misterjohn

I performed an unintended experiment my last time out. I brought with me a new generation of my usual Nike square driver. I figured it would be pretty much the same as the pvs generation that I normally play. Well, it was not similar at all. Basically, I couldn't hit the thing and bagged it after 4 holes in favor of my 3 wood. I found that I hit the 3W pretty much just as far and with much better results on the occasional miss. I honestly think I'd be better off pulling the driver out of my bag were it not for the sheer joy of whacking the ball with the "big dog".

I've had great luck with Sumo2 hybrids. Much more consistent with these than with others I've tried including TM, Adams, and Ping Raptures. Somehow the square head just works for me. I tended to hook the others. I swing it like an iron and get a nice high straight shot. I can even draw the ball a little if I want to. Thin misses produce lower, more penetrating shots with equal distance. Fat shots are also straight but with significant distance loss.

I play with a 1st generation Nike Sumo2 with stock R-flex shaft. I've tried many other drivers and, while some offer more distance, none offers the consistency of the Sumo2--not even the later generation Dymo2. Confidence at the tee box is critical to my enjoyment of the game, so I don't see myself switching any time soon.

lately, I've been searching fruitlessly for the perfect putter. Ive tried, insert, milled, c grooves, inserts with grooves (Itsy bitsy spider), and so on. I have putters at all different price points. Assuming that the main point of buying a putter is to putt better, it got me wondering about the link between price and performance for putters that look pretty similar. It would be nice to see the following experiment: Compare the same model up and down the Ping line. For instance, the same Anser from the Karsten 1952, Scottsdale, Redwood, and Milled series. Try putts of different distances across putters and report on the results. This would allow one to figure out what the measurable benefit was of buying a $300 putter versus a $100 putter. Now try the same exercise with Ping versus equivalent model Scotty Cameron. There are strongly held views about this particular battle. Some argue that Scotties are essentially Ping knockoffs sold at high prices while others argue that Scotties are decidedly better products than the Pings that inspired them. One could do a similar exercise with the various Odyssey lines. I think it would be very interesting to have hard data about the extent to which price translates into performance. Now, admittedly, there are a lot of intangible aspects to putting that this exercise ignores. For instance, the feel of the Ping milled putter really is much nicer than the $99 Karsten. These differences are obviously important, but very subjective. Still, this should still translate into performance. If better feel makes you more confident at putting, then this should still appear ithe exercise I suggest. Any volunteers to create this data? I have several Pings though not the very high end, so I'll perform this experiment tomorrow with my stuff. I'm sure there are many of you with more complete collections.

There is widespread agreement about the wisdom of getting fitted versus buying off the rack both in terms of clubs and balls. The surprising part is that the two fittings are done separately. This is surprising for several reasons. First, in driver fitting, it is the combination of the driver, the ball, and the golfer that determines the outcome. It stands to reason that there might be synergies between driver and ball that are possible if these fittings were done together rather than separately. Second, most major OEMs own a ball company, thus it is in their interest to try to harmonize both pieces of equipment to work especially well together. This would create an "ecosystem" in the language of Silicon Valley that would lead to more loyalty among customers. So why doesn't this happen? What are the opportunities for engineering balls that work exceptionally well with the OEMs clubs? Even if the engineering is doubtful, why do we not at least see attempts to advertise in this direction? For instance,, if you are Cleveland/Srixon looking to gain market share, why not design a ball built to be especially capable when paired with ultralight clubs? If you could actually pull this off, it would seem to offer a tremendous business advantage.

if you look at the initial reviews of the TM Penta, they are absolutely glowing. For instance, the review on this site more or less declares it the perfect ball. It looked as if this were finally a giant slayer for the Pro V. Some months later, things have not exactly worked out as Taylor Made might have hoped. Pentas are clearly not selling as well as the early reviews would have suggested since Pentas are now routinely marked down in price. Moreover, there is a vocal community bemoaning the demise of the TP Red/Black LDP line, claiming that it was the perfect ball and the Penta a pale substitute. My question is: what has changed over the past several months. It doesn't seem as if there was some technology breakthrough that led rival balls to suddenly leapfrog the Penta. The only thing that is different is that the Penta is now no longer the new kid on the block. How can the "perfectp ball" have fallen from favor so quickly? Here are a couple of theories: 1. Lack of exclusivity One of the supposed advantages of the Penta was that it was a ball that worked for all golfers. There was no need for separate product lines for slow versus fast swingers or distance versus control people. I actually think this worked against the ball. If you think of yourself as an elite golfer, then you want to play a ball that the ordinary hacker cannot play and get good results with. The fact that the ball works for everyone cuts against the idea that it is YOUR ball. 2. Not perect enough The reviews suggest that the Penta is maybe slightly better than the ProV, but not vastly better. Given the accumulated experience many have with the ProV, there is a kind of switching cost to shift to the Penta. The good reviews probably got many people to try the Penta but, without a vast performance difference, this was not enough to overcome the switching cost. Anyway, that's all the theories I could come up with. I'd be interested to hear other's thoughts about why this product was, essentially, a flop.

As part of my little experiment, I picked up some q stars to run head to head versus the ad333s. I found no significant differences between the two balls. They went about the same distance, spun about the same, felt about the same, sounded about the same. I'm quite sure I could not tell the two apart in a blind taste test. I think q star is a marketing strategy on Srixon's part rather than a true technological advance. Several others seem to confirm this. Thus, for all those posts where the q star is recommended, I would instead recommend trying the ad333. It's cheaper for the moment and if you end up liking it, you can transition to the q star once ad333 is no more and still enjoy the same level of happiness (albeit at a higher price point).

+1 on the Ecco street premiere. Easily the most comfy shoe I've ever worn. Living in the SF bay area, walking most courses requires lots of elevation chagne, sidehills, etc. I've now walked 3 rounds with the Eccos with absolutely no problems.

Peeartree thanks for the link to your review. O think there is a tendiceny to want to believe that whatever is new is better, but it's not always the case. You would think that with all the cheerleading for the q star, there would be more response to a simple request for a comparison to the ball it is replacing---the obvious closets substitute. That deafening silence on the issue says a lot, I think. While I'm a Srixon fan, I'm not spending an additional $5 per dozen until I see some evidence of value for my additional cash. What is a little weird are all the folks out there willing to suggest that others try the q star apparently without any evidence that it works better than the (cheaper) ball that it is replacing. I suppose the Srixon marketing guys can be happy about a successful campaign though.

Played nine holes today and shot 34 (one under). Easily the greatest day of golf in my life. 2 birdies 6 pars 1 bogey 14 putts I owe much of this success to watching Shawn Clement on YouTube. Amazing instructor.

There seems to be a lot of love for the q star here and in other forums, but if you look at the specs on the q star box, they seem almost exactly the same as the AD333 which, I understand, the q star is replacing. My question is: what are the differences between these two ball? Has anyone done a side by side test? Is this just a brand refresh on Srixon's part, or are there really substantive differences between the q star and the AD333?

I've bought used balls from golfballnut and lostgolfballs with excellent experiences at both places. The mint quality balls are hard to distinguish from new out of the box. Side by side testing of new versus used mint Srixon soft feels yielded no difference in performance that I could see. I also had occasion to try some refurbished Nikes that I picked up at Target on sale a while back. These looked great right out of the box but performed horribly. They did not act like new Nike balls of the same model. They felt harder and didn't go as far. Worse yet, the like new look goes away really fast. Even after hitting them only a couple of holes, the refurbs looked like hell. They went into the shag bag shortly after this experience and got tossed out soon thereafter because the feel was so weird they weren't even good shag balls, especially for short game practice. Bottom line: used balls are good and offer excellent value. Refurbished balls should be avoided.

I've been using golfshot on iPhone 4 for the last 4 months. Wonderful app. It instantly finds whatever course you happen to be playing, has all the tracking you'd ever want. One kind of cool thing is that you can tell it how far you hit certain clubs in your bag and it will figure out layup distances for you as well. What really sold me on it is that it is not a subscription model. You buy the app once and you're done. You get access to all the courses in the database. One last cool thing. It has an automatic handicap calculator. For playing partners who don't keep proper handicaps, this has proved really useful. They guess their original handicap and then, as they play rounds recorded in golfshot, it updates their index based on this data. It also competes net scores automatically so if you want to have a competition based on net scores under stroke play, it's a breeze.

Hi all, I've been lurking on this forum for several weeks, really enjoying it. I decided it's time to contribute something myself to the conversation. Wonderful site and great group of individuals. I've learned a lot already, looking forward to learning more and improving my game. John