Ball Lab: TaylorMade Tour Response Review
Golf Balls

Ball Lab: TaylorMade Tour Response Review

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

Ball Lab: TaylorMade Tour Response 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. 

About the TaylorMade Tour Response

The TaylorMade Tour Response is the replacement for the Project (a). That was a ball that got a lot of love among connoisseurs of soft golf balls and rightfully so, I suppose. The Project (a), and now the Tour Response, are among the softest urethane-covered balls on the market. And while TaylorMade is not immune to the liabilities of soft (soft really is slow), greenside spin was a bit better than similar balls. We’d expect that to carry over with the Tour Response, due in no small part to the noticeably thin cover.

TaylorMade Tour Response — Compression

On our gauges, the TaylorMade Tour Response measures 71 compression points on average. That equals the softest balls in our database—a list that includes the Bridgestone Tour B RXS and Vice Pro Soft. For reference, we’re talking about a handful of points softer than the Callaway Chrome Soft.

TaylorMade Tour Response — Diameter and Weight

Starting with the good: Not a single ball in our TaylorMade Tour Response sample failed to meet our standard of roundness.

Moving on to the bad: Three percent of our sample came up shy of the USGA’s minimum diameter in our ball track test. This isn’t entirely unexpected as TaylorMade perpetually flirts with the line and occasionally trips over it. As you’ll see with our ball-by-ball measurements, it’s rare to find a TaylorMade ball that isn’t pushing boundaries.

It’s perhaps notable that all three of the undersized balls came from the same sleeve in Box 3.

TaylorMade Tour Response — Inspection

Centeredness and Concentricity

While we did note a number of minor issues with concentricity in the mantle and cover layers, we didn’t find anything significant enough to raise any serious performance concerns.

Core Consistency

It’s hard to know exactly what to make of the core consistency. While we did note relatively small chunks of non-standard material in a couple of cores, the more noticeable issue was the variation in core color. Our sample included both light blue (perhaps teal) as well as navy blue (purplish cores). A bonus sleeve which we cut for the videos more or less matched the navy cores, though with significantly more regrind.

As we’ve said before, color variations are not necessarily cause for concern as there can be variation (sometimes significant variation) between batches. We rely on our gauges to tell us when variation equals inconsistency.

Cover

No significant cover defects were noted.

TaylorMade Tour Response — Consistency

In this section, we detail the consistency of the TaylorMade Tour Response. 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.

The side-by-side charts for the TaylorMade Tour Response tell a somewhat complicated story.

 

Weight Consistency

  • In general, the weight consistency for the sample fell within the high end of our Fair range which is to say it was a bit below average.
  • As you can see from the chart, Box 1 had a reasonably significant outlier while Box 3 was appreciably lighter in general.

Diameter Consistency

  • Regarding diameter consistency, TaylorMade Tour Response falls within the high end of the average range.
  • Box 3, which was a bit smaller overall, contained the three balls which failed the minimum diameter test.

Compression Consistency

  • Overall compression consistency falls within the Average range.
  • While compression consistency was average, the compression delta (the difference between the three points measured on each ball) falls inside the Good range.
  • Box 2 was generally more consistent but neither of the other boxes was appreciably firmer or softer (on average).

True Price

True Price is how we quantify the quality of a golf ball. It's a projection of what you'd have to spend to ensure you get 12 good balls.

The True Price will always be equal to or greater than the retail price. The greater the difference between the retail price and the True Price, the more you should be concerned about the quality of the ball.

TaylorMade Tour Response — 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.

The Good

  • Consistency is as good or better than most balls at the soft end of the urethane category.

The Bad

  • Three balls did not meet USGA minimum size requirements.
  • A variety of core compositions could be cause for concern over a larger sample.

TaylorMade Response — Final Grade

The TaylorMade Tour Response gets an overall grade of 77.

The score is slightly above the average for the market as a whole and among the best of any “soft” urethane balls. While three balls failed to meet USGA standards (inconsistency is never good), a slightly undersized ball will typically provide a small distance benefit so, in that respect, even the “bad” isn’t all bad.

The variation in core color may be cause for concern over a larger sample. However, the data we have suggests that if you’re looking for a soft (sub-75 compression) urethane ball, the Tour Response is likely the one to beat.

The “True Price” of the TaylorMade Tour Response is $38.17. That’s an increase of nine percent over retail.

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.

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.

      MacInFL

      2 years ago

      Just recently started playing again after a 10+ year break (health/back issues) so have been trying to catch up on what has improved/changed (alot!). Have been playing both this Tour Response and the Titleist Tour Speed. Although I am tending to favor the Tour Response for playability, it doesn’t seem to have the durability of the Tour Speed. I find the TaylorMade scuffs far easier than the Titleist. Has anyone else experienced this?

      Reply

      Francis

      2 years ago

      Kind of a late reply here but I play both of these balls. I notice that the Tour Speed’s cover seems a bit harder and it’s more difficult to scuff. I also see that the Tour Speed travels farther off the tee — about 10 yards more than the TM Tour Response. But the Tour Speed also spins way more so my wayward shots are worse off with the Titleist than the TM. Overall I prefer to the TM, would rather keep the ball in play and sacrifice a few yards. The TM is also softer and has better feel around the greens.

      Reply

      Michael Goebel

      3 years ago

      Just wanted to throw my 2 cents worth in. I have been test playing Tour Response and TP5. I found something interesting with the Tour Response a week or so ago. The day was hot here in Texas, mid to high 90s and the Tour Response was really long this day. However, my mid irons were not holding greens. I was making good contact and heavy diviots in the greens but they just ran through. I switched to TP5 after 9 and problem solved.

      Today, I put a Tour Response in play during this high overcast mid 80 degree day. Shots were sticking well on the greens all day.

      I think this ball will be a fair weather ball and good in the colder winter months. I’m sticking with Tour Response as I like the feel off the club face and putter but picking my days pulling it out of the bag.

      Anyway, my 2 cents…

      Reply

      Doug

      3 years ago

      You speak about consistency, however I don’t consistently see how you get from your article comments to the final score. I like Project (a) and so for Tour Response balls and play TM TP5’s too. (age 65, driver 220 yards, straight). So I read the article, thought it would score high, and find it nesting next to Titleist’s similar offering…and see ‘market vibe’ final score rankings. Your process still has too much mystery for me. It’s helpful and worthwhile though, Thank you.

      Reply

      JJ Buck

      3 years ago

      I’ve been playing this ball for over a year. I am 69, SS of +/- 90, 12 handicap in Florida. This is a great ball at a great price, does not bend off the tee and goes plenty far enough despite its compression. If you’re looking to squeeze the last 2 extra yards out of something more expensive, maybe not for you. Feels great, stops GREAT on the greens, chips well and has great feel off the putter. No distance or stopping issues whatsoever. Senior golfers with mid to high handicaps (10-20+) will love this ball, especially for the price.

      Reply

      Bill

      3 years ago

      The 2021 ball test prompted me to order a dozen Tour Response balls as a back up ball. Everyone’s needs are different and I’m no different. Used to be a high speed long hitter but age and a back issue has changed my approach to balls significantly. Previously, I emphasized balls that held their line in the wind and was willing to give up length for fairways.
      As my SS dropped to the 96-104 range (depends on what my back allows these days), I find myself looking for two balls. The Tour Response appears to give excellent distance despite the softness and it’s a great value.
      On bad back days, I will use them. I really like the TP5 for its consistency and holds it’s line very well. That will be a good premium ball for me.
      I only play I wont pay over $45 normally, so I picked up the Wilson Staff R to try thanks to the ball test. A little higher spin but good dispersion and distance. Will mix the three depending on the day…

      Reply

      Rob

      3 years ago

      I am a pretty big fan of this ball, i think one of the best in this price range with a urethane cover. Soft, but didn’t seem too soft to me (98-99 mph driver speed)….I thought i would like the VICE Pro Soft just as much, but didn’t for whatever reason, though I loved the Vice Pro. Both the Vice Pro and TM Tour Response will be on my list when i do my own personal tests to too what will end up being my gamer.

      Reply

      Andrew the Great

      3 years ago

      I’ve been playing the Project (a) (and Project (s)) balls for a couple of years, and now the Tour Response. FWIW, I’ve been generally happy with both (but I lean toward the Project (a)/Tour Response ball).

      BUT, reading this article I see that it’s quite a soft ball, and that now leads me to wonder whether that could contribute to why my distance off the tee seems to be suffering a bit (can’t be me, right?). Perhaps I’ll look for a less soft ball for my next round, and see what happens off the tee.

      FWIW, I’m 60 and a 7.6 WHS index.

      Reply

      Andrew the Great

      3 years ago

      Now that I think of it, it’s usually quite windy here in Puerto Rico. So maybe that’s partly to explain the distance issue. Plus, the ground is usually pretty soft (we tend to get rain here in the tropics), so I don’t get the 50-yard rolls the gals and the guys get on the Tours. I actually took a picture of one of my tee balls having jumped back a couple of inches after hitting the ground, the pitch mark being in front of it.

      Reply

      Dennis Beach

      3 years ago

      So, you are not going to post my opinion! Why? Because it was a negative review moreless. I simply stated that for me it was not the ball for me. Well, I’m sorry, but my review might save someone from spending money on a ball that won’t really help them. Is it a problem that Callaway sells a lot of Supersoft golf balls? Probably the most in their ball lineup. I”m not a troll, just a senior golfer with an opinion…

      Reply

      MyGolfSpy

      3 years ago

      Not sure what you are referring to. I can see your other comment on the article. SMH.

      Reply

      Bob

      3 years ago

      Currently play TP5 but will give Tour Tesponse a try. As a senior with a 80 SS it could give me a few extra yards. MSG definitely provides great information and knowledge for all golfers.

      Reply

      Dennis Beach

      3 years ago

      Been playing Cally Supersoft Matte last 3 years. Senior, 64, 80 mph swing speed. Been searching for a ball for my game, and the SS fills the bill for me. Thought I would try a urethane ball, as I never played one. Played 2 rounds, noticeably shorter off the tee for me, and with my slower SS, I don’t generate enough spin for the ball to hop and stop, with minimal rollout. So, I think I will pass on this ball, and the Callaway Supersoft is my gamer….

      Reply

      Dave Carnley

      3 years ago

      Ditto Dennis—i have been playing golf a little more than 50yrs and at age 64 with slower swing speed the Calloway SS are great. The closest is Titlest Trufeel.

      Reply

      Mike

      3 years ago

      Thanks for the review. I’m an 8.7 hcp and have been playing the TM Tour Response for the past 3 months. The ball performs great. I have not encountered any problem balls. Then again, I don’t measure balls for diameter. I played the Project (a) for a while before I switched to the Chrome Soft. The Tour Response isn’t quite as “spinny” as the Chrome Soft on partial wedge shots. It’s also (for me) 5-10 yards longer than the Chrome Soft. One thing I have noticed about the Tour Response is that it’s more durable than the Project (a), so TaylorMade did more than just change the name.

      Reply

      FRANCIS

      3 years ago

      I’ve read several articles on MGS on how soft = slow, feel notwithstanding. But I haven’t read that it is definitive across the swing speed spectrum… can someone confirm? I have swing speeds of ~95 mph and currently play the Maxfli Tour which I believe has around 90 compression but have considered whether something softer like the TM Tour Response would be a better fit for me, strictly on performance (let’s say I don’t care about softer feel)… would love to get the group’s thoughts on this. Thanks.

      Reply

      Joe

      3 years ago

      According to the last ball guide, harder was faster and longer for all swing speeds, slow to fast.

      But over at Todays Golfer UK, they robot tested and the Callway ERC soft, a quite soft ball, was like top 3 among all 3 swing speeds (slow, medium, fast). So who knows.

      Reply

      Daniel Cohen

      3 years ago

      When MGS says “soft is slow” they are, of course, referring to ball speed. And while ball speed is a big factor in distance, it’s not the only factor, or often really the most important one. In their 2019 test, with driver and swing speed of 85 mph, the Snell MTB-X had the fastest ball speed by quite a bit. But in distance it was way down at 21st. Yes, the very firm Snell MTB-X was tops in ball speed and carry at 115 mph driver speed. But the Bridgestone BX, which came in 2nd in carry, didn’t even crack the top 10 for ball speed. So yes, as MGS continues to state: the firmer of two balls will go FASTER, no matter how hard you hit it. It just doesn’t mean it will necessarily go any FARTHER.

      The “speed penalty” they often refers to really only affects swing speeds of 105 and up, I would guess. I also swing driver about 95 mph. For us, there’s no real “speed penalty.” And if there is, the gains to be had with a firmer golf ball are very, very small – off the tee. I’ve played TP5X’s and Supersofts and they go about the same distance at my speed. But I also hit the ball with a decent delivery and pretty straight. A 95-mph swing from a player who hits down on the ball 3º and cuts across it isn’t going to go very far no matter what ball they use. In fact, it’ll go further (marginally) with a slower, less-spinny ball simply by virtue of it not curving quite as much.

      With approaches with irons, you will likely find a softer ball carrying a few more yards. That’s been my experience. This has less to do with compression than spin. Low-compression balls spin less, even the urethane ones, and thus get more carry. They also get more roll, which has actually helped me more times than it’s hurt me. The drop in spin also means a corresponding drop in curvature, although that’s not as much as the copy on golf ball boxes would have you believe.. But they do fly a bit straighter. I don’t require a lot of spin in my game. I hold greens with land angle, and in the short game I get the ball on the ground and running as soon as possible.

      But that’s me. Another player may need more spin or less spin or want the ball to launch a certain way. As far as feel goes, the faster your swing speed, the softer the ball “feels”. A Snell MTB-X doesn’t feel firm at all to a guy who swings a 6-iron at 100 mph. It feels to him exactly like a softer ball feels to me at 83 mph. Give that guy a low-compression ball and he won’t even know whether he’s made contact or not. I apologize. I’ve gone on and on…and on. There’s an unfortunate maxim in my family: “Never use one word when you could use five.”

      Anyway: the Maxfli you play is an excellent all-rounder and sits a bit in the middle. Feels good. Goes far. Enough spin. All the good stuff. If you want to experiment with a lower compression urethane ball, I recommend the Tour Response, The Bridgestone B-RX, or the Wilson Duo Professional.

      And thanks to MyGolfSpy for the continuing hard work on the Labs and everything else. Look forward to the upcoming ball performance test.

      -Dan

      Reply

      FRANCIS

      3 years ago

      Dan, that was extremely informative. I think you’ve very well summarized the dynamics between speed, distance, spin, and feel. Thank you!

      Rich

      3 years ago

      Well said Dan. Very recently, I’ve played the Tour Response, ERC Soft, Pro V1x and Maxfli Tour (2020) and have had very similar results. In the end, I’m transitioning exclusively to the Maxfli Tour as it has been the best bang-for-the-buck retail ball that I’ve played. The ERC has been pretty darn close and I really love the triple track alignment aid, but for around $30 a dozen (on sale), the overall performance/$ of the Maxfli Tour cannot be beat.

      @MGS Taylormade’s website says the Tour Response has a 40 Compression core. I’m assuming the hard mantle is what brought the compression value in your testing up to 71?

      Keith

      3 years ago

      Manufacturing quality is important, sure, but I wish there was more info on how these balls perform for different types of swing speeds, launch angles, etc. I’d love to see more data points around preformance added to the comparison tool.

      Reply

      Lou

      3 years ago

      I have been using the Tour Response ball for the last few months and will say it is a damned good ball. Is it a ProV? No. But at $35 per dozen not much else measures up. I stopped buying Snell’s when some cover deficiencies were found and their response was thanks, but no thanks. The Tour Response, for me, is longer than most balls and the green side spin is terrific. For $35, it’s as good as it gets. Thanks for your write up.

      Reply

      Jon

      3 years ago

      Thanks Tony. I know in general soft=slow, however for me (driver SS 95mph) the Tour Response is noticeably longer than other “hard” balls I’ve tried. Which include Pro V1 & X, TP5X, and Srixon XV.

      Thanks for the review

      Reply

      Greg

      3 years ago

      Apples and oranges. ‘Slow’ is in reference to ball speed. If all other variables are equal, greater ball speed means more distance. However, as you’ve found, not all other variables are equal. The Tour Response has a completely profile than the Tour-level balls you mentioned, particularly in its spin profile. The Tour Response is *significantly* lower spin, which is going to equate to more roll-out on all clubs and likely more carry on your irons, which have enough spin no matter the ball that you aren’t going to get a knuckler like you might off a driver.

      For me, I have my driver tuned to give me ~2200 rpm with a Tour-level ball (I play Z-Stars). Tour Response falls out of the sky with only about 1500 rpm. However, it’s a full club longer on my irons because of how low spin it’s getting. YMMV.

      Reply

      David

      3 years ago

      So, “at the end of the day,” what golfing characteristics are a fit for this ball?

      Reply

      Max R

      3 years ago

      Just looked at my local GolfTown here in Toronto and saw last year’s TP5(X) are selling for the same price as the Tour Response at $45/dozen $CDN. No comparison!

      Reply

      Colin

      3 years ago

      How do you guys count dimples?

      Reply

      Dr Strangelove

      3 years ago

      These ball reviews are interesting but I doubt that many folks use the calculated True Price when deciding which ball to purchase.

      This consistency / quality analysis would be of better use as an addition to the spin / distance matrix that compares all balls. MyGolfSpy put this together several years back. THAT was useful. This, less so. The matrix PLUS this consistency / quality analysis would be a Home Run.

      Reply

      James Hunt

      3 years ago

      I would disagree with you on that Strangelove. The true price is a solid way to compile all the data into something everyone understands. Cash money. I am fairly new to MGS, but the ball lab and the true price has helped me find what works for my game. I believe they do the matrix once a year, and you’re right, that is useful too, more useful than any one ball analysis. However, if you are looking at trying out a different ball, these individual ball labs help you figure out exactly what you are buying, as opposed to reading the box and what the manufacturer claims the ball is. I was interested in trying the Srixon Q Star, until I seen the major inconsistencies in the ball lab, and it saved me $40. Golf balls are one of the only things where the saying “you get what you pay for” doesn’t always apply. The True Price proves that. Keep em coming MGS!

      Reply

      Brock

      3 years ago

      Is there somewhere you define the scoring metrics/weighting? I’m trying to understand the 23 point drop when the only verified negative was 3% of balls under weight. Seems like a hefty penalty unless weight is a large % of the scoring.

      Reply

      Ken

      3 years ago

      I was thinking the same. They were excellent except those 3 balls and if I’m not mistaken, being a smidge smaller might actually make those 3 better for an average Joe!

      Reply

      Joe

      3 years ago

      They got dinged for consistency.. Check the last section. And I believe it was 3% of balls under diameter. 8% of balls were overweight I think.

      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.