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. 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.
As the “No. 1 ball in golf,” the Titleist Pro V1 arguably needs no introduction. It’s a ball that nearly every golfer has played, if only because they’re so popular you can find them – often in bulk – on just about any golf course in the world.
In this report, we’ll give you the rundown on what we learned about the 2019 Titleist Pro V1 in the Ball Lab 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 2019 Titleist Pro V1
The Pro V1 is Titleist’s meat-of-the-market Tour ball offering. It’s a three-piece design with a 352-dimple, cast-urethane cover.
On full shots, Titleist classifies the Pro V1 as its mid-launch, mid-spin Tour offering. Keep in mind that, with the exception of its Left Dash Pro V1x, Titleist’s Tour models have a linear performance relationship to one another. Titleist’s AVX is low launch and low spin while the Pro V1x is classified as high launch and high spin. The standard Pro V1 sits in the middle.
The Titleist Pro V1 is made in the USA at the company’s Ball Plant 3 in New Bedford, Mass.
2019 Titleist Pro V1 – Compression
On our gauge, the average compression of the 2019 Titleist Pro V1 is 90. Across the market as a whole, we’d classify that as medium-firm to firm.
Among the balls that receive any consistent play on the PGA TOUR, it trends to the softer side and in any given week it’s likely to be the softest ball in play.
Compression Consistency
With respect to compression consistency, the 2019 Pro V1 is one of the very few balls that not only rates as good, but pushes close to the boundary of excellent. None of the balls in our sample varied significantly (or much at all, for that matter) from the median compression measurement.
Likewise, when we look at the consistency across the three points measured on each ball, the Pro V1 is among the very best with an average range of fewer than 1.5 compression points.
The 2019 Titleist Pro V1 is among the most consistent balls on the market for compression.
2019 Titleist Pro V1 – Diameter
Relative to the market average, the diameter of the 2019 Titleist Pro V1 is on the smaller side, though it’s close to the average for the Tour ball category.
The data we collected suggest that Titleist doesn’t push the boundaries as much as some of its competitors. None of the balls in our sample set failed the ball track test, meaning 100 percent conform to the USGA’s size rules.
Consistency and Roundness
All of the balls measured met our roundness standard.
While the 2019 Pro V1 doesn’t separate itself from the field with respect to size consistency, there are no red flags either.
2019 Titleist Pro V1 – Weight
None of the balls in our 2019 Titleist Pro V1 sample exceeded the USGA weight limit of 1.620 ounces.
Consistency across our Pro V1 sample set was solidly within the average range.
2019 Titleist Pro V1 – Inspection
With three-pieces balls, off-center cores typically won’t be an issue. Problems will typically manifest in the form of layer concentricity problems.
To that end, we observed a small degree of unevenness in several balls. However, in only one ball was there enough variation that we classified the ball as bad.
Core Mixture
Core coloring was exceptionally consistent across all of the samples with no discernible difference between boxes.
Cover
In several balls, we noted small pin marks from the painting process. These are common and not expected to cause performance issues.
We also noted a single ball with a minor scratch on the cover but found no significant defects otherwise.
General Observations
As is typical of three-piece construction, the core is large and makes up the majority of the ball’s diameter. The cast urethane cover is soft and thin, which suggests greenside spin should meet expectations for the category.
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.
2019 Titleist Pro V1 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 our measurements for diameter and weight put the 2019 Titleist Pro V1 in the average to above-average range, it stands out for its compression consistency, which is among the very best of the balls we’ve tested.
While our visual inspection yielded a single bad ball for layer concentricity, our sample suggests the Pro V1 lives up to the billing as a high-quality and consistent golf ball.
Ball Lab Top Performers
Want to know which balls have performed best in Ball Lab testing so far?
Check out:
Mark
8 months agoHi Tony, do you have a schedule of the balls that you will be putting through ball lab, as I’m wondering when my ball may be done (currently TP5x). Also, I’ve heard good things about the Srixon AD333 and am wondering if you may be putting this on the list of balls you will test? Cost of the 2 piece AD333 is a big win and I’m also guessing that 2 piece construction would greatly reduce the chances of something like an off center core. Cheers Mark
Jose Jim
8 months agoJust read both lab on pro v1 and chrome soft, I don’t get where you get between retail price and tru price on both. On the pro v1 you’re saying difference of $2 against the chrome for about $10. So you’re saying chrome is a better buy even though it has more inconsistencies?
Tony Covey
8 months agoTRUE 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 two, the more you should be concerned about the quality of the ball.
Jose Jim
8 months agoThanks, after reading saw the episode on youtube about the lab test and got explained thanks for the feedback, hope to see more lab tests
Steve
8 months agoGreat information! A helpful, “to the point” review. I always seem to go back to the Pro V1.
Dakota
8 months agoI just wanted to say that these are really great Tony. I love them, and I appreciate all your time and effort you put into doing the research for me.
Tim
8 months agoThis, to me, is one of the better tests and write ups. Its simple, to the point and proves that all marketing isnt just hyoe. Hopefully you can continue this with the TP5, AVX and other “premium” balls. Good job
WBN
8 months agoThanks for the study. I played Titleist for years until I went to a Bridgestone ball fitting. Ball fitting was a first for me. I saw improved results and have stayed with Bridgestone since. I would like to see the same study on Bridgestone Tour B RX. The work of MyGolfSpy is one of the best additions to us regular golfers. Keep it up.
Nocklaus
8 months ago“any given week it’s likely to be the softest ball in play.”…?
Isn´t the TP5 softer?
Mike
8 months agoAll the TOUR balls while not the “same” all provide a similar level of performance. One ball may match your game and another might suit mine. Just like people are different but still equal. Titleist bases it’s reputation on consistency and apparently that is still true.. My ball of choice is the ProV1x. It tested among the longest at about 90 MPH swing speed and spins well around the green. The fact that they are NOT a box of chocolates and you always know what you are getting is a bonus. If golf balls are not consistent they are useless.
Loz
8 months agoWhy is the compression lower than the ball test last year? Gone from 104.2 to 90..
ChristianR
8 months agoWould like to see a Srixon comparison between a low tier ball like the AD333 and the mid-high tier Q-Star Tour as they are two common choices for mid and low-mid handicappers.
Nige
8 months agoI second that suggestion. I am currently gaming the AD333. They seem pretty consistent to me – and my game is too inconsistent to blame a bad shot on a ‘bad’ ball from the batch.
Steve C
8 months agoExcellent test. Hope you plan on testing the ProV1x too as that’s my ball choice. I noticed two categories where the Prov1 showed zero inconsistencies yet was rated average. So how does a ball get a better rating? You can’t get better that zero defects. Perhaps move the needle a bit in future tests?
TR1PTIK
8 months agoTony provided a response to this question elsewhere in the comments, but I’ll try to sum it up as best I can. The Pro V1 is rated average relative to the other balls in the test – as in it doesn’t deviate much from other findings and therefore does not stick out as being exceptionally better or exceptionally worse. It is not meant to imply that the quality of the Pro V1 is average, but that many balls tested share similar results.
William Dickman
8 months agoI tested 7 major ball brands 4 years ago. This test required that each ball was rolled down a stimp meter and was measured at the point the ball began to roll ” out of round” The Pro V and Pro V 1 was one of the worst at this test. All 3 Bridgestone balls tested rolled at least 7 feet further than the Titleist. I now play a Bridgestone .
TR1PTIK
8 months agoSounds really scientific…
Rob
8 months agoHa!!! I was thinking I need to do this too! lol
Don Benedict
8 months agoWhich 3 Bridgestone balls? Which one do you play? I play
the Snell MTB-X, it seems to work well for me both for distance
and spin. 71 year old, 12 handicap.
thomas
8 months agoi have played bridge stone for years they out perform every ball i have tried the distance is not even close seems non can make a ball go like them guys do
Bigguy
8 months agoHi Toney,
Thanks for your great work. I was wondering why you still come out with 2019 model test while we are at the end of third quarter of 2020?
Rob C
8 months agoThe 2019 ball is the current model. ProV and X have a two year life cycle.
Ray Jenks
8 months agoWHITE v YELLOW …. Matt A and Paulo have a point, My preference is the V1x and I find a distinct difference between the white and the yellow.. …. The yellow is both firmer and more durable. …. As an 85 year old 18 handicap hacker I don’t expect my opinion to count for much …. I’m just disappointed that even at my level of play there isn’t another ball that performs as well as the V1x – particularly as the UK cost is equivalent to $62 !
Ray J..
JP
8 months agoHey Tony, first off absolutely love these write ups, but was wondering if you noticed a lot of really small letters stamped into your ProV assortment for this test. I know you mentioned pin drops from the paint application, but I always seem to notice small letters embossed across the face in random spots, often times across dimples, I always wondered if it effected ball flght…?
And when you guys are looking at the cover, do you account for how the cover holds up or would that cross over into a performace test and less of this quality control type test?
Tony Covey
8 months agoThe small letters identify the mold used to cast the cover. They’re also helpful in finding the seam. It shouldn’t have any performance implications.
JP
8 months agoThanks Tony!
sooo is this a good time to ask if you guys need a retail operations manager… ?
R. Boice
8 months agoI personally played Titleist balls all my life. My dad who was a scratch golfer always played them so I simply followed his lead. Once I started getting older, I was noticing a lot of golfers my age and my size were outdriving me by 10-15 yards. I always loved the feel and performance of Pro V’s but I simply didn’t have the clubhead speed to compress the ball in order to take advantage of some of the features of the ball. SO…I started buying sleeves of a lot of different brands…..even some Titleist’s not necessarily Pro-V’s. What I found was that a distance ball wasn’t necessarily as forgiving around the greens and a performance ball wouldn’t get the distance I was looking for. The last couple of years however…..Callaway Chrome Soft started having some of the advantages of both. Then only recently I started using the Bridgestone Tour B RX. It’s soft and long off of the driver, but on approach shots it really holds the green like a Titleist Pro V. I guess to each their own…..but I’d suggest shopping around to find something that fits your game, rather than fitting your game to a specific ball.
Marq
8 months agoThis is basically what I would expect for time list. They are, in my opinion, and always have been, a cut above on the quality side. And I love the fact that so many people use AND lose them. I always play new or near-new balls, & I haven’t bought one retail in 12 years. Amazing thing at our course, at least 1 out of every 10 of all balls found (covering all brands, all varieties) are Pro V1’s (or Pro V1X”s).
Terry
8 months agoI appreciate the detailed write-up Tony. I look forward to the Tour B XS review as well. It has been my ball of choice of late, but I toggle between it, Pro V1, and TP5..
Steve S
8 months agoActually I would like a ball that is too small and too heavy. They go farther!
Isuck
8 months agoSo if I play a Pro V1, I lose the excuse the ball isn’t perfect;y around? I’ll stick with Callaway.
Bob Kirkwood
8 months agoComparison of this to the Callaway is revealing. Titleist is far superior. I would never play Chrome Soft. I look forward to the same tests on Srixon, Bridgestone, and Taylor Made premium balls.
Cory O
8 months agoFor those confused by the size/weight consistency numbers where everything was conforming, but the ranking was still “average”, I believe this is because while all the balls passed (none too big/too small/too heavy), there was variance within that passing range, so the balls weren’t identical to each other, which would have raised that ranking.
Stevegp
8 months agoThanks, Tony. I genuinely appreciate the time and work you put in to capture and share this information.
Paulo
8 months agoSerious question , why is nobody , and I mean nobody doing a comparison on a launch monitor between white and yellow pro vs ? Google it. Nobody has done one
Matt A
8 months agoI thought I saw a video from a youtube channel that noticed a difference years ago, Crossfield maybe?. Granted, it was not a pure test and it would be great to have a full test see if there is a difference!
Paulo
8 months agoLink would be great. I’ve never found one . Myself and others are convinced there’s differences , I think the yellow is firmer and more durable. That’s getting off topic though , my point still stands , everyone seems reluctant to do a comparison . Pressure from above ?
MIGREGB
8 months agoIt’s probably because they are supposed to perform exactly like their white counterparts. At least that’s what Dean Snell has said.
Paulo
8 months agoI’ve not tried the snell balls but the Titleist do feel different
Marc
8 months agoI asked myself that same question a few years ago. I was playing a Z-Star white and switched to the yellow version. I swore they played different. Also, the yellow’s cover seemed more durable. Of course my playing partners thought I was nuts, but something was definitely amiss…
Paulo
8 months agoSo why aren’t people testing this ? It’s not just you and me ?
Odie
8 months agoI agree with the yellow vs white distinction. Have extensively played both colors in V1x and AVX, and on the course the yellow spin less. Noticeable both off the tee and green side spin – in AVX a greater difference. I’m a 1 handicap, 100mph swing speed.
Heather D
8 months agoWhy are you testing the 2019 model?
Tony Covey
8 months agoThe 2019 model is the current model.
Tim
8 months agoVery anxiously waiting for the Snell MTB-X review. Also, isn’t true price only relevant if the golfer physically took multiple balls out of play prior to gaming for inconsistency reasons? IMO most golfers do not remove any balls from the dozen prior to hitting them.
Jake Claro
8 months agoNo, the point of true cost is that while you think you’re paying for a full dozen of consistently performing balls, you’re actually paying for a set of consistent balls alongside some lemons – and that point is true statistically regardless of whether you’re aware of it or not. To get a full dozen of good balls, you would actually need to pay $x. In other words, you don’t need to be aware that gravity exists for it to have an effect, just as you don’t need to be aware of the lemons for them to negatively impact your game or for you to get less lifetime out of the ball due to poor quality construction for the price you’ve paid for them. I’d argue even that the true cost calculation is conservative to an extent as it’s not factoring in the psychological affect of not knowing the specific balls to trust in the batch (not asking MGS to do this, but just making the point that its another variable that hurts the perceived value of the balls given purchase price).
golfinnut
8 months agoGuess there is a reason why I continue to play this ball. Numbers don’t lie. Thanks for the report! ;
TR1PTIK
8 months agoGood write-up! Was half expecting to receive some shocking news on this one, but Titleist delivers as always.
Which ball is next?
Berniez40
8 months agoNice teaser, but just in case you guys are wondering—We can’t wait for the next big ball test. The last one gave Titleist an ad Campaign, while handing a –“You need to go back to the assembly line drawing board” spanking to Callaway.
It certainly helped explain the occasional truly weird ball flight I would get from a Cally at times. Seriously, every now and then it looked like I was trying to pull off a trick shot. Theoretically thei’ve been out there saying they’ve revamped their old Top Flite Assembly Lines. We’d love to see you guys show us who, itf anyone, is telling the truth, and to what degree.
Luke
8 months agoI anxiously await any of these that you guys publish! Love the golf ball tests, and appreciate the time that you put into it. It would be great if you could test the Maxfli Tour balls. They are fantastic performers for the price (Two dozen for $50, or $35 for one). Would love to see how consistent the build quality is.
Nick
8 months agoHow many unique golf balls were tested for this study?
Les
8 months ago3 dozen
NormW
8 months agoI dont see how you can say it compares with other balls without naming them.
Lou
8 months agoA ball can have a defect as pictured in your example just from being cut in half by an individual using a hand cutter. Unless a stable, automatic machine is doing the cutting, I would submit this is possible on your sample. As I understand it, Titleist X-ray’s all balls. Maybe their X-ray apparatus was down that day but I doubt it. Titleist is #1 for a reason but now you’ve planted a seed that says, wait a minute, when you buy a dozen Pro V1’s you probably will get one bad ball. I can’t wait to see how you get nothing but perfection with Snell!
Brian
8 months agoI’m fairly certain they do use a stable, automatic, cutting machine to cut the balls from videos I’ve seen from them. And also, I don’t agree that they’ve planted a seed that you are going to get one bad ball per dozen. If anything, the test has shown that title list has proven their claims of being the best in the business. With a single Pro V1 ball costing you $4, the fact that they quantify their true price stat to get a dozen good balls as $49 gives the impression of impeccable consistency. That means every 4 dozen balls, there might be a single bad ball. That’s outstanding in my opinion.
LD
8 months agoerror rate was 2.78% so out of 12 balls the chance of one bad is well below 1 ball. since one divided by 12 is .0833 or almost 3 times the shown error rate.
TR1PTIK
8 months agoYou don’t work in manufacturing do you? I ask because I’ve worked in the most highly regulated manufacturing facilities – automotive, medical, defense, and space – and all of them have tolerances, scrap rates, and escapes (the occasional bad product that makes it to the field). Why should we expect that products made for sport would be perfect across the board?!?!? Tony provided a good response to someone else below that explains why the Pro V1 was rated “average”.
JasonA
8 months agoGreat series, many thanks.
Interesting. Reads like the Pro V1 was not a dominating performer in it’s category. Makes me even more interested for the rest of the line up.
Larry Bishop
8 months agoWould like to see the same test results on Vice Pro Plus
Patrick
8 months agoI understand that your TruePrice for a dozen of these would actually be the cost of 13, since there was one bad ball in the dozen. However, this assumes that the consumer picks out the bad ball and discards it, like you would with one cracked egg in a dozen. Thats not the case, though. We have no way of knowing which ball (if any) is bad, so we just play all 12. It doesn’t affect the price, it affects the performance in the form of a sliced drive or a wobbly putt. This metric should really be more about the “True Performance” than the true price, as it dosen’t really change our price.
TR1PTIK
8 months agoAs I understand it, the True Price metric is simply a means of showing the value proposition for a certain ball. The closer TP is to MSRP, the better value the ball is from a quality perspective. It seems a lot of people are seriously overthinking this and making it more difficult than it should be…
Jake Claro
8 months agoPresumably performance is in fact what you’re paying for. A golf ball is desinged to perform in certain ways, and if you’re paying for something that isn’t performing, you’re not purchasing what you’ve actually paid for, hence the true price to you is greater. It’s a metric to quantify what the loss of performance costs you. Your knowledge of this fact is irrelevant, and is the enlightening aspect of this series. Now you know on average that when you think you’re buy x number of balls for $x dollars, your actually only paying for a smaller sample of the sleeve, but still paying the full cost. Again, that would be true even if you didn’t have this information, but now you know and can make more informed decisions about how you’re using you’re maximizing your investments in ball purchases.
Rob
8 months agoNo surprise here, ProV has been the standard to which all other “tour level” balls are measured. It’s the reason it’s been my ball of choice for the vast majority of years that I have been playing.
Ryan
8 months agoQuick question. Let me preface this by saying I only play ProVs when I find them or they are given to me. If the ball has 0% of them being too small, 0% being underweight and 0% being out of round, how does that classify as “average”? Is there a chance that a ball can be excellent given that 0% is average? I’m just curious and not attacking at all. Just need some clarification. Thanks for all the hard work!
JL
8 months agoI think they mean average relative to industry standards, if a ball is conforming within a certain size range, their ball is of average size meaning not on the larger side of the range and not on the smaller side of the range.
CB
8 months agoYes, was wondering the same thing.
Tony Covey
8 months agoWe were just discussing how to tweak our graphics to better convey the message.
The charts contain two different metrics. The primary portion covers things that overtly bad (balls that aren’t round, are too heavy, or too small). Our consistency metric is a measure of sameness across our sample set. Are the balls reasonably close to the same weight, or is there enough of a range that it’s problematic? Are some balls big while others are small? Is there a wide range in ball compression?
You could theoretically have a box of balls where 100% are not round, but all exactly the same size. Likewise, it’s possible to have a box where 100% are round, with tremendous size variation. We look at it both ways.
Richard
8 months agoMaybe a bar-line distribution chart, with a mark (possibly red zone) at the USGA limit? If the bar in the middle is wide, that’s low consistency, but as long as the lines don’t cross the USGA limit, that’s 100% conforming. This could replace the % conforming and consistancy charts that are currently separate (confusing to some).
Ryan
8 months agoThanks Tony! I think the sliding scale here is definitely where I got a little confused. I appreciate the response!
Stephen
8 months agoI’ve been really looking forward to these reports and I’m thrilled that you did all this hard work. That said, I’m still confused how consistency and weight are being called “Average” when they had no defects in the test. To me that would only make sense if your testing shows that most manufacturers have zero defects in these tests. If that was the case I get how no defects is average, while any defects is below average.
JasonA
8 months agoThe USGA Specification has *limits* e.g. max weight 1.620 ounces.
Consistency is essentially a ball to ball comparison and not about ball vs. specification limit
Now a set of balls that are say 1.619, 1.603, 1.455 ounces are all under the limit but very inconsistent (100% pass with Bad consistency)
A set of balls that are say 1.618, 1.619, 1.618 ounces are very consistent and within specification. (100% pass with Great consistency)
A set of balls CAN also be consistent but OUT of specification e.g 1.651, 1.651, 1.652 (100% fail with Great consistency)
Jeff
8 months agoYeah that confused me too, seems like the sliding scale should have it solidly in the green with 100% of balls conforming. I don’t know how you go up from there.
AK
8 months agoI had the same question. Is “average” considered the best classification here?
Vincent
8 months agoI think the average mark is about consistency, how consistent the weight and size is. So the ball are all conforming doesn’t mean there is no variation in weight or size. That just mean the balls are all big enough and light enough, but can have small variation of size or weight from one ball to the other.
Dale
8 months agoTony, can you post a picture of a Pro V1 with concentric issue? Curious how severe/minor this is visually. Thanks!
Les
8 months agoThe picture is in the article.
Dale
8 months agoHi Les, I thought the picture in the article was showing core uniformity. I was more interested in a picture showing a concentric issue.
Adam Flowers
8 months agoI’m glad that it looks like the ProV1 lived up to its high expectations.
I have some questions about True Price, though: it seems that you equate consistency of construction to performance. That is, if a ball is consistent in its core, cover, etc., it should perform consistently, whatever it’s particular performance metrics (ball speed, spin, etc.) are. The first problem I see, however, is that there is no way for a ball to have a true price less than its MSRP unless you create a metric where you compare it to al of the other tested balls. The second problem is that the True Price doesn’t actually include performance characteristics. I know different players require different performance characteristics , but imagine a less consistently produced ball has worse performance characteristics when compared to a more consistently produced ball. The True Price makes it seem like the more consistently produced ball is a better value, but it may actually be an overall underperforming ball. Just some thoughts and thanks for all of your work!
Garu
8 months agoI think you are looking at this the wrong way. This is a quality test not a performance test. This is saying, if you have done your research or a fitting and have determined the Pro V1 is the ball for you, you can buy a dozen of these balls and be confident they are all the same. What I don’t want as a golfer is questioning if a ball’s performance is anything other than my shot.
Adam Flowers
8 months agoI understand that it’s a quality test, but performance is implicit in quality. The reason we care about quality is because we want to ensure performance. I think the problem with True Price as a metric is that an average reader can see the TP of the ProV1 vs the Chromesoft and easily assume that the ProV1 is “better.,” not just a more consistently produced product. When you buy a dozen balls, you buy them for quality AND performance, so using a price metric that only touches quality is misleading, at least to me. But yes, I do understand that’s it’s mean to reflect the quality control of the products.
Kurt
8 months agoHow could you have a true price that is less than you paid retail? Think about your comment.
The rock bottom, absolute 100% true price would be, at best, whatever you paid for your dozen.
Also, the price of a dozen golf balls has literally NOTHING to do with performance. Not sure why you’re trying to make “True Price” more than what it is… a measure of cost vs. quality.
Adam Flowers
8 months agoYou get a lower TP by relating the quality of a certain ball to the average of al the others tested. It essentially would show that for a given price, the ball exceeds expectations.
Also, buying a dozen balls has everything to do with performance. You don’t buy a dozen golf balls just because they have good quality control. The reason anyone cares about quality control is because it affects the overall performance of the dozen.
Jay
8 months agoI think you misunderstood what it means by the true price value, the true price value just shows how much you would have to pay on average to get a dozen perfect golf balls. They find this price by finding the percentage of defect golf balls per dozen, and the cost of a single ball, and calculating how much it would be to get 12 good balls.
Adam Flowers
8 months agoI understand the metric, but I just believe it’s reductive to create a True Price on a dozen balls when people don’t just buy them for quality. They buy balls because they have quality construction AND performance.
MIGREGB
8 months agoAdam: Here’s my take on this. Yes, you are correct. There is no way for a ball to be lower than MSRP, only worse depending on how many bad balls are in a typical dozen. When the True Price = MSRP, 100% of the balls perform as designed, therefore the price can never be lower. Whatever the performance characteristics are for a given ball (hard, soft, spinny, short, etc.) and the value that particular ball presents, the True Price will tell you how many of those balls will live up to the design characteristics at the price they charge. Whether or not you like those characteristics is a totally different matter. Once again, MGS isn’t “testing” subjectivity (whether or not you like the ball’s characteristics), just telling you what those characteristics are as in the case of the 2019 Golf Ball Buyers Guide (https://mygolfspy.com/most-wanted-golf-ball/) , and probable repeatability of those characteristics in this case. Anyway, this Is what I get out of this.
Adam Flowers
8 months agoI guess what I’m saying is that, ideally, True Price would blend quality and performance, especially in balls considered to be in the same performance category. I understand what TP means to reflect, but I think it’s easy for a buyer to misinterpret it because most buyers buy a dozen balls for quality AND performance.
TR1PTIK
8 months agoAnd how would you like MGS to quantify performance as it pertains to price??? No two golfers are exactly the same or need the exact same performance from their golf ball. Similarities abound, yes, but you wouldn’t say X ball performs better than all other balls for all golfers regardless of player dynamics, ability or skill AND is also the most consistently well built. Your assertion that this is even possible is absolutely absurd! How a ball performs is going to be different for each individual user. How a ball is constructed and checked for quality is (more or less) going to be the same for everyone!!!
Adam Flowers
8 months agoAll I’m suggesting is that creating a metric that establishes a suggested price based solely on quality has the potential to be misleading. It needs to be read with respect to each ball’s performance. At the very least, I think the ball labs need to be supplemented with a new ball test. Creating a “new price” without any relation to performance just isn’t a realistic reflection of how people choose to spend money on balls. I appreciate the studies, I’m just suggesting that the True Price metric is a bit flawed.
Andrew Han
8 months agoAdam, beating a dead horse at this point, but let’s say you are able to fit that metric into the TP relative to the pool of balls that drives the price below MSRP. At the extreme, you will never say a $50 box is free?.
With TP, you can now measure the Distance/TP, Spin/TP, and etc. Maybe that is what you are looking for or should be looking for in terms of performance and price.
Jake Claro
8 months agoIf you want to spend your time challenging quality as a proxy for performance that’s fine, but I don’t think it’s particularly fruitful. The hypothesis your proposing implicitly is that balls that don’t meet quality standards (and perhaps we would need to make exception for size which is about rules conformity) on average may perform as well as or better than those that do.
Remember that part of the motivation for creating this lab was that on robotic ball tests there would be an odd-ball (ha) that was flying offline or doing something else that identified it as an outlier – and certain balls were doing it more than others, and said balls (Callaway) when cut open had poor consistency.
A separate test could be done to solidify quality as the proxy, by doing another round of robotic tests and cutting open balls that have outlier performance with their sample mates. Those balls on average, or in a statistically significant way, should have quality inconsistencies.
Adam Flowers
8 months agoAfter all this discussion, I guess all I’m saying is that the quality tests need to be viewed alongside the performance tests! And, if the True Price metric could be changed to incorporate performance, even better.
Bradley Clark
8 months agoAbout what I expected. Pro V1 is the standard for a reason. Will you be doing a review of any of the Bridgestone tour balls, specifically the B-XS? I keep bouncing back and forth between those and the ProV1.
Tony Covey
8 months agoAs coincidence would have it, the Tour B XS is next up in ball lab.
Bradley Clark
8 months agoGreat news. I am anxious to see how they compare. May help me settle on my go to ball. My only complaint about the B-XS is that I seem to hit a few “spinners” off the tee and lose some distance, but from 150 and in it is the best ball I have ever played. Hard to go wrong either way. Splitting hairs at this point.
Jeff
8 months agoSame but the Tour BX. Inevitably I’ll play Bridgestones for a few weeks and generally be in love but then I’ll play a sleeve of ProV1s one day and think to myself, “my god, these are good”. And then I switch to ProV1s and repeat the process in reverse.
Michael
8 months agoGreat write up Tony! Appreciate the work you put at MGS!