2023 Titleist White Box Testing Thread

[HikingMike]

Elite!

57 minutes ago, Cfhandyman said:

Who is this ball for based on testing: It appears Ideal for the player who is looking for distance and/or needs less spin. If you like to keep the ball straight, this is a ball for you.  If you liked or play with the AVX ball, you will enjoy this new ball.  Titleist have improved on the AVX ball, soft feel, just as long with a bit more spin added around the greens.  Works very well in the wind with a more penetrating ball flight.  

Would it go into my bag.  No, primarily as the top 3 balls for me on testing were the Titleist ProV1x, Srixon Z star XV and Bridgestone tour B XS balls primarily due to a combination of distance, spin and feel.  This also matches up nicely with my ball fitting recommendations as well as the MGS golf ball test recommendations.   So, for now, the Titleist ProV1x stays in the bag.

Question on this.... if you were to choose one only between the Test ball and the AVX, which would you put in your bag? It looks like your data shows similar distance but the Test has a bit more spin on a full wedge, a bit less spin on a half wedge. So maybe you'd go with the Test ball?

Wow I may need to look at the Chrome Soft X LS with its lowest driver spin, longest driver total distance, yet fairly high full wedge spin and highest half wedge spin. Great data!

[HikingMike]

6 hours ago, jbern said:

When doing my previous posts, I forgot to mention durability. It would appear that I have not had the same durability issues that others have had. I played 15 holes with the photographed ball and after giving it a good wash, this was the worst damage I could find:

Note that I did not have any sand shots and also only hit a tree on two shots (one was a 9i and the other was a chip around the green). 

I’m planning to hit it a bunch more with a launch monitor, so we’ll see how long it lasts. 

Hey you have the gray spots too. Here was one I couldn't get off of mine-

 

[Cfhandyman]

22 minutes ago, HikingMike said:

Elite!

Question on this.... if you were to choose one only between the Test ball and the AVX, which would you put in your bag? It looks like your data shows similar distance but the Test has a bit more spin on a full wedge, a bit less spin on a half wedge. So maybe you'd go with the Test ball?

Wow I may need to look at the Chrome Soft X LS with its lowest driver spin, longest driver total distance, yet fairly high full wedge spin and highest half wedge spin. Great data!

Easy, I would definitely choose Test ball over AVX. It’s a better version of the AVX but with more green side spin. In ball fittings it’s normally the wedge data that’s the differentiator, then the driver and 7 iron data.

[RjGolf4Life]

2 hours ago, Cfhandyman said:

The Titleist TEST ball review – The Good, the bad, there is no ugly

Overall:  The Titleist TEST ball is a premium, high quality golf ball and performed relatively well against the competition.  It has a soft feel and is low spin off the driver and irons but has sufficient spin around the greens.  One concern/issue is durability. Two out of the three test balls had to be retired from testing after scuffing and wear.  What is not known is the price.  If this is an AVX prototype, then it is an improved version retaining soft feel, with lower compression, low launch, low spin capabilities but adding additional spin for improved greenside performance.  Overall grade, 26/30

Goals of testing:   How does it perform on course, with respect to feel, distance, spin, ability to hold the green and putt ability?  Is it a long low spin, low trajectory ball that has good greenside spin and control?  How does it measure against the competition? How durable is it?  Is it for moderate swing speeds or players with excessive spin.  If this is an AVX prototype how does it compare to the current version of AVX.

Tester: I’m a 65 year old male, and live in the greater Toronto area in Ontario, Canada.  I am a 6.5 handicap playing an average of 100 rounds per year with 400 rounds on Arccos. I am driven by the need to learn and improve. I am data driven and analytical. I didn’t play for 10+ years and only got back into golf 5 years ago.  I was inspired by a friend who once said, golf is the only game you can play for 30 years and never improve.  When I thought about it, it is rather true, so I was determined to do it right the second time around.  Hence lessons, fitted equipment and diligent practice. I was inspired again when I went to Tour Experience Golf (TXG) 5 years ago and came out not only with expertly fitted and built clubs, but many new friends.  I now go on a yearly basis to tweak my setup.  With respect to my game, I tend to be somewhat steep with a slight out to in swing with an average clubhead speed of 77-80 mph for 7 iron and 90-95 mph for driver. I tend to prefer medium to firm compression balls with a slightly softer feel on the putter face. I have been fitted for golf balls.  The vast majority of my career has been in healthcare, starting with medical research, then organ donation and transplantation for many years before transitioning into Rare diseases (Transplant, Bleeding disorders and growth disorders) with Wyeth and then Pfizer.  Now, my day job is golf, pickleball and my two huskies.

   TPC Sawgrass, I’m the guy in the middle in the blue and black.  

Initial Impressions: High quality, premium looking ball, very similar to the ProV1 line.  Nicely packaged and I couldn’t wait to get it out on the golf course and indoor range.  But wait, in all that excitement, how am I going to test it and evaluate it and what are the criteria for testing and evaluation, other than see ball, hit ball and try not to lose the ball.

  

Indoor testing protocol to be conducted like a golf ball fitting, in an indoor golf facility/academy with Trackman 4. I will hit 10 shots each 54* wedge, 7 iron and driver and take the average for each club and ball. Any outliers, if any (0 – 2) will be discarded to ensure a decent and representative sample size.

Test Parameters: I will be specifically looking at the following: clubhead speed, ball speed, smash factor, carry distance, total distance, spin, height, land angle, as well as club path, launch angle and dynamic loft.  The reference ball will be the Titleist ProV1x and the comparator balls will be what I’ve been fitted for by the Ping Ballnamic tool (ballfitting.com) as well as by the Titleist selector tool (ProV1x).  See table 1.  The other comparator ball will be the Titleist AVX ball primarily because the shipping label sent by Titleist indicated it was a sleeve of AVX balls and it has the same number of dimples (348) and design pattern as an AVX.  

Examining the inner core revealed a 3 piece ball with either purple power colour (AVX) or blueberry bomber colour (TEST). It also appeared that the cover of the test ball was slightly thicker than the AVX.   If the cover of the test ball is thicker and softer, will this mean more spin?

   

2023 AVX ball                              “retired” TEST ball after 1 round                     AVX – 3 pc, interior                            TEST – 3 pc, interior

 The Contestants                                                                                  

                                                                                                                                                          VERSUS

       

                               

   (References: MyGolfSpy Ball quality Comparison tool, titleist.com)

TESTING RESULTS         THEN SOMETHING HAPPENS  

My on course experience with the prototype TEST golf ball revealed a premium softer feeling ball with a lower compression than I normally play.  It became immediately apparent that the test ball is very different from what I normally use and it took me a few holes to get used to it.  Distance: For the most part and in my hands, I found the test ball to be longer (off the tee and in the fairway) an average of 1-10 yards longer.   Flight and trajectory:   Ball flight was lower or more penetrating than the comparator (Srixon Z star XV) with less apparent spin and especially side spin as this ball flies very straight.  Basically, it goes exactly where you are aimed.  Due to its less spin and more penetrating trajectory, it works very well in windy conditions and was usually longer than my comparator.  Given that I was playing in windy conditions (10-15 mph), this also may explain why the test ball was longer than the higher trajectory, higher spinning Srixon Z star XV.  When you hit it well, it seems to fly off the face of the club, almost like a rocket (hot). On a number of occasions, I hit a rocket only to see the ball fly the green or land and then roll to the back of the green or worse off the back. I.e it came in low and hot, most likely a function of decreased spin, lower height and land angle. This was more notable on the mid to long irons. Wedge shots on full and partial wedge shots provided you have enough height, the ball stopped relatively quickly but had a little more roll out than the higher spinning Srixon ball.  However, on flighted wedges, the test ball had a tendency to come in low and hot and would often roll to the back of the green or off the green, catching me by surprise.  Chipping around the green:  With bump and runs and little chip shots, the test ball worked well.  Quite often, it would bounce and then stop reasonably quickly, but with very little backspin.  For putting, the test ball was relatively soft of the face of the putter and rolled straight and true with good distance control. Not that much different than the Srixon. Made birdies with both balls. 

Indoor Testing: The on course results conflict with indoor testing which showed the test ball to be on average of 1-6 yards shorter than the comparator balls, yet on course it was 1 – 10 yards (estimation) longer.  See Chart 1, 2 and 3.  

CHART 1   

CHART 2  

CHART 3  

Overall impressions based on, on course play and indoor testing:  The test ball is a soft feeling, lower spinning and has a lower trajectory flight with good distance.   In my hands, for an average swing speed player (7 iron clubhead speed, 77-80 mph, 90-95 mph with driver), it was slightly longer, on average of 1-10 yards on course.  This ball is very different from what I am used to (ProV1x, Srixon, Bridgestone).  I liked the length off the tee, as well as with irons. It became more problematic around the greens as I prefer more spin and control, so initially I’m not sure if I could game this ball on a regular basis.  I would think for high swing speed players and a low compression ball would not be a good mix unless they had excessive spin.  To determine if the test ball worked well for slower swing speed players, I recruited my wife.

  

For the slow swing speed player (driver club head speed of 62 - 70 mph), the comparator ball was her Srixon Z star divide.  There was no difference with respect to clubhead speed or ball speed (all within 0.2-1 mph).  Height and land angles were higher with the Srixon Z star ball.  No difference in height for wedges, however, 7 iron and driver were on average 2' and 8' higher than the Test ball.  Launch angle was the same for wedge, but 0.5 and 3 degrees higher for the 7 iron and driver with the Srixon Z star ball. (data not shown).  Overall, for the slow swing speed player, the Titleist test ball performed well.  It was slightly longer, with reduced spin, slightly lower height and lower launch angles, so it would be a candidate for the bag.

Quality and durability: The quality and construction of the test ball are excellent and looks similar to a ProV1 and is made in the same ball plant 3.  In terms of quality assurance and control, Titleist is one of the best if not the best in the business as per MyGolfSpy ball tests.  After 1 round the ball and cover held up reasonably well, except for 1 scuff mark a result for hitting the cart path.  Unfortunately, upon further testing, two out of the three test balls had to be retired from testing after scuffing and wear. They were removed from testing as a scuffed ball would have negatively impacted the results. Is it possible they are using a softer or thicker cover which would result in more green side spin but are more susceptible to scuffing? 

  

Who is this ball for based on testing: It appears Ideal for the player who is looking for distance and/or needs less spin. If you like to keep the ball straight, this is a ball for you.  If you liked or play with the AVX ball, you will enjoy this new ball.  Titleist have improved on the AVX ball, soft feel, just as long with a bit more spin added around the greens.  Works very well in the wind with a more penetrating ball flight.  

Would it go into my bag.  No, primarily as the top 3 balls for me on testing were the Titleist ProV1x, Srixon Z star XV and Bridgestone tour B XS balls primarily due to a combination of distance, spin and feel.  This also matches up nicely with my ball fitting recommendations as well as the MGS golf ball test recommendations.   So, for now, the Titleist ProV1x stays in the bag.

                                           Titleist TEST ball Evaluation Scoring

          

 References:

1.      Titleist.com

2.    2023 Golf Ball Test | MyGolfSpy

3.    Best Golf Balls of 2023: Expert Tested & Data-Backed | MyGolfSpy

4.      Ping Ballnamic, ballfitting.com

 I want to sincerely thank MyGolfSpy and Titleist for this testing opportunity. It was an enlightening experience, which required much thought on how to test properly, what were suitable comparators/controls and why, to ensure a fair, balanced, evidence based review.  Then based on this, who would benefit, who would not and why, and more importantly, would it go in the bag.  It was a lot of fun.  Thank you for your patience and understanding as this is a lengthy review.

                                                            

Your review looks like a legit professional review. Awesome job. 

[fixyurdivot]

Final Review 

With two rounds vs. the AVX, one vs. a Maxfli Tour, and finally finishing off a second round vs. a TP5, I feel I have sufficient on-course play to assess how the "Test" ball compares.  I also got two test sessions in on our chipping area, comparing 10, 30, and 60 yard chip/approach shots.  Unfortunately, I was unable to complete any LM session data but, based on those testers who have done so, I think my observations track pretty well.

Off the tee, the Test ball was shorter on average than any of the production balls listed above.  The AVX and Tour were within a yard of each other, the TP5 about 2 yards shorter yet, and bringing up the rear, the Test ball by about another 2 yards.  By my eye, trajectory was most similar to the AVX - a lower, more penetrating flight.  Sound and feel seemed pretty darn close to all of the production balls... admittedly, I may not be the best at discerning sound and feel unless were talking PV1 vs. a MoJo .

Approach shots, were pretty consistent amongst all balls played though, once again, my on-course data had the Test ball ~2 yards shorter.  Green stopping power was pretty much the same as the AVX which was slightly worse than either the TM or Maxfli.  But were not talking BIG differences on well struck shots.

Wedge & Chipping, was pretty much a "throw a hat over em" level of difference except for the Maxfli on the 60 yard test groups.  It did check a bit better than the others. 

Putting showed no discernable difference for me on the course and on the practice green.  I also really could not tell any difference in sound or feel.  Roberto Duran "hands of stone" syndrome... great in the ring, not so much on the golf course .

In conclusion, the Test ball was not quite as good as the production balls it competed against. But again, I'm talking pretty minor differences.  As many of you know that have followed my posts about golf balls in general, I really can play a lot of different balls, tour level to mid-shelf (i.e. Velocity), without adversely affecting my scoring.  My two PB 73's have been with a Velocity and an AVX.  Because I tend to fade approach shots, as opposed to draws, I get away with lower spinning balls.  I'm looking at this as a benefit as opposed to a liability... particularly if we encounter a world-wide crash in golf ball availability .

I don't know for sure whether the Test balls slightly shorter distance off the tee is attributed to higher spin or its basic design?  Our testers LM data seems near a split on higher vs. lower spinning.  Perhaps I just did not strike those drives as well?  As I mentioned in an earlier post, it's unclear to me what Titleist is trying to do with what appears to be a modified AVX.  I'm hoping we might hear more insights on this - but R&D often being "close to the vest" - would totally understand if we don't.

Were it my only option on any given day, I could play it without hesitation... but I would not purchase them over my other currently played balls (and we can include PV1) ... unless they were at a Velocity price point.

Thank you again to the folks at Tiltleist and MGS for this test opportunity!  

[Peejer]

3 hours ago, Cfhandyman said:

The Titleist TEST ball review – The Good, the bad, there is no ugly

Overall:  The Titleist TEST ball is a premium, high quality golf ball and performed relatively well against the competition.  It has a soft feel and is low spin off the driver and irons but has sufficient spin around the greens.  One concern/issue is durability. Two out of the three test balls had to be retired from testing after scuffing and wear.  What is not known is the price.  If this is an AVX prototype, then it is an improved version retaining soft feel, with lower compression, low launch, low spin capabilities but adding additional spin for improved greenside performance.  Overall grade, 26/30

Goals of testing:   How does it perform on course, with respect to feel, distance, spin, ability to hold the green and putt ability?  Is it a long low spin, low trajectory ball that has good greenside spin and control?  How does it measure against the competition? How durable is it?  Is it for moderate swing speeds or players with excessive spin.  If this is an AVX prototype how does it compare to the current version of AVX.

Tester: I’m a 65 year old male, and live in the greater Toronto area in Ontario, Canada.  I am a 6.5 handicap playing an average of 100 rounds per year with 400 rounds on Arccos. I am driven by the need to learn and improve. I am data driven and analytical. I didn’t play for 10+ years and only got back into golf 5 years ago.  I was inspired by a friend who once said, golf is the only game you can play for 30 years and never improve.  When I thought about it, it is rather true, so I was determined to do it right the second time around.  Hence lessons, fitted equipment and diligent practice. I was inspired again when I went to Tour Experience Golf (TXG) 5 years ago and came out not only with expertly fitted and built clubs, but many new friends.  I now go on a yearly basis to tweak my setup.  With respect to my game, I tend to be somewhat steep with a slight out to in swing with an average clubhead speed of 77-80 mph for 7 iron and 90-95 mph for driver. I tend to prefer medium to firm compression balls with a slightly softer feel on the putter face. I have been fitted for golf balls.  The vast majority of my career has been in healthcare, starting with medical research, then organ donation and transplantation for many years before transitioning into Rare diseases (Transplant, Bleeding disorders and growth disorders) with Wyeth and then Pfizer.  Now, my day job is golf, pickleball and my two huskies.

   TPC Sawgrass, I’m the guy in the middle in the blue and black.  

Initial Impressions: High quality, premium looking ball, very similar to the ProV1 line.  Nicely packaged and I couldn’t wait to get it out on the golf course and indoor range.  But wait, in all that excitement, how am I going to test it and evaluate it and what are the criteria for testing and evaluation, other than see ball, hit ball and try not to lose the ball.

 

Indoor testing protocol to be conducted like a golf ball fitting, in an indoor golf facility/academy with Trackman 4. I will hit 10 shots each 54* wedge, 7 iron and driver and take the average for each club and ball. Any outliers, if any (0 – 2) will be discarded to ensure a decent and representative sample size.

Test Parameters: I will be specifically looking at the following: clubhead speed, ball speed, smash factor, carry distance, total distance, spin, height, land angle, as well as club path, launch angle and dynamic loft.  The reference ball will be the Titleist ProV1x and the comparator balls will be what I’ve been fitted for by the Ping Ballnamic tool (ballfitting.com) as well as by the Titleist selector tool (ProV1x).  See table 1.  The other comparator ball will be the Titleist AVX ball primarily because the shipping label sent by Titleist indicated it was a sleeve of AVX balls and it has the same number of dimples (348) and design pattern as an AVX. 

Examining the inner core revealed a 3 piece ball with either purple power colour (AVX) or blueberry bomber colour (TEST). It also appeared that the cover of the test ball was slightly thicker than the AVX.   If the cover of the test ball is thicker and softer, will this mean more spin?

   2023 AVX ball                              “retired” TEST ball after 1 round                     AVX – 3 pc, interior                            TEST – 3 pc, interior

 The Contestants                                                                                 

   (References: MyGolfSpy Ball quality Comparison tool, titleist.com)

TESTING RESULTS         THEN SOMETHING HAPPENS  

My on course experience with the prototype TEST golf ball revealed a premium softer feeling ball with a lower compression than I normally play.  It became immediately apparent that the test ball is very different from what I normally use and it took me a few holes to get used to it.  Distance: For the most part and in my hands, I found the test ball to be longer (off the tee and in the fairway) an average of 1-10 yards longer.   Flight and trajectory:   Ball flight was lower or more penetrating than the comparator (Srixon Z star XV) with less apparent spin and especially side spin as this ball flies very straight.  Basically, it goes exactly where you are aimed.  Due to its less spin and more penetrating trajectory, it works very well in windy conditions and was usually longer than my comparator.  Given that I was playing in windy conditions (10-15 mph), this also may explain why the test ball was longer than the higher trajectory, higher spinning Srixon Z star XV.  When you hit it well, it seems to fly off the face of the club, almost like a rocket (hot). On a number of occasions, I hit a rocket only to see the ball fly the green or land and then roll to the back of the green or worse off the back. I.e it came in low and hot, most likely a function of decreased spin, lower height and land angle. This was more notable on the mid to long irons. Wedge shots on full and partial wedge shots provided you have enough height, the ball stopped relatively quickly but had a little more roll out than the higher spinning Srixon ball.  However, on flighted wedges, the test ball had a tendency to come in low and hot and would often roll to the back of the green or off the green, catching me by surprise.  Chipping around the green:  With bump and runs and little chip shots, the test ball worked well.  Quite often, it would bounce and then stop reasonably quickly, but with very little backspin.  For putting, the test ball was relatively soft of the face of the putter and rolled straight and true with good distance control. Not that much different than the Srixon. Made birdies with both balls. 

Indoor Testing: The on course results conflict with indoor testing which showed the test ball to be on average of 1-6 yards shorter than the comparator balls, yet on course it was 1 – 10 yards (estimation) longer.  See Chart 1, 2 and 3.  

CHART 1   

CHART 2  

CHART 3 

Overall impressions based on, on course play and indoor testing:  The test ball is a soft feeling, lower spinning and has a lower trajectory flight with good distance.   In my hands, for an average swing speed player (7 iron clubhead speed, 77-80 mph, 90-95 mph with driver), it was slightly longer, on average of 1-10 yards on course.  This ball is very different from what I am used to (ProV1x, Srixon, Bridgestone).  I liked the length off the tee, as well as with irons. It became more problematic around the greens as I prefer more spin and control, so initially I’m not sure if I could game this ball on a regular basis.  I would think for high swing speed players and a low compression ball would not be a good mix unless they had excessive spin.  To determine if the test ball worked well for slower swing speed players, I recruited my wife.

 

For the slow swing speed player (driver club head speed of 62 - 70 mph), the comparator ball was her Srixon Z star divide.  There was no difference with respect to clubhead speed or ball speed (all within 0.2-1 mph).  Height and land angles were higher with the Srixon Z star ball.  No difference in height for wedges, however, 7 iron and driver were on average 2' and 8' higher than the Test ball.  Launch angle was the same for wedge, but 0.5 and 3 degrees higher for the 7 iron and driver with the Srixon Z star ball. (data not shown).  Overall, for the slow swing speed player, the Titleist test ball performed well.  It was slightly longer, with reduced spin, slightly lower height and lower launch angles, so it would be a candidate for the bag.

Quality and durability: The quality and construction of the test ball are excellent and looks similar to a ProV1 and is made in the same ball plant 3.  In terms of quality assurance and control, Titleist is one of the best if not the best in the business as per MyGolfSpy ball tests.  After 1 round the ball and cover held up reasonably well, except for 1 scuff mark a result for hitting the cart path.  Unfortunately, upon further testing, two out of the three test balls had to be retired from testing after scuffing and wear. They were removed from testing as a scuffed ball would have negatively impacted the results. Is it possible they are using a softer or thicker cover which would result in more green side spin but are more susceptible to scuffing? 

 

Who is this ball for based on testing: It appears Ideal for the player who is looking for distance and/or needs less spin. If you like to keep the ball straight, this is a ball for you.  If you liked or play with the AVX ball, you will enjoy this new ball.  Titleist have improved on the AVX ball, soft feel, just as long with a bit more spin added around the greens.  Works very well in the wind with a more penetrating ball flight.  

Would it go into my bag.  No, primarily as the top 3 balls for me on testing were the Titleist ProV1x, Srixon Z star XV and Bridgestone tour B XS balls primarily due to a combination of distance, spin and feel.  This also matches up nicely with my ball fitting recommendations as well as the MGS golf ball test recommendations.   So, for now, the Titleist ProV1x stays in the bag.

 

                                                            

Great review!!, but I have to admit I'm a little confused.  In your write-up, you say the Proto ball is 1 to 10 yards longer on the course, but the data in your charts from indoor testing indicate it's shorter.  Do you have an understanding of why that is?  I would think it's because the data in the charts is a summation of all your shots, as opposed to a single strike?

Again, fantastic review - it's the most thorough one I've read in this forum!

-- Peejer

[Cfhandyman]

40 minutes ago, Peejer said:

Great review!!, but I have to admit I'm a little confused.  In your write-up, you say the Proto ball is 1 to 10 yards longer on the course, but the data in your charts from indoor testing indicate it's shorter.  Do you have an understanding of why that is?  I would think it's because the data in the charts is a summation of all your shots, as opposed to a single strike?

Again, fantastic review - it's the most thorough one I've read in this forum!

-- Peejer

Thank you for your kind words and yes on indoor testing the test ball was shorter, but on course it was longer. So what gives you ask. On course, it was a cool and windy day, (10-15 mph), with firm fairways, so I strongly suspect, the test ball with its lower flight and less spin, carried the same or slightly less, but had a longer roll out than the Srixon whose trajectory was higher with more spin. Very noticeable in shots into the wind. I played 2 balls that day and hit them side by side. The test ball performs very well in the wind. Indoors, you have a controlled atmosphere, no wind, etc.  If you have a decent sample size, you get a much better picture of what’s happening

[Cfhandyman]

1 hour ago, RjGolf4Life said:

Your review looks like a legit professional review. Awesome job. 

Thank you for your very kind words. It is appreciated 

[Cfhandyman]

1 hour ago, fixyurdivot said:

Final Review 

With two rounds vs. the AVX, one vs. a Maxfli Tour, and finally finishing off a second round vs. a TP5, I feel I have sufficient on-course play to assess how the "Test" ball compares.  I also got two test sessions in on our chipping area, comparing 10, 30, and 60 yard chip/approach shots.  Unfortunately, I was unable to complete any LM session data but, based on those testers who have done so, I think my observations track pretty well.

Off the tee, the Test ball was shorter on average than any of the production balls listed above.  The AVX and Tour were within a yard of each other, the TP5 about 2 yards shorter yet, and bringing up the rear, the Test ball by about another 2 yards.  By my eye, trajectory was most similar to the AVX - a lower, more penetrating flight.  Sound and feel seemed pretty darn close to all of the production balls... admittedly, I may not be the best at discerning sound and feel unless were talking PV1 vs. a MoJo .

Approach shots, were pretty consistent amongst all balls played though, once again, my on-course data had the Test ball ~2 yards shorter.  Green stopping power was pretty much the same as the AVX which was slightly worse than either the TM or Maxfli.  But were not talking BIG differences on well struck shots.

Wedge & Chipping, was pretty much a "throw a hat over em" level of difference except for the Maxfli on the 60 yard test groups.  It did check a bit better than the others. 

Putting showed no discernable difference for me on the course and on the practice green.  I also really could not tell any difference in sound or feel.  Roberto Duran "hands of stone" syndrome... great in the ring, not so much on the golf course .

In conclusion, the Test ball was not quite as good as the production balls it competed against. But again, I'm talking pretty minor differences.  As many of you know that have followed my posts about golf balls in general, I really can play a lot of different balls, tour level to mid-shelf (i.e. Velocity), without adversely affecting my scoring.  My two PB 73's have been with a Velocity and an AVX.  Because I tend to fade approach shots, as opposed to draws, I get away with lower spinning balls.  I'm looking at this as a benefit as opposed to a liability... particularly if we encounter a world-wide crash in golf ball availability .

I don't know for sure whether the Test balls slightly shorter distance off the tee is attributed to higher spin or its basic design?  Our testers LM data seems near a split on higher vs. lower spinning.  Perhaps I just did not strike those drives as well?  As I mentioned in an earlier post, it's unclear to me what Titleist is trying to do with what appears to be a modified AVX.  I'm hoping we might hear more insights on this - but R&D often being "close to the vest" - would totally understand if we don't.

Were it my only option on any given day, I could play it without hesitation... but I would not purchase them over my other currently played balls (and we can include PV1) ... unless they were at a Velocity price point.

Thank you again to the folks at Tiltleist and MGS for this test opportunity!  

Very nice review and nice touch with the video clip. 

[Peejer]

59 minutes ago, Cfhandyman said:

Thank you for your kind words and yes on indoor testing the test ball was shorter, but on course it was longer. So what gives you ask. On course, it was a cool and windy day, (10-15 mph), with firm fairways, so I strongly suspect, the test ball with its lower flight and less spin, carried the same or slightly less, but had a longer roll out than the Srixon whose trajectory was higher with more spin. Very noticeable in shots into the wind. I played 2 balls that day and hit them side by side. The test ball performs very well in the wind. Indoors, you have a controlled atmosphere, no wind, etc.  If you have a decent sample size, you get a much better picture of what’s happening

Good point on the wind.  Dimples can make all the difference and with your on-course data, it definitely seems to be a bright spot for the Test ball.

Thanks for the reply!

[Josh Parker]

1 hour ago, fixyurdivot said:

Final Review 

With two rounds vs. the AVX, one vs. a Maxfli Tour, and finally finishing off a second round vs. a TP5, I feel I have sufficient on-course play to assess how the "Test" ball compares.  I also got two test sessions in on our chipping area, comparing 10, 30, and 60 yard chip/approach shots.  Unfortunately, I was unable to complete any LM session data but, based on those testers who have done so, I think my observations track pretty well.

Off the tee, the Test ball was shorter on average than any of the production balls listed above.  The AVX and Tour were within a yard of each other, the TP5 about 2 yards shorter yet, and bringing up the rear, the Test ball by about another 2 yards.  By my eye, trajectory was most similar to the AVX - a lower, more penetrating flight.  Sound and feel seemed pretty darn close to all of the production balls... admittedly, I may not be the best at discerning sound and feel unless were talking PV1 vs. a MoJo .

Approach shots, were pretty consistent amongst all balls played though, once again, my on-course data had the Test ball ~2 yards shorter.  Green stopping power was pretty much the same as the AVX which was slightly worse than either the TM or Maxfli.  But were not talking BIG differences on well struck shots.

Wedge & Chipping, was pretty much a "throw a hat over em" level of difference except for the Maxfli on the 60 yard test groups.  It did check a bit better than the others. 

Putting showed no discernable difference for me on the course and on the practice green.  I also really could not tell any difference in sound or feel.  Roberto Duran "hands of stone" syndrome... great in the ring, not so much on the golf course .

In conclusion, the Test ball was not quite as good as the production balls it competed against. But again, I'm talking pretty minor differences.  As many of you know that have followed my posts about golf balls in general, I really can play a lot of different balls, tour level to mid-shelf (i.e. Velocity), without adversely affecting my scoring.  My two PB 73's have been with a Velocity and an AVX.  Because I tend to fade approach shots, as opposed to draws, I get away with lower spinning balls.  I'm looking at this as a benefit as opposed to a liability... particularly if we encounter a world-wide crash in golf ball availability .

I don't know for sure whether the Test balls slightly shorter distance off the tee is attributed to higher spin or its basic design?  Our testers LM data seems near a split on higher vs. lower spinning.  Perhaps I just did not strike those drives as well?  As I mentioned in an earlier post, it's unclear to me what Titleist is trying to do with what appears to be a modified AVX.  I'm hoping we might hear more insights on this - but R&D often being "close to the vest" - would totally understand if we don't.

Were it my only option on any given day, I could play it without hesitation... but I would not purchase them over my other currently played balls (and we can include PV1) ... unless they were at a Velocity price point.

Thank you again to the folks at Tiltleist and MGS for this test opportunity!  

Great info and recap!  

[jbern]

4 hours ago, HikingMike said:

Hey you have the gray spots too. Here was one I couldn't get off of mine-

 

I thought for sure it was dirt, but it wasn’t coming off when I scrubbed it. I have no idea what those grey spots are. The photographed ball was the second ball that I used. I unfortunately lost the first ball and the third has only been used for chipping and putting and has not developed any grey spots yet. 

[RockerFCC]

OK, Finally decided to just to do the test, was hoping to get out on a course and play it but our Chicagoland weather has not been cooperative, so it's simulator only I guess.

For the test I used a Trackman 4, focusing on Spin Rate, Carry and Smash. I also subjectively checked how the ball felt. I used the test ball and 2 others, a Titleist NXT Tour and Taylor Made Tour Response.

I hit roughly 5 shots (couple extra with misses) with each ball using 3 different clubs, a 50 deg Gap, a 7 Iron and a 10.5 Driver. I then used the closest 3 shots and took the average for each group selected.

All 3 of the club ball combinations showed similar smash numbers, with around a 10% variation consistently using all 3 balls. I would think this is normal, I am a 18 HC so seems reasonable to have some variance. Didn't really see anything here that was obviously different. Well, except my swing speed is slower now than it used to be, does this mean I am getting old? 

The wedge data seemed odd to me, I was getting much higher spin rates, about 9K with the NXT, both the Test ball and the Taylor Made Were right about 8K. This might have been because I started with the NXT, not sure. All 3 had consistent distance with the wedge, within 5% on most of the shots with all 3 balls.

Once I switched to the 7I the data varied more between balls on spin, 5.6K with the NXT, 5.1K with the test ball and the Taylor made was just under 5K. Distances were about the same on both the test ball and the NXT, and 5-10% greater with the Tour Response ball.

Driver spin was really consistent with the NXT and the Test ball, both about 4.5K, and distances were within 5 yards on all 3 shots for both balls. Spin rates with the Taylor made ball were lower, 3.8K, so my distances were about 5-10% higher. This was at the end of the testing, could have been other factors, but I hit about 10 shots with that ball at the end to make sure, and all except a couple misses were about the same.

As far as feel, I am very used to the NXT ball, and pretty familiar with the tour response, I did notice a slight feel difference with the test ball, felt a bit softer maybe? Still pretty solid on the good contact, but I would say I prefer both the others to it.

I doubt I will be able to play the ball this year, So I can’t talk about approach spin, or short game and putting. Maybe if it gets decent after Thanksgiving week I will try to get some feel for that and add it. I really wish I had got it before the Midwest winter, probably not getting out on a course till at least April. Oh Well. Cheers All.

[HikingMike]

15 hours ago, jbern said:

I thought for sure it was dirt, but it wasn’t coming off when I scrubbed it. I have no idea what those grey spots are. The photographed ball was the second ball that I used. I unfortunately lost the first ball and the third has only been used for chipping and putting and has not developed any grey spots yet. 

I think then we have to conclude we smoked some drives with these. New ball feature - shows a gray “smoke” spot each time you smoke a drive. If you download the mobile app, you also will hear a randomized Titleist PGA tour staffer compliment your shot right after impact (eg. “ya gotta hold of that one”). And sometimes it’s just a random guy yelling “get in the hole!”  

Downside with the additional value added - Titleist charges $150 per dozen. 

Now to check the App Store, haha. 
 

Happy Thanksgiving to the Americans here!

[Preeway]

INTRODUCTION:

I wrapped up my testing this week. The final test was a side by side course comparison against my Srixon Z-Star Diamond. It was a cool day in the mid 40s with light misty rain and 5-10 mph winds. On a few par 4s and 5s I played the two balls from tee to green to compare how it played overall. On par 3s I hit two balls and was looking more at spin rate and distance since I was able to get near perfect ball striking conditions (short human error of course). This final synopsis takes into account my testing off a putting mat, pitch shots at my local practice area, putts on a putting green at said practice area, and of course, shots hit on the course.

OFF THE TEE:

I only hit a few shots off the tee on the course with the test ball, primarily on par 5s when I was truly trying to swing hard and get maximum distance. I found the ball flight to be very consistent to my Z-Star Diamond but slightly shorter. My best drive of the day with the test ball was 265 (real distance 275 yards) yards, slightly with the wind and with a slight fade. Given the playing conditions, I thought this was a really solid drive. Definitely in my top 10% of drives hit this year. In comparison, I hit a similar drive on a different hole with the Z-Star, sold contact with a slight fade and slightly with the wind and a steady rain, and it went 275 yards (real distance of 310 yards). I can’t speak as to the difference in distance but clearly the test ball wasn’t going to be as long off the tee for me. I had similar results when I hit a 4-wood off the tee only with less variance in distance. I would give a considerable edge to the Srixon based on this performance for my game.

APPROACH SHOTS:

I found my iron shots had very little variance in distance and the variance could easily fall into a reasonable margin of error. On a 135 yard par 3 I was able to hit a PW inside of 10’ into a light wind with my Srixon. The ball was less than two feet from the pitch mark. I hit two shots with the test ball and a PW and both finished inside 15 feet and rolled about 5-6 feet from its pitch mark. The variance in proximity was more a factor of wind combined with a swing that produced more side spin than it was the ball itself. On a 160 yard par 3 I hit. An 8 iron with both balls and again found similar ball flight and roll out results. My Srixon was about 45 feet from the pin (not solid contact) and the test ball was about 12 feet away. The Srixon was again about 2 feet from it’s pitch mark and the test ball was about 6-8 feet from it’s pitch mark.  Again, I would give a slight edge to the Srixon based in it’s performance for my game.

AROUND THE GREEN:

When it came to shots inside 50 yards and pitch shots around the green, I again noticed less spin with the test ball compared to the Srixon Z-Star Diamond. On the course I found I was able to hit shots from 40-50 yards and still get them to stop within a reasonable distance. My shots with my Srixon typically roll out 5-10 feet at most on these shots. The test ball rolled out 15-20 feet. Although the roll out wasn’t egregious, the edge goes to the Srixon again for me. On pitch shots from 10-15 yards away I was able to get much better control like I’m accustomed to with my Srixon but still not quite the same. My average proximity with my pitch/chip shots was closer to 5-8 feet with my Srixon and 7-10 feet with the test ball. While both balls had plenty of spin and I was able to control them in a manner I’ve come to expect, I found I had better spin and control with my Srixon.

PUTTING:

With my putter, I can’t really say one ball performs any better than the other. The test ball has a significantly softer feel than my Srixon but I didn’t notice any significant difference in roll when putting on a practice mat or on a green. For myself, putting is a great deal about feel and the test ball reminds me of the Titleist balata balls I played in high school back in the late 80s. I never was comfortable putting those balls back then and I wasn’t as comfortable putting the test ball either. For that reason alone, I give the edge yet again to the Srixon

SYNOPSIS:

Although I was getting better results in all areas with my gamer ball, I was impressed with the overall performance of the test ball. While it isn’t a ball designed for my style of play, I can see this working very well for some. My guess is this ball is designed for someone with a slower swing and who generates less spin. Significant thanks to MGS, Titleist and the admins for allowing me the opportunity to be a tester. Hopefully I can be granted the opportunity to do this again next year!

[Cfhandyman]

8 hours ago, Preeway said:

INTRODUCTION:

I wrapped up my testing this week. The final test was a side by side course comparison against my Srixon Z-Star Diamond. It was a cool day in the mid 40s with light misty rain and 5-10 mph winds. On a few par 4s and 5s I played the two balls from tee to green to compare how it played overall. On par 3s I hit two balls and was looking more at spin rate and distance since I was able to get near perfect ball striking conditions (short human error of course). This final synopsis takes into account my testing off a putting mat, pitch shots at my local practice area, putts on a putting green at said practice area, and of course, shots hit on the course.

OFF THE TEE:

I only hit a few shots off the tee on the course with the test ball, primarily on par 5s when I was truly trying to swing hard and get maximum distance. I found the ball flight to be very consistent to my Z-Star Diamond but slightly shorter. My best drive of the day with the test ball was 265 (real distance 275 yards) yards, slightly with the wind and with a slight fade. Given the playing conditions, I thought this was a really solid drive. Definitely in my top 10% of drives hit this year. In comparison, I hit a similar drive on a different hole with the Z-Star, sold contact with a slight fade and slightly with the wind and a steady rain, and it went 275 yards (real distance of 310 yards). I can’t speak as to the difference in distance but clearly the test ball wasn’t going to be as long off the tee for me. I had similar results when I hit a 4-wood off the tee only with less variance in distance. I would give a considerable edge to the Srixon based on this performance for my game.

APPROACH SHOTS:

I found my iron shots had very little variance in distance and the variance could easily fall into a reasonable margin of error. On a 135 yard par 3 I was able to hit a PW inside of 10’ into a light wind with my Srixon. The ball was less than two feet from the pitch mark. I hit two shots with the test ball and a PW and both finished inside 15 feet and rolled about 5-6 feet from its pitch mark. The variance in proximity was more a factor of wind combined with a swing that produced more side spin than it was the ball itself. On a 160 yard par 3 I hit. An 8 iron with both balls and again found similar ball flight and roll out results. My Srixon was about 45 feet from the pin (not solid contact) and the test ball was about 12 feet away. The Srixon was again about 2 feet from it’s pitch mark and the test ball was about 6-8 feet from it’s pitch mark.  Again, I would give a slight edge to the Srixon based in it’s performance for my game.

AROUND THE GREEN:

When it came to shots inside 50 yards and pitch shots around the green, I again noticed less spin with the test ball compared to the Srixon Z-Star Diamond. On the course I found I was able to hit shots from 40-50 yards and still get them to stop within a reasonable distance. My shots with my Srixon typically roll out 5-10 feet at most on these shots. The test ball rolled out 15-20 feet. Although the roll out wasn’t egregious, the edge goes to the Srixon again for me. On pitch shots from 10-15 yards away I was able to get much better control like I’m accustomed to with my Srixon but still not quite the same. My average proximity with my pitch/chip shots was closer to 5-8 feet with my Srixon and 7-10 feet with the test ball. While both balls had plenty of spin and I was able to control them in a manner I’ve come to expect, I found I had better spin and control with my Srixon.

PUTTING:

With my putter, I can’t really say one ball performs any better than the other. The test ball has a significantly softer feel than my Srixon but I didn’t notice any significant difference in roll when putting on a practice mat or on a green. For myself, putting is a great deal about feel and the test ball reminds me of the Titleist balata balls I played in high school back in the late 80s. I never was comfortable putting those balls back then and I wasn’t as comfortable putting the test ball either. For that reason alone, I give the edge yet again to the Srixon

SYNOPSIS:

Although I was getting better results in all areas with my gamer ball, I was impressed with the overall performance of the test ball. While it isn’t a ball designed for my style of play, I can see this working very well for some. My guess is this ball is designed for someone with a slower swing and who generates less spin. Significant thanks to MGS, Titleist and the admins for allowing me the opportunity to be a tester. Hopefully I can be granted the opportunity to do this again next year!

Nice review and pictures. 

[Javs]

8 hours ago, Preeway said:

INTRODUCTION:

I wrapped up my testing this week. The final test was a side by side course comparison against my Srixon Z-Star Diamond. It was a cool day in the mid 40s with light misty rain and 5-10 mph winds. On a few par 4s and 5s I played the two balls from tee to green to compare how it played overall. On par 3s I hit two balls and was looking more at spin rate and distance since I was able to get near perfect ball striking conditions (short human error of course). This final synopsis takes into account my testing off a putting mat, pitch shots at my local practice area, putts on a putting green at said practice area, and of course, shots hit on the course.

OFF THE TEE:

I only hit a few shots off the tee on the course with the test ball, primarily on par 5s when I was truly trying to swing hard and get maximum distance. I found the ball flight to be very consistent to my Z-Star Diamond but slightly shorter. My best drive of the day with the test ball was 265 (real distance 275 yards) yards, slightly with the wind and with a slight fade. Given the playing conditions, I thought this was a really solid drive. Definitely in my top 10% of drives hit this year. In comparison, I hit a similar drive on a different hole with the Z-Star, sold contact with a slight fade and slightly with the wind and a steady rain, and it went 275 yards (real distance of 310 yards). I can’t speak as to the difference in distance but clearly the test ball wasn’t going to be as long off the tee for me. I had similar results when I hit a 4-wood off the tee only with less variance in distance. I would give a considerable edge to the Srixon based on this performance for my game.

APPROACH SHOTS:

I found my iron shots had very little variance in distance and the variance could easily fall into a reasonable margin of error. On a 135 yard par 3 I was able to hit a PW inside of 10’ into a light wind with my Srixon. The ball was less than two feet from the pitch mark. I hit two shots with the test ball and a PW and both finished inside 15 feet and rolled about 5-6 feet from its pitch mark. The variance in proximity was more a factor of wind combined with a swing that produced more side spin than it was the ball itself. On a 160 yard par 3 I hit. An 8 iron with both balls and again found similar ball flight and roll out results. My Srixon was about 45 feet from the pin (not solid contact) and the test ball was about 12 feet away. The Srixon was again about 2 feet from it’s pitch mark and the test ball was about 6-8 feet from it’s pitch mark.  Again, I would give a slight edge to the Srixon based in it’s performance for my game.

AROUND THE GREEN:

When it came to shots inside 50 yards and pitch shots around the green, I again noticed less spin with the test ball compared to the Srixon Z-Star Diamond. On the course I found I was able to hit shots from 40-50 yards and still get them to stop within a reasonable distance. My shots with my Srixon typically roll out 5-10 feet at most on these shots. The test ball rolled out 15-20 feet. Although the roll out wasn’t egregious, the edge goes to the Srixon again for me. On pitch shots from 10-15 yards away I was able to get much better control like I’m accustomed to with my Srixon but still not quite the same. My average proximity with my pitch/chip shots was closer to 5-8 feet with my Srixon and 7-10 feet with the test ball. While both balls had plenty of spin and I was able to control them in a manner I’ve come to expect, I found I had better spin and control with my Srixon.

PUTTING:

With my putter, I can’t really say one ball performs any better than the other. The test ball has a significantly softer feel than my Srixon but I didn’t notice any significant difference in roll when putting on a practice mat or on a green. For myself, putting is a great deal about feel and the test ball reminds me of the Titleist balata balls I played in high school back in the late 80s. I never was comfortable putting those balls back then and I wasn’t as comfortable putting the test ball either. For that reason alone, I give the edge yet again to the Srixon

SYNOPSIS:

Although I was getting better results in all areas with my gamer ball, I was impressed with the overall performance of the test ball. While it isn’t a ball designed for my style of play, I can see this working very well for some. My guess is this ball is designed for someone with a slower swing and who generates less spin. Significant thanks to MGS, Titleist and the admins for allowing me the opportunity to be a tester. Hopefully I can be granted the opportunity to do this again next year!

Great review and pictures

[Rob Person]

I'm going to give them another whirl on Wednesday I think, playing them exclusively.   will report back after.

[Preeway]

2 minutes ago, Rob Person said:

I'm going to give them another whirl on Wednesday I think, playing them exclusively.   will report back after.

I decided to play the two I have remaining sometime this next spring/summer since normal golf is pretty much done for then next five months. 

[2puttbogey]

Went backup my normal gamer ( Kirkland) and I could tell the difference. Th e Kirkland is much firmer and consistent. Most importantly I didn’t see any strange ball flights off the driver or irons. The putting distance control issues I had were not apparent either. 

[Slater]

Reading the reviews, I never encountered any inconsistency off the putter face.  When putting, you're working with the cover of the ball.  Titleist has the best covers in the business.  Although there is a durability issue, there isn't a consistency issue, as Titleist is the most consistent brand in the business too.  

I'm fascinated to read so many varying reviews in reference to the ball's attributes.  That speaks to the necessity of having a ball fitting.  Where this ball is supposed to be low launch and spin, others have found the opposite.  It proves there are too many variables in the swing to fully rely on marketing and what the box says about the balls.  I guess that's one of the things that makes this sport great!

I had a Titleist ball fitting last year from a Titleist Tour rep; I learned so much, and there are a ton of reasons to get a ball fitting.  I hope this process, and reading reviews, pushes people to get that fitting.

[Javs]

1 minute ago, Slater said:

Reading the reviews, I never encountered any inconsistency off the putter face.  When putting, you're working with the cover of the ball.  Titleist has the best covers in the business.  Although there is a durability issue, there isn't a consistency issue, as Titleist is the most consistent brand in the business too.  

I'm fascinated to read so many varying reviews in reference to the ball's attributes.  That speaks to the necessity of having a ball fitting.  Where this ball is supposed to be low launch and spin, others have found the opposite.  It proves there are too many variables in the swing to fully rely on marketing and what the box says about the balls.  I guess that's one of the things that makes this sport great!

I had a Titleist ball fitting last year from a Titleist Tour rep; I learned so much, and there are a ton of reasons to get a ball fitting.  I hope this process, and reading reviews, pushes people to get that fitting.

I agree with you!

[RjGolf4Life]

2 hours ago, Slater said:

Reading the reviews, I never encountered any inconsistency off the putter face.  When putting, you're working with the cover of the ball.  Titleist has the best covers in the business.  Although there is a durability issue, there isn't a consistency issue, as Titleist is the most consistent brand in the business too.  

I'm fascinated to read so many varying reviews in reference to the ball's attributes.  That speaks to the necessity of having a ball fitting.  Where this ball is supposed to be low launch and spin, others have found the opposite.  It proves there are too many variables in the swing to fully rely on marketing and what the box says about the balls.  I guess that's one of the things that makes this sport great!

I had a Titleist ball fitting last year from a Titleist Tour rep; I learned so much, and there are a ton of reasons to get a ball fitting.  I hope this process, and reading reviews, pushes people to get that fitting.

I agree. I have never done a ball fitting and after reading all the reviews and seeing how the test ball performed with my swing made me realize even more how we all are different with our swings and finding the right equipment and ball can truly help your game. 

[Josh Parker]

2 hours ago, Slater said:

Reading the reviews, I never encountered any inconsistency off the putter face.  When putting, you're working with the cover of the ball.  Titleist has the best covers in the business.  Although there is a durability issue, there isn't a consistency issue, as Titleist is the most consistent brand in the business too.  

I'm fascinated to read so many varying reviews in reference to the ball's attributes.  That speaks to the necessity of having a ball fitting.  Where this ball is supposed to be low launch and spin, others have found the opposite.  It proves there are too many variables in the swing to fully rely on marketing and what the box says about the balls.  I guess that's one of the things that makes this sport great!

I had a Titleist ball fitting last year from a Titleist Tour rep; I learned so much, and there are a ton of reasons to get a ball fitting.  I hope this process, and reading reviews, pushes people to get that fitting.

Great point about being fitted!  We all have our own swings. 

[Cfhandyman]

6 hours ago, Slater said:

Reading the reviews, I never encountered any inconsistency off the putter face.  When putting, you're working with the cover of the ball.  Titleist has the best covers in the business.  Although there is a durability issue, there isn't a consistency issue, as Titleist is the most consistent brand in the business too.  

I'm fascinated to read so many varying reviews in reference to the ball's attributes.  That speaks to the necessity of having a ball fitting.  Where this ball is supposed to be low launch and spin, others have found the opposite.  It proves there are too many variables in the swing to fully rely on marketing and what the box says about the balls.  I guess that's one of the things that makes this sport great!

I had a Titleist ball fitting last year from a Titleist Tour rep; I learned so much, and there are a ton of reasons to get a ball fitting.  I hope this process, and reading reviews, pushes people to get that fitting.

Very true.  Getting fitted for a golf ball can make a significant difference to your game with respect to distance, spin, etc.   Unfortunately, most fitters no longer offer the service.  So where does one go.  Best place to start is to look at the MyGolfSpy data 2023 Golf Ball Test | MyGolfSpy  or  Best Golf Balls of 2023: Expert Tested & Data-Backed | MyGolfSpy  to help narrow the field.

Most of the fitters I’ve talked to recommend the Ping Ballnamic site (ballfitting.com)  For best results, have your 7 iron and driver launch monitor data (launch, spin, etc) and the ball you used for the test.  Downside, its $39, but it does cover 5 fittings for a year.  It will give you 5 ball recommendations depending on your preference for performance only or performance and price.  The data base does not include all balls, but is fairly comprehensive, i.e. essentially all 3 piece construction or greater urethane balls greater than $20/dozen.  I can confirm that upon actual testing, the recommendations are pretty spot on.

[sglj3]

Good evening:

So far my testing is comparative to the others. I feel the ball is similar if not identical to the AVX. I have been putting chipping and trying to get some good spin data to present as well. I will have more to post next week and hope to have more pictures and videos. It has been a great test so far and this page has been so active I really enjoy participating with everyone on this and sharing information for everyone.

[Javs]

7 hours ago, Cfhandyman said:

Very true.  Getting fitted for a golf ball can make a significant difference to your game with respect to distance, spin, etc.   Unfortunately, most fitters no longer offer the service.  So where does one go.  Best place to start is to look at the MyGolfSpy data 2023 Golf Ball Test | MyGolfSpy  or  Best Golf Balls of 2023: Expert Tested & Data-Backed | MyGolfSpy  to help narrow the field.

Most of the fitters I’ve talked to recommend the Ping Ballnamic site (ballfitting.com)  For best results, have your 7 iron and driver launch monitor data (launch, spin, etc) and the ball you used for the test.  Downside, its $39, but it does cover 5 fittings for a year.  It will give you 5 ball recommendations depending on your preference for performance only or performance and price.  The data base does not include all balls, but is fairly comprehensive, i.e. essentially all 3 piece construction or greater urethane balls greater than $20/dozen.  I can confirm that upon actual testing, the recommendations are pretty spot on.

Great information!

[RjGolf4Life]

Hello MGS family!

 

My name is Rolly and live in the San Francisco Bay Area.  I have been golfing on and off for over 32 years. I am 53 years old and have been consistently playing golf 1-2 times a week for the past 10 years now. My current index is 8.8. The strongest part of my game is putting. The weakest part of my game is everything else, LMAO! What saves my scores is that I scramble good around the green. 

 

I need to be better off the tee to allow me to make GIRs but hey, it’s a work in progress like the majority of us. 

 

This is my FIRST EVER to be a tester. I am very excited to provide my in put regarding the Titleist Test Ball.  I do not have access to any launch monitors but was able to obtain some data via the local Golfmart store that I went to. 
 

Thank you MGS & Titleist for this opportunity! I hope to get a passing grade in order to be eligible to test more products  

 

Here is what is currently in my bag (all clubs have stiff flex):

 

Woods:

PXG 0811 X Gen 4 Driver

PXG 0311 XF Gen 5 3 wood

PXG 0317 X Gen 4 3 HY

PXG 0317 XF Gen 4 4 HY

PXG 0317 X Gen 4 5 HY

 

Irons:

Sub 70 699 6-AW

 

Wedges:

PXG 0311 Sugar Daddy 56

PXG 0311 Sugar Daddy 60

 

Putter:

Pyramid blade

 

FIRST IMPRESSIONS

 

Just like someone mention in the very beginning of the testing is that it was pretty funny to have a white box within another white box. 
 

 

 

Now I have been normally playing the PXG ball. I play the PXG ball because of the discounts they provide to first responders, lol! I love playing PROV1s but as we all know they can be expensive. 

 

The dimple patterns are definitely different between the two balls (hex vs circle). Aesthetically, I do not mind whether they are hex vs circle dimples. I like the alignment style for the TEST ball. I also like the style of alignment on the PXG. I think every ball should have an alignment on the ball with us having to do it ourselves. Call me lazy
 

 

I first started by putting the balls at home. Putting at 8’, I did not feel like I had to putt any harder for the test ball. My stroke (aside from human error) was the same for each ball. The Test ball is definitely a softer ball compared to the PXG. I believe the consensus was the same across the board about the test ball being a soft ball.

I took a couple of videos regarding the putting but for some reason I am unable to load them. I have shortened the videos down to 31MB but they still are not uploading.

Anyways, the videos were straight forward. PXG ball and Test ball putted just fine. The test ball is definitely feels and sounds softer off the face of my putter. The Pyramid putter does not have a facial insert. Only has milled grooves on the face.

 

SOME SIMULATOR COMPARISONS

 

Now, I was able to go to the local Golfmart store to utilize their tracking system for a little bit. The crazy part is that I appeared to hit the ball longer (Driver & 4HY) on the simulator with the Test ball compared to PXG. 
 

 

 

 

 

Here is just the yardage data with my 4HY

 

Maybe I can contribute to the longer overall distance because the test ball rolls out more than the PXG. 
 

 

 

ON COURSE

 

So, I played the first 9 holes with my PXG ball and the last 9 holes with the Test ball. 

 

I shot 44 in the front and 42 in the back.  I normally play better on the back 9 than the front so not sure how much of the lower score was from the Test ball or just part of my normal game, lol!

 

I did have two 3-putts on the back 9. Probably because the test ball did not “stick” and rolled out at least 5 feet from when the ball hit the green. You can see the distance of roll by the pics I have attached below. 
 

 

 

 

The one pic I remembered to take with my PXG, you can see how it did not roll out like the Test ball
 

 

My experience is that I was longer off the tee with my driver when I used my PXG ball.
 

The Test ball was decent but for some reason I hit more fades with the Test ball versus PXG ball. Maybe I was getting tired and not following through?

 

I didn’t experience a “straighter ball” like others were stating but I am sure that is all because of my swing
 

 

 

Titleist Test Ball
 

 

 

Cosmetics of the Test ball. Just like everyone else has reported, the cover of the ball was NOT durable. After 4 holes, it already has scuffed up and saw the weird “grey” line that someone else had mentioned. The scuffing occurred during my approach shots with my wedges.
 

 

Above the “ei” is where you can see the grey line. That would not come off. Thought it was a little weird. 
 

 

CONCLUSION 

 

I will probably stick with my PXG ball for now BUT will try other balls to determine which would be a better game ball for me if any. It is so amazing how the little things can affect our golf game. I need to make sure I have the right gear and not just because I get a discount

 

Anyways, thank you all who took the time to read through my review.
 

[Rob Person]

Nive review, and thanks for standing on the front lines!

[Cfhandyman]

11 hours ago, RjGolf4Life said:

Hello MGS family!

 

My name is Rolly and live in the San Francisco Bay Area.  I have been golfing on and off for over 32 years. I am 53 years old and have been consistently playing golf 1-2 times a week for the past 10 years now. My current index is 8.8. The strongest part of my game is putting. The weakest part of my game is everything else, LMAO! What saves my scores is that I scramble good around the green. 

 

I need to be better off the tee to allow me to make GIRs but hey, it’s a work in progress like the majority of us. 

 

This is my FIRST EVER to be a tester. I am very excited to provide my in put regarding the Titleist Test Ball.  I do not have access to any launch monitors but was able to obtain some data via the local Golfmart store that I went to. 
 

Thank you MGS & Titleist for this opportunity! I hope to get a passing grade in order to be eligible to test more products  

 

Here is what is currently in my bag (all clubs have stiff flex):

 

Woods:

PXG 0811 X Gen 4 Driver

PXG 0311 XF Gen 5 3 wood

PXG 0317 X Gen 4 3 HY

PXG 0317 XF Gen 4 4 HY

PXG 0317 X Gen 4 5 HY

 

Irons:

Sub 70 699 6-AW

 

Wedges:

PXG 0311 Sugar Daddy 56

PXG 0311 Sugar Daddy 60

 

Putter:

Pyramid blade

 

FIRST IMPRESSIONS

 

Just like someone mention in the very beginning of the testing is that it was pretty funny to have a white box within another white box. 
 

 

 

Now I have been normally playing the PXG ball. I play the PXG ball because of the discounts they provide to first responders, lol! I love playing PROV1s but as we all know they can be expensive. 

 

The dimple patterns are definitely different between the two balls (hex vs circle). Aesthetically, I do not mind whether they are hex vs circle dimples. I like the alignment style for the TEST ball. I also like the style of alignment on the PXG. I think every ball should have an alignment on the ball with us having to do it ourselves. Call me lazy
 

 

I first started by putting the balls at home. Putting at 8’, I did not feel like I had to putt any harder for the test ball. My stroke (aside from human error) was the same for each ball. The Test ball is definitely a softer ball compared to the PXG. I believe the consensus was the same across the board about the test ball being a soft ball.

I took a couple of videos regarding the putting but for some reason I am unable to load them. I have shortened the videos down to 31MB but they still are not uploading.

Anyways, the videos were straight forward. PXG ball and Test ball putted just fine. The test ball is definitely feels and sounds softer off the face of my putter. The Pyramid putter does not have a facial insert. Only has milled grooves on the face.

 

SOME SIMULATOR COMPARISONS

 

Now, I was able to go to the local Golfmart store to utilize their tracking system for a little bit. The crazy part is that I appeared to hit the ball longer (Driver & 4HY) on the simulator with the Test ball compared to PXG. 
 

 

 

 

 

Here is just the yardage data with my 4HY

 

Maybe I can contribute to the longer overall distance because the test ball rolls out more than the PXG. 
 

 

 

ON COURSE

 

So, I played the first 9 holes with my PXG ball and the last 9 holes with the Test ball. 

 

I shot 44 in the front and 42 in the back.  I normally play better on the back 9 than the front so not sure how much of the lower score was from the Test ball or just part of my normal game, lol!

 

I did have two 3-putts on the back 9. Probably because the test ball did not “stick” and rolled out at least 5 feet from when the ball hit the green. You can see the distance of roll by the pics I have attached below. 
 

 

 

 

The one pic I remembered to take with my PXG, you can see how it did not roll out like the Test ball
 

 

My experience is that I was longer off the tee with my driver when I used my PXG ball.
 

The Test ball was decent but for some reason I hit more fades with the Test ball versus PXG ball. Maybe I was getting tired and not following through?

 

I didn’t experience a “straighter ball” like others were stating but I am sure that is all because of my swing
 

 

 

Titleist Test Ball
 

 

 

Cosmetics of the Test ball. Just like everyone else has reported, the cover of the ball was NOT durable. After 4 holes, it already has scuffed up and saw the weird “grey” line that someone else had mentioned. The scuffing occurred during my approach shots with my wedges.
 

 

Above the “ei” is where you can see the grey line. That would not come off. Thought it was a little weird. 
 

 

CONCLUSION 

 

I will probably stick with my PXG ball for now BUT will try other balls to determine which would be a better game ball for me if any. It is so amazing how the little things can affect our golf game. I need to make sure I have the right gear and not just because I get a discount

 

Anyways, thank you all who took the time to read through my review.
 

Very nice review and great pictures.  Well done and thanks for sharing