source foundries, but I CANNOT find ANYTHING that even says they source their raw metal, billets, castings etc. from China so where do you get that from?  Thanks in advance.

https://www.windtreegolf.com/golf-clubs-made-usa/

https://tellmemoregolf.com/equipment/clubs/american-made-golf-clubs/

https://golfible.com/what-golf-clubs-are-made-in-the-usa/

https://www.mtnviewgolfclub.com/indonesia/where-are-pxg-golf-clubs-made.html

 

I do not think you know me that well----- Anyone who has known me on here knows I am not biased I joke around a lot. I did not say PXG was inferior in any way. You want to get technical look at my front line signature. Lets see my old Callaway driver was probably cast in China along with the 3 wood and I know the shafts were both made in Japan. Now if you want to get technical in my vintage bag everything including the Persimmon woods were made in the good old USA--- Sorry if I offended you in any way

[BIG STU]

On 2/23/2023 at 7:28 PM, dmacko99 said:

I just went back and watched reviews from James Robinson and Matt Fryer again. Both rave about this ball and show statistics off the driver that indicate it is every bit as good as the Titleist. Maybe Rick got a bad batch?? Or one man's "crisp" is another man's "clicky".

Everyones feel and precption is different. And believe it or not different balls behave and feel differently off of different brands of clubs. One of the reasons there are so many different balls out there now

[Londo]

The honestly like the look of the PXG ball a lot, however I am going to hold off and wait for the ball test data or for a friend to buy them before trying them out myself. Like others have mentioned, the Snell's/Maxflis of the world have gotten solid enough quality and performance that it would likely take the PXG ball to match the ProVI for me to consider moving off the DTCs and Srixon for $28-$32 at the current price point 

[JohnSmalls]

Shout out to Matty and Ian, they just released their testing of the new PXG ball vs Pro V1x

 

[dinomack99]

Great review. I was on PXG website checking my driver order and saw that they have a big warning message that golf ball deliveries are delayed due to large demand. I thought that I would like to try this ball, but I don't like a high-spin ball. I'd prefer something softer with low-spin properties (compression somewhere south of 60).

[Rickp]

1 hour ago, JohnSmalls said:

Shout out to Matty and Ian, they just released their testing of the new PXG ball vs Pro V1x

 

Thanks for posting.  

[GolfSpy_APH]

This could be interesting.

Where do you think the price point will be? How many layers and do you think it will be a contender for your bag?

[dinomack99]

Well, well... looks like PXG finally has balls back in stock and they've dropped $5. Now $34.99 which is where a lot of us wanted it to be considering it produces numbers almost identical to Pro-V1X. Thoughts???

[Subdiver1]

10 hours ago, JohnSmalls said:

Shout out to Matty and Ian, they just released their testing of the new PXG ball vs Pro V1x

 

I honestly don't know how anyone can argue with THE numbers; you may get different numbers, but if they are consistent with player A then they should be consistent with player B.  I played Snell for a bit then have tried the Maxfli Tour-X and have been happy with the performance comparison I have with the Titleist Pro (I still like Titleist, but if I can save 1/3rd the cost, well...).  

[Subdiver1]

On 2/27/2023 at 8:00 AM, BIG STU said:

Everyones feel and precption is different. And believe it or not different balls behave and feel differently off of different brands of clubs. One of the reasons there are so many different balls out there now

Big Stu,

Point 1. Concur. Which is why the MGS folks talk about feel on both club heads and balls being subjective.  Compression and layer hardness can be objectively measured, but "feel" is unique to all of us.

Point 2. May be true to some small degree, and I can see where you could correlate to make sense at some level, but I'd like to see some testing evidence that shows for example that Srixon ZX7 irons and metals compress ball A to more, or less degree than ball B, and create more/less spin on ball A vs. ball B than Mizuno 223 irons and Titleist TSR2 metals do.  This would have to be done using an Iron Byron robot to remove the variable of individual swing characteristics being the influence; swing path, attack angle etc.  One person can produce a reliable comparison between 2 or more products as long as the other variables are minimized (e.g. same person using the same club shaft combo and simulator in the same, controlled environment for several balls); that is why club manufacturers can produce a "slice reducing" driver that works for the general slice swing golfer without worrying about testing with every ball on the market and every shaft variable (which would lead to one of those long legal disclaimers at the bottom of every ad for that club stating that it is only slice reducing with this shaft/ball combo, otherwise...see you in the right rough dude).  I agree that we (each individual person) get different performance with different club head, shaft, ball combinations, but that is all due in part to the way these factors all dynamically come together.  A couple of my buddies have Skytrak simulators set-up.  We have compared Titleist, Snell, Maxfli, Callaway, Kirkland and Vice (one guy wanted to see what he could use on the cheap with the simulator so he wasn't pounding new Prov1s in his garage at $50/dz).  We found between 3 of us, different clubs swings, etc. that the performance delta among balls was relatively predictable between us; 10+ more yards carry for MTB-X over Marshmallow Soft was consistent for each of us give or take a bit (e.g. my 270 carry with ball A vs. 260 with ball C was commensurate with another guy's 240/230); higher spin with Kirkland over all others, consistent and comparable among all of us (numbers weren't exact, but higher spin was higher spin).   

I am more inclined, absent scientifically collected hard data, to believe that regardless of club head and shaft combination if you and I are getting comparable performance with ProV1X, you with your Callaway driver and McG irons and I with my Ping and TM, then whatever the delta is for me between ProV1X, Snell MTB-X, Maxfli TourX, TM TP5, PXG will be predictable for you.  All things being equal between us, I believe you or I could reasonably assert whether ball A, B, C or D would likely perform acceptably, or not, to one another; objectively; whether we believe they perform (subjectively) is another story. And if our swing speeds are 20 MPH different the distances won't be the same, but the delta should be comparable.  As an individual I believe the same will hold true if I was to compare club and ball combinations; if I chart deviation between those 5 balls hitting a TM/CT-115 iron set, then shift to a ... Titleist T200/S300 combination, the variation in ball performance should be predictable and comparable.  Therefore I should be able to reasonably predict which of any of those balls will work for me regardless of the club shaft combination.  I may be wrong.  Maybe you already have the data and I am just subjectively postulating in direct contradiction to that data.  What I saw in our little garage game supports what I consider a logical (0s and 1s) equation, but it wasn't exactly scientific or super controlled and we have to consider the people, fatigue and trying to "get it" variables.

The other thing I though of was that, although I hear what you are saying, it seems to me this assertion presents a HUGE problem to effective club fitting.  If what you propose is true, that each club will perform differently with each ball, player aside, then a fitting is ONLY VALID when that player is gaming the same ball (model, year, age, wear) as that used during the fitting.  What happens when you had your fitting in 2019 and now the only ball from that company is 3 generations newer?  Or the ball factory is damaged in a tsunami and Top Flite XL is the only ball left on the market (Good Lord save us all! Time to go pond diving for waterlogged ProVs!)

Point 3.  Each ball maker advertises that their ball as THE best.  Think about how your assertion would play out for each manufacturer trying to validate that.  Callaway doesn't say that their ball performs best off of their clubs, or that they tested their ball with 14 different clubs and 3 models of each and if you play Ping, Titleist, Mizuno, Srixon you'll get better yardage and control with Super Marshmallow than you will with AVX.  They don't say that they compared manufacturers and shaft options and ball A averaged better spin and distance than balls B, C, and D across all of those combinations.  As a matter of fact they don't even talk about what club/shaft combination was used in their own testing.  Think about how many head and shaft combinations each ball R&D group would have to test with to come up with a formula that worked for everyone (all club/shaft combinations).  I don't think there are so many different balls out there because each ball performs differently off each club; I think it is because all of the makers want a piece of the market.  R&D, patents and different approaches to solving the spin/trajectory equation result in different products.  Ball choice is spoken more toward swing speed and spin rate, which clubbed and shaft combination can ease or exacerbate.  As people we each typically hold onto, or try anew, various products based partially on bias and brand loyalty, regardless of performance; let's face it, who among us has taken a dozen if each premium ball over to the local shop and gotten them to let you use their Trackman/CG Quad ( vs. their buddy's SkyTrak) to compare numbers and make an objective decision on their ball?  Especially when their favorite Pro player ball X.

I think this is great, thought provoking discussion and I'm open to discussion and anything that proves me wrong, but being human I'll probably stick with brand X anyway, even if you can show me the numbers (because I honestly start to break out in hives at the thought of putting a Callaway anything in my bag ).

Cheers.

[FrogginBullfish]

13 hours ago, JohnSmalls said:

Shout out to Matty and Ian, they just released their testing of the new PXG ball vs Pro V1x

 

As usual, TXG does a proper review comparing actual data against the closest competitor. If only more golf YouTubers could do the same

[BIG STU]

26 minutes ago, Subdiver1 said:

Big Stu,

Point 1. Concur. Which is why the MGS folks talk about feel on both club heads and balls being subjective.  Compression and layer hardness can be objectively measured, but "feel" is unique to all of us.

Point 2. May be true to some small degree, and I can see where you could correlate to make sense at some level, but I'd like to see some testing evidence that shows for example that Srixon ZX7 irons and metals compress ball A to more, or less degree than ball B, and create more/less spin on ball A vs. ball B than Mizuno 223 irons and Titleist TSR2 metals do.  This would have to be done using an Iron Byron robot to remove the variable of individual swing characteristics being the influence; swing path, attack angle etc.  One person can produce a reliable comparison between 2 or more products as long as the other variables are minimized (e.g. same person using the same club shaft combo and simulator in the same, controlled environment for several balls); that is why club manufacturers can produce a "slice reducing" driver that works for the general slice swing golfer without worrying about testing with every ball on the market and every shaft variable (which would lead to one of those long legal disclaimers at the bottom of every ad for that club stating that it is only slice reducing with this shaft/ball combo, otherwise...see you in the right rough dude).  I agree that we (each individual person) get different performance with different club head, shaft, ball combinations, but that is all due in part to the way these factors all dynamically come together.  A couple of my buddies have Skytrak simulators set-up.  We have compared Titleist, Snell, Maxfli, Callaway, Kirkland and Vice (one guy wanted to see what he could use on the cheap with the simulator so he wasn't pounding new Prov1s in his garage at $50/dz).  We found between 3 of us, different clubs swings, etc. that the performance delta among balls was relatively predictable between us; 10+ more yards carry for MTB-X over Marshmallow Soft was consistent for each of us give or take a bit (e.g. my 270 carry with ball A vs. 260 with ball C was commensurate with another guy's 240/230); higher spin with Kirkland over all others, consistent and comparable among all of us (numbers weren't exact, but higher spin was higher spin).   

I am more inclined, absent scientifically collected hard data, to believe that regardless of club head and shaft combination if you and I are getting comparable performance with ProV1X, you with your Callaway driver and McG irons and I with my Ping and TM, then whatever the delta is for me between ProV1X, Snell MTB-X, Maxfli TourX, TM TP5, PXG will be predictable for you.  All things being equal between us, I believe you or I could reasonably assert whether ball A, B, C or D would likely perform acceptably, or not, to one another; objectively; whether we believe they perform (subjectively) is another story. And if our swing speeds are 20 MPH different the distances won't be the same, but the delta should be comparable.  As an individual I believe the same will hold true if I was to compare club and ball combinations; if I chart deviation between those 5 balls hitting a TM/CT-115 iron set, then shift to a ... Titleist T200/S300 combination, the variation in ball performance should be predictable and comparable.  Therefore I should be able to reasonably predict which of any of those balls will work for me regardless of the club shaft combination.  I may be wrong.  Maybe you already have the data and I am just subjectively postulating in direct contradiction to that data.  What I saw in our little garage game supports what I consider a logical (0s and 1s) equation, but it wasn't exactly scientific or super controlled and we have to consider the people, fatigue and trying to "get it" variables.

The other thing I though of was that, although I hear what you are saying, it seems to me this assertion presents a HUGE problem to effective club fitting.  If what you propose is true, that each club will perform differently with each ball, player aside, then a fitting is ONLY VALID when that player is gaming the same ball (model, year, age, wear) as that used during the fitting.  What happens when you had your fitting in 2019 and now the only ball from that company is 3 generations newer?  Or the ball factory is damaged in a tsunami and Top Flite XL is the only ball left on the market (Good Lord save us all! Time to go pond diving for waterlogged ProVs!)

Point 3.  Each ball maker advertises that their ball as THE best.  Think about how your assertion would play out for each manufacturer trying to validate that.  Callaway doesn't say that their ball performs best off of their clubs, or that they tested their ball with 14 different clubs and 3 models of each and if you play Ping, Titleist, Mizuno, Srixon you'll get better yardage and control with Super Marshmallow than you will with AVX.  They don't say that they compared manufacturers and shaft options and ball A averaged better spin and distance than balls B, C, and D across all of those combinations.  As a matter of fact they don't even talk about what club/shaft combination was used in their own testing.  Think about how many head and shaft combinations each ball R&D group would have to test with to come up with a formula that worked for everyone (all club/shaft combinations).  I don't think there are so many different balls out there because each ball performs differently off each club; I think it is because all of the makers want a piece of the market.  R&D, patents and different approaches to solving the spin/trajectory equation result in different products.  Ball choice is spoken more toward swing speed and spin rate, which clubbed and shaft combination can ease or exacerbate.  As people we each typically hold onto, or try anew, various products based partially on bias and brand loyalty, regardless of performance; let's face it, who among us has taken a dozen if each premium ball over to the local shop and gotten them to let you use their Trackman/CG Quad ( vs. their buddy's SkyTrak) to compare numbers and make an objective decision on their ball?  Especially when their favorite Pro player ball X.

I think this is great, thought provoking discussion and I'm open to discussion and anything that proves me wrong, but being human I'll probably stick with brand X anyway, even if you can show me the numbers (because I honestly start to break out in hives at the thought of putting a Callaway anything in my bag ).

Cheers.

Ok I can see the scientific synposis. All humans have flaws in there swing etc and some are more consistent than others. That is where the Iron Byron comes in for consistant swings and consistent analysis. You are kinda new on here and I will say I am the resident old school crumudgen on here. That is not to say I am closed minded. I am always reading and absorbing fresh knowledge.

I have only been on a machine a couple of times. One time was when a Pro friend of mine was proving a point that a 915 D-2 was not the driver for me because of sidespin. He was correct. Even though my old man was a pro and instructor I developed my own swing. I hit a trap cut by design as a anti hook swing so I generate a lot of spin with the irons. I also concurr that I lose some distance because of spin.

On feel I have always had an uncanny sense of feel whether it is in golf or other things. And again the human factor everyones feel and precption is different. Back when I was racing cars I drove without gloves because I felt what the car was doing through my hands. Another thing was if I drove say your car I had to have my steering wheel on it. On the flip side a good friend of mine and competetor felt the car literally through the seat of his pants. He did not run a seat cushion sat in the bare bones aluminum seat. LOL he must have been pretty good he was the 3 time World 4 Cylinder champion. Towards the end of my racing days for safety reasons ( which I agreed with ) they made us wear gloves. I went with the treated PBI with treated Kangroo palms for feel. 

On the equipment end it may seem I am a Macgregor blade man which I will admit. On the other hand I am probably the most brand agnostic person on this or any other board. I do not care one iota the marketing practices or politics of any company. If it works for me so be it. I can remember a discussion one night on here about the National Custom Works Patrick Reed irons. Of course some of the Reed stigma came out. I stated I did not care if they had Mickey Mouse stamped on the back that if I could hit them then they would be in the front line bag. Callaway up until a few months ago they had nothing that appealed to me. The driver in the signature was an accident. I did a trade deal ( as I often do) and traded a M-6 that would not work for me for the Alpha and I got money to boot. I actually wanted the Cally for the shaft. I was hitting it on the range to evaluate the shaft and found out that I got along great with that driver like it was. I put it in the bag set like it was. I have left it alone and have not even had it on my plate to check static loft and lie. All I know is I picked up distance and control with it. On the PXG front I have hit the irons some. I have done 2 sets of shaft changes in the shop. Not that they were fitted wrong but because they were bough second hand and the shafts did not fit the new owner To my sense of feel they hit like any other 3 piece filled iron. Thats not saying they are bad or anything just my opinion of what works or does not work for me. There it can be subjective on many fronts. I do say the main thing is when someone learned the game and the equipment they learned it with.

Glad you piped up on here I think in the future we can have meaningful discussions. You seem to be a well educated person and I judge an engineer. O am basically a redneck self taught engineer

[Chester3488]

19 hours ago, JohnSmalls said:

Shout out to Matty and Ian, they just released their testing of the new PXG ball vs Pro V1x

 

I think the PXG ball is actually targeting The Titleist Tour Soft. Not the ProV1?

If you compare technology and price point those two seem far more similar to me. 

[dinomack99]

If you look at the marketing materials that pxg has produced, however, they are putting their ball right up against the Pro V1 and proV1X. Look for the grid that has all the driver numbers for all three balls including boss speed, spin, height, carry and total.

[G56788]

12 hours ago, dmacko99 said:

Well, well... looks like PXG finally has balls back in stock and they've dropped $5. Now $34.99 which is where a lot of us wanted it to be considering it produces numbers almost identical to Pro-V1X. Thoughts???

Based on the header at the top, that looks like it’s the Heroes Program pricing. It’s not available to everyone. 

[Rob W.]

40 minutes ago, dmacko99 said:

If you look at the marketing materials that pxg has produced, however, they are putting their ball right up against the Pro V1 and proV1X. Look for the grid that has all the driver numbers for all three balls including boss speed, spin, height, carry and total.

That's likely because their research shows that most PXG equipment players play proV1 & X. The approach is "you already play our equipment, so why not try our ball".

Also, would we be talking about it if they came out an claimed that they are just as good as Tour B X & Tour B RX.

[cnosil]

7 hours ago, Subdiver1 said:

Big Stu,

Point 1. Concur. Which is why the MGS folks talk about feel on both club heads and balls being subjective.  Compression and layer hardness can be objectively measured, but "feel" is unique to all of us.

Point 2. May be true to some small degree, and I can see where you could correlate to make sense at some level, but I'd like to see some testing evidence that shows for example that Srixon ZX7 irons and metals compress ball A to more, or less degree than ball B, and create more/less spin on ball A vs. ball B than Mizuno 223 irons and Titleist TSR2 metals do.  This would have to be done using an Iron Byron robot to remove the variable of individual swing characteristics being the influence; swing path, attack angle etc.  One person can produce a reliable comparison between 2 or more products as long as the other variables are minimized (e.g. same person using the same club shaft combo and simulator in the same, controlled environment for several balls); that is why club manufacturers can produce a "slice reducing" driver that works for the general slice swing golfer without worrying about testing with every ball on the market and every shaft variable (which would lead to one of those long legal disclaimers at the bottom of every ad for that club stating that it is only slice reducing with this shaft/ball combo, otherwise...see you in the right rough dude).  I agree that we (each individual person) get different performance with different club head, shaft, ball combinations, but that is all due in part to the way these factors all dynamically come together.  A couple of my buddies have Skytrak simulators set-up.  We have compared Titleist, Snell, Maxfli, Callaway, Kirkland and Vice (one guy wanted to see what he could use on the cheap with the simulator so he wasn't pounding new Prov1s in his garage at $50/dz).  We found between 3 of us, different clubs swings, etc. that the performance delta among balls was relatively predictable between us; 10+ more yards carry for MTB-X over Marshmallow Soft was consistent for each of us give or take a bit (e.g. my 270 carry with ball A vs. 260 with ball C was commensurate with another guy's 240/230); higher spin with Kirkland over all others, consistent and comparable among all of us (numbers weren't exact, but higher spin was higher spin).   

I am more inclined, absent scientifically collected hard data, to believe that regardless of club head and shaft combination if you and I are getting comparable performance with ProV1X, you with your Callaway driver and McG irons and I with my Ping and TM, then whatever the delta is for me between ProV1X, Snell MTB-X, Maxfli TourX, TM TP5, PXG will be predictable for you.  All things being equal between us, I believe you or I could reasonably assert whether ball A, B, C or D would likely perform acceptably, or not, to one another; objectively; whether we believe they perform (subjectively) is another story. And if our swing speeds are 20 MPH different the distances won't be the same, but the delta should be comparable.  As an individual I believe the same will hold true if I was to compare club and ball combinations; if I chart deviation between those 5 balls hitting a TM/CT-115 iron set, then shift to a ... Titleist T200/S300 combination, the variation in ball performance should be predictable and comparable.  Therefore I should be able to reasonably predict which of any of those balls will work for me regardless of the club shaft combination.  I may be wrong.  Maybe you already have the data and I am just subjectively postulating in direct contradiction to that data.  What I saw in our little garage game supports what I consider a logical (0s and 1s) equation, but it wasn't exactly scientific or super controlled and we have to consider the people, fatigue and trying to "get it" variables.

The other thing I though of was that, although I hear what you are saying, it seems to me this assertion presents a HUGE problem to effective club fitting.  If what you propose is true, that each club will perform differently with each ball, player aside, then a fitting is ONLY VALID when that player is gaming the same ball (model, year, age, wear) as that used during the fitting.  What happens when you had your fitting in 2019 and now the only ball from that company is 3 generations newer?  Or the ball factory is damaged in a tsunami and Top Flite XL is the only ball left on the market (Good Lord save us all! Time to go pond diving for waterlogged ProVs!)

Point 3.  Each ball maker advertises that their ball as THE best.  Think about how your assertion would play out for each manufacturer trying to validate that.  Callaway doesn't say that their ball performs best off of their clubs, or that they tested their ball with 14 different clubs and 3 models of each and if you play Ping, Titleist, Mizuno, Srixon you'll get better yardage and control with Super Marshmallow than you will with AVX.  They don't say that they compared manufacturers and shaft options and ball A averaged better spin and distance than balls B, C, and D across all of those combinations.  As a matter of fact they don't even talk about what club/shaft combination was used in their own testing.  Think about how many head and shaft combinations each ball R&D group would have to test with to come up with a formula that worked for everyone (all club/shaft combinations).  I don't think there are so many different balls out there because each ball performs differently off each club; I think it is because all of the makers want a piece of the market.  R&D, patents and different approaches to solving the spin/trajectory equation result in different products.  Ball choice is spoken more toward swing speed and spin rate, which clubbed and shaft combination can ease or exacerbate.  As people we each typically hold onto, or try anew, various products based partially on bias and brand loyalty, regardless of performance; let's face it, who among us has taken a dozen if each premium ball over to the local shop and gotten them to let you use their Trackman/CG Quad ( vs. their buddy's SkyTrak) to compare numbers and make an objective decision on their ball?  Especially when their favorite Pro player ball X.

I think this is great, thought provoking discussion and I'm open to discussion and anything that proves me wrong, but being human I'll probably stick with brand X anyway, even if you can show me the numbers (because I honestly start to break out in hives at the thought of putting a Callaway anything in my bag ).

Cheers.

You make some great points in your post.   You reiterate the point that MGS makes with their ball testing when they discuss swing speed and performance and it being linear.  If a ball is high spin for the three speeds they use on the robot and your speed is between, you will still get high spin. And it will always be more that a ball that has lower spin.   
 

as for the clubs,  obviously comparing clubs on a swing robot would be ideal.   I agree that the highest spin ball will still be the highest spin ball off all clubs, but the spin values will be different due to the design of the club even if the qll other club factors are the same.  I don’t think we can find a club that will make  a lower spinning ball generate more spin than a higher spinning ball just because you switch clubs.   This is why we need to test balls and clubs using our swing and not robots; how we deliver the club to the ball influences performance and by switching clubs I may be able to get more desirable performance from a specific ball that I want to use.  This is the purpose of a fitting…find the combination of club and ball that generates “ideal” performance.  For example if I hit a club that does t generate enough spin, I can try a higher spinning ball or I can switch to a different brand and model of club.  

[NoRebound]

In a world full of Maxfli, Wilson, and Snell, PXG decided to go for the high-end price of $39.99.  Ooops.

$39.99 is a price point reserved for balls that have proven themselves like Snell or Maxfli.   $39.99 is a really big ask for a company with no track record in the ball world and a small following overall. 

The only company I can think of that knocked it out of the park with their first ball on the market was Nike.  It helped that Tiger was using it to bring the golf world to its knees but plenty of us played it and it was revolutionary.  Yeah, I know it was a Bridgestone under the logo but was still a ball that changed everything.

This is not that.

 

[dinomack99]

LA Golf is selling their balls for $70 a dozen. They are trying to go Ultra Premium like PXG did 5 years ago. I don't think $40 for PXG is outrageous, especially if you like the brand or the ultra white urethane or the alignment aids.

[Subdiver1]

10 hours ago, BIG STU said:

Ok I can see the scientific synposis. All humans have flaws in there swing etc and some are more consistent than others. That is where the Iron Byron comes in for consistant swings and consistent analysis. You are kinda new on here and I will say I am the resident old school crumudgen on here. That is not to say I am closed minded. I am always reading and absorbing fresh knowledge.

I have only been on a machine a couple of times. One time was when a Pro friend of mine was proving a point that a 915 D-2 was not the driver for me because of sidespin. He was correct. Even though my old man was a pro and instructor I developed my own swing. I hit a trap cut by design as a anti hook swing so I generate a lot of spin with the irons. I also concurr that I lose some distance because of spin.

On feel I have always had an uncanny sense of feel whether it is in golf or other things. And again the human factor everyones feel and precption is different. Back when I was racing cars I drove without gloves because I felt what the car was doing through my hands. Another thing was if I drove say your car I had to have my steering wheel on it. On the flip side a good friend of mine and competetor felt the car literally through the seat of his pants. He did not run a seat cushion sat in the bare bones aluminum seat. LOL he must have been pretty good he was the 3 time World 4 Cylinder champion. Towards the end of my racing days for safety reasons ( which I agreed with ) they made us wear gloves. I went with the treated PBI with treated Kangroo palms for feel. 

On the equipment end it may seem I am a Macgregor blade man which I will admit. On the other hand I am probably the most brand agnostic person on this or any other board. I do not care one iota the marketing practices or politics of any company. If it works for me so be it. I can remember a discussion one night on here about the National Custom Works Patrick Reed irons. Of course some of the Reed stigma came out. I stated I did not care if they had Mickey Mouse stamped on the back that if I could hit them then they would be in the front line bag. Callaway up until a few months ago they had nothing that appealed to me. The driver in the signature was an accident. I did a trade deal ( as I often do) and traded a M-6 that would not work for me for the Alpha and I got money to boot. I actually wanted the Cally for the shaft. I was hitting it on the range to evaluate the shaft and found out that I got along great with that driver like it was. I put it in the bag set like it was. I have left it alone and have not even had it on my plate to check static loft and lie. All I know is I picked up distance and control with it. On the PXG front I have hit the irons some. I have done 2 sets of shaft changes in the shop. Not that they were fitted wrong but because they were bough second hand and the shafts did not fit the new owner To my sense of feel they hit like any other 3 piece filled iron. Thats not saying they are bad or anything just my opinion of what works or does not work for me. There it can be subjective on many fronts. I do say the main thing is when someone learned the game and the equipment they learned it with.

Glad you piped up on here I think in the future we can have meaningful discussions. You seem to be a well educated person and I judge an engineer. O am basically a redneck self taught engineer

Big Stu,

Absolutely good conversation; nothing in my response was meant to be adversarial, just good, open dialectic, critcal thinking discussion. Sounds like you have led and eventful and adventurous life sir. Personally I like to hear from the "resident old school curmudgeon" on any topic because they have probably forgotten more about a given subject than the current class of engineers and "smart people" will ever know.  I have seen plenty of repeated mistakes through the years because we failed to ask, or failed to listen to, those folks about how it had already been tried and the results.  I am not an engineer, but I do work with them so I am probably a little contaminated from proximity and prolonged exposure LOL.

Funny that you ended up with a Callawy product that way. I felt (honestly still feel) the same about their stuff, but I almost ended up with Apex irons because the fitting showed they performed; fortunately one more shaft change with the P790s showed a marked improvement over anything we could do with the Apex (sigh of ego, bias relief); but again in all honesty, they did "feel" good and if the dispersion numbers had been closer I probably would have ended up with them in my bag.

I love the discussion and challenge to paradigms so keep it coming. Make me think and question and who knows...we may see a MGS test soon that shows ball A performs best with clubs A, B and C and ball B performs best with balls B, D and X. THAT would be an interesting, if not extensive, test.

Cheers sir. Look forward to future discussions.

[Chester3488]

8 hours ago, dmacko99 said:

If you look at the marketing materials that pxg has produced, however, they are putting their ball right up against the Pro V1 and proV1X. Look for the grid that has all the driver numbers for all three balls including boss speed, spin, height, carry and total.

Yeah, plus everyone compares their ball to the ProV1. 

And why wouldn't you? 

7 hours ago, Rob W. said:

That's likely because their research shows that most PXG equipment players play proV1 & X. The approach is "you already play our equipment, so why not try our ball".

Also, would we be talking about it if they came out an claimed that they are just as good as Tour B X & Tour B RX.

You are correct, sir.