Overrated/Underrated (Golf) Topic

[ChetlovesMer]

1 hour ago, NM Golf said:

Overrated/Underrated #7: Playing a premium urethane covered golf ball (Prov1, Chromesoft, etc)

 

I would have to say overrated as well. Although I have a couple of playing partners who love that soccer ball style Chromesoft. They pay more for that style. 

[NM Golf]

1 hour ago, NM Golf said:

Overrated/Underrated #7: Playing a premium urethane covered golf ball (Prov1, Chromesoft, etc)

I did mean premium as being your $45-$50 a dozen Prov1, Chromesofts, TP5, etc. But you can look at it both ways and include Snells etc (all urethane balls) vs. surlyn covered balls. 

I think it's underrated for any serious player, and overrated for the guy who tees it up 5 times a year. Personally, I think a Tour ball will benefit anyones' game. With the introduction of Snell, Vice, etc into the premium ball market anyone can get a decent ball without breaking the bank. I still believe my Titleists outperform other balls, and I don't pay much more for them than I would Snells so I don't see me changing. That said I understand why others go to Snells though.

Edited December 19, 2018 by NM Golf

[mdl]

1 hour ago, NM Golf said:

Overrated/Underrated #7: Playing a premium urethane covered golf ball (Prov1, Chromesoft, etc)

Well it can't really be underrated, because it seems from what you see people playing on the course to be highly rated already! But I'm going in the minority here and saying it's not overrated at least for reasonably good avid golfers. I don't have any numbers to back it up. I just know that even among premium balls I've felt a difference.

I played the Nike RZN balls forever because I work there and got 10 dozen for like $80 when Nike stopped making golf equipment. After (fewer than I would like to admit) years, I ran out of those, and figured I'd try the Pro V1Xs that everyone seems to love but I'd never played. Like I said, I can't point to any statistical differences, but the balls at least felt way better. It felt like my ball flight was more consistent, and the feel around the green was better.

I don't think this is a socially influenced bias, since I'd always kind of been against the Titleist balls just because of how much everyone else loved them, so I was totally ready to feel vindicated and not like them. But I admit it's totally possible that if you put me on a monitor and gave me 10 shot per club with the Snells everyone's talking about and the same with the Titleists that the stats wouldn't back up my feel. But I still like the feel!

[GolfLug]

22 minutes ago, NM Golf said:

With the introduction of Snell, Vice, etc into the premium ball market anyone can get a decent ball without breaking the bank. I still believe my Titleists outperform other balls, and I don't pay much more for them than I would Snells so I don't see me changing. That said I understand why others go to Snells though.

Fair points. Would you consider a change to Snells (or similar) if you had to pay $45/doz for Titleists? You didn't say but I am assuming you play either Pro V1 or V1x. 

I will also not play  a 2 layer ball if it was $10/doz.

[iacas]

37 minutes ago, NM Golf said:

I think it's underrated for any serious player

That only makes sense if you see a lot of serious good players out there hitting NXTs and e6s, and they're always saying "Yeah, I don't see the advantages of using a urethane ball like the MTB or the V1."

If most good players are playing tour-level urethane covered balls… then it can't really be underrated. They're all playing those balls.

[NM Golf]

1 hour ago, GolfLug said:

Fair points. Would you consider a change to Snells (or similar) if you had to pay $45/doz for Titleists? You didn't say but I am assuming you play either Pro V1 or V1x. 

I will also not play  a 2 layer ball if it was $10/doz.

I don't think so. The difference I see between a Snell and my Titleist is undoubtedly mostly in my head, but it's still my belief that Titleist gives superior performance. I don't lose very many golf balls, and I pay for most of my golf balls with prize money from tournaments anyway. If I was forced to pay straight retail, cash money, I might go to them for casual rounds. For any competitive round I would always go with what I trust. I might just have to have one less beer after the round to make up the difference.

 

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, NM Golf said:

I don't think so. The difference I see between a Snell and my Titleist is undoubtedly mostly in my head, but it's still my belief that Titleist gives superior performance.

It is. I've tested them a bunch on launch monitors. There's virtually no difference at all between any of the urethane balls, aside from the normal differences in spin and launch angle and stuff that you see even between V1/V1x.

You're dramatically over-paying for your golf balls.

Dean Snell designed your Pro V1/V1x. And your TaylorMade balls. He knows a thing or two… 🙂

[NM Golf]

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

It is. I've tested them a bunch on launch monitors. There's virtually no difference at all between any of the urethane balls, aside from the normal differences in spin and launch angle and stuff that you see even between V1/V1x.

I am sure you have, and I do not doubt your findings. I just prefer Titleist. Personally like the AVX have you tested them?

Edited December 19, 2018 by NM Golf

[ChetlovesMer]

I don’t know if this is a real point or if I’m just pulling this out my backside. I would assume (again, I don’t really know this) that Titleist has an army of engineers working hard to push the golf ball technology, and part of that is the reason why we even have urethane covers. And while I won’t accuse anyone of literally reverse engineering their golf ball. Is it possible the lower cost brands are simply copying what works?

 

So, is it possible some of the extra money you pay for a Titleist over a Snell let’s say, goes to paying that hard-working group of engineers? I don’t know what the exact number is, but if that’s the case there is some value in that. Again, I really have no idea?

[klineka]

4 minutes ago, ChetlovesMer said:

I don’t know if this is a real point or if I’m just pulling this out my backside. I would assume (again, I don’t really know this) that Titleist has an army of engineers working hard to push the golf ball technology, and part of that is the reason why we even have urethane covers. And while I won’t accuse anyone of literally reverse engineering their golf ball. Is it possible the lower cost brands are simply copying what works?

So, is it possible some of the extra money you pay for a Titleist over a Snell let’s say, goes to paying that hard-working group of engineers? I don’t know what the exact number is, but if that’s the case there is some value in that. Again, I really have no idea?

First off, Dean Snell designed the ProV1 so it's not really a surprise he did it again under his own company and at a cheaper price point for a virtually identical performing product.

Lower cost brands typically have lower overall expenses, as far as I know Snell isnt paying PGA tour players to use their ball like Titleist is. Snell also probably has a much lower marketing budget than Titleist does. That money has to come from somewhere.

Lower overall expenses means that Snell can sell at a lower price point and still make the same if not higher profit percentage than Titleist.

Without knowing how much profit each company makes on golf balls, its hard to accurately asses where the extra money goes. For all we know, it might cost Titleist $15 to make a dozen ProV1s (including materials, labor, engineer's salaries, marketing, etc) and the rest is profit. Or it might actually cost Titleist $35 to make a dozen so they do need to charge more than Snell to make a profit (I think this is unlikely).

If the quality and performance of the golf ball is the same but one is $15+ cheaper per dozen, I don't care that Snell pays their engineers $100k per year and Titleist pays theirs $200k per year so that is why their balls are more expensive (hypothetically speaking of course)

[iacas]

15 minutes ago, ChetlovesMer said:

I don’t know if this is a real point or if I’m just pulling this out my backside. I would assume (again, I don’t really know this) that Titleist has an army of engineers working hard to push the golf ball technology, and part of that is the reason why we even have urethane covers. And while I won’t accuse anyone of literally reverse engineering their golf ball. Is it possible the lower cost brands are simply copying what works?

Titleist doesn't have the market cornered on this stuff… and Dean Snell was the head of the design team that came up with the Pro V1/V1x… and then after ten years with Titleist, went to TaylorMade for a decade.

15 minutes ago, ChetlovesMer said:

So, is it possible some of the extra money you pay for a Titleist over a Snell let’s say, goes to paying that hard-working group of engineers? I don’t know what the exact number is, but if that’s the case there is some value in that. Again, I really have no idea?

No offense, but yeah… go with B.

The markup goes to:

• higher margins
• higher endorsement costs
• higher advertisement costs
• the middle men (Snell is direct to consumer)

That's most of the markup. Probably 90%+ of the difference in the markup.

[ChetlovesMer]

Maybe Snell wasn't the best example for me to use? Maybe I should have used Cut???

Anyway, I get the idea. I just threw it out there. 

I've heard that argument made many times in the world of club design so I thought perhaps it would apply to golf balls too. 

Again, I don't work for any of these companies, and it truth I don't use Titleist/Pinnacle golf balls (are those still the same company?) Just thought I'd chuck it against the wall and see if it would stick. 

[gbogey]

2 hours ago, ChetlovesMer said:

I've heard that argument made many times in the world of club design so I thought perhaps it would apply to golf balls too. 

As someone who's worked for a lot of different manufacturing companies, I would have said once upon a time that there is a significant difference in quality control, so Titleist would be made to more exact specifications than a lesser brand and that was part of the price premium.  However, those gaps have narrowed significantly and I'm not sure that it holds true in golf balls as I know a lot of production is outsourced to the sames factories.  For example, Bridgestone used to make Nike's balls so I doubt if there was a quality difference between Bridgestone and Nike even if the engineering was different.  Still, there are reasons why I use Bridgestones as opposed to Cut but I buy store brand ibuprofen instead of Advil.

[CaseyD]

8 hours ago, NM Golf said:

 

Overrated/Underrated #7: Playing a premium urethane covered golf ball (Prov1, Chromesoft, etc)

 

Underrated. As soon as any level handicap player starts hitting halfway consistent chips or wedge shots they will see a difference between the top level balls and cheap hard rocks.  Even if the ball doesn’t exactly check up it’s still spinning much more than the distance rock. 

[GolfLug]

55 minutes ago, CaseyD said:

Underrated. As soon as any level handicap player starts hitting halfway consistent chips or wedge shots they will see a difference between the top level balls and cheap hard rocks.  Even if the ball doesn’t exactly check up it’s still spinning much more than the distance rock. 

Yes, but does that have to be a super premium ball? I think e6/NXT/Q star...even the Topflite Gamers, and tons of other good balls that cost less than $30/doz do a darn good job for that transition of level, no? 

I play Callaway Diablo Tour or Snell MTB. Damn good balls both. See no reason to expect any improvement if I change to a $45/doz ball. 

Edited December 20, 2018 by GolfLug

[Buckeyebowman]

8 hours ago, NM Golf said:

Alright my turn!

Overrated/Underrated #7: Playing a premium urethane covered golf ball (Prov1, Chromesoft, etc)

 

I love how the ProV1 feels, but dislike the price, so I'm always looking for something that has the same feel for less money. I tried the original iteration of the ChromeSoft and still have a couple sleeves laying around since it felt anything BUT soft to me! I tried a sleeve of the TM TPM5 ball and loved them, but they're as expensive as the ProV1.

Also tried the Snells and definitely like them. Now I'm thinking of trying the Vice 3 layer with a urethane cover. Sort of the same business model as Snell, and they had a crazy deal going a little while back on a 5 dozen purchase. But, I don't feel like buying 5 dozen when I don't know if I'll like them. Think I'll start with a dozen.

For the "average" golfer i'd say playing a premium level ball is overrated. But, it's your money and your game, so whatever floats your boat. Besides, I think I might be in the minority considering how many lost ProV1's I find out there! 

[CaseyD]

4 hours ago, GolfLug said:

Yes, but does that have to be a super premium ball? I think e6/NXT/Q star...even the Topflite Gamers, and tons of other good balls that cost less than $30/doz do a darn good job for that transition of level, no? 

I play Callaway Diablo Tour or Snell MTB. Damn good balls both. See no reason to expect any improvement if I change to a $45/doz ball. 

I’m not saying anyone has to play anything but I will say I’d rather play a busted up ProV over a diablo or topflite XL 😯

there are definitely some balls that have been around that somehow just worked. The old Nike soft feel, the noodles, the pinnacle exception. Just a few examples of balls that I felt seemed very playable. NXT/ NXT tour to me weren’t as great as their word of mouth reputation. Someone mentioned the AVX. I’ve played two rounds with them, two of my better rounds actually. Seem to fly straighter than either of the ProVs for me but definitely don’t suck back like the ProVs either, more like they stop after the first bounce. 

[dennyjones]

10 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:

 

Overrated/Underrated #7: Playing a premium urethane covered golf ball (Prov1, Chromesoft, etc)

 

I believe it comes down to quality control.     I believe the tolerances of the premium balls are tighter and you'll find less rocks among the brand.     I believe the Professional golfers feel and see a difference but the average golfer would be spending too much money playing a premium ball.  

Overrated...