Srixon Z-Star/Z-Star X Ball Review
Posted April 28th, 2009 by Dave Koster
The new Srixon Z-Star and Z-Star X come close to other premium balls in distance and spin but lack in feel.
When the 800-pound gorilla in the market (see: Titleist) releases a new version of their premium balls, what are their competitors to do? Srixon has answered the challenge with the release of their newest balls, the Z-Star and Z-Star X.
With names like that it is pretty easy to see that Srixon wants to directly challenge Titleist and take the gorilla head on. Some PGA Tour pros, including Jim Furyk, Vijay Singh, and Tim Clark have been using the Z-Star line of balls since they came out. In a short time, the Z-Star and Z-Star X has grabbed a decent chunk of the premium ball market on the PGA Tour.
The question remains: will it be enough to convince the rest of the golfers out there to not only give the new Srixon's a try, but to convert? Read on to find out if it could convert this long-time Pro V1x user.
Design and Technology
The Z-Star is a three-piece ball with a very thin urethane cover (Z-Coat Exterior Layer) to help provide spin and control on approach shots to the green. An elastic ionomer mid-layer "creates a smooth transition to the core for greater control and distance." Smooth is a good thing. The core is where it's at, though. The Energetic Gradient Growth Core (clever, clever) is a design which features a gradual compression shift from the center of the ball out to the perimeter (from soft to firm) in order to create lower spin and high ball speed.
The new Srixon Z-Star X has 324 dimples and, like the Pro V1x, a red number.
The trajectory for that ever-popular "aggressive" ball flight is aided by the Powershear Dimple Technology. The older Z-series balls had 330 dimples while the new Z-Star has 324 "low drag with high coverage" dimples to give you the best amount of spin through your ball flight. Also, the Invisiseam Technology makes sure of the uniformity of the dimples across the entire surface of the ball to give you consistent flight and performance.
You can thank the Energetic Gradient Growth Core for the acceleration given to the Z-Star with its gradual compression which works with the ultra-thin cover to help transfer the energy to the core to improve distance as well as to help reduce energy that is lost in the cover. That exterior layer is softer which provides you with added feel and control on the "touch-shots" around the green as with the putter.
Like its sibling, the Z-Star X version is three-piece construction as well and shares many of the same design characteristics (dimples, thin cover, etc). However, it more designed for the higher swing-speed golfer 105+ MPH) who is gunning for "extreme tour distance."
The main difference is a slightly firmer cover as well as a firmer core (104 compression) than the Z-Star in order to accommodate the big hitters of the world. Figure the Z-Star X for more distance and the Z-Star, which is a bit softer for a more feel. In general, the balls break down as follows.
Feel and Spin
As you may have read in my other reviews, how a ball feels off the face of the club is more important to me than any other aspect, feature, or measurement. After years of golfing, I know that the ability to control the ball the way I want in a consistent manner in the scoring area (80 yards and in) shapes my scoring more than distance off the tee, control in the wind, or anything else.
Following the Pro V1, the regular Z-Star is a softer ball than the Z-Star X. I wouldn't consider the gap between the two Z-Star models to be as big as the one between Pro V1 and V1x, but there is a definite, noticeable difference in performance. The problem is that the gap between the Z-Star balls and the Pro V1 is too much for my liking.
On the green the Z-Star and Z-Star X felt too firm off of the putter face. I've been spoiled with a softer feeling that wasn't too soft with the Pro V1x, and while the Z-Star was the softer of the two Srixon balls, both felt closer to a Titleist NXT on the green than the top-tier balls they are trying to emulate. After a few putts with all the balls, to confirm what I was experiencing, I was able to push my fingernail into the cover of both the Pro V1/Pro V1x much more easily than either of the Z-Stars. The Z-Stars even have that hard "blueish" look to them.
The Z-Star is softer than its partner the Z-Star X. Just don't expect them to be as soft as the Pro V1 or Pro V1x.
On the spin side of things, the Z-Star balls performed well. On full swings, even though the ball felt harder off the face you could generate plenty of spin. This was evident on just the second hole I played with the Z-Star X. I hit a smooth 6-iron that spun at least eight feet more than the Pro V1x did. Where my Pro V1x just simply hit and stopped, the Z-Star X pulled back more than I've ever spun a Pro V1x - or even a Pro V1 for that matter. With the wedge I could generate plenty of spin with both of the Z-Star balls. If you're looking to make sure that you won't lose stopping power, don't worry. You can stop a Z-Star X just fine and a Z-Star even better.
With the wedge around the green, the increased firmness of the Z-Star comes out again. Again, most of my judgment comes from the feel and controllability in the scoring area. Like the putter, chipping was too much on the firm side. I could generate a bit of spin with the Z-Star and sometimes with the Z-Star X, but the consistency that I have with my normal ball was not there. I'm accustomed to stopping action with a wedge that has a decent amount of grab. I couldn't reproduce it with either of the Z-Star balls. Nearly every chip resulted in the ball rolling out some distance. It seems a bit odd given the added spin with full shots, but that's what I experienced.
Distance and Durability
As long as I don't start getting out-driven by an eight year-old, distance doesn't really concern me too much. Most premium balls are going to be within a handful of yards of each other and the Z-Star X was right there.
Given the firmness I experienced around the greens, I thought the Z-Stars would perform noticeably better off the tee. When I hit the Z-Star X and Z-Star with the Pro V1 and Pro V1x and didn't see much difference. The Z-Star was always longer than the Pro V1 and closer to the Pro V1x, while the Z-Star X performed similarly to Pro V1. Isn't that backwards?
If you're looking for a distance boost, it isn't here. That's OK though. Anyone playing the Z-Star or Pro V1 isn't looking for the longest ball off the tee but a more balanced ball on the performance scale of feel, spin, and distance.
When it came to durability, both Z-Stars outshone the Pro V1. Where I normally stretch a Pro V1 or Pro V1x to last an entire round, the Z-Star and Z-Star X could easily last another round as long as it doesn't make friends with a cart path.
When looking at the Z-Star and Z-Star X I didn't notice that much difference between the two. The gap between the Pro V1 and Pro V1x is much more significant than the Srixon balls. The softer Z-Star might have worn down a bit more but not to the point that it would be a determining factor between either of the Z-Star balls. Leave that decision to the feel and distance and whether it fits your game. As for durability, Srixon has made a ball that surpasses either of the Pro V1s.
Given the durability of the Z-Star, you're going to get more bang for your buck. At $40 a dozen, which is close to the Pro V1 price point, you'll get a few more miles out of the Z-Star than the Pro V1.
Charting the New Ball
Let's see how the Srixons chart against Titleist's premium balls.
These graphs show three things: Driving Distance, Firmness, and Greenside Spin. They use a relative scale of 1-10. These aren't actual measurements, and for the sake of this comparison the 1-10 scale is a relative scale which considers premium golf balls available today, like the Nike One, the Callaway Tour i, the TaylorMade TP, etc. Though only the Srixon Z-Stars and the leader in the category (Titleist Pro V1/V1x) are charted, consider the 1-10 scale as covering the entire premium ball category.
The Srixons are firmer than the '09 version of the Pro V1 and Pro V1x. I attribute this to the fact that the Srixons are a bit more durable. The difference, as mentioned above, is noticeable.
The Z-Stars spin more off of the irons but less around the greens - yes, it sounds odd. The firmer ball and cover does not grab as well around the greens. With the full swing there isn't any problem generating spin with the Z-Star or Z-Star X.
Distance is no issue with the Z-Star or Z-Star X. The Z-Star X is on par with the Pro V1x (or very close) and the Z-Star is actually longer than the Pro V1.
Not charted: durability. Both Z-Stars were more durable than either of the Pro V1 balls. Again, this seems to come at the expense of greenside spin and softness.
Conclusion
Srixon has a developed a couple good balls with the new Z-Stars. While a bit firmer than I like, the Z-Star and Z-Star X have found a home on tour with some of the bigger names playing both versions of the ball such as Vijay Singh, Jim Furyk and Boo Weekly. It was actually the second-most played ball the week of the WGC-CA Championship.
The Pro V1x has been my ball for as long as it has been in existence. I've only seriously considered changing once. That was when the TaylorMade TP balls came out a couple years ago. After a couple rounds with the Z-Stars I don't expect to change any time soon. It comes down to the fact that I prefer a softer feel and the amount of spin the Pro V1x produces greenside.
At $40, the Z-Star is priced lower than most premium balls. This might entice some players to give the Z-Stars a try. Srixon will win undoubtedly win some over - and that's not a bad thing. Competition is always healthy for the consumer.
Feedback
We'd love to hear from you! Comment below or join the forum.
Expressed opinions are not necessarily the opinions shared by others on The Sand Trap or The Sand Trap itself.
Posted 28 Apr 2009 at 1:37pm #
This is really one of the better reviews this site has done. Really refreshing to see a good review with the main focus not on Titleist or was it?
Posted 28 Apr 2009 at 1:39pm #
Thanks for the review. I will be trying these balls out this weekend!
Posted 28 Apr 2009 at 2:27pm #
Great review. I don't think this was a knock on the product at all. It is only one persons opinion. Other people involved with TST have stated on the forum that they switched to the Srixon because it works better for him. The golf ball is a very personal piece of equipment. What I look for in a ball is a little different than what the reviewer looks for. A ball is going to fit different people differently. I am anxious to pick up a sleeve to see what I think.
Posted 28 Apr 2009 at 3:57pm #
I'm actually happy to see some news and reviews regarding the Srixon balls. I don't use the Z-Star, but I use the Tri-Speed. I have only been playing for aboutn months, so I'm not at the point of spending $40-$45 per dozen
But I have to say that, for me, the Tri-Speed was better than the Titliest DT Roll & DT Carry that I had used. These, again for me, had far too much spin of the driver, but not enough on the greens. With the Tri-speed, I feel that I have straighter drives (equally as long). But around the greens, the bite is much, much greater, and the roll (feel) is superior.
Maybe at the top end, they may not match up, but at entry level and mid, it was a great for my game.
Bottom line, competition is always better! In the end, we will all have a better ball to play be it Titleist, Srixon, Cally, or what have you...I love having the option to pcik which product fit my game, rather than changing my game to fit a product!!!
BTW, great review!
Posted 28 Apr 2009 at 9:56pm #
Great graphic comparison - thanks. I have tried both balls and gone back to the V1x.
Be interested in seeing the comparison between TaylorMade TP Black and Red in the graphic format.
Posted 29 Apr 2009 at 6:56am #
Graphs make for interseting reading.
I applaud Srixon for improving the short game control in the Z-Star series ball over the past ZUR range. Many golfers I play with have switched to the Srixon balls because of this fact.
Recently I have been reading many articles stating that a golfer should select a ball based on playability from 100 yards in, as mentioned in this article. So I created an evaluation on all tour level balls, using putting, chipping, and approach shots. In this evaluation I excluded feel as a criteria and focused on accuracy, which was calculated on the number of times a ball came to rest within a small area around the flag.
To my suprise the most consistent ball was the Nike One Black latest version. I have never associated Nike with quality golfing equipment before.
Since playing this ball I have become quite at home with its feel, and achieved consistent results.
Whilst reading articles are a great way to pass time (read many), and make a good starting base to make initial selections. Nothing beats performing your own evaluations.
Posted 29 Apr 2009 at 9:55am #
Here is my review of the Z-Star compared to the ProV1 and Bridgestone 330RX:
After todays round of 76, the Z-Star is now my ball and it blew my old ProV1 and the Bridgestone 330RX out of the water. I was around 5-10 yards further with my driver. The ball flight was a bit higher with the Z-Star than with the 330RX/ProV1 which is good for me because I hit the ball real low. When I hit the green, they stuck with long irons or spun back just right with the short irons. Chip shots bit really well for me. I really liked the way it felt off of my putter, couldnt tell THAT much difference between it and the ProV1. Finally, and the reason I looked to replace the ProV1, is the durability. I played the same ball the entire round and will tee off on the first hole of my next round with it because it looks like it is just about brand new. I played three balls for 4 holes. I didnt really like the Bridgestone as much. It was too clicky off of the putter and didn't stop as well on chips or approach shots into the green. I stopped using the ProV1 because it looked like I got it stuck in a meat grinder by the 4th hole. Everyone knows the ProV1 is a great ball, but to me lacks durability for us amateurs who dont get free ProV's. The Bridgestone 330RX is a good ball too but just not as good as the Z-Star IMO. If you want to try out a really good golf ball, get a sleeve of Z-Stars.
Posted 29 Apr 2009 at 4:30pm #
Dave,
Can you explain the comment about the "blueish" cover a bit more? Is there a correlation between the blue and the softness. I have long noticed that blue tinge to Cally balls.
cheers,
Scott
Posted 29 Apr 2009 at 8:23pm #
Dave,
Another point I have been pondering from your review is that you have a low ball trajectory (past reviews). I on the other hand I have a natural high trajectory and high spin (5'7" and Driver SS of 110mph, 9 hndcp).
As a suggestion would it be feasible to have two staff members perform a review, one with a low trajectory and another with a higher treajectory?
This may produce interseting feedback, and create a better starting point for golfers wishing to perform a new ball analysis, as the new tour balls are released.
Posted 29 Apr 2009 at 10:19pm #
Scott said on April 29, 2009:
I've always associated a "blueish" cover with a harder ball. This might not exactly be a scientific data point, but just my own personal experience.
MJNGolf said on April 29, 2009:
Not a bad idea. I have a friend that does have a higher ball flight (and is of a similar handicap) that I could have share some insight.
To follow up and clarify some thoughts. I would recommend people at least give these balls a try. Like other's have commented, what works for me may not work for you… and vice-versa. There are a lot of tour players using them, so I'm sure they are not "bad" balls… they just don't fit my game and what I'm looking for in a ball.
Posted 15 May 2009 at 11:27am #
I appreciate your detailed review of both balls. I thought you did a good job of comparing the balls to the Titleist offerings, but I have to disagree with your distance and spin findings in relation to Titleist. I have found the new Z-Star X to spin more and go further that the Pro V1X, but I agree with you that it is firmer and more durable. Compared to the previous generation of Srixon balls, (Z-URS and Z-URC) the new balls display a marked improvement in fell and spin.
having said all of that, I also think it's important to note that what each person gets out of a ball depends largely on your swing and playing ability.
I would highly recommend play testing these balls. If you want good spin with a softer feel, try the Z-Star. If you want more distance and spin with a firmer feel, try the Z-Star X.
Posted 04 Jun 2009 at 1:10pm #
Thanks for good review.
It will help a lot of people for picking a better ball.
As mentioned in some comments,
It DEPENDS!
How you feel, how you get the result...
For me, Z-Star was better ball than Pro-V1.
That is why I changed from Pro-V1.
More distance, better feel, more spin and better durability.
So, anybody interested in playing a better ball, I would say TRY Z-STAR!
Posted 25 Jun 2009 at 8:11pm #
Srixon Z Star/ X compared to Pro V 1 / X
1. Improved Spin +1
2. Equal Distance 0
3. Slightly Firmer Feel -1
4. More Durable +1
5. 13% Less Expensive +1
------------
+3
Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 12:42pm #
Been playing the Zstar for a couple of months and i love them. The ZstarX is a tad longer but i like the spin of the Zstar and dont mind compromising the distance(which is minimal) for the workability. My scores have lowered on avg of 4 to 6 shots a round just because of the spin i get with my new wedges and this ball. Like mentioned, it may not be for everyone..but for me its a godsend.
Posted 03 Sep 2009 at 6:21pm #
This is a good analysis of the different balls available. I, like some of the others carry a high trajectory with a high club head speed. Last time I had it checked it was 114 mph. One of my primary issues is accuracy off the tee. I picked up a sleeve of the Srixon Z-Star X balls before my last round and what a huge difference. The distance off the tee between the Pro V 1 and the Z-Star X was 2-5 yards, but the difference in spin off the driver was huge. I noticed a 20-25% straighter ball flight, and if you are a big hitter, that's the difference of hitting from the fairway instead of the second cut of rough.
As far as the spin on approach shots, this ball consistently spun backwards 6 - 8 feet. On the short wedges and pitch shots, I was able to fire right at the pin and only noticed a roll out of 4-5 feet.
I have been playing golf for almost 18 years and I have never played a ball that was straighter off the tee and still gave me all the control I needed when approaching the green.
Great Job Srixon
Posted 26 Sep 2009 at 1:34pm #
just recieved a dozen z star free with subscription of today's golfer magazine and tried them for the first time last week. WOW!!!!. shot my lowest score this season. 84. out in 40 with a seven on the 4th. ( hcap 25.5 ). what more can i say . it had good distance but the best aspect for me was the excellent short iron spin to the greens.