Ball Lab: 2022 Srixon Z-Star Diamond Review
Golf Balls

Ball Lab: 2022 Srixon Z-Star Diamond Review

Support our Mission. We independently test each product we recommend. When you buy through our links, we may earn a commission.

Ball Lab: 2022 Srixon Z-Star Diamond Review

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 2022 Srixon Z-Star Diamond. To learn more about our test process, how we define “bad” balls, check out our About MyGolfSpy Ball Lab page.

About the Srixon Z-Star Diamond

a closeup of the urethane cover on the 3-piece Srixon Z-Star Diamond Golf ball

The Srixon Z-Star Diamond ostensibly was designed for Brooks Koepka to be a “best of both worlds” cross between the standard Z-Star and the Z-Star X offering higher compression than the former and more spin than the latter.

All of that made things a little awkward when he ditched the ball prior to the U.S. Open. The reality is that Srixon designers were working within a narrow window and it’s hard to get things perfect on the first try. A new Z-Star Diamond is in the works so it shouldn’t be too long before we can find out how that ball stacks up against the original.

Z-Star Diamond Construction

The 2022 Srixon is a three-piece golf ball. In that respect, it’s more similar to the standard Z-Star than the XV. It offers a 338-dimple urethane cover. The entirety of our sample was produced in Srixon’s factory in Japan.

Compression

A srixon Z-Star Diamond golf ball in a golf ball compression tester.

On our gauge, the 2022 Srixon Z-Star Diamond has an average compression of 95. That’s identical to the Chrome Soft X we discussed in our most recent Ball Lab.

As a reminder, we’re playing in the same compression ballpark as the Pinnacle range ball and the 2022 Bridgestone Golf Tour B X. The Z-Star Diamond is softer than a Titleist Pro V1x and slightly firmer than the 2021 TaylorMade TP5x.

It solidly qualifies as a firm golf ball.

Diameter and Weight

Srixon Z-Star Diamond golf balls being tested for diameter inside the MyGolfSpy Ball Lab

Diameter consistency has been more than a little problematic with the Srixon golf balls we’ve measured. Whether that’s traceable to the factory (the majority of the Srixon balls we’ve tested were made in Indonesia) or some other manufacturing problem isn’t clear.

That said, the good news is that we found absolutely no issues with the Z-Star Diamond. All of the sample balls were round and, while a couple of balls in the sample challenged USGA limits, none crossed over.

Likewise, none of the balls in the sample exceeded the USGA’s weight limit.

Inspection

Centeredness and Concentricity

We have found some concentricity issues in the past, though they’ve been more prevalent with the lower-cost models. This time around, we didn’t find anything of concern.

Core Consistency

the core of the 3-piece, single mantle Srixon Z-Star Diamond Golf Ball.

Other than a couple of balls that were a few shades lighter, core color was mostly consistent throughout the sample. Srixon uses more regrind (those bits of yellow visible in the core photo above) than any manufacturer of repute but, given the general consistency of our measurements (see below), it’s nothing to be concerned about.

Cover

No cover defects were noted.

Srixon Z-Star Diamond – Consistency

In this section, we detail the consistency of the 2022 Srixon Z-Star Diamond. Our consistency metrics provide a measure of how similar the balls in our sample were to one another relative to all of the models we’ve tested to date.

A chart showing the consistency of the Srixon Z-Star diamond golf ball

Weight Consistency.

  • Weight consistency for the Srixon Z-Star Diamond falls well within the average range.
  • The chart reveals a couple of balls that are comparably light but nothing of any real concern.
  • In terms of the market as a whole, we would consider the Z-Star Diamond to be an average weight golf ball.

Diameter Consistency

  • Diameter consistency for the 2022 Srixon Z-Star Diamond falls within the Average range.
    • Diameter has been an area of struggle with other Srixon balls we’ve measured to date so this should be seen as a significant positive.
    • The size of the balls falls within the average range relative to the market as a whole.

Compression Consistency

  • Compression consistency falls within the Good range.
  • Box 2 was slightly softer than the other two but, generally speaking, the compression line is what we love to see.
  • The compression delta across the entire sample was only four points which is, quite frankly, exceptional.

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.

Srixon Z-Star Diamond – Summary

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.

With absolutely no red flags anywhere in the sample, the Z-Star Diamond is the best Srixon ball we’ve tested.

The Good

  • Zero bad balls
  • Above-average compression consistency

The Bad

  • Nothing of consequence. No worse than average for any metric.

At the time of review, the 2022 Srixon Z-Star Diamond gets an overall grade of 85.

Support Unbiased Testing.

DID YOU KNOW: If only 1% of MyGolfSpy readers donated $25, we would be able to become completely independent in 12-months. With every donation, you create change.

Would you be willing to help by giving a donation? Every dollar will help. Make a donation to support our independent and expert golf equipment research. A PayPal account is not required in order to donate.

Donate to MGS


Amount

Frequency

For You

For You

Golf Shafts
Apr 14, 2024
Testers Wanted: Autoflex Dream 7 Driver Shaft
News
Apr 14, 2024
A Rare Masters ‘L’: Day Asked To Remove Sweater
Drivers
Apr 13, 2024
Testers Wanted: Callaway Ai Smoke Drivers
Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony is the Editor of MyGolfSpy where his job is to bring fresh and innovative content to the site. In addition to his editorial responsibilities, he was instrumental in developing MyGolfSpy's data-driven testing methodologies and continues to sift through our data to find the insights that can help improve your game. Tony believes that golfers deserve to know what's real and what's not, and that means MyGolfSpy's equipment coverage must extend beyond the so-called facts as dictated by the same companies that created them. Most of all Tony believes in performance over hype and #PowerToThePlayer.

Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony Covey





    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

      Kris

      1 year ago

      Probably worth mentioning tha In Gee Chun dominated the women’s PGA Championship playing this ball. What’s BK done lately?

      Reply

      Baz

      11 months ago

      This aged well…

      Reply

      Rob

      11 months ago

      Win the PGA

      Reply

      Kristian Oakes

      11 months ago

      That’s not aged well

      Reply

      Fozcycle

      2 years ago

      Thanks much Tony. I know it takes a lot of work and patience to put a ball through your test. I for one am grateful. BTW, I still play the best ball not named Titleist…..Maxfli Tour.

      Reply

      CT

      2 years ago

      What’s with all the negative comments about the way MGS scores golf balls?! If you don’t like the way MGS evaluates golf balls you could simply not read their reviews on said golf balls. Easy enough.

      Reply

      scott

      2 years ago

      what I look for is performance and durability. you only look at two issue spec. and quality. . How does a ball holdup after sand and wedge play .( durability ) and how does it react off the club face ( performance ). I know that’s asking a lot but I’ve been playing long enough to know golf ball are far better now then 50, 40. 30 20 , years ago

      Reply

      Jacob

      2 years ago

      Most of that stuff is subjective and difficult to measure. Your wedges are the same as my wedges. Your sand isn’t the same as my sand. Are you hitting right of the fairway into a Nevada desert hazard or an Ohio treeline? They measure things that can be safely and consistently measured. Lots of what you want is just luck and odds.

      Reply

      Matt

      2 years ago

      I am always interested in the results of these tests, being that I work in manufacturing. My only gripe is with the apparent concentricity metric. You have developed standardized measurement practices for compression, diameter, and weight – obviously because the metrology tools are not prohibitively expensive.

      For my own selfish pleasure, I would love to see some optical measurement equipment for measuring core concentricity. That way when my ball goes in the drink, I can blame the 0.005″ error.

      You could then weigh cover, mantle, and core thickness into your analysis as well – assuming you could repeatably cut the balls.

      Reply

      Willie T

      2 years ago

      I like the metrics reports MGS provides across a wide range of categories for ball testing. These metrics have given an improved Chrome Soft and helps keep the mfgs reasonably honest. An 85 is well above “average” and places the Z-Star Diamond at the upper end of the bell curve. I recently started playing the Z-Star XV’s I had set aside and love how they play. I am not a ball snob by any means, I can hit them all down the fairway, into the sand, off into the woods, deep into the water and on occasion in the center of the cup. As far as BK dumping the ball that is simply someone who is struggling with their game trying to blame everything but the six inches between their ears.

      Reply

      Kyle

      2 years ago

      But how do they perform?

      Reply

      Mark R

      2 years ago

      $45 for Srixon Z-Star Diamond, $50 for Pro V1,

      First tee with buddies on weekend. money match Play a Pro V1 or Srixon Z-Star Diamond?

      I calling this an easy choice..

      Reply

      FARRELL

      2 years ago

      In Australia, ProV1/x is $80, and Z Star/XV/Diamond is $60, most of the time you can get the srixon for $50 or cheaper as well, maybe get the ProV1 for $70 in a bulk buy. I dont even think twice about the performance with Diamond. does what i want it to when i put a good swing on it.

      Reply

      Brad E

      2 years ago

      I think Tony answers the question of the score every time there is a “no bad balls found” and then the score isn’t what people expect. If you compare this ball to the Maxfli Tour (also an 85) this score is consistent. In both cases there were no “bad” balls, Compression – Good, Diameter – Average, Weight – Average. So if you think about it, with all things added together, they are slightly better than average and the average score in the database is 71, so a score of 85 is pretty good.

      Reply

      Raymond

      2 years ago

      Loved the z star. Good flight. Great for putting. Will try the diamond.

      Reply

      Dtrain

      2 years ago

      So why only an 85? It seems to be as good of quality as any ball you’ve tested.

      Reply

      Jay

      2 years ago

      Bad score for a ball you found no problems with? Must be because it wasn’t Titleist

      Reply

      Jay

      2 years ago

      No change in price but only 85 score? Your guys reviews don’t make sense a lot of times. Give a bad score for good numbers.

      Reply

      Chris Nickel

      2 years ago

      Jay – 85 is a great score. In fact, it’s one point higher than the 2019 Pro V1. That said, if you only skim the article and don’t take note of the weight, diameter and compression consistency scores, you’re likely to come to an erroneous conclusion.

      Reply

      Cody

      2 years ago

      Skipped over the part where the weight and diameter consistency was only “Average”? I’d put your reading skills solidly below “85” for what it’s worth.

      Reply

      PARRISH ROBERTS

      2 years ago

      Back to school:

      A+= 95% +
      A= 90%-94%
      B+=85%-89%
      B=80%-84%
      C+=75%-79%
      C=70%-74%
      D+=65%-69%
      D=60%-64%
      F=>60
      I skipped all the way home when I got an B+ ????

      Tony Covey

      2 years ago

      As I pointed out with the Callaway Chrome Soft X last time around, the average score within our database is a 75. So, while I understand people sometimes struggle with what it means to be average, in a statistical model, the majority of things will fall within the average range. An average result is fine.

      The Z-Star Diamond’s score of 85 is significantly higher than the average, so I’m not sure what the gripe is.

      It’s also important to keep in mind that we’re dealing with 2 separate metrics.

      Good/Bad is a pass/fail based on a single ball (the ball itself) almost in isolation. Is it conforming? Is it round? DO the layers appear concentric? Is the cover free from major defect? Is it acceptably similar other 35 balls in the sample?

      The other set of metrics look at the sample AS A WHOLE relative to all of the other samples in our database. How consistent is the diameter, weight, and compression of this group of balls relative to the other models we’ve tested so far? I say “so far” because the database is dynamic. As we add models, we increase the sample size and the numbers that define expectations can move a bit.

      As far as how the scoring system works, it’s two metrics, because looking at just consistency or just the good ball percentage is insufficient.

      It’s theoretically possible to have 100% of the sample be bad and still score well for consistency. They could all be just a little heavy or just a little small, for example.

      It’s also possible to have poor consistency throughout the sample and have zero bad balls. In that case, we’re talking about a bunch of individually good balls that aren’t much like one another – different sizes, different weights, different compression.

      To paint the most complete picture possible, you need to look at it both ways. It’s why, when you look at our rankings, the balls near the top (high 80s and 90s) will have few if any bad balls and above-average consistency for at least 2 metrics.

      With no bad balls, the Z-Star Diamond was a bit above average (the average is around 2.5 bad balls per sample), but was *only* average for 2 of our 3 consistency metrics.

      My takeaway from that is that it’s a good ball…it’s not among the absolute best, but I certainly wouldn’t have any quality-related reservations about playing it.

      Reply

      James Shepard

      2 years ago

      I think the problem is people question just how you can be completely objective. We are all just human our, our biases even extend to golf balls. They can’t help but influence how average one is. You need to come up with a way to quantify each minor flaw into a final sum. Then you won’t have to listen to all the grumps.

      Lou

      2 years ago

      Brooks Koepka stopped playing this ball because it did not perform. As the article stated, Srixon is soon coming out with a new one. So, why Tony would even bother to test a ball that did not perform for a well known golfer is a mystery. Statistics are interesting but how a ball performs is where it’s at. MGS has hung their hat on statistics and not performance. Where are all the MGS testers who should be out hitting these top balls for performance? Stats don’t matter, and some internally created score doesn’t matter, if the ball doesn’t perform in play. I don’t believe I’m in the minority when I say this.

      Reply

      Cody

      2 years ago

      Wow, a ball that didn’t perfectly fit one specific golfer should never be tested? Lol

      Reply

      Peter

      2 years ago

      “did not perform” doesn’t really apply – it simply did not do what Brooks wanted it to do (Or maybe he’s just not hitting it as well as he used to….. checks standings; yes, hes not playing well…. Even when he has switched back to the old PV1, still same standings)
      Brooks switched back to the 2017 version too, so by this “does not perform” metric that means the 2019 and 2021 balls also don’t perform…. I’m sure that Titlist and MGS both say that those balls do perform

      Reply

      Lou, the week after Brooks Koepka stopped playing the ball, he missed the cut at the Open Championship. I think BK is looking to answers but they don't lie in his equipment. Too many high performing Srixon players for that.

      2 years ago

      Lou, the week after Brooks Koepka stopped playing the ball, he missed the cut at the Open Championship. I think BK is looking to answers but they don’t lie in his equipment. Too many high performing Srixon players for that.

      Reply

      Sharkhark

      2 years ago

      You are. You don’t think your in the minority but you are. Alone. On an island. By yourself. I wanted this test and others I know did as well.

      Reply

      Steve (the real one, pithy and insufferable)

      2 years ago

      Brooks. 55th, 55th, MC. So much for the Titleist he switched to.

      Reply

      Ron Vaive

      2 years ago

      Tony, if these balls are that good, with a true value of 0%, why do they only get a rating of 85?

      Reply

      Cody

      2 years ago

      Weight and diameter consistency were only “Average”

      Reply

      Farrell

      2 years ago

      Been eagerly awaiting this one.
      I’ve been playing these balls for the last 6 months and haven’t a bad word to say about them.
      Switched from Prov1x and really enjoying the aud$20/dozen saving for zero performance loss.

      Reply

      Corey

      2 years ago

      Did you notice any durability issues with the cover? I have been lucky to get 12-14 holes without the seam showing.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      2 years ago

      Cover durability isn’t currently part of the test process. That said, I wouldn’t worry about the seam showing. Srixon’s manufacturing process is unique (the mantle kinda squeezes through at the seam), so what you’re seeing is likely just a little bit of paint wearing away. It’s not likely to impact performance.

      Reply

      Rich

      2 years ago

      Not surprise better quality coming out of Japan. The divide balls are also out of Japan and are better imo than the ones they put on promo.

      Reply

      Charles

      2 years ago

      I’ve been playing the divides and they are really consistent and more durable than I expected. I’ve played 4 rounds with the same 2 balls and their covers have held up nicely.

      Reply

    Leave A Reply

    required
    required
    required (your email address will not be published)

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

    Golf Shafts
    Apr 14, 2024
    Testers Wanted: Autoflex Dream 7 Driver Shaft
    News
    Apr 14, 2024
    A Rare Masters ‘L’: Day Asked To Remove Sweater
    Drivers
    Apr 13, 2024
    Testers Wanted: Callaway Ai Smoke Drivers
    ENTER to WIN 3 DOZEN

    Titleist ProV1 Golf Balls

    Titleist ProV1 Golf Balls
    By signing up you agree to receive communications from MyGolfSpy and select partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy You may opt out of email messages/withdraw consent at any time.