Kirkland Balls are worth the hype

[Kbains5]

Good Morning All, 

As someone who is still figuring out his game, I feel I should go out of my way to give my opinion on different balls and performance. 
 

Some background, I started playing back in April of 2024 when I bought a used set of clubs off marketplace for $125. This set came with a maltby driver, maltby trouble out 3,5,7 & 9 woods, Dynapower Copperhead CU irons from 3 to A wedge, which to my knowledge are an OEM club from the mid 2000s, a top flite mallet putter, and a maltby 38 degree hybrid. With is also came a bag with a million different types of balls. 
 

In this bag were Pro V1s, Noodles, and Srixons. Before I became aware of how bad range balls were, but I started doing research and used my Srixons and Noodles. While my yardage didn’t vary much, I was still learning how to consistently strike the ball let alone what softness and spin rates matter. I was aware of how Pro V1s were and simply didn’t want to lose them on wayward strikes. 
 

Recently however, I talked myself into buying a pack Kirkland balls as my striking has become significantly more consistent. On my first strike on the course I immediately noticed the heft to the ball. The sound, the flight, everything. It was more crisp than anything I had ever hit before and my strike was pure. However, it went shorter than what my noodles were going, and for that matter my Srixons, how odd.
 

I tried then hitting a Pro V1 to see the difference. Again, crisp and clean ball flight, but not as much distance. I pondered why that could be. One thing I understood however, was that while the distance loss was strange, I discovered I could trust the flights far more. The pace on my putts felt more consistent and controlled and I played arguably the best round I’ve ever played in my life. No matter the lie or rough that I played out of, I’d never been to able to reliably predict a ball flight like that before, or the roll out on the green. These Kirkland Balls, while not going as far as I would’ve like granted that’s probably because of me more than anything, could be planned around. As long as I hit the ball properly, I could trust the ball was going to get where I wanted with the shape I was playing it. 
 

As a gear nerd, I love to believe that even the smallest things can make a big difference in your game. I truly believe that you shouldn’t have to be a mammoth like Bryson to get huge distance. This ball test all but confirmed my thinking in that regard. As a mid to high handicapper a lot of content revolves around the idea that gear doesn’t matter just practice and get better, etc. This is important and good to remember, however once you get even a remote feel for the game you notice immediately how the strikes change, impact changes, ball flight changes, putting changes, etc. 

 

I truly believe that in my experience, the Kirkland ball is as good as hyped. It truly feels the same as a Pro V1 for a fraction of the price. It feels better than many other balls I’ve used in the past. I can’t stress this enough, it just feels good. It sounds good. It looks good. 
 

Golf balls are a majorly overlooked part of the regular player’s arsenal, and is arguably worth more consideration and tooling than what stamp is on a club head. Again, I stress this for newer players, as one of you, not a golf elitist who says get good scrub why worry about other stuff. Once you’ve put in some time, and you’ve started to feel the game a bit, invest in this ball upgrade if you haven’t already. You’ll thank yourself for not paying an arm and a leg for a premium ball at $55 for a 12 ball box. 

[ColdOkieGolf]

If the current Kirkland balls work for you,  then it is an awesome choice for the money.  I wish they worked for me!

I was excited for the latest version, but found I was hitting it about a club short with them   

In contrast, I still have some of the original 4 piece balls and it compares favorably to any new balls I've played, including the Left Dash.   Still crossing my fingers for them to release a ball equal to that original.

[mannyc]

I love the Kirkland balls. Granted they aren’t as good as they used to be but overall with the price of equipment being so high I don’t mind playing with a golf ball that’s good and cheap 

[civic]

I think they are a great 3 piece ball for the money and the best value. Golf balls in general are subjective with each players strengths, weaknesses, swingspeed , angle of attack and many other variables. My brother loses distance and prefers the prov1 and I do not notice any loss of distance and they are just as good around the greens for me as the prov1's. 

[GolfSpy_APH]

Tried them and too spinny for me. Ended up being far shorter and didn't love the flight or feel, but that's just me. 

Much prefer the look, feel and performance of the Vice Pro Plus Drip.

[Kbains5]

So in general it seems the consensus is right on par with my own assessment. Feel is largely subjective but overall there is a legitimate loss of distance for everyone here. Which is a conundrum for me because I very much prefer the high spin and shape of flight that I get out of the kirklands, but I have been coming up short on greens. Begs the question do I prefer a good flight I can shape and then just have to play to take spin off like Tiger does, or I do play a less spinny ball that’s less workable and I have to put spin on in the more modern style. 
 

I also wanted to start playing a sub 70 or takomo mb cb combo to learn rather than having to relearn from a GI. The distance would be terrible with a blade spin and the Kirkland spin. Things to consider. 

[cnosil]

35 minutes ago, Kbains5 said:

So in general it seems the consensus is right on par with my own assessment. Feel is largely subjective but overall there is a legitimate loss of distance for everyone here. Which is a conundrum for me because I very much prefer the high spin and shape of flight that I get out of the kirklands, but I have been coming up short on greens. Begs the question do I prefer a good flight I can shape and then just have to play to take spin off like Tiger does, or I do play a less spinny ball that’s less workable and I have to put spin on in the more modern style. 

If you like the balls then play the balls.   If you are coming up short, learn your club distances which probably means you need to hit more club into greens to not be short.   I also think you are overthinking the need to work the ball;  you can play scratch or better golf with a stock shot shape.  

[Off Map Oscar]

I went down a rabbit hole trying value brand 3 and 4 piece balls. I ready every line and poured over the data tables in the golf ball test of 2023... I found it to be a waste of time. The test and some of the posts they made on Instagram with the videos showed thr maxfli tour x to be significantly better. We'll I've finally lost or given away enough of them that I can go back to the kirkland. I've found my ideal compression is around the 90 mark. 

And on my simulator the kirland gen 2 vs gen 3 shows the gen 3 is the better ball. About 200 rpms less with driver and woods than the gen 2. The wedges I'm still getting upper 9k which is what the gen 2 does for me.  For the life of me I can't figure out why the ball test rated them so much worse than thr gen 2. I even weighted a bunch of them and they were all really close. 

The yellow ones spin even less than the whites FYI. 

[storm319]

4 hours ago, Off Map Oscar said:

I went down a rabbit hole trying value brand 3 and 4 piece balls. I ready every line and poured over the data tables in the golf ball test of 2023... I found it to be a waste of time. The test and some of the posts they made on Instagram with the videos showed thr maxfli tour x to be significantly better. We'll I've finally lost or given away enough of them that I can go back to the kirkland. I've found my ideal compression is around the 90 mark. 

And on my simulator the kirland gen 2 vs gen 3 shows the gen 3 is the better ball. About 200 rpms less with driver and woods than the gen 2. The wedges I'm still getting upper 9k which is what the gen 2 does for me.  For the life of me I can't figure out why the ball test rated them so much worse than thr gen 2. I even weighted a bunch of them and they were all really close. 

The yellow ones spin even less than the whites FYI. 

If you are referring to the 2021 vs 2023 ball test results when comparing v2 vs v3, keep in mind that the swing conditions changed for the test (speeds were the same, but club delivery was different at each speed). If you were referring to the ball lab, those are measurements based on a 3 dozen sample and keep in mind that we are talking about fractions of an ounce so scale precision is very important. 

Ultimately, the ball test and ball labs are great resources to narrow down choices for personal testing, but given that the test conditions may not match one’s particular swing conditions, the results shouldn’t be taken as absolute fact.

[Bakht7316]

Thank you for sharing your detailed experience with the Kirkland golf balls! As someone who's also navigated the early stages of golf, I completely resonate with your journey. It’s fascinating how gear can make a noticeable difference, even when we're still figuring out our swings. Your insights into the Kirkland balls, especially how they stack up against Pro V1s, are really helpful for players like me who are exploring different equipment options.

For those looking to improve their game without breaking the bank, it’s clear that Kirkland balls offer a premium feel at a fraction of the cost. Your experience with the consistency and predictability of these balls, even if they didn’t always match the distance of other brands, highlights their reliability on the course. I’m definitely considering giving them a try based on your recommendation.

Edited August 18 by Bakht7316

[Off Map Oscar]

On 8/13/2024 at 7:55 PM, storm319 said:

results shouldn’t be taken as absolute fact.

I'm more referring to stuff like this. 

 

 

Their best deal in golf quote and the ball wont last 3 holes. I actually ended up using 6 balls in one round. Didn't loose any of them but the case was trashed.  I've got pictures of one that was hit a single time with a hybrid and had 4 groove cuts in the face. Snell refunded me for 4 dozen balls and didn't even want them back. Straight into the dumpster. 

And then they posted this gem not long after.  https://www.instagram.com/reel/C2m-tyPL-5n/?igsh=MWg3ZWZoY2JnbGMxdw==

 

I got drawn here by the golf ball tests let's just say I'm not sticking around because of them. 

 

 

Edited August 15 by Off Map Oscar

[storm319]

20 hours ago, Off Map Oscar said:

I'm more referring to stuff like this. 

 

 

Their best deal in golf quote and the ball wont last 3 holes. I actually ended up using 6 balls in one round. Didn't loose any of them but the case was trashed.  I've got pictures of one that was hit a single time with a hybrid and had 4 groove cuts in the face. Snell refunded me for 4 dozen balls and didn't even want them back. Straight into the dumpster. 

And then they posted this gem not long after.  https://www.instagram.com/reel/C2m-tyPL-5n/?igsh=MWg3ZWZoY2JnbGMxdw==

 

I got drawn here by the golf ball tests let's just say I'm not sticking around because of them. 

 

 

The 2019 MTB-X (3-piece CTU cover produced by Nassau) is a completely different ball than the 2023 MTB Prime X (3-piece TPU cover produced by ?) that you have pictured above (MG$ never put the Snell MTB Prime/X balls through ball lab).

Also, the ball lab scope doesn’t cover durability or performance, only consistency of certain physical attributes that relate to conformance or that tend to have a correlation to certain performance attributes.

Edited August 14 by storm319

[Off Map Oscar]

 

Best drive I've ever had without a helping wind. Kirkland v3 baby fade. 2nd worst ball in they've ever tested.

[GolfSpy SAM]

3 minutes ago, Off Map Oscar said:

 

Best drive I've ever had without a helping wind. Kirkland v3 baby fade. 2nd worst ball in they've ever tested.

Nice! As has been mentioned, it's not that you can't get a good ball in the package. Chances are, in fact, that three majority will be fine. The point of their ball lab is not to find if A ball will be good; it's to find how many will be different/inconsistent throughout a given dozen. Having played Kirkland balls for a while, I can attest to the fact that there are DEFINETELY some less-than-great balls in every box. Not to mention (for me) they were pretty excessively spinny, and I was losing distance with irons. I'm a huge fan of the MaxFli balls, especially when buying the cube (4 dozen), which makes them about $27/dozen. 

But love that you're killing it with the K-Sigs!

[storm319]

12 minutes ago, Off Map Oscar said:

 

Best drive I've ever had without a helping wind. Kirkland v3 baby fade. 2nd worst ball in they've ever tested.

Under their ball lab methodology, yes, but again this is not a direct test of performance.

The actual 2023 ball test found the Kirkland v3 to be one of the highest spinning balls across the board under those conditions. It may be a good fit for players with a very low spin profile, but understand that those players are a small minority of the population. The ball is not universally bad, just not the best fit for the majority of players.

My personally experience as more of a mid spin player across the board was that all of the 3-piece Kirkland balls have been excessively spinny resulting in noticeable distance loss, but ymmv. 

Edited August 14 by storm319

[Off Map Oscar]

See and I bought the cube of maxfli tour x on the golf spy suggestion. They play terrible. Before this devolves any further let's agree to disagree. I have never been able to replicate the quality and performance that robots and a clearly flawed point system gives. This doesn't mean it's all crap. Just for me their results are not usable and no amount of arguing is going to change that these numbers and figures are useless. Agree to disagree. Kirklands are hands down the cheapest 3 piece urethane you can find and worth a shot. 

 

And saying this kind of crap has lost their test 100 % credibility in my eyes. You can't change that opinion.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C2m-tyPL-5n/?igsh=MWg3ZWZoY2JnbGMxdw==

Don't mind me I'm just over here not adding 6 to 10 strokes and not slicing everything out of bounds. 

[cnosil]

4 minutes ago, Off Map Oscar said:

See and I bought the cube of maxfli tour x on the golf spy suggestion. They play terrible. Before this devolves any further let's agree to disagree. I have never been able to replicate the quality and performance that robots and a clearly flawed point system gives. This doesn't mean it's all crap. Just for me their results are not usable and no amount of arguing is going to change that these numbers and figures are useless. Agree to disagree. Kirklands are hands down the cheapest 3 piece urethane you can find and worth a shot. 

 

And saying this kind of crap has lost their test 100 % credibility in my eyes. You can't change that opinion.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C2m-tyPL-5n/?igsh=MWg3ZWZoY2JnbGMxdw==

Don't mind me I'm just over here not adding 6 to 10 strokes and not slicing everything out of bounds. 

They play terrible for you and for others on the forum they play great.  We all have different needs from a golf ball which is why they all have different performance attributes.  That is why the Kirkland works for you;  you need a ball with more spin.   

I feel like you are confusing Ball Lab an the ball test they have done a couple of times.   

The ball test is about performance where balls are physically hit with a swing robot and things like ball speed, launch, spin, peak height, carry, total distance, etc. are captured.   They test difference clubs with specific swing speeds.    Not sure  why those results are not usable for you; as it is a head to head performance comparison.  It is simply designed to give you an idea of performance which should correlate to your swing. 

 The ball lab which is referenced in the instagram post you posted is about evaluating manufacturing consistency/quality and has nothing to do with on course performance or durability.  There is no swing robot for this test only tools to measure ball size, weight, compression, core consistency.   Not sure how you can argue with these actual results as it is a physical measurement of a golf ball.    I can see your point of these results not being relevant for you and that you will ignore them as the balls work for you.  I don't understand why you say these results aren't credible or that you might be  playing with balls that if measured would not be USGA/R&A conforming.  

 

[Off Map Oscar]

I just weighted every kirkland I have and ever titleist I have. The kirklands are from two separate lots 45 total balls that have never been hit. Lowest was 45.5 gr highest wad 45.8 average across them was 45.71 and most of those were 45.7 gr.

I only had one box of prov1x low was 45.6 high was 45.8. But if you look at the lab data it says that this ball falls in the average range and kirkland falls in the poor range. Yet when you compare my numbers of 45 balls to theirs it's the same spread. 

1.605 oz to 1.615 oz 

59 minutes ago, cnosil said:

 

I feel like you are confusing Ball Lab an the ball test they have done a couple of times.   

 

 

Trust me I'm not. It's two separate data sets that should be used together to make a good purchase. Yet it doesn’t 

[BIG STU]

8 hours ago, Off Map Oscar said:

See and I bought the cube of maxfli tour x on the golf spy suggestion. They play terrible. Before this devolves any further let's agree to disagree. I have never been able to replicate the quality and performance that robots and a clearly flawed point system gives. This doesn't mean it's all crap. Just for me their results are not usable and no amount of arguing is going to change that these numbers and figures are useless. Agree to disagree. Kirklands are hands down the cheapest 3 piece urethane you can find and worth a shot. 

 

And saying this kind of crap has lost their test 100 % credibility in my eyes. You can't change that opinion.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C2m-tyPL-5n/?igsh=MWg3ZWZoY2JnbGMxdw==

Don't mind me I'm just over here not adding 6 to 10 strokes and not slicing everything out of bounds. 

I tend to agree with you on real world face value performance. Every one is different. One of the reasons there are so many balls out there today with choices in covers and compressions. I will also say something that has maybe not been mentioned. Along with our different swings balls react differently off of different club heads and different shafts too depending on who swings them. IMHO the robot tests only give a consistent over the board fair test. Like you said the Kirkland works good for you and your game where the Maxfli did not. I can see that in a real world test. I have not hit any of the new Kirkland balls so I can not say for sure with me. On the original Kirklands we could not get them here. A friend of mine from Florida sent me a sleeve. I used them and they performed great for me. In fact if you go way back on here in the original Kirkland thread I questioned the legality of the ball. 

Like everything else in this game one has to determine what works for their game. What works for you may/or may not work for me. At the price point I say if the Kirkland ball works for you that is a good thing

[cnosil]

9 hours ago, Off Map Oscar said:

I just weighted every kirkland I have and ever titleist I have. The kirklands are from two separate lots 45 total balls that have never been hit. Lowest was 45.5 gr highest wad 45.8 average across them was 45.71 and most of those were 45.7 gr.

I only had one box of prov1x low was 45.6 high was 45.8. But if you look at the lab data it says that this ball falls in the average range and kirkland falls in the poor range. Yet when you compare my numbers of 45 balls to theirs it's the same spread. 

1.605 oz to 1.615 oz 

Trust me I'm not. It's two separate data sets that should be used together to make a good purchase. Yet it doesn’t 

I could just as easily say I don’t trust your numbers and they aren’t accurate and mean nothing to me.   Bottom line is you need to make your own assessments of the provided information and choose the equipment that work for you.  You have done this but that doesn’t make the MGS published data wrong.   I choose to believe the information published by MGS because i have the ability io see them test first hand.    But like you I will play a Kirkland ball because higher spinning balls work for me and I just look at the ball lab as interesting but not critical information.  

[storm319]

9 hours ago, Off Map Oscar said:

I just weighted every kirkland I have and ever titleist I have. The kirklands are from two separate lots 45 total balls that have never been hit. Lowest was 45.5 gr highest wad 45.8 average across them was 45.71 and most of those were 45.7 gr.

I only had one box of prov1x low was 45.6 high was 45.8. But if you look at the lab data it says that this ball falls in the average range and kirkland falls in the poor range. Yet when you compare my numbers of 45 balls to theirs it's the same spread. 

1.605 oz to 1.615 oz 

First, what did you use for the measurements? Keep in mind that a common kitchen scale is nowhere near as accurate as a precision balance and many times the accuracy tolerance can mean the difference between conforming and non-conforming given the low weights that we are dealing with.

Also, MGS ball lab qualitative ratings are relative to other models that have been tested prior, so depending on the particular metric the difference between their “average” and “poor” may be negligible from a real world performance standpoint. When it comes to mass, most models are so close that it really doesn’t matter as long as the balls in the sample are below the USGA/R&A limit. 

[Off Map Oscar]

Kind of arrogant of you to assume that I used a kitchen scale. The use of grains vs oz should be a giveaway but apparently you're not a shooting enthusiast. I would probably go so far as to say my scale is far superior to anything they used. Considering it's one of the best high precision scales made for producing the rounds for my PRS rifle. 

 

Did you hear the arrogance in all that? That's what you sound like. 

[Off Map Oscar]

3 hours ago, BIG STU said:

I tend to agree with you on real world face value performance. Every one is different. One of the reasons there are so many balls out there today with choices in covers and compressions. I will also say something that has maybe not been mentioned. Along with our different swings balls react differently off of different club heads and different shafts too depending on who swings them. IMHO the robot tests only give a consistent over the board fair test. Like you said the Kirkland works good for you and your game where the Maxfli did not. I can see that in a real world test. I have not hit any of the new Kirkland balls so I can not say for sure with me. On the original Kirklands we could not get them here. A friend of mine from Florida sent me a sleeve. I used them and they performed great for me. In fact if you go way back on here in the original Kirkland thread I questioned the legality of the ball. 

Like everything else in this game one has to determine what works for their game. What works for you may/or may not work for me. At the price point I say if the Kirkland ball works for you that is a good thing

If you want a box let me know and I'll ship ya 2 dozen. On my sim and several others I get roughly 200 rpms lower than thr gen2 across all the irons. Which makes it a very controlled ball for my game right on par the numbers I get from chromesofts and prov1. Higher than a left dash or chromesoft ls but that's what those are marketed for.

[cnosil]

14 minutes ago, Off Map Oscar said:

I would probably go so far as to say my scale is far superior to anything they used. 

Since you seem to indicate that you don’t know what equipment (or protocols)  for the MGS testing it is listed here:https://mygolfspy.com/about-mygolfspy-ball-lab/    I’d say the industrial lab grade scale is fairly high quality and definitely comparable to your scale.  

Edited August 15 by cnosil

[BIG STU]

4 hours ago, Off Map Oscar said:

Kind of arrogant of you to assume that I used a kitchen scale. The use of grains vs oz should be a giveaway but apparently you're not a shooting enthusiast. I would probably go so far as to say my scale is far superior to anything they used. Considering it's one of the best high precision scales made for producing the rounds for my PRS rifle. 

 

Did you hear the arrogance in all that? That's what you sound like. 

Yep I used to reload. And if one shoots comp and reloads their own stuff accuracy and consistency is a must

On the balls are you talking Maxfli? If so PM me.

[Off Map Oscar]

3 minutes ago, BIG STU said:

Yep I used to reload. And if one shoots comp and reloads their own stuff accuracy and consistency is a must

On the balls are you talking Maxfli? If so PM me.

PM sent. 

[Lefty11]

The Kirkland balls were too spinny for my game, and I was losing distance with them.  However, if they work well for you, that's great!

[Off Map Oscar]

Were you losing distance only or seeing the numbers on a tracker and which generation did you try? I'm curious about your swing speed with a 7-iron and driver and your preferred ball. I think there is probably a player profile these are great for and its probably not very broad like some of the other balls out there. 

[chisag]

17 hours ago, GolfSpy SAM said:

Having played Kirkland balls for a while, I can attest to the fact that there are DEFINETELY some less-than-great balls in every box. Not to mention (for me) they were pretty excessively spinny, and I was losing distance with irons. I'm a huge fan of the MaxFli balls, especially when buying the cube (4 dozen), which makes them about $27/dozen. 

 

... There is so much that goes into golf balls for every individual. Two of my slow swinging pards increased their distance with the Kirkland V3 because they needed more spin. But I think one of the biggest factors is how consistent is your swing and contact? If you play several times a week and rarely make the same swing twice and/or miss the center regularly, the V3 may very well be a great ball for you at $15 a dozen. But if you only play once a week or less, golf ball prices jmay not matter anywhere near as much. 

... This is pretty current for me as I haven't played V3's in quite awhile but played a practice round Monday because the course was empty and I was able to hit multiple shots. I had 145 to a pin just over a dip in front of the green, so anything landing on the fringe or shorter will roll back down into the dip. Facing a wind just under 10mph, I went up a club to my 8 iron as 145 is a solid 9 for me. I took full normal swings and I hit 4 shots with the V3 about as well as I can and all 4 hit just short of the green and rolled back down the slope. I then hit 2 Maxfli Tour X balls and the ball marks for both were pin high. I then hit 2 ProV1's and they were virtually identical to the Tour X. I stepped off about a 9yd difference between the V3 and TourX/ProV1s. The difference between 4 difficult up and downs and 4 potential birdie putts is huge. 

... Even though we don't get wind in Phoenix like I experienced in Chicago, it can get windy and I can't afford to play a ball that loses yards because of more spin than ideal for my game. I have given Kirklands to quite a few players and the results are mixed but by and large lower index and faster swinging players don't care for them, while higher index and slower swing players do. I have done the same with Maxfli Tours and Tour X's and haven't had a single player not like or love the ball. I have said before my youngest pard at 36 that has only played ProV1's since his high school got team days, switched to Maxfli Tour X's after I gave him a sleeve and he plays them exclusively, including the in the AZ State Am last month. Of course Ymmv ... 

[Lefty11]

1 hour ago, Off Map Oscar said:

Were you losing distance only or seeing the numbers on a tracker and which generation did you try? I'm curious about your swing speed with a 7-iron and driver and your preferred ball. I think there is probably a player profile these are great for and its probably not very broad like some of the other balls out there. 

I observed a noticeable decrease in distance with the Kirkland balls (Version 3) during a solo round. Currently, I play with the Vice Pro Air, but I've also used the Srixon Z Star and Pro V1 in the past. My 7-iron swing speed is in the low  to mid 80s. 
 

Below these Kirklands (version 4) hit the USGA conforming list. I wonder how’ll they perform. 

Edited August 15 by Lefty11