Not in the case of Bridgestone. Ive been to a few ball fittings and they usually suggest the E6, which is far from their most expensive ball. Even in my case, they usually suggest the E6, the E5 is the secondary recommendation and 3rd is the B330-RX. I still game the B330-RX because I was the spin to get the ball to stop on the green on pitches and chips.
Fair enough. But I wonder, do they ever recommend the Laddie X? The E-6 may be better for most, but at twice the price, I think someone who is still losing more than a few balls per round might be better off with the Laddie, and putting the money saved towards lessons and driving range sessions.
One thing to consider about golf balls is that the more expensive, 3-piece balls are designed to have low spin off the driver and high spin with the wedges, so are those cheaper balls really any more accurate off the tee? Golf Digest recently did a ball test and claimed that the difference from the cheaper balls to the tour balls was about 4 yards. I'll gladly give up those 4 yards if it means I can get the ball to stop on the green even when Im hitting 1/2 pitch shots. IMO, it all comes down to how much you are willing to spend. Better performance is going to cost more.
True, I doubt too many people would score worse with higher priced balls. As for distance, Titleist says golfers generally won't experience more than 5 yards difference across their entire range. So yes, it's how much you are willing to spend for performance. In 2010, when Golf Digest had low handicap golfers actually play with both $15 a dozen balls, and $30+ premium balls, they found that on average those players scored 3 shots worse in a round with the cheaper balls. So yes, the ball is important, just saying it's not likely going to make a huge difference in your score.
And I wonder if results would have been much different with even the cheapest balls (like those $6 a dozen Wilson FLI at Walmart)?