MyGolfSpy Ball Lab is where we quantify the quality and consistency of the golf balls on the market to help you find the best ball for your money. Today, we’re taking a look at the TaylorMade TP5. An overview of the equipment we use can be found here. To learn more about our test process, how we define “bad” balls and our True Price metric, check out our About MyGolfSpy Ball Lab page.
The TaylorMade TP5 is one of two TaylorMade premium Tour offerings. While the company traditionally offers secret menu balls to its PGA TOUR players, the TP5 is listed as being played by Rory, Jason Day, Rickie Fowler and others.
In this report, we share what we learned about the 2019 TaylorMade TP5 and let you know how it stacks up against other golf balls on the market. Finally, we’ll give you the True Price – how much it costs to get a dozen “good” golf balls.
About the TaylorMade TP5
TaylorMade classifies the TP5 is a mid-launch ball. It’s the higher spinning of TaylorMade’s two retail tour offerings. It’s a five-piece ball with a 322-dimple, cast urethane cover.
TP5 manufacturing is a bit of an odd situation. Core and mantle layers are made in Asia. Those parts are then shipped to TaylorMade’s ball factory in Liberty, S.C., where the cast urethane covers are applied.
TaylorMade TP5 – Compression
On our gauge, the average compression of the TaylorMade TP5 is 90. That’s basically the same as the Titleist Pro V1. Compared to the ball market as a whole, it’s solidly in the firm category.
By Tour standards, it’s in the top handful of softest balls likely to be in play each week.
TaylorMade TP5 – Weight and Diameter
- 100 percent of the balls in our TP5 sample met our standard for roundness.
- None of the balls tested exceeded the USGA weight limit of 1.620 ounces.
TaylorMade’s TP5 (and TP5x) are consistently the smallest balls we’ve measured. TaylorMade flirts with the USGA standard and while none in our sample failed the USGA ball track test, several fell through our gauge 10 to 15 percent of the time (anything below 25 percent passes).
While all of the balls tested met our roundness standard, it should be pointed out that the TP is consistently narrower on the seam than on the pole. The thickest part of the ball is generally a spot between the pole and the seam, which helps to explain why seam and pole measurements often fall below 1.680 inches, the USGA’s minimum diameter.
TaylorMade TP5 – Inspection
Centeredness and Concentricity
With five layers, TP construction is complex. While that creates opportunities for more finely tuned performance, it also creates greater opportunity for defects.
We noted three balls with visibly off-center cores, though none were significant enough to be of concern.
We did flag significant and/or multiple defects in 11 percent of the balls. The most common issue was inconsistent thickness across multiple layers. A single ball had what I would describe as compressed mantle layers with a visible void between the core and the inner mantle.
Core Mixture
It’s a little-known fact that TaylorMade sources its cores from two different factories (it’s working to consolidate to a single source) and cores are mixed within boxes. Within the sample, we observed two shades of blue cores. Cut patterns (and feel) suggest the material composition is slightly different. While compression numbers between core versions were similar enough, layering issues appear to be a bit more common with the lighter core ball.
We also noted a single ball with small bits of hard white material in the core. The likely culprit is a mixing issue that in this case was unlikely to cause a notable performance issue.
Cover
TaylorMade TP5 covers are generally clean and free from defects. While we noted a single ball with a minor cover defect, our inspection yielded nothing of concern.
General Observations
Like the other Tour balls we’ve tested to date, the TP5’s cast urethane cover is thin, soft and generally consistent in thickness. Greenside spin should meet the expectations for the category.
Consistency
In this section, we detail the consistency of the TaylorMade Tp5. It’s a measure of how similar the balls in our sample are to one another relative to all of the models we’ve tested to date.
Weight Consistency
- Consistency (of weight) across the sample set was on the low end of the average range.
- While none of the balls were over the weight limit, the TP5 is not as consistent as some others in its class.
Diameter Consistency
- The TaylorMade TP5 falls within the average range for diameter consistency.
- As noted, the ball runs small and while none failed the diameter test, several fell through a 1.68″ gauge multiple times. This was especially true when the gauge is aligned with the seam which is consistently the narrowest part of the ball.
Compression Consistency
- Compression consistency for the TaylorMade TP5 falls on the leading edge of high average. With a range of 7.5 compression points across the sample, it’s not perfect but performance (and feel) can be expected to fall within a reasonable definition of “the same” across the sample.
- When we look at the consistency across the three points measured on each ball, the TaylorMade TP5 is within the average range with no significant outliers in the sample.
True Price
True Price is how we quantify the quality of a golf ball. It's a projection of what you'd have to spend to ensure you get 12 good balls.
The True Price will always be equal to or greater than the retail price. The greater the difference between the retail price and the True Price, the more you should be concerned about the quality of the ball.
TaylorMade TP5 Summary Report
To learn more about our test process, how we define “bad” balls and our True Price metric, check out our About MyGolfSpy Ball Lab page.
While compression, diameter and weight generally were within the average range and we found no disqualifying balls for any of those metrics, we aren’t without concerns about the TP5
We flagged 11 percent of the balls as bad. That’s not an alarming number. However, we noted issues in more than 80 percent of the balls in the sample. The majority were minor and while minor issues typically aren’t of concern, there is a point at which a high rate should be considered problematic. Experts will disagree over where that point is. I’ll simply note that it’s a significantly higher percentage than what we’ve observed in the other balls tested thus far. As stated, with complexity comes greater opportunity for variation.
Mark Arnold
2 months agoI’ve come up with a flawless test for finding balls with issues in their layers., I do this with every dozen I buy.
I simply cut every ball in half and identify those with issues. There is one downside to this test however…
John
4 months agoI can’t decide. What is more fun? Reading data and reports from MGS or reading the comments. Keep up the good work!
Andrew Han
4 months agohaha. the first thing I do is go to the comment section and look for Tony or any of the MGS staffers response/comment first. then I read the article. The comment sections are fun.
Scott S
4 months agoTony, As some others have noted, your work IS appreciated. I too “get it.” Car brand X can build one car that they test run for 1 million miles with no mechanical defects and get accolades for it, but one has to look at the performance of all the cars manufactured to understand whether the brand is truly worth spending $$ on; it can look nice and Tiger can play it, but if 25% of the balls in a off-the shelf dozen are significantly out of round then I now know why it is that I keep having issues with off-line flight and roll of putts and I can stop worrying about my swing. QA/QC is paramount to end results; quite frankly I DO want to know how the various balls stack up against each other when all are hit by Iron Byron, but I also want to know how consistent the overall product is so that I know what to expect from EVERY ball that comes off the shelf, not just the 3 that were hit during a lab test. Sure I also would love to see it all come out at once, the first day of the new product year so I don’t have to worry about what changes in next year’s model and manufacturing process control (or lack thereof), but honestly nothing happens over night and the bottom line is that, if industry knows test like these are going to happen, randomly, and people are going to be influenced by them, then they will be forced to change for the better; or lose market. Keep it up guys and thank you,
Scott
Brian
4 months agoLike these reviews, but releasing one ball every week or two, we should get the full set by mid-next year? losing interest already. Can we pick up the pace? these are most interesting when looking at them as compared to other balls, as well as with the actual ball performance test results. yawn.
John
4 months agoAgreed. It’s also a waste of time imo to detail each ball this way. We want performance head to head results.
Jorge Vela
4 months agoThank you very much Tony.
I really like this reviews that certainly allow us to diferentiate between golf balls and prevent us from buying the bolf marketing claims most of the OEMs use in their communication.
Please don’t let any manufacturer influence you in any other direction. Your amazing approach will force them to put their money on improving their products.
Great job!
Mike
4 months agoLove, love MGS reviews, analysis, etc. My go to source for reviews. This is a great review of the TM 5, but what we lack is perspective. I know the review is for the TP5, but how do the metrics compare to other our balls?
Thanks for all you do!!!
A lifetime reader.
Rick
4 months agoToney thank you for the work you do. You are giving us the information and we need to use it to make good decisions for our own game. Keep up the great work!!
Stevegp
4 months agoTony, once again, thank you for investing all of the time and effort you do in order to bring forward these results and information. It is much appreciated. I really enjoy the golf ball tests, and I am looking forward to each subsequent lab report.
“TripTik” mentioned earlier that he is kind of surprised that TM did as well as they did with the TP5’s five layers, cores from two different sources, etc., as well as all of the factors in their manufacturing process. He and I are on the same wavelength with our thoughts.
Andrew Han
4 months agoI see Snell, Kirkland, and the other DTCs are queued up, but when are you going to report ProV1x and AVX? I am curious to Titleist’s QA on 4+ layer balls.
Lou
4 months agoMore and more readers seem to be clamoring for performance data.. Yes, you did a performance test a year and a half ago but you need to realize it’s out of date now. Others are doing what MGS needs to do. The best ball for me, and for most MGS readers, is how it performs, off the tee, around the greens, etc. This important data is sadly lacking. It’s like telling your readers how many paint defects a new car has and not how comfortable it is or how it drives. Every ball in your quality test so far, includingTitleist Pro V1, has defects so each dozen box MGS readers buy is a crap shoot.
Tony Covey
4 months agoHow do you define the performance specification of a ball that isn’t consistent or has a healthy percentage of defects?
It’s definitely not a crapshoot. As we’re finding, some brands…and even models, are quantifiably better (more consistent) than others.
JP
4 months agoTony, I got to commend you. After each of these lab tests you have at least once pandered to the comment about how people want it to be a test it is not. How you have not lost your patience and understanding is a testement to the quality work you and the MGS team is doing.
Folks, this is a lab test attempting (and doing a great job at it) to quantify the manufacturing quality of the golf ball, it simply is not a performance test.
Call me crazy, but when manufactureres start to release their new ball models later this fall I bet there will be a whole new MGS series about performance. then you can compare balls with the best performance and balls with the best quality (BECAUSE THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS) to find and option that you feel is best for your needs.
Tony Covey
4 months agoI’m glad somebody gets it. Two entirely different things, but philosophically I’ve come to believe that quality/consistency is the more important component because, without it, there is no meaningful performance specification.
Just had this conversation yesterday – with few exceptions, there’s no such thing as bad golf ball performance. Along the same lines, it’s not reasonable to say that ball 1 is better than ball 2 based on performance (speed, launch, spin) alone. They simply have different performance properties. One may fit more golfers, but even the most extreme of niche balls that some would be inclined to say are bad, very likely perform exceptionally well for a small percentage of golfers.
Matte covers are bad period.
Thick urethane covers are bad (if for no other reason than there’s no point).
Beyond that, what’s bad is what’s poorly or inconsistently made. What’s good is a ball that’s made well and made consistently to the same spec. The rest comes down to fitting for your game.
I’ve said this before, but for the most part, manufacturers are honest about the performance specification of their golf balls. If the ball is mid launch and mid spin within a category (or even within a lineup), there’s no reasonable advantage to saying it’s high launch and low spin (for example). Of course, everyone says their balls offer tremendous greenside spin, and nobody has been entirely open about soft being slow, but otherwise, the truth is basically already in front of you.
HP
4 months agoI get it this is a quality review but it is only telling us the same quality info as last year with more detail.. Titeliest, Bridgestone, Srixon have good quality control and Callaway not so much. Last year you had the swing robot, at different swing speeds, providing metrics such as shot area that could help us pick a few balls we wanted to try. That was very useful information. Telling us the true cost, for every OEM, is actually higher than the sale price is nice to know but not really helpful. I know I should just get a ball fititng, outside, but then why would I need to read reviews?
John
4 months agoI’d love to see a review on Wilson Staff Model ball.
Steven M.
4 months agoAs previously stated, ALL tour players are using balls factory tested and issued with the highest quality control standards available. Not that the amateur will or ever need this kind of quality, it would be nice to have the option of purchasing balls of this caliber especially for tournament play..
David C
4 months agoAlmost like “tour issue” shafts ?
Michael Lambert
4 months agoI have determined that my swing varies in path by 22 percent, while my swing speed varies by 17 percent and my alignment varies by 8 percent. Given these variations, I have concluded that I could play an oblong ball that varies in compression by 20 percent, cover composition by 11 percent, and core centricity by 7 percent before I have an excuse for my lousy shots.
On a more serious note, I love your work and appreciate your objectivity. I also appreciate avoiding spending almost$ $50 on a dozen golf balls!!
Daniel
4 months agoLooking forward to seeing the Srixon balls. Thanks for all the hard work and really appreciate people using data to help the consumer.
John
4 months agoGotta say that I cannot “feel” the difference between or among different brands. Does feel translate into sound, i.e., do balls that have different “feel” to the discerning golfer make different sounds coming off the club face?
Bill
4 months agoI worked for a major golf mfg several years ago. In their testing they found that players couldn’t actually “feel” the softness of a ball or an iron for that matter. The sound is what translated into feel. The ball is on the club face for fraction of a second. They did this with balls and forged irons vs. cast. This was over 20 years ago so I’m sure more detailed tests have been done.
Dave R
4 months agoI think sound and feel are often conflated. I can tell when I’m hitting a Cally Supersoft compared to Pro-V1 or other harder ball. Whether its because its less “clicky” or I’m feeling its softer is difficult to ascertain. I certainly have the perception that its softer.
Rob Franco
4 months agoI have tested the TP5 and ProV 1 and 1X on the CheckGo center testing device and neither have indicated true alignment with the markings on the ball.
Why don’t your spin the balls before you mark them to provide the customer with the best aligned ball for performance?
Jon Silverberg
4 months agoCouldn’t agree more…
Cory O
4 months agoIt’s my assumption that the only difference between this TP5 and the Pix is cosmetic on the cover, so these results SHOULD still apply. Anyone think of any reason I would be wrong about that?
Jimmy
4 months agoYes. It’s just a design painted on it. Everything else is the same.
I’ve been using the TP5x pix since last October & have been very happy with it. I think the design really helps my short game because you can really see spin and break.
Mark
4 months agoThe question I have is what are the impact to performance given the different defects? Uneven cover the impact is likely….., off center core, weight differences, etc.
Tony Covey
4 months agoWeight correlates with speed. Other stuff has been discussed in previous comments.
Lloyd Davis
4 months agoNow that you’ve done a few of these, it’s a good time to include the “standings”. Without looking back and interpreting the data from the previously tested balls, it’s hard to keep up with which balls are performing better than the others, and by how much. While I don’t play Vice or Snell either one, I’d love to see those balls tested soon, to see where I’m missing out, or not, with the balls I currently play (ProV1x). Thanks.
Paulo
4 months agoAll the tests are already done and I’d imagine a lot of the data already interpreted. This standing thing seems to be a common request and whilst I agree it’s a good idea I think it’ll be the carrot they dangle us for a subscription service
Jack
4 months ago100% agree. I’d like to see an updated list of all the Ball Labs at the bottom of each new lab. Rank everything from Best to Worst on True Price but then also include the compression numbers, consistency etc. Would be helpful to know how each one stacks up against the other without having to open all individual articles.
TR1PTIK
4 months agoYou should join the MGS forums 😉 😉
Rob C
4 months agoHere’s a very helpful post that is on the forum section of this site. done by one of the members tracking the True Price Results of each Ball Lab and a link to the individual reports.
Also an unofficial list of upcoming balls to be tested
https://forum.mygolfspy.com/topic/40540-ball-lab-quick-reference/
Terry
4 months agoAnother great report and on another of my favorite balls. I am currently playing the Pix version which I think looks less bright (and harder to find) than other golf balls such as Pro V1. However, I do like the built in putter line using the delta-shaped icons on the Pix balls.
Golfinnut
4 months agoIt seems as though every major OEM is going to have “minor” defects in all of their manufacturing processes. But it only matters when it effects performance. And how is the consumer to know if one of the balls in the sleeve isn’t up to Par? (see what I did there!) 😉
And would the average every day golfer even notice a difference in performance? Highly unlikely
Tony Covey
4 months agoAs I’ve said several times. before, while not every golfer will notice the difference, that doesn’t mean the difference isn’t real. To that end, even if you don’t notice it from shot to shot, I believe every golfer can appreciate the difference a quality ball makes over time.
KP
4 months agoI love you guys. Another great read. Thanks Tony. I do have a question. You stated that the TP5 is the same compression as the ProV, and is classified as a firm ball, but you comment below that it is one of softest balls likely to be in play. From the Ball Labs I have been reading I seen any test on any rocks. Just wondering are the TP’s and ProV’s firm or soft? Or am I missing something in translation. Thanks
Tony Covey
4 months agoThe chart reflects compression relative to the market as a whole. By that comparison TP5 and ProV1 both qualify as firm.
I also try and put the ball’s compression in context with the rest of its *real* category.
TP5 is firm, but relative to other balls in play on the PGA Tour (and other balls that are on the higher end of our compression scale), it’s a shade on the softer side.
ajvandermolen
4 months agoHow do you exactly calculate the true price ? the % bad balls is higher for TP5 than for Tour BX S, yet the MSRP and true price are similar…..
Tony Covey
4 months agoWe’ll keep this simple and use $48 as our MSRP. That’s where the equation starts.
If I spend $48 on 12 golf balls, my per ball cost is $4.
Let’s say that within that dozen, testing reveals 2 are “bad”.
That means I paid $48 and only got 10 good balls, which makes my cost per ‘good’ ball (they’re all supposed to be good) $4.80.
At $4.80 per ball, the true price for a dozen balls is $57.60 (12 x $4.80).
The greater the difference (on percentage) between MSRP and True Price, the lower the overall quality of the ball.
Max Parris
4 months agoI would like for you to look at this web site. I found
the site to be great. The test performed were done
with a robot. The test covered a number of golf balls.
https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=mcafee&p=golf+ball+test+results+2020&_guc_consent_skip=1600870113#id=2&vid=a4bd4bb6b67371449c3fc069afac442d&action=click
Tony Covey
4 months agoWe did a similar test…first.
https://mygolfspy.com/most-wanted-golf-ball/
Andrew
4 months agoMic drop!!!
Steve C
4 months agoLove these tests – keep it up. In the summary you stated 80% of the balls tested had issues. The prior verbiage suggests it tested well. This is confusing. Perhaps we may be looking TOO closely for perfect balls. In future reviews would it be possible to take the worst measured balls and compare them with defect-free balls of same model via robot so we can see the impact (if any) on playability? Thanks.
Dave
4 months agoThis does a great job of telling us about the construction and quality of the TP5. I would have loved a performance overview as well (and a comparison to the Pro V1 and Pro V1x – since they are basically the standard). I know the performance numbers are available in the ball test review but it would have been cool to include them and discuss them here since the ball test covers so many.
Dave R
4 months agoI appreciate MyGolfSpy for doing this kind of analysis, its very thought provoking. From my perspective, there’s an important missing element – how do the defects influence performance.? In the case of the TP5’s, they referenced some layer concentricity issues. It would be great if the had tested the balls on an Iron Byron first for dispersion, and then compared dispersion to defects.. Then they would have analytics to support a statement like “Balls with concentricity issues had a 10% greater dispersion rate.” The “True Cost” for me is also problematic – without the golfer knowing what balls are “defective,” they aren’t going to spend more. If 3 of 12 were defective, you wouldn’t/couldn’t buy an extra sleeve to replace the defective ones since you don’t know. which to replace. I don’t have a dog in this fight, just interested in the practical application of the findings.
Mike
4 months agoI have been asking these questions since the ball testing started. How will a bad ball affect performance? 2 yards offline or 20? 2 yards shorter or 20? Unfortunately, once you find the bad ball, there’s no way to put it back together again & test it vs good balls!
I do appreciate all the efforts that’s going into this testing but I just can’t glean results out of it. I’ve hit many of my best shots with the chrome soft, yet for these tests, it has the highest % of bad balls. So what do I interpret out of all this? I guess it makes me interesting reading but…..
Tony Covey
4 months agoYou’ve kind of stumbled upon the point. Golfers will likely never know which balls are good and which are bad and so True Price puts the probability of a bad ball into a context everyone can understand (price). Golfers are loyal to brands and products, so there’s always going to be confirmation bias and acceptable risk. It’s not place to get involved in any of that. I take measurements, inspect the guts, and give you information. It’s up to the individual to decide what to do with it.
Tony Covey
4 months agoBased on last year’s ball test and conversations with manufacturers, we have a solid idea of how these issues manifest themselves. For example, on full shots, the typical range for axis tilt measurement was ball park -1.5° to 1.5°. Within that you have the differences in how the robot delivers the club (including impact location). The launch monitor has a range as well. For balls with what we believe were the most significantly off-center, that number jumped to more than -10°. At high speed (speed will accentuate), it’s the difference between balls that finished less than 10 yards off the target line and balls that rolled out to more than 60 yards off the target line. In the gap between good and severe, there’s obviously a big range, but we know that off center cores result in shots that don’t fly as intended.
The outer layers will have more of an impact on spin. So when there is an appreciable difference in layer thickenss from one side of the ball to the other, you have a ball with two distinct spin characteristics. Something like high spin on the seam, and mid or low spin on the pole depending on how severe.
We know that compression correlates strongly with ball speed, so when there is a wide range of compression within a ball, that’s going to cause speed differences within the ball itself (fast on the pole, slower on the seam, for example). When there’s variation across a sample, then you have balls that are effectively different. In that case, you can think of it a bit like having the loft of your clubs change everytime a new ball goes into play.
Lou
4 months agoDo you know if Taylor made actual sells the same ball off the shelf used by the pros?
Tony Covey
4 months agoLike most ball brands, some TaylorMade pros use the retail offerings, some use special menu balls. They’re not better, they’re just different in a way that doesn’t make sense for the retail market.
tscdave
4 months agoI have played it, and I think it’s a very good ball. One of my three favorites
Mizzed Green
4 months agoThanks for this. Are you planning to gather all the data on one page someday? It would be great to compare all these ball’s numbers all on one page.
TR1PTIK
4 months agoI’m really surprised to see Taylormade do so well given both the complexity of their design and the complexity of their current manufacturing process. I’d be very interested in a future piece detailing their quality control.
Adam Flowers
4 months agoGreat report, Tony (as always).
I’m interested in the fact that you found 80% of balls to have some sort of defect while noting that they shouldn’t affect playability. Did this 80% factor into the balls True Price?
If so, why? You note that the high defect rate doesn’t affect playability but could be “considered problematic.” I’m not sure what is problematic about variances that don’t affect performance, and, if that’s the case, why they should affect True Price.
TR1PTIK
4 months agoAll of Tony’s notes are in the report. Several balls measured on the small side, but held within USGA tolerances by percentage (10-15% fell through the gauge vs. 25% limit). Other observations included off-center cores, mixing issues, and cover blemishes. While it is doubtful any of these issues impact performance, it is problematic because Taylormade is so close to the line that any hiccup in their process could yield significant failures. It’s almost inevitable given the nature of manufacturing (for any product). Toss in the complexity of their current process (having cores supplied by two different sources) cores being made overseas and shipped to the US to apply the covers, etc., it is absolutely remarkable that TP5 did so well quite frankly.
Adam Flowers
4 months agoThe problem with including it in the True Price, to me, is that “significant failures” DIDN’T occur. It’s my understanding that MGS tests a statistically significant number of each type of ball, so it’s convinces me that they shouldn’t really be considered beyond a footnote. Just my opinion!
Tony Covey
4 months agoOnly bad ball factor into the True Price formula. We note what most would consider minor defects and penalize the more significant ones. Nobody makes a 100% perfect ball, and minor issues are to be expected. What most have told me is that they don’t worry about a small percentage of minor defects. When minor issues become a frequent thing, adjustments typically need to be made.
Adam Flowers
4 months agoThanks for the clarification and the hard work!
TR1PTIK
4 months agoTony already replied, buy my previous response never addressed True Price because it seemed rather obvious that the minor inconsistencies noted were not factored for TP. If that had been the case, TP would be astronomically high – at ~80% defective you’d only have 2 good balls per dozen (the actual math spits out 2.4) making TP $269.94.
Adam Flowers
4 months agoIt’s not obvious if “minor” defects are factored into the True Price in a “minor” manner. According to the article, 11% of the balls were flagged as bad; if only those balls are included in the True Price, it should be $49.94. Where does the extra $.67 come from? This extra price moves the True Price above $50, and that seems like a big deal to consumers.
There’s no need to be condescending in your previous posts. I figured it would be “rather obvious” that you wouldn’t treat minor defects the same as bad balls in the True Price.
TR1PTIK
4 months agoAgain, Tony has already provided the answer to your question in another response, but here goes… True Price is the cost of 12 GOOD balls. In order to get there we need to weed out bad balls – the 11%.
We begin with 36 golf balls because that’s how many of each model are examined for Ball Lab. So 36 x .89 (100% minus the 11%) = 32.04. Round down to 32 because you can’t do squat with .04 of a golf ball.
Now divide the MSRP of 3 dozen TP5s by the number of good golf balls. $134.97/32=$4.2178125 (the TP of each good ball). Multiply by 36 to get back to 3 dozen. $4.2178125×36=$151.84125.
Finally, divide by 3 to reach the per dozen price of 12 good golf balls. $151.84125/3=$50.61375. Round to the 2nd decimal.
Tony’s exact numbers could look a little different from mine. He could have rounded that 11% up or down from a slightly different number for the sake of simplicity. Same with any other numbers, but this is how TP is calculated. Hope that helps.
JW
4 months agoI have found them to be slightly longer than other tour balls (proV1) but not as durable. Cover scratches and cuts far more easily.
Spacetime
4 months agoYeah I got some new raw vokeys, needed a new ball after each hole with a full wedge into the green. Switched to the Bridgestone XS. Seem much more durable. Shag bag is now full of TP5.
Larry
4 months agoStill anxiously awaiting you to do this test on the Vice Pro Plus
Brock
4 months agoSame. I would love to see Vice tested in this same way.
Larry
4 months agoGood to see someone else who would like to see this….I played ProV1x for ages, decided to give the Vice Pro Plus a shot a couple months ago-as a 7 hcp I find them to be just as long if not a bit longer, feel is great, everything I expected from a 4 piece ball and they are half the price
Tony Covey
4 months agoWorking on sourcing the new Vice balls. Like others, they’re having supply chain issues. We also try and avoiding buying all at once and try and source from different retailers to gather samples across multiple batches to the extent possible.
Justin
4 months agoI kind of figured with a 5 layer ball there was going to be a decent amount of inconsistencies. Taylormade should be doing everything out of one plant with if its making a 5 piece ball. It would be interesting to see you actually test the balls you found the issues with against the good ones in the lot just to see data on how off it may or may not be….
Matthias RB
4 months agoInteresting, I love the feel of playing a TP5, but opted to play Srixon Zstars because I found my wedges would rip the cover of the TP5”s much faster.
Ryan
4 months agoI would love to start seeing some pictures of the defect balls compared to what a normal ball looks like. How far off center are we talking? How out of sorts are the layers? Etc. I think that it would be a cool visual. Thanks again for all the hard work!
Jmarkus
4 months agoConcur.
Bill
4 months agoThanks for all the hard work on Ball Lab Toney, I look forward to the posts each Wednesday! Still trying to find “my” ball…been playing with different stuff all season. So far from the results you’ve published it sounds like 1) Pro V, 2) Tour B X, 3) TP5 and 4) Chrome Soft
Tim
4 months agoSNELL, VICE etc, …. will be interesting to see if DTC Balls can compete with the big boys on TRUE PRICE.. They perform, but at the end of the day are they a value?!
Randy
4 months agoTotally agree. Would love to see Snell/Vice/OnCore/Kirkland performace + all head to head with the big boys.
Tony Covey
4 months agoSnell MTB-X coming next.
Kirkland after that.
Have full data for the ELIXR. Working on sourcing new Vice and OnCore models.