Ball Lab – Srixon Q-Star Tour Golf Ball Review
Golf Balls

Ball Lab – Srixon Q-Star Tour Golf Ball Review

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

Ball Lab – Srixon Q-Star Tour Golf Ball 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 Srixon Q-Star Tour. 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.

a photo of Srixon Q-Star Tour Golf Balls

Typically, we try to be as dispassionate as possible when presenting our Ball Lab findings. The numbers are the numbers and, more often than not, they speak plenty for themselves.

With respect to the Srixon Q-Star Tour, keeping a straight face presents a challenge. I know a lot of you play this ball. I know a lot of you love this ball. Not for anything, I made my lone albatross with the prior generation of the Q-Star Tour so I’m not without my own affinity for it.

Given perceptions and Srixon’s reputation for quality, I had high expectations for the Q-Star Tour.

When the initial round of measurements was completed, I looked at the numbers and, frankly, I was shocked – and not in a good way.

And so I measured them again … the entire sample. The results were the same but when the new tooling for our diameter gauge arrived, I went ahead and measured every ball a third time.

Having gone through every step of the Ball Lab process three times, it’s reasonable to say that the Srixon Q-Star Tour is the most measured ball to date in Ball Lab. That doesn’t make the results any less disappointing.

About the Srixon Q-Star Tour

an overview of the Srixon Q-Star Tour Golf Ball

Srixon describes the Q-Star Tour as a mid-high launch, low-spin ball. That’s reasonably typical for the value-priced urethane category where one of the selling points is often straighter drives and greater forgiveness from reduced driver spin. It’s also true that low spin is, to a degree, a consequence of lower compression.

The Q-Star Tour is manufactured by Srixon at its factory in Indonesia and is sold around the globe (though model names vary by region). The stated price for the Srixon Q-Star Tour is $32.99, though Srixon will occasionally run discount promotions.

Srixon Q-Star Tour – Compression

a compression chart for the Srixon Q-Star Tour Golf ball

On our gauge, the average compression of the Srixon Q-Star Tour is 72. Similar compression balls in the urethane space include the Bridgestone Tour B RXS, TaylorMade Tour Response and Callaway Chrome Soft.

Srixon Q-Star Tour – Weight and Diameter

  • 36 percent of the balls in the sample did not meet our standard for roundness.
  • None of the balls tested exceeded the USGA weight limit of 1.620 ounces.

The Srixon Q-Star Tour is on the large size for balls in the urethane/just-below-Tour-level space. The larger concern is the significant number of balls that failed to meet our roundness standard. Golf balls are supposed to round. When they’re not, that can cause wayward flight and balls that roll offline on the putting green.

Srixon Q-Star Tour – Inspection

Centeredness and Concentricity

Rating Srixon’s urethane balls is a bit of a challenge. The mantle is often indistinguishable from Srixon’s super-thin covers. That makes cover thickness more difficult to spot but also makes centeredness and concentricity issues a bit easier to identify.

During the visual inspection, we flagged 25 percent of our sample as bad. In every case, the issue was pronounced inconsistency in the thickness of the mantle layer. In most cases where layers are not concentric, the thin and thick portions are often 180 degrees apart. In the case of the Q-Star Tour, often the thin and thick areas are only 90 degrees which, when looking down at the ball, appears as thick areas on the top and bottom and thin areas on the left and right – almost as if the ball is being pinched.

Minor defects that are unlikely to cause performance issues were noted in just over 50 percent of the sample.

Core color consistency was generally excellent. There are bits of visible regrind material which is often used as filler. It’s part of the design spec for many balls and is not typically cause for concern.

Cover

Q-Star Tour covers are generally clean and free from defect.

General Observations

Srixon Q-Star Tour covers are exceptionally thin and would likely prove to be the thinnest in the category.

Consistency

In this section, we detail the consistency of the Srixon Q-Star Tour. It’s 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.

Weight Consistency

  • Consistency (of weight) across the Srixon Q-Star Tour is good (above average).
  • Weight variation between the heaviest and lightest ball in the sample was minimal.

Diameter Consistency

  • Diameter consistency relative to the other balls in our database is average.
  • While not every ball in the sample was round, average diameter from one ball to the next is reasonably consistent.

Compression Consistency

We’ve put an asterisk on our chart because the compression consistency of the Q-Star Tour requires further explanation. If we compare only the average compression of the balls in our Srixon Q-Star Tour sample, the Srixon Q-Star Tour is among the very best we’ve tested to date.

That said, one thing we say quite often in our club tests is that there are a lot of ways to average 250 (yards). Along the same lines, there are a lot of ways to average 72 compression points across a sample.

The best balls we test typically have exceedingly narrow compression across what I refer to as the In-ball Compression Range (IBCR for short). The IBCR represents the range of values across the three points we measure on each golf ball.

For example, the three points (two on the seam and one on the pole) for a single high-quality, 90-compression ball might measure 89, 90 and 91 compression.

By comparison, the three-point compression variation of the Q-Star Tour is often significantly higher. For example, on a single ball we measured 72, 67.5 and 75. That’s a 7.5 compression point range on a single golf ball. We found a 7.5-point delta across multiple balls. The worst ball in the sample had a 9.5 compression point delta across the three points measured.

To put all of this in context, with respect to IBCR, the average across all of the balls in our database is right around two compression points. The best ball we’ve measured so far has an average IBCR of only 1.07 compression points, while the worst (the Q-Star Tour) has an average IBCR range of 5.10 compression points.

Similarly, when we look at the median standard deviation of the IBCR, the bests balls we’ve measured come in at .44 compression points. The average for the same metric is .87. For the Q-Star Tour, it’s 2.3. Significantly worse than the next ball down the list.

What we end up with is a ball that’s above average for average ball compression, but is significantly worse than anything else we’ve measured as far as mainining consistent compression across the whole of an individual golf ball.

My intent isn’t to pile it on, so to speak, but I felt the detailed explanation was necessary for you to understand why we flagged 42 percent of the Srixon Q-Star Tour balls we tested as bad based on the IBCR.

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 Q-Star Tour – 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.

The Good

Weight consistency for the Srixon Q-Star Tour is good (above average).

The Bad

With 58 percent of the balls in the sample being flagged for compression issues, lack of roundness or layering inconsistencies, there’s an abundance of evidence to suggest the quality of the Srixon Q-Star Tours we bought is not up to par – and I’d wager not up to Srixon’s standard.

True Price

The True Price of Srixon Q-Star Tour is $79.18. That represents an increase of 140 percent above MSRP.

Ball Lab Top Performers

Want to know which balls have performed best in Ball Lab testing so far?

Check out:

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.

      Golf2Much

      3 years ago

      Based on your Q Star assessment, I contacted Srixon asking for their response to your findings. Their response was they took the report seriously, they did isolate the batch of balls that you had tested and did not find any irregularities in other batches. With respect to various manufacturing locations, they responded they make balls all over Asia using the same tooling and quality control standards. They continued to say they manufacture hundreds of thousands of balls a year and there’s “always room for issues to happen.”
      All that being said, I understand that your testing is basically destructive in nature. Has anyone correlated the impact of out of round, various layer thicknesses and weight variability to actual performance for the average golfer? I understand that in a perfect world we would like zero variability in our golf balls. However, even as a 12 handicap I know I don’t have zero variability in my swing. How much ball characteristic variability yield performance variability to the average golfer? Thanks!

      Reply

      2PuttBirdie

      3 years ago

      Well thought out response. Excellent question.

      Reply

      Al luthi

      3 years ago

      What is your standard for roundness in terms of digital inches that you use?
      Thanks,
      AL

      Reply

      LeBon

      3 years ago

      I’ve been playing with most Srixon balls including ZStar-X (JDM only). Based on my experience (92-95 mph driver swing), QStar and QStar Tour is the most preferable choice. Very similar with Bridgestone e6, Titleist NXT. It’s not the longest (Ztar XV drives longer), but the amount ratio between yardage and spin is very good for me.

      It doesn’t matter from which country as long as they have standard manufacturing capability. Titleist and Taylormade also made from Thailand/ Vietnam/ any other low cost country that made golf balls cheaper than lunch.

      Reply

      Paulo

      3 years ago

      No ball lab this week ?

      Reply

      Andy

      3 years ago

      First of all thank you Tony, great work!11 2 weeks ago I bought 12 dozen Z-Star for a good price, I am now wondering whether this was a stupid investment, I hope Tony to read about the Z-Star soon and really hope it will perform better than Q-Star…

      Reply

      Aztec

      3 years ago

      Just checked my box of Q-Star Tours and 2 boxes of Z-Star XV’s. All made in Indonesia. Srixon just lost a customer.

      Reply

      Dennis K

      3 years ago

      I played 18 the day I read this article. The conditions were very windy. I game the Z Star and I check the country of manufacture and it was Indonesia, not Japan.
      So I played several holes with 2020 Pro V1 then switched to the Z Star. My take was the Z Star was better in the wind. No difference in distance and feel. My miss is typically a little left. For me that day the Z Star was the better ball for my game, that said I’d play the Pro V or Snell ball if the Z Star didn’t perform.

      Reply

      HP

      3 years ago

      I. bought 4 boxes of Z-Star last year when they were BOGO.. 2 personalized from golfballs.com and 2 from Dick’s. Still have one box of each left and decided to see where manfactured. Suprised to see that one box manufactured in Japan and the other in Indonesia. So wondering if there is a difference in qualility based upon where manufactured?

      Reply

      philip pizziconi

      3 years ago

      I have been playing the Q star tour and have noticed that I will hit some drives to areas of the golf course that i have never reached. However after reading this article it answers a question that I had in my mind for a while. The ball is very inconsistent off of my driver. I lose distance on what feels like a solid hit. I assumed it was me. Your article convinces me it’s the ball. Thank you. Keep up the good work. One question. I am 81 yrs old play to an 8 hdcp with a driver club head speed of 90. What ball should I try? Thanks again.

      Reply

      Norman

      2 years ago

      You must be joking. 81 years old and you state that you don’t get the same distance on hits that feel solid. Couldn’t possibly be your golf swing could it. Or how about the terrain, the wind, your golf shoes, or the fact that you couldn’t hit the same spot on a driver in three consecutive swings.

      Reply

      Scott

      3 years ago

      After reading a few comments about the Q-Star ball. Everyone who played Q-star there game turn to crap all because of the ball. So the next time I do the 240 yard slice that is 160 yards straight and a 80 yards dead right it must have been the ball. ..I’ve played enough golf to know if a ball doesn’t feel right I TAKE IT OUT OF PLAY. Then I give it to the guy I’m play against

      Reply

      Berniez40

      3 years ago

      Good one Scott!–Me too!-

      Reply

      MSG

      3 years ago

      I wonder how much this will affect a, let’s say, the weekend golfer? Will it be that much or drastic, given that such a golfer has a lot of inconsistencies, to begin with? When these go on sale 50% off every June, they are hard to beat, pricewise. Though I went with the Soft Feel from Srixon because I am a cheap ass golfer lol. But now with this discovery, I am not sure if it is even worth buying these next summer.

      Reply

      Alex

      3 years ago

      I checked my boxes for Z-Star and Z-Star XV bought last year during the father’s day sale. All made in Japan. I also have last generation Q Star Tour and this generation Q Star Tour and both say Made in Indonesia.

      Reply

      Randy

      3 years ago

      I checked my boxes of Z-Star that I bought at Father’s Days 2020 as well, and unfortunately they were made in Indonesia. Now I’m worried that they may have the same quality issues as the Q-Star Tour. I hope not, since I bought several boxes.

      Reply

      SteveT

      3 years ago

      Two straight-forward questions on the tests; 1) Is the batch of balls tested 3 dozen? 2) A ball is considered, either good or bad? If so, then (not in this test, but some others – TP5/Maxfli) how can you end up with 11% or 6% of batch bad? That would be 3.96 balls and 2.16 balls respectively. Just don’t get it I guess since you are only documenting for the reader a % and not a finite number of balls as in a previous explanation of 12 balls.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      3 years ago

      Our initial sample size is 36 balls. We arrived at that based on recommendations from manufacturers. We round the percentages for simplicity and avoid hard numbers because we may recheck some models at a later date.

      Reply

      Ted Stickles

      3 years ago

      I missed my tour card by 1 stroke using this ball…..WTH

      Reply

      Jack

      3 years ago

      Based on my experience with this ball, I’m surprised the results weren’t even worse

      Reply

      Dawg Golfer

      3 years ago

      Help me understand the math on the Ball Summary. It says MSRP is $32.99, true price =$79.18, which is 140% over retail price. But, if the true price is correct, that would be 79.18/32.99 for the % over retail price , which would be 240%, not 140%.

      Or, if the 140% over retail price is correct, wouldn’t that mean that the true price is $32.99 x 1.4, which equals $46..19? I’m not a math major, so be gentle on me.

      Reply

      Joe

      3 years ago

      They are saying that it is 140 percent on top of the MSRP so it’s (MSRP+(MSRP*1.4))

      Reply

      Dugan

      3 years ago

      It means that to get a dozen perfect balls you would have to spend that much. Not individually but buying em by the dozen.

      Reply

      J Thorpe

      3 years ago

      since 42% of the additional balls would be defective to find the near perfect five replacements, another dozen may be required. And since some of the “good balls” were lost during a round, it is possible that another dozen or two would be procured, ad infinitum…..

      Reply

      Lou

      3 years ago

      Upon review, the Titleist Pro V series and the Bridgestone Tour series seem to be the balls with the best chance of meeting or beating all of MGS’s criteria. Everything else, including DTC, seems to be hit or miss.

      Reply

      CamapgnoloBob

      3 years ago

      Don’t forget about the Snell MTB-X. It had a 3% bad ball rating, whereas the Pro V1 was at 2.78. Almost a toss-up. The next nearest ball was twice that at 6%. I bought some MTB-X for Fall/Winter play, and they are a pretty darn good ball. At a True Price of $33.93, it may become my year-round ball.

      Reply

      Lou

      3 years ago

      I have bought 5 dozen Snell MTB Black. I have found that there are cosmetic issues re paint and marks on some covers. I let Snell know. They thanked me. for pointing this out. They did not ask me to send them the bad balls nor did they offer an exchange. I am aware that Snell is MGS’ favorite ball. It’s hard not to know that. I gave Snell a good shot but felt their covers were not up to snuff so I did not buy any more. I’m willing to pay more for a better chance at high quality. I feel you get that even though MGS was able to determine that neither Titleist or Bridgestone were as good as their favorite Snell ball.

      CampagnoloBob

      3 years ago

      I bought the Optic Yellow version of the Snell MTB-X for Fall/Winter golf. No cosmetic issues with any of the balls.

      Martin

      3 years ago

      There is no excuse for Srixon. However what we do not know is how much these imperfections affect the flight. But I got a very funny feeling after reading these comments like “I knew something was off”… As we are not pro golfers and we all hit bad shots, it seems pretty easy to attribute all our mistakes to the ball. If not for the Q-Star, I would be playing on tour now :).

      Reply

      Randy R

      3 years ago

      I used to play the QStar Tour until I saw MyGolfSpy 2019 Golfball Review. In that review, the QStar Tour had one of the highest dispersion metric and the ball was ranked in the “fair” category. At that time, I decided to move up to the ZStar since it was rated in the top category and was more affordable than the other balls in the “Excellent” category. I’m not sure why MyGolfSpy picked to review the QStar Tour, but I hope they can also review the ZStar. However, with all the different brands out there, they probably won’t have the time or resources.

      Reply

      Darby

      3 years ago

      This actually highlights the disconnect between ball lab and the testing performed last year. I gamed Q Star Tour because it was the best performing ball for mid-swing speed, and have really liked it, TBH. The solution here is to bring it all together. Ball lab needs to be both the quality metrics and performance combined. Take the balls out, test them for both mid-slow and fast swing speeds then give the quality metrics. This test is important but disconnected from performance.. Let the lab give us the whole picture!!

      Reply

      RT

      3 years ago

      Tried a dozen NOT IMPRESSED!!!!! Distance below that of the Srixon 333 and there is not much wedge spin at all .Would NOT purchase any ever.not matter the price

      Reply

      Mike

      3 years ago

      I dont see any benefit to a golf ball review that does not talk about how the ball plays. The review is a fail.

      Reply

      Matt

      3 years ago

      Go read the ball lab articles and how every defect/issue talked about in this article affect a golf balls performance. You missed the point of the article. A ball like this will not perform well

      Reply

      LD

      3 years ago

      How can it be a fail when so many balls were out of round? That is as basic on ball construction as there can be. You want to play baseball or basketball with a ball that isn’t round? Why would you want to hit a golf ball that isn’t round? Tells me the manufacturer doesn’t care enough or have enough quality control in place to get the most basic part of the ball correct. Really surprising and disappointing.

      Reply

      ramackay

      3 years ago

      Mark Crossfield is gonna be Maaaaadd!
      ???

      Reply

      Dino

      3 years ago

      I loved the Q star Tour when it came out, and I would like to love it again. But this raises an interesting subject That might be worthy of a test in the future or an article. It seems to me that particular factories Have particular Biases And characteristics Have you thought about studying which factories and manufacturers are most reliable?

      Reply

      RA

      3 years ago

      I still have two dozen of these but in the previous version… now I wonder if I should just slice them all off the tee (as I’ve been doing every time with these…)

      Reply

      John

      3 years ago

      I’m anxiously awaiting Srixon’s reply because this will be devastating to their reputation. Especially if this is systemic throughout their lineup of balls. I bought a couple dozen of their balls a few months ago and played them for a couple holes only to realize that something was wrong. While the feel was soft, the ball just didn’t compare with the ball I was playing at that time… Maxfli Tour.

      Reply

      mizuno29

      3 years ago

      exactly, I thought it was just me seeing this crazy shit!!

      Reply

      don riley

      3 years ago

      i have play this ball for last 6 months its not overly good or bad for weekend duffer .
      the E6 and the softfeel or better a low swing speed like mine

      Reply

      LABillyboy

      3 years ago

      On Compression Consistency, I seem to remember the original Pro V1 had an issue. On tour the players discovered if they hit it “on the seam” it would go noticeably further…. wonder what the compression difference was between on the seam and on the logo… I played that ball and believe there was something to it. As I recall there was some investigation by the USGA and some remedy was implemented and a new version came out rapidly.

      Reply

      Jim

      3 years ago

      The original Pro V1 had a very visible seam with no dimples on that equator so it flew differently if you had the seam on the line of a shot vs at an angle.

      Reply

      B-rad

      3 years ago

      Something is wrong with your “true-value” calculator? How can a ball with so many defects score at $79 per dozen, ie the highest rated ball (by far) I have seen?

      Steve C

      3 years ago

      I hope at some point that you can get back on the robot and determine how issues like roundness affect ball flight, dispersion etc. I’m curious what factors have the largest affect on ball flight and dispersion. Is it roundness, compression, uneven layers etc. Not that all of these don’t have an affect but if compression variance (for example) only changes the carry distance 1 yard at 180 yards does that really matter. Thanks for all the time and effort that went into these tests.

      Reply

      mizuno29

      3 years ago

      Very interesting…………thought something was up. Ball has good feel, good greenside spin, but and a big but, this thing seemed at times to fly sideways, hit a sand wedge once with this ball and it drifted in to a tree beside the green, I thought WTF was that? Or seen it start way left off the tee and then drift to the right, or start to hit a hook and then it stops hooking. 36% that just plain terrible. Srixon should be ashamed to produce such a shitty ball!!!!!!!!

      Reply

      Sharkhark

      3 years ago

      I’ve tested a box and found it decent enough to buy a bunch of dozens in a sale only to find as time went on that my handicap had grown from 4 to 6 and my impressions of this ball were that occasional confusing shots occurred.
      I would see results not matching my swing.
      Assumed it’s in my head.
      Now I’m not so sure.
      I am a loyal normally zstar player and I regret all these dozens I have as I have zero trust now and I’m guessing any attempt to get srixon to exchange wouldn’t bear results.
      I’m stuck with balls I don’t have faith in like the zstar. Which I’m confident will do better in testing.

      Reply

      Nigel_Urban

      3 years ago

      In the UK the Q Star has only relatively recently been introduced, replacing the AD333 Tour. Tried the Q Star and found odd distance drop offs, chipping anomalies and putts that would either rocket off the face or go nowhere. Shame, the AD333 Tour was a good budget urethane ball. There are some still around so will continue to buy up old stock where I can.

      Reply

      Daryl

      3 years ago

      Hurts to see my favorite ball brand putting out a poor product. I have played Z Star, Soft Feel, and Q Star. Luckily, MGS showed us a great alternative couple weeks ago and I now rock the Maxfli Tour in yellow for only $25/box. PS – Great ball although extensive testing with both Check Go and epson salt water shows that the Check Go and the COG stamp on the ball are barely better than flipping a coin. The water is only method that gave same results every time but its tedious and also not perfect.

      Reply

      saveva

      3 years ago

      Now I am very curious about Z-Star. I usually play Bridgestone Bx or Titleist prov1x. The Z-Star keeps spinning off my Check-Go Sweet Liner, like it wobbles then spins off. I don’t have a problem with Bridgestone or Titleist.

      Reply

      Leo

      3 years ago

      I never liked the Q-Star so I guess now I have a legitimate excuse :D

      That makes me even more curious about the Z-Star though, seeing as how it was really high rated last year and is my main gamer ball, can’t wait to see those results!

      Reply

      Matt

      3 years ago

      Totally agree with this. As a long term Z-Star user I very much want to see that ball tested. This test on the Q Star Tour has made me question my ball choice and what I thought I knew about Srixon’s quality. Yikes.

      Reply

      Kyle

      3 years ago

      Same, I want to see the Z Star review please. Is Srixon going through the same issues as Callaway did last year????

      Reply

      Willie T

      3 years ago

      Interesting findings here. I like the QStars but to be honest, haven’t played them enough to be really honest about what they do for or against my game. Q/C issues duly noted, but my thoughts go along with some others and that is “How much do these imperfections really affect one’s game? Likewise, is my friend who is an old course pro wrong, when he states that it does not matter what ball he hits they all go about the same. and he is deadly accurate.” Keep up the testing guys as it does keep the mfg’s on their toes to ensure a good, decent product is available to their customer base.

      Reply

      Chris

      3 years ago

      I’ve never played these but noticed that they seem to be the most discounted urethane balls on the planet with volume discounts being significantly deeper than even DTC balls. If we assume that they are not losing money on these sales then it is reasonable to question from where cost savings are derived in order to sell them so cheaply. Perhaps now we know.

      Reply

      Berniez40

      3 years ago

      Great job, though I am not shocked at all. When these ball’s first came out, everyone was raving about what a great ball it was. I tried it several times, thinking…” maybe I got a bad batch.”..or…”Could just be an off day at the course”…etc….”Maybe it just doesn’t fit my swing”…….all the usual rationalizations.
      I was completely underwhlmed bt this ball on every occasion I tried it. This was shocking to me as I had played the Z Star series when it was on sale and was simply amazed at what a great value it was. On top of that, I was gaming Srixon clubs at the time. THise Srixon Irons stayed in my bag longer than any other set. …Seven Seasons! The Q-Star Tour , however, was a different story. I couldn’t wait to dump it, and give it to my buds who loved the damn thing. –GREAT JOB TONY!

      Reply

      Mike Billings

      3 years ago

      Played Q-Stars a couple years ago, and they were the first ball to consistently get me scoring under 90. Came out the next year, bought my first box of an ‘improved’ version and they were crap. Inconsistent ball flights, dramatic drop in distance, and never hitting greens on approach shots over 130 yards.. Went to Chromesoft and was back under 90 again. Dropped those after they had quality issues as well. Now? Snell MTB-X or Wilson Duo Soft Professional.

      Reply

      John

      3 years ago

      I’m an 11 handicap and I’ve been playing Srixon Soft Feel and like them a lot for an inexpensive ball. I played the Q Star one round and did not like them at all.

      Reply

      Ken

      3 years ago

      Is this JD Srixon X2? If you can find about out, I will appreciate it.

      Reply

      Bill Bennett

      3 years ago

      Bought a dozen when my go to ball (Snell) was out of stock. I have hit some amazing shots with my irons…but, occasionally with the driver I’ve hit some knuckle balls that appear to fly erratically, even my playing partners have said what the hello was that!?! I also feel that my putting has suffered slightly as of late. Things for me to ponder.

      Reply

      Chris cooke

      3 years ago

      I played my best ever golf in 2012 with the Z-star. (I know we’re talking about Q-star right now).
      Since then, despite multiple attempts with different batches, I’ve never got close to that performance again with the z-star.
      I now believe you’ve identified why.

      Reply

      Terry too

      3 years ago

      Thanks for the info! I don’t play these and probably wouldn’t even if they came out better in the reviews.

      Reply

      Steve C

      3 years ago

      Your test validates my prior suspicions. To lower the cost noticeably below the Z-Star (on a ball of very similar construction) something had to give. Now it appears that’s quality control.

      Per your findings on compression, I’ve always had a concern about the concept of gradational firmness from center to outer core in ball construction – as Srixon calls it Thousands of layers. I’ve spoken with Srixon about how they manage this. All they say is they use variable heat while “cooking” the cores. How do they insure concentricity of compression while baking? The problem as you found with the variable compression readings depending on ball position is its apparently hard to make right. This is why I stick with a “single” compression ball.

      Reply

      CampagnoloBob

      3 years ago

      When I saw that the balls were manufactured in Indonesia I had a feeling that the test results were heading in a bad direction. That is not a country of manufacture that is well known for golf ball production like the USA, Japan, Korea, etc. I find the Z-Star line to be excellent, and Srixon manufactures those in Japan. It would be interesting to test the Z-Star line and compare its results with the Q-Star Tour and the other premium balls you’ve tested so far. I understand that the Z-Star line is about ready for a refresh, but given the results of the Q-Star tour, it might be appropriate to make the Z-Star your next Ball Lab test to give Srixon a chance to get its reputation back.

      Reply

      Walter

      3 years ago

      All the boxes of ZStar balls I have are made in Indonesia too.

      Reply

      CampagnoloBob

      3 years ago

      Interesting. Mine all say made in Japan. Based on your comment, I will start looking only for boxes of Z-Star balls that say made in Japan. From the Srixon website: “Srixon golf balls are primarily manufactured in Srixon’s state-of-the-art manufacturing facility located in Japan. Being a part of the 4th largest global golf corporation, Srixon maintains additional business relationships with manufacturing and production facilities throughout the world.” In the attached review from last year, you can see from the included pictures that it clearly says Made in Japan.

      James Redmond

      3 years ago

      Tony & co.

      I really think you guys need to follow-up this report with the ZStar for next Wednesday’s Ball Lab. Given the similarities between the balls in both construction and materials, it would be interesting to see if the findings were similar.

      Reply

      Stevegp

      3 years ago

      Once again, Tony. I want to thank you for your effort in bringing us this information. It is appreciated.
      Like a few others’ comments, wow! This report was quite an eye opener. I play Srixon’s Z-Star and Z-Star XV. This review immediately raises the question, “Does this level of quality of manufacture also extend through Srixon’s Z-Star line?

      Reply

      Tim R

      3 years ago

      Same thoughts. Given the Z-Stars growing popularity due to Lowerys Open win, Cameron Champ, …..etc. I hope the quality, when measured, is much better.

      Reply

      GilB

      3 years ago

      Thank you for the detailed analysis. I played this ball a couple of times and although I’m not a pro by any means I felt there was something a little off about this ball. I’m sure I’ll get some smartass remarks in this regard but the proof is in the pudding and when your ball flight and other characteristics are noteworthy and reflective not only in overall performance but in score as well you know something is amiss.

      Reply

      LARRY

      3 years ago

      My wife, over 65, hits driver 150 yards carry. I took her out of a 2 piece ball a year ago and bought her the Srixon Tour…I also bought her 2 “Real Callaway Wedges” 60 D. hits it 40 yards, 56 D. hits it 50 and with the Srixon Tour She actually spins the ball back on soft greens and stops very fast on harder greens.. We play with a lot of different people and everyone is amazed how with such a slow swing the ball spins back…try and take her away form this ball.

      Reply

      bob

      3 years ago

      I am a notoriously bad putter. Ever since I started playing the Q Star though I feel like I am hitting equally bad putts but for some reason in the last 3 feet of the putt when the ball is losing speed those Q Stars take a sharp turn right and dip into the cup. This ball is perfectly off center for my putting style.

      All kidding aside, I play Z Star and Z Star XV’s and both are excellent balls in all conditions. I would put money on high quality numbers if they put those two through the Ball Lab.

      Reply

      Dave

      3 years ago

      I have played the Z-star for 7 years and tried the Q-star when introduced and intermittently in between … Not at all surprised by these findings … I have always thought the Q-star line was relative garbage in comparison … Whenever asked I gave the opinion that they were a short flying Top Flite.

      Reply

      Mike

      3 years ago

      While this does raise some red flags, until someone can quantify what these inconsistencies mean on the course, I’ll just read it as another interesting article. If you’re blaming your bad round on a ball that’s very minutely “off”, get real. I know MGS readers may not want to hear that

      Reply

      Tony

      3 years ago

      Suit yourself, but I am assuming you would not purchase golf clubs with that level of imperfections – 36 percent of the balls in the sample did not meet our standard for roundness…..I see Bryson’s head exploding

      Reply

      Lou

      3 years ago

      Say so long to the Q Star Tour. Dumped my last 9 out of a dozen. Would like to see your take on Taylor’s Tour Response, OnCore’s Elixr, Titleist’s Tour Speed and Vice Pro. Somewhere there must be budget friendly urethane balls similar to Snell. I may be wrong but y’all have plugged Snell for so long that, in my mind, you’re sounding like Dean Snell’s partner. Thanks for sounding the alarm on Srixon.

      Reply

      Geoff M

      3 years ago

      I’m a Q Star Tour player, I’ve loved them since upgrading from a 2 piece. But I can’t ignore these findings. I’ll now be looking a new 3 piece ball at this price point, and would love a test of the TM Tour Response vs Titleist Tour Speed vs Bridgestone B RXS please

      Reply

      Eduardo A Salgado

      3 years ago

      I have been using this ball with good results.
      Maybe luck or maybe because I spin-balance all balls (with Check and Go type spin balancer). When I mark the top of the ball and re-spin balance it, it always returns to the same mark at the top. So, does this mean that the spinner averages the errors and give me a true balance? Or have I just been lucky? I don’t use the factory marks to line up the balls. I use my mark at the top of the spin.
      Have you also done spin balance? Or is that another gimmick we should ignore?

      Reply

      TenBuck

      3 years ago

      with a cover that thin, a) is it really effective or b) is it just there for aesthetics and nothing more so essentially it’s a 2 piece ball?

      Reply

      Ryan Johnson

      3 years ago

      This is a surprise to me. For the first time in my golf career I chose to play one ball to try and eliminate some of the shot inconsistencies. I went with this one because it responded so well in the short game area and didn’t spin TOO much like the Z Star might off the tee. I became a huge advocate for in many ways as well.

      I’m shocked to hear this, as I always considered Srixon to be an industry leader. I guess I will be changing balls, but the question is to where?

      Reply

      L. Brown

      3 years ago

      If the Q Star Tour works for you, why change? In spite of the results of this test it sounds like you have had success with it.

      Reply

      Walter

      3 years ago

      Wow I’m shocked that Srixon has such a bad product, they need to read about your results and make a comment.
      I sure hope the ZStar models aren’t this bad, when are they due to be tested and presented?

      Reply

      Dave

      3 years ago

      Srixon you have some ‘splaining to do!! Like others here I’m now curious about how the Z-star will test out, but if you’re into that category of ball anyway why not just spend a few extra bucks on the ProV1/ProV1x?

      Reply

      Walter

      3 years ago

      Why, because when their spring sale comes it’s 2 for the price of 1, so $25/12 here in Canada. So it’s a great price for the ZStar ball.

      Reply

      Dave

      3 years ago

      I found the Z-star to be a good ball too and did pick up a dozen of the previous model early this season when they dropped to $29.99 stateside as the MGS “big ball” test rates them as excellent along with the ProB1 and the Bridgestone BX…..since then however I’ve entered my second “Titleist Fanboy” phase and decided to commit to ProV….you can get logo and practice ProV1’s at good prices usually.

      HP

      3 years ago

      When Bridgestone increased the price of the Tour B RXS I switched to the Q Star Tour. The Q Star just didn’t perform as well so changed to the Z Star last year and love it. Hope the Z Star ball lab does not disappoint.

      Reply

      Walter

      3 years ago

      Yes both the ZStar and ZStar XV

      Reply

      Kansas King

      3 years ago

      I appreciate these tests. I would be curious if there is a testing machine out their that could spin the ball and measure how far off the weight distribution actually is. I know to test a club head’s MOI they use a machine that rotates the club head from side to side to measure the resistance to turning. I wonder if something similar could be employed for golf balls?

      I know you can spin a ball in salt water and find it’s CG so I feel like a machine could be made to measure those forces. Maybe golf balls are to small/light and getting a machine with the needed precision is cost prohibitive.

      Reply

      Bogeyman

      3 years ago

      Thanks for the info. I will now move on from Srixon. I always assumed they had quality control figured out. I would rather pay more for a ball then get ripped off by this company.

      Reply

      Walt

      3 years ago

      I started gaming Q-Star Tours after getting fitted for them and bought 4 boxes on sale at TGW. I really liked the feel off of irons and putters but always felt they were more squirrely off the face of my driver than the Bridgstone’s I was playing. This year as I started playing better I added some ProV’s into my mix and noticed something strange. I hit a little fade off the tee and QST’s would “fade more” where the ProV’s would fade a bit, settle down and a bad shot would be in the first cut. I was thinking maybe the QST “spin skin” cover was grabbing the driver face more causing more spin off the driver. After reading your test I now think the QC problems are contributing more than the spin skin. Lesson for me is that quality costs money, so I’ll start buying more ProV’s. Thanks for the detailed test. I count on your guys to let the data speak and to fearless publish your findings as they are.

      Reply

      Rob W.

      3 years ago

      36% of balls NOT round!!!
      That’s all you had to say.
      If Srixon cannot get the most basic ball characteristic consistent, why would the rest of the product be any better.
      Never liked this ball when I found them on the course, so I’ll stick with the Bridgestone..

      Reply

      Mark Reynolds

      3 years ago

      Switched to Q-Star Tour from Taylormade Project (a) when TM discontinued the ball, moving to the Tour Response with a 40 compression.

      The Q-Star Tour just didn’t perform as well. Now I know why. I’ve lost confidence in the ball after reading the tests.

      Think I’ll move to Bridgestone.

      Reply

      ChristianR

      3 years ago

      I was waiting this test and now I am disappointed as just bought few weeks ago two dozens on Amazon at a very good price (Europe).
      Why in this cases it’s not considered to buy another batch, from a different source also, to check if defects are persistent or could have been a defective release?
      Thanks.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      3 years ago

      Once things settle down a bit, we will likely be rebuying/rechecking some models. Balls were purchased from different retailers, so we believe that, in most cases, we’re pulling from different batches at the factory. With new releases, we space out our orders to try and get a broad range within the sample.

      I think intermittent issues at the factory can be a factor in a bad run of balls. As we were building out ball lab and starting to test balls, one brand was able to take some of the problems I found and trace it back to known issues at the factory during the time when the balls were produced. Along the same lines, there’s a factory which I would say *generally* makes a good quality product, but every now and again we find a bad box. Bad specifically meaning a wide range of compression values and/or multiple balls (as many as 6 out of 12) over the USGA weight limit.

      So yeah, I think it’s clear that even at good factories things can go wrong, so it becomes a question of how long it takes to resolve the issue and perhaps some questions about why bad balls made it to shelves.

      One of the things that Callaway has been upfront about is that that implementing upgrades and QC upgrades are akin to changing the tires on a moving car. I’m sure that kind of thing is true for everyone, so you can’t necessarily shut everything down to fix a problem. The fixes themselves would likely take place while production is still happening.

      Reply

      Walter

      3 years ago

      Tony, When you present the test for the ZStar balls please be sure and tell where they were made too. The boxes of ZStars I have were all made in Indonesia too. Someone made a comment that his ZStars were made in Japan.

      ChristianR

      3 years ago

      Thanks Tony for the detailed answer.
      Looking forward to the next ones.

      Terry

      3 years ago

      Thanks for the review, I have a dozen of these left from the summer and makes me wonder what I should do with them. I’ve played them most of the summer and didn’t see any real issues with them but your report has opened my eyes. Are you planning on testing the OnCore Elixir

      Reply

      Steven

      3 years ago

      First was the chrome soft then Kirkland and now srixon Q-star tour. I wonder if this is a one off and they will correct the process. I am currently playing this ball and I can blame yesterday’s game on the ball. I still have a couple of dozen left. I guess I’ll have to take a closer look to see if any are out of round and give them a bath.

      Reply

      steven

      3 years ago

      Update to previous post. I gave all the balls in my bag from the 2 previous rounds and found all to be out of balance with the salt bath. I also three sleeves of a remaining dozen and found some also to be severely out of balance. The remaining ones are in the bag for tomorrow’s game. Yesterday’s game I thought was due it being cool,damp and windy. I will report on tomorrow’s game.

      Reply

      Steven

      3 years ago

      Update. I just finished the balance test in epsom salt solution for 4 dozen balls. The results were that I got 4 balls out of the 4 dozen that were balanced. I also test several balls in my bag there were in play and cut them open. Some were quite noticeable out of balance. I then cut at random several of the balls from the 4 dozen and found them noticeably out of balance. I have written to Srixon’s customer service and waiting for a response. I have enough troubles on the course without having to worry about the ball.

      Steven

      3 years ago

      Srixon has contacted me and are replacing the 4 dozen balls as well as sent me a return label with fedex. It will several weeks before they arrive so I’ll have to make do with what I got. When they do arrive I will be testing them. Also I’ve seen advertisements for the same 2 and 1 free sale as before. I guess they’re dumping before the new/ improved ball comes out

      grant zimmereman

      3 years ago

      Tony…..This is a terrific set of data for the Srixon Tour. I can’t thank you enough for testing and reporting.. Srixon should also be thanking you for you diligence. I have moved on to the Callaway Chrome Soft (both X and reg) along with the ERC Soft. I’ve played Srixon for years but over the past few months changed to Callaway.. That’s a horrible stat-58% bad balls. Srixon will be super upset with the quality control at the factory. Well done MyGolfSpy

      Reply

      Rob

      3 years ago

      Great test and explanation. So glad you are doing this. It’s about time that these manufacturers be held accountable to different quality standards.

      Reply

      Ed

      3 years ago

      Ugh, now I wonder how all those double dozens of Z-Stars I just bought are going to look……

      Reply

      Dennis K

      3 years ago

      You are not the only person asking themselves that question.

      Reply

      Andrew

      3 years ago

      Srixon just became the 2020 version of Callaway. It will be interesting to see if Srixon responds as Callaway did and invest heavily to retool their ball manufacturing process.
      Thanks to MyGolfSpy for demystifying ball quality. and holding companies accountable for their product.

      Reply

      Theo

      3 years ago

      Wow, how disappointing!? I’ve bought several dozens of these balls in the past trying to balance performance with price.. Everyone would love to tee up Pro-V’s all the time, but for most of us, that’s not the wisest of financial decisions. These 3 tests are eye opening… It’s hard to believe that this level of consistent error is tolerated by the company itself. I can definitely say I won’t be purchasing any Srixon’s anytime soon. Too many other great balls out there to play junk. Thanks for the review.

      Reply

      Cody

      3 years ago

      So is this the true price most expensive ball?? This ball seems wicked bad..

      Reply

      Mike B

      3 years ago

      Wonderful!!?? Just purchased 2 dozen, from a rep at our home course, for $20/doz. It’s the only ball I use at our course, they tend to overwater, no need for a high spin ball. Love Srixon, but might have to be in the market for another “home” golf ball.

      Reply

      Allan E Chandler

      3 years ago

      I played the Q Star Tour a few times and didn’t shoot well. Nice to know that the issue was not all on me. Yikes!

      Reply

      Tim

      3 years ago

      6 Handicap and I had the exact same experience. Bought 2 dozen and saw my distance and accuracy both decline. Could have been a lull in my game…..but just saying

      Reply

      Rustybe

      3 years ago

      I just played with it and had two excellent sub par rounds from the tips! I must be a better golfer than I thought having used this ball !

      Reply

      Steve S

      3 years ago

      Saw an “out of balance” issue in 11 out of 12 balls I purchased and tested. I reported it to srixon and got a nice canned response. Returned the balls. This is the second time I’ve had that experience with Srixon. Did the same test 2 years ago with Q-Star and had the same issue. Won’t buy srixon again.

      Reply

      Kf

      3 years ago

      So what does this mean for the z star xv???? Yikes

      Reply

      Romke van Dijk

      3 years ago

      I suppose that professional tour players wil notice these minor points and switch balls? Or is the ball they use only in name Srixon…?

      Reply

      Max R

      3 years ago

      Wow! I bought 3 dozen through a promotional offer at my club. I really like the feel it has off my wedges/putter. Can’t imagine Srixon’s response to the review. Looking forward to it.

      Reply

      Mark

      3 years ago

      I would love to see a follow up to your reviews. Specifically if there is any response from the manufacturer.

      Also an understanding what these defects mean from a performance impact perspective. Do these defefects have performance impacts and if they do which defect types have more or less impact on performance or at what point do defects make an impact. Putting, driving, spin, etc.

      Reply

      Chris

      3 years ago

      Ok, now do Z-Star.

      Reply

      Kevin

      3 years ago

      +1

      It would be interesting to know if the Z-Star (original and XV) is made in a different factory than the Q-Star Tour. In other words, if Z-Star is markedly better, is it attributable to a different factory? A different process? Better attention to detail?

      Or if Z-Star is equally flawed, then it puts a serious dent in the idea that Srixon belongs in the same sentence as Titleist and Bridgestone.

      Reply

      CampagnoloBob

      3 years ago

      I looked at the Z-Star box- manufactured in Japan. The QST in the test was manufactured in Indonesia. I would bet a pretty penny that the Japanese plant quality control is significantly better than the plant in Indonesia. I have always found the Z-Star to be an excellent ball but never liked the QST.

      wedgegame

      3 years ago

      I mean the z-star was one of the top performers in last year’s ball test, so there’s that. Would like to see combination of the ball lab stuff with some of performance testing from previous ball tests. I don’t know why they just inferred that performance will be impacted when they could do something simple like roll the ball on stimpmeter and show how far offline it rolls.

      Hook DeLoft

      3 years ago

      I would also like to see a test of the Z-Star

      Reply

      Jerry

      3 years ago

      Sobering and disappointing at the same time. I didn’t realize there had been a design/manufacturing change. Started using these last year as my only ball and have been pretty happy with their performance. Now you’ve got me wondering, as part of the reason I chose that ball were the previous reports of its consistency. I’ll have to reassess the data and find another ball that’s not priced in the stratosphere.

      Reply

      william Kapczynski

      3 years ago

      You say it’s a 3 piece ball but, I only see 2. Is there a mantle layer?

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      3 years ago

      Srixon’s covers are super-thin and are almost perfectly color-matched to the mantle layer. If you look really closely at the core picture in the article you can see a little bit of separation between the two.

      Reply

      Jeff

      3 years ago

      Will you post pictures of balls that are out of round? It would be helpful to see what you are discovering with your research!

      Brian J.

      3 years ago

      These “tests” continue to be flawed. You are making wild claims about “mantle inconsistency” that are determined by “visual inspection.” What? How about a standard method that actually measures something like when you measure if the ball is round.

      Either way, you have yet to tie any of these parameters to ball performance. Any change in performance is theoretical at this point.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      3 years ago

      As is made very clear in the text of this (and every other test), a good bit of our findings come from data collected on gauges. Diameter and Roundness are measurements. Compression (and variation thereof) is a measurement. Weight (notable when there are issues) is a measurment.

      As far as the layering goes…our standards are based on conversations with experts from around the industry – and in fact, many of them use a similar visual standard to determine good/bad and all things in-between.

      As for performance implications, we know that off-center cores, or really any uneven distribution in the weight of the ball will cause the spin axis to tilt. We know that uneven cover and mantle layers will impact spin consistency. We know that compression correlates to speed, so when there is compression variation there will be speed differences.

      At the end of the day, every golf ball brand will tell you’re their goal is to make a high-quality product. That means centered cores. It means even layers. It means consistent compression from ball to ball (and within the ball).

      Reply

      Phill

      3 years ago

      Damn, another Titleist/Callaway alternative bites the dust!

      Reply

      Alex

      3 years ago

      I game the Q-Star Tours and this comes as a huge shock to me. It has really made me lose faith in the brand. I do hope that Srixon respond or at the very least that the batch you received were not what they would usually put out.

      I am strongly reconsidering my choice of ball as a result.

      Reply

      Tim

      3 years ago

      SNELL MTB X

      Reply

      Alex

      3 years ago

      Hi Tim, thanks for your reply. Once the remainder of the QST find the woods or water, I will give them a try. UInfortunately, I am in Australia so I am not sure how cost efffective the Snell’s will be when taking into account shipping.

      Phil

      3 years ago

      Hi Alex

      Snell have an agent or rep in Australia. I am in Perth WA, and have bought Snell from this agent / outlet. Problem is he stocks a very limited supply and always seems to be “out of stock”.

      I got tired waiting two months for stock to arrive so contacted Snell USA and they sent me some boxes directly. The USPS postage was something I was prepared to spend. It added about AUD10 per box to the cost…

      Reply

      Andrew Beck

      3 years ago

      This has always been my fear with this ball. Nothing about the ball should be cheaper to produce than a Z-Star. So where does the cost savings come from? It certainly seems like it comes from having wider manufacturing tolerances based on this.

      Reply

      David Lewis

      3 years ago

      Played this ball quite a bit and surprised to see the quality and consistency issues. Thought it was good value for urethane cover. Have to look at other balls now. Thanks for the detailed analysis.

      Reply

      Kansas King

      3 years ago

      It could be real world performance isn’t affected as much as we would want to believe for a non-professional golfer. Hopefully as MGS gets through more balls, they are able to do some human (preferably robotic) testing with balls that are known to be bad vs. good balls.

      Reply

      Randy

      3 years ago

      How did the previous version do on the same criteria? I have several dozen of them.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      3 years ago

      The previous version predates Ball Lab, so we don’t have any data.

      Reply

      Kleiner

      3 years ago

      Yikes! Now I’m very interested to see if other balls from the same manufacturer are as good as the one tested (Pro V1x compared to Pro V1), or as bad (Z Star vs Q Star). In other words, is quality consistent, or are there system problems?

      Thanks for the hard work. Love getting this info. in the off season to be ready for Spring.

      Reply

      Patrick

      3 years ago

      Yes. I agree. I feel this is a little unfair as it seems all the other manufacturers had their top ball tested and srixon had its second tier tested. What about the zstar?

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      3 years ago

      The idea is to mix in balls in various categories and at different price points. For example, the Wilson DUO is in the short term pipeline. We also had several requests for this ball.

      I wouldn’t agree with unfair as a reasonable descriptor. The ball is on shelves at a price point above $30, and with that comes a reasonable expectation of quality. We’re not talking about a $7.99 Home Depot special here.

      TR1PTIK

      3 years ago

      Wow! I’m surprised by your findings since Srixon controls so much of the process. I’ve never really gamed Srixon unless I was gifted some balls by the golf gods or they were provided by other means. I’m curious to see what you discovered about their premium offerings.

      Reply

      James Bergeson

      3 years ago

      I enjoy your articles, see which companies really put out quality equipment..

      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.