Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast!
IGNORED

DT Solos vs. NXT Tours

Duff McGee
 Share
Note: This thread is 3782 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Duff McGee Great Member

Duff McGee

Posted
Posted
Is there enough difference in these balls to justify the cost for a 14ish handicap in your opinion?
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades
1

SavvySwede Great Member

SavvySwede

Posted
Posted

Is there enough difference in these balls to justify the cost for a 14ish handicap in your opinion?


No. The NXT Tour likely has the worst price to performance ratio you're going to find. Bridgestone e5 is a much safer bet.

  • Upvote 1

:callaway: Big Bertha Alpha 815 DBD  :bridgestone: TD-03 Putter   
:tmade: 300 Tour 3W                 :true_linkswear: Motion Shoes
:titleist: 585H Hybrid                       
:tmade: TP MC irons                 
:ping: Glide 54             
:ping: Glide 58
:cleveland: 588 RTX 62

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades
1
1
1
1

Duff McGee Great Member

Duff McGee

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Ok thanks. The reason I ask is that I love the NXT Tours but I also find other Titleist balls on the course that are "no name" and they seem to be very similar to the NXT Tours.
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades
1

rkim291968 Super Member

rkim291968

Posted
Posted

NXT Tour is my favorite ball.  DT SOLO, not so much.   I have swing speed of around 90 and NXT Tour and NXT Tour S gives me the most distance.   Higher ball trajectory than Pro V1s.   Good feel.   YMMV.

RiCK

(Play it again, Sam)

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades
1
1
1
1

Duff McGee Great Member

Duff McGee

Posted
  • Author
Posted
NXT Tour is my favorite ball.  DT SOLO, not so much.   I have swing speed of around 90 and NXT Tour and NXT Tour S gives me the most distance.   Higher ball trajectory than Pro V1s.   Good feel.   YMMV.

Yeah they just fit me. Well crap, they are so dang expensive compared to what people say they should be priced. Oh well, I'll just pony up.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades
1

Duff McGee Great Member

Duff McGee

Posted
  • Author
Posted
How does the used ball market work? Aren't you worried about getting water logged balls or ruined balls they just repaint?
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades
1

Grumpter Great Member

Grumpter

Posted
Posted
How does the used ball market work? Aren't you worried about getting water logged balls or ruined balls they just repaint?

I use lostgolfballs.com and haven't had any issues.  I go for the top quality (AAAAA) or second quality (AAAA) and have been doing this for years now. The only water-logged balls I ever tried to use were when I was a kid and we cleared out a pond on a course that had never been cleared. I would think it would take years of exposure to waterlog a golf ball.

  • Upvote 1

Grumpter Great Member

Grumpter

Posted
Posted

Some think the used balls aren't as good as new ones. I have seen no performance difference. YMMV.


meenman Great Member

meenman

Posted
Posted

Thanks for the tip. Why don't most people do that?

Because used balls are someone else's trash or balls that are meant to die off in the woods/water/rough.

I would assume that most of us do not dig through our neighbors trash for food, why do it in the game we enjoy?

Follow me on twitter

Chris, although my friends call me Mr.L

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades
1

Duff McGee Great Member

Duff McGee

Posted
  • Author
Posted
That is my question. Poster above said they are just as good and you say they are trash. What is it?
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades
1

meenman Great Member

meenman

Posted
Posted

That is my question. Poster above said they are just as good and you say they are trash. What is it?

opinions, I say those that swear by used balls are delusional - they think i am wrong.

Bottom line - you always get what you pay for.

Follow me on twitter

Chris, although my friends call me Mr.L

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades
1

Hatchman Great Member

Hatchman

Posted
Posted
I played the DT Solo's today on tight fairways and have used and like both. Picked up a dozen last evening. The Solo is a mid price 2 piece distance and control ball with a good skin I can play for a few rounds (if I don't lose it). It has a tighter flight pattern with 70+ more dimples. I think 378 vs 302. The Solo stuck the greens just fine (damp and sloped) with stop by pitch mark or back up about 24" 100-150 yards out this morning. The NXT's are two piece also with skin different but my iron performance better with them. But I was driving really tight fairways and needed more flight control. I get mine from my club fitter shop who contracts from the local courses to collect balls for resell. I use his used balls for practice like today, and new for league and events. There are slight differences, like how long they have been exposed. Some cover materials don't discolor, some do. You can tell when you hit that hard spot they have cleaned and it stay on path.
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades
1
1
1
1

Grumpter Great Member

Grumpter

Posted
Posted

That is my question. Poster above said they are just as good and you say they are trash. What is it?


Notice he is comparing them to food which spoils. Golf balls mostly do not. I don't pick through my neighbors trash but I might buy their used car. Being used doesn't make it trash.

Sometimes you can get just as much bang for less bucks. In the past few years I have saved enough on golf balls to be able to purchase any of the latest and greatest new iron sets. Rather than do that I will wait until they are no longer the latest/greatest and then buy the same set for a much reduced price (like I did with my current irons. I paid $300 for them new while a guy I play with paid $700 when they first came out).


Note: This thread is 3782 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up

  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).

  • Posts

    • iacas
      Mizuno Jpx One Driver & Fairway Woods

      By iacas · Posted

      Nah, man. People have been testing clubs like this for decades at this point. Even 35 years. @M2R, are you AskGolfNut? If you're not, you seem to have fully bought into the cult or something. So many links to so many videos… Here's an issue, too: - A drop of 0.06 is a drop with a 90 MPH 7I having a ball speed of 117 and dropping it to 111.6, which is going to be nearly 15 yards, which is far more than what a "3% distance loss" indicates (and is even more than a 4.6% distance loss). - You're okay using a percentage with small numbers and saying "they're close" and "1.3 to 1.24 is only 4.6%," but then you excuse the massive 53% difference that going from 3% to 4.6% represents. That's a hell of an error! - That guy in the Elite video is swinging his 7I at 70 MPH. C'mon. My 5' tall daughter swings hers faster than that.
    • M2R
      Mizuno Jpx One Driver & Fairway Woods

      By M2R · Posted

      Yea but that is sort of my quandary, I sometimes see posts where people causally say this club is more forgiving, a little more forgiving, less forgiving, ad nauseum. But what the heck are they really quantifying? The proclamation of something as fact is not authoritative, even less so as I don't know what the basis for that statement is. For my entire golfing experience, I thought of forgiveness as how much distance front to back is lost hitting the face in non-optimal locations. Anything right or left is on me and delivery issues. But I also have to clarify that my experience is only with irons, I never got to the point of having any confidence or consistency with anything longer. I feel that is rather the point, as much as possible, to quantify the losses by trying to eliminate all the variables except the one you want to investigate. Or, I feel like we agree. Compared to the variables introduced by a golfer's delivery and the variables introduced by lie conditions, the losses from missing the optimal strike location might be so small as to almost be noise over a larger area than a pea.  In which case it seems that your objection is that the 0-3% area is being depicted as too large. Which I will address below. For statements that is absurd and true 100% sweet spot is tiny for all clubs. You will need to provide some objective data to back that up and also define what true 100% sweet spot is. If you mean the area where there are 0 losses, then yes. While true, I do not feel like a not practical or useful definition for what I would like to know. For strikes on irons away from the optimal location "in measurable and quantifiable results how many yards, or feet, does that translate into?"   In my opinion it ok to be dubious but I feel like we need people attempting this sort of data driven investigation. Even if they are wrong in some things at least they are moving the discussion forward. And he has been changing the maps and the way data is interpreted along the way. So, he admits to some of the ideas he started with as being wrong. It is not like we all have not been in that situation 😄 And in any case to proceed forward I feel will require supporting or refuting data. To which as I stated above, I do not have any experience in drivers so I cannot comment on that. But I would like to comment on irons as far as these heat maps. In a video by Elite Performance Golf Studios - The TRUTH About Forgiveness! Game Improvement vs Blade vs Players Distance SLOW SWING SPEED! and going back to ~12:50 will show the reference data for the Pro 241. I can use that to check AskGolfNut's heat map for the Pro 241: a 16mm heel, 5mm low produced a loss of efficiency from 1.3 down to 1.24 or ~4.6%. Looking at AskGolfNut's heatmap it predicts a loss of 3%. Is that good or bad? I do not know but given the possible variations I am going to say it is ok. That location is very close to where the head map goes to 4%, these are very small numbers, and rounding could be playing some part. But for sure I am going to say it is not absurd. Looking at one data point is absurd, but I am not going to spend time on more because IME people who are interested will do their own research and those not interested cannot be persuaded by any amount of data. However, the overall conclusion that I got from that video was that between the three clubs there is a difference in distance forgiveness, but it is not very much. Without some robot testing or something similar the human element in the testing makes it difficult to say is it 1 yard, or 2, or 3?  
    • coachjimsc
      Wordle Daily Puzzle

      By coachjimsc · Posted

      Wordle 1,668 3/6 🟨🟨🟩⬜⬜ ⬜🟨⬜⬜🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • boogielicious
      Wordle Daily Puzzle

      By boogielicious · Posted

      Wordle 1,668 3/6 🟨🟩🟨🟨⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 Should have got it in two, but I have music on my brain.
    • iacas
      Wordle Daily Puzzle

      By iacas · Posted

      Wordle 1,668 2/6* 🟨🟨🟩⬛⬛ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

  I accept