Support our Mission. We independently test each product we recommend. When you buy through our links, we may earn a commission.
To reiterate what we’ve said before, the golf ball is the most important piece of equipment in your golf bag.
That’s not a statement we make lightly. The golf ball is the only piece of equipment you use for every shot you hit. It’s also true that when looking at the totality of performance – speed, flight, spin – we find there’s more difference between golf balls than there is between drivers, irons or wedges.
Simply put: If performance is important to you, it doesn’t matter if you shoot 68 or 98; the golf ball is critical.
Our 2026 test marks our fifth foray into large-scale ball testing. With each iteration, we’ve learned more about golf ball performance and uncovered several surprising findings (good and bad).
As you may know by now, we’ve learned “soft” is slow, performance differences are more significant than many golfers believe and a poorly made ball can fly significantly offline, even on a perfect swing.
While we made some small tweaks to this year’s test, the goal remains unchanged: We want to help you find the best golf ball for your game.
We’ve broken this article down into distinct categories to help you find the best golf ball for your game. Feel free to skip ahead or scroll on to learn more about that test, methodology and key findings.
MyGolfSpy’s 2026 golf ball test presented by UNRL took place in July at three locations in the Scottsdale, Ariz., area and involved more than 80 hours of testing time.
Forty-eight golf ball models were tested at three speeds with drivers and mid-irons. To better understand what the industry loosely calls “greenside performance,” we also included a 35-yard wedge test. Lastly, we tested full swings with a 100-yard shot with a 56-degree sand wedge in wet and dry conditions. A deeper dive into those results will be published separately but you can find some of that data in the tools below.
As in the past, the 2026 ball test features predominantly premium urethane offerings from major OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) and smaller direct-to-consumer (DTC) and house brands. We again included the top-selling ionomer offerings on the market.
The balls used in the test were purchased at retail and sourced from multiple vendors.
Outdoor testing was split between the CoolClub test facility at Sunridge Canyon Golf Club in Fountain Hills and Scottsdale National Golf Club. Golf Labs robots were used in both locations. Wedge testing (indoors) was conducted at CoolClubs headquarters using an ADC swing robot.
Both parties were compensated for the use of the robots and the engineers to operate them.
The median temperature during our test windows was roughly 95 degrees Fahrenheit (35 Celsius). Wind averaged below five mph and the average humidity was 41 percent. While temps were a bit cooler and humidity a bit higher than previous years, it’s still important to note the role temperature and altitude play in the results.
That said, values for key downrange variables (primarily carry and total yards) should largely be relative from one ball to the next. Metrics captured at impact such as ball speed, launch angle and spin rates will be minimally impacted by environmental factors.
Weather stations were used in both testing locations to monitor wind speed and direction.
As noted above, winds were generally calm throughout the week (wind speed +/- 5 mph) but we did encounter gusty winds early in the week which necessitated a brief pause in the test. Generally speaking, conditions were calmer than in previous years.
For each of the three speeds for the driver and iron portions of the test, the robot was calibrated to achieve specific launch and spin targets. Those targets were identical to last year although some variation is inevitable and should be expected.
Mirroring what we did last year, a 7-iron was used for the iron portion of the test.
The specific configuration for each test condition (including the clubs used) is detailed in the relevant sections below.
A calibration ball (Titleist Pro V1 Yellow) was used for each test condition to establish the baseline. This allowed us to split balls into smaller groups to help mitigate the impact of changing environmental conditions. Using a control ball also allows us to make meaningful comparisons across the entire test pool although the most reliable comparisons will be between balls within the same group.
The test pool was divided into six groups containing six to 10 balls. The control ball was also hit in every group.
To the extent possible, balls were grouped by their construction and performance characteristics. Our intent is to give you the best data for a reasonable consideration set. That is to say that a golfer considering a Callaway Chrome Tour X is likely also considering the Pro V1x while a Supersoft player is probably not considering a jump to the Titleist Pro V1x Left Dash.
For each golf ball model, we hit three to four shots before moving to the next model in the group. The rotation continued several times (maintaining the same order) until all shots were hit. We then moved to the next group. The exception is the control ball which was hit in smaller bursts multiple times during the group. This allowed us to expose the control ball to a full range of environmental conditions experienced during each group’s test window. The consequence is that dispersion values for the control ball are larger than they’d be if we hit shots in a single burst.
For driver and iron testing, data was collected using Trackman launch monitors. GCQuad was run in parallel with Trackman to monitor for robot drift and changes in environmental conditions and to generally ensure the consistency of the setup throughout the test day.
With one of our goals this year being to provide meaningful dispersion data, we did not remove outliers as we have in the past. Instead, balls that produced atypical flight patterns were flagged. Those balls were later re-hit in multiple orientations. If the atypical pattern was not reproducible, the flight was considered to be wind-influenced and the shot was dropped. Individual balls for which the atypical flight was reproducible (aka “cuckoo balls”) were left in the dataset. Lastly, any shots for which there was an obvious launch monitor misread were also dropped.
The control ball was used to establish a baseline for the data presented. Values for each metric displayed in the charts and tables below are not raw launch monitor values but rather are derived from the percentage difference for each ball model relative to the control ball hit in its group.
1. Balls improve, evolve and sometimes change in inexplicable ways
It’s easy to think nothing changes between releases other than the side stamp. That’s far from a universal truth. The new TP5 is the best we’ve seen in several years and that’s especially true of how repeatably it flies — spin off the driver varied about half as much shot to shot as it did last time and it tightened up considerably through the irons and wedge. The Pro V1x Left Dash is the stranger case. It still profiles as the low-spin distance option but it no longer measures longer than our control the way it did last time and it flies a tick lower and spins a bit more than it did. Same ball, same side stamp, different numbers. Go figure. The only constant is change.
2. Quality has improved industry-wide
We mentioned the TP5 but the improvement is broader than one model. Our lab-gauge data shows the bottom of the market rising faster than the top: the worst balls we measure today are meaningfully better than the worst balls we measured five years ago and the share of balls posting genuinely poor quality scores has roughly halved. That doesn’t mean everyone is on level footing and it doesn’t mean cuckoos have disappeared; we still found them this year. It also doesn’t mean averages tell you everything. Variation shows up in ways an offline number never captures so check the distribution charts in the data for the nuance that gets lost in a mean.
3. Ionomer keeps up — until it doesn’t
We touched on this last year and it’s worth expanding. Ionomer-covered balls fall loosely into two groups: soft and not soft. The soft ones exist almost entirely to serve golfers with a stated preference for soft feel and from a performance standpoint they behave less like urethane than their firmer counterparts do. Some of the firmer ones — Titleist Tour Soft and to a lesser extent balls like Vice Tour — perform much more like urethane under most conditions. They’re fast enough to keep up off the driver and they spin enough off irons to offer real stopping power; Tour Soft was a top-10 spinner through the 7-iron at every speed we tested. Invariably, though, the deficiencies reveal themselves around the green or the moment moisture enters the impact equation. On a wet full wedge shot, the ionomer balls gave up nearly a third of their spin. The urethane balls gave up about a tenth.
4. Driver distance shouldn’t be the decider
We’re not going to tell you every ball flies the same distance off the driver. That isn’t real. But the quantifiable distance advantages diminish as speed drops and distance is seldom an absolute. The launch and spin characteristics you bring to impact significantly influence the distance equation. Your longest ball may not be mine. With that in mind, we’d suggest you find a ball that flies the way you need it to throughout the bag. Once you’ve sorted that out, maximize distance from among what’s left.
5. Money buys spin
Price and greenside spin track each other closely. Price and distance barely track at all. At our high swing speed, the expensive balls are longer. When you drop to a slower swing speed, that gap all but disappears and, at the 7-iron, price tells you almost nothing about what the ball will do once it leaves your clubface. Beyond quality, there’s a case to be made that what you’re paying for is wedge performance which makes some sense given how many wedge shots the average golfer hits over 18 holes. For what it’s worth, Kirkland used to be an outlier here but across recent tests we’ve seen its greenside spin dip appreciably.
6. Iron distance isn’t a speed story. It’s a spin story.
Ball speed is nearly always associated with distance and, off the driver, that math mostly works. Off a 7-iron, it collapses. From the fastest ball in our field to the slowest, the difference was about 1.5 mph. From the longest to the shortest, it was more than 10 yards. A mile and a half per hour doesn’t buy 10 yards, at least not without significant help from spin. The balls that carried farthest kept spin down; the ones that spun most handed the yardage back, no matter how fast they came off the face. The longest 7-iron we measured at high speed, Bridgestone’s Tour B RX, ranked 43rd out of 48 in ball speed.
7. Flight characteristics can change with the club
A ball’s flight isn’t necessarily consistent as you move from one club to the next. A ball that flies high off the driver may fly high off irons or it may fly through a distinctly different window. Srixon’s Z-Star Diamond is perhaps the best example: it’s among the highest-flying balls off the driver and among the lowest and most penetrating off irons — a top-10 driver flight and a bottom-three iron flight at every speed we tested. Our point in sharing this is to reiterate that what you need off the driver may not be what you need off your irons. That complicates things a bit but the good news is that there’s probably a ball that can deliver both. If nothing else, it’s a reminder that the box a ball comes in seldom tells the complete story.
This section contains a few notes to help you better understand the rest of what you’ll find in this report.
The performance section below references “soft” and “soft-ish” golf balls. As with many things in the golf equipment world, there is no universally accepted standard that defines what it means for a golf ball to be soft. You’ll find the phrase “soft feel” applied to balls that range from under 50 compression all the way to 100.
For the purposes of our discussion, we’re classifying anything with mid-70s compression or lower as soft. Balls with compression values in the low 80s may be described as soft-ish.
The softest balls on the market (below 60 compression) tend to be two-piece ionomer offerings; exceptionally soft cores are used to offset feel lost to firmer ionomer covers. The key thing to understand is that soft two-piece ionomer offerings will invariably be softer than urethane offerings marketed as “soft.”
Our target test parameters were intended to align with the launch and spin numbers produced by the average golfer in each group. As distance is the product of speed, trajectory, spin, carry and total distance, values will inevitably vary to some extent depending on the trajectory and spin produced by the individual golfer. Said plainly, based on how you deliver the club and your particular blend of launch, speed and spin, your carry and total number may differ in a meaningful way.
What that means is that while the relationship between speed, launch and spin shouldn’t change much (balls that spin the most for me will likely spin the most for you), it’s important to note that distance results reflect what happened under the specific configurations tested.
Whether it’s Trackman, Foresight or a different algorithm entirely, a “total distance” number always relies on math to normalize ground conditions. For this test, we relied on Trackman’s native algorithms. It’s worth noting that the algorithm appears to assume firm ground conditions leading to roll values that are higher than most of us will experience on the golf course. We’d recommend focusing on carry values, particularly for irons and wedges.
Finally, remember that most manufacturers describe the performance of their products relative to their other products. Simply put, a ball a manufacturer describes as offering high ball flight and low spin may actually be mid-trajectory and mid-spin relative to the market as a whole. It’s also true that as brands update models, those descriptions often don’t change so a mid-spin model from several years ago may have evolved into more of a lower-spinning option. The evolution is real, even if it’s not reflected on the back of the box.
Our descriptions of trajectory and spin are relative to the other balls in this test.
For each swing speed group, we’ve provided our top picks from the test. The balls are divided into high-spin, mid-spin and low-spin offerings. While not explicitly stated elsewhere, we’ve done what we can to include a mix of flight and compression offerings. Admittedly, it’s an imperfect science.
As some balls that are high-spinning and high-flying off the driver can be mid-flying and mid-spinning off irons (or nearly any other permutation), balls may not fit neatly into one bucket.
The larger point is that we’ve done our best to provide a selection of performance options in each category.
We should also note that any models that produced severe cuckoo balls (shots that flew too far offline to be reasonably explained by environmental conditions or where trajectory was visibly different from the larger sample) were excluded from consideration. Likewise, we also excluded balls with overly large dispersion patterns.
As usual, we have included a “Great Buy” value option as well as our top ionomer pick for each category. While the nature of those categories often means being a bit lax on our rules, we have chosen not to recommend models that produced above-average dispersion patterns.
A reminder from years past: we’ve limited our lists to our top three picks but, in many cases, we could comfortably add a few more.
To arrive at our picks, we considered key performance metrics like ball speed, trajectory, spin rate and distance. The high-speed recommendations below are based on a combination of driver and iron performance.
Low Spin – TaylorMade Tour Response, Titleist Pro V1, Mizuno Pro S
Mid Spin – Maxfli Tour X, Titleist Pro V1x Left Dash, Bridgestone TOUR B X
High Spin – Titleist Pro V1x, Callaway Chrome Tour X, Srixon Z-STAR DIAMOND
Great Buy – Maxfli Tour
Ionomer – Titleist Tour Soft
| Test Parameter | Test Median (All Balls) |
|---|---|
| Driver Used: PXG Black Ops Tour-1 | Ball Speed: 168.7 |
| Swing Speed: 116 | Total Distance: 318.2 |
| Calibration Launch Target: 10.5 | Launch Angle: 10.1 |
| Calibration Spin Target: 2500 | Spin: 2311 |
When it comes to the driver, low spin can be your friend as it will often result in straighter shots (assuming manufacturing quality is sound). It’s a good bit of the reason why low-compression balls are sometimes described as more forgiving.
| Test Parameter | Test Median (All Balls) |
|---|---|
| Club Used: Titleist T100 | Ball Speed: 124 |
| Swing Speed: 90 | Total Distance: 182.5 |
| Calibration Launch Target: 17 | Launch Angle: 18 |
| Calibration Spin Target: 6500 | Spin: 6316 |
To arrive at our picks, we considered key performance metrics like ball speed, trajectory, spin rate and distance. The mid-speed recommendations below are based on a combination of driver and iron performance.
Low Spin – Callaway Chrome Soft, Bridgestone TOUR B RXS, Callaway Chrome Tour
Mid Spin – TaylorMade TP5x, Wilson Staff Model, Titleist AVX
High Spin – Mizuno Pro X, Titleist Pro V1x, Vice Pro Plus
Great Buy – Vice Pro
Ionomer – TaylorMade SpeedSoft
| Test Parameter | Test Average (All Balls) |
|---|---|
| Driver Used: PXG Black Ops | Ball Speed: 149.03 |
| Swing Speed: 102 | Total Distance: 282.79 |
| Calibration Launch Target: 13 | Launch Angle: 12.25 |
| Calibration Spin Target: 2600 | Spin: 2441 |
| Test Parameter | Test Average (All Balls) |
|---|---|
| Club Used: Titleist T100 | Ball Speed: 112.1 |
| Swing Speed: 80 | Carry Distance: 158.2 |
| Calibration Launch Target: 19 | Launch Angle: 18.2 |
| Calibration Spin Target: 6000 | Spin: 6064 |
To arrive at our picks, we considered key performance metrics like ball speed, trajectory, spin rate and distance. The low-speed recommendations below are based on a combination of driver and iron performance.
Low Spin – Maxfli Tour, Callaway Chrome Tour, Titleist AVX
Mid Spin – Wilson Staff Model, Titleist Pro V1x Left Dash, Titleist Pro V1
High Spin – TaylorMade TP5, Callaway Chrome Tour X, Bridgestone TOUR B XS
Great Buy – Maxfli Tour S
Ionomer – Amazon Basics
| Test Parameter | Test Median (All Balls) |
|---|---|
| Club Used: PXG Black Ops | Ball Speed: 125.1 |
| Swing Speed: 86 | Total Distance: 229.7 |
| Calibration Launch Target: 13 | Launch Angle: 12.9 |
| Calibration Spin Target: 3000 | Spin: 3092 |
| Test Parameter | Test Average (All Balls) |
|---|---|
| Club Used: Titleist T100 | Ball Speed: 93 |
| Swing Speed: 65 | Carry Distance: 125.4 |
| Calibration Launch Target: 20 | Launch Angle: 20.3 |
| Calibration Spin Target: 5000 | Spin: 4981 |
The wedge portion of the test was designed to replicate a greenside shot of 35 yards. Rather than calibrate to specific launch and spin targets, we configured the robot to hit the calibration ball approximately 35 yards.
| Test Parameter | Test Median (All Balls) |
|---|---|
| Club Used: Vokey SM10 | Ball Speed: 42.7 |
| Swing Speed: 42 | Carry Distance: 35.1 |
| Calibration Launch Target: n/a | Launch Angle: 32.2 |
| Calibration Spin Target: n/a | Spin: 5390 |
Launch angle may not be something you’ve considered on shorter greenside shots but we do see significant differences.
Our new dashboard contains the full data set from our 2026 robot ball test. It’s considerably more than we’ve published before and it’s intended to be explored rather than read straight through.
One thing to know before you start. Most of what you see is control-relative: every ball is measured against a control ball hit throughout the test. This provides us with a consistent baseline. Where it’s useful, we also offer other reference points against the field as a whole or against the specific balls in the same group a given ball was tested alongside. That group comparison is the most meaningful one we can make. Those balls were hit in the same conditions, minutes apart.
To help you navigate, we included overviews and explaners on every page. We’ve done what we can to make the data readable on mobile but for the best experience, you’re going to want to view on a desktop. If you’d prefer to break out of the embedded window, you can view the full dashboard here.
With that said. Explore. Have fun.
This is the first of several posts to come from the MyGolfSpy 2026 Ball Test. In the near future, you can expect reports on wet versus dry performance off wedges (yes, moisture makes a huge difference), refurbished and used versus old, as well as a test of how some of Vice’s more creative paint designs impact performance.
Stay tuned.
A: We’ve covered this before. The short answer? There isn’t one. As with your golf clubs, the most important characteristics are flight (a combination of launch angle, peak height and descent angle) and spin rates.
While there are some absolutes (softer balls are slower off the driver and invariably lower spinning), it’s ultimately the combination of flight, spin and speed that needs to be optimized for your game. It’s these levers combined with speed (compression) that will determine the best ball for how you deliver the club.
While many believe high compression is for fast swingers and low compression is for slower ones, the truth is that some high-speed golfers can benefit from the low-spin properties of low-compression balls while some slow-swinging golfers (many, in fact) will benefit from the higher trajectory and added spin offered by some higher-compression offerings.
A: Handicap isn’t an evaluation of your swing properties. It’s a measure of your ability and consistency. Just as with low-handicap golfers, higher handicaps come in all swing types so the same fitting rules apply.
Conventional wisdom holds that golfers fighting a slice or a hook may want to consider a ball that offers low driver spin. Low-spinning balls should fly a bit straighter off the tee. All else being equal, that’s solid advice, but we’ve found that ionomer balls are often less consistent than top-tier urethane offerings. It’s a detail that can quickly erase the on-paper accuracy advantage of low-spin models.
One other consideration is that many balls with true low-spin properties off the driver are also low-spin off irons and often low-spin as you move closer to the green. That may impede your ability to control the ball and hold greens on shorter shots.
Cost is also a factor. If you’re losing more than a couple of balls a round, spending $50-plus on a dozen balls likely doesn’t make sense. While used balls are an option, we highly recommend avoiding refurbished.
A: It’s a fact that golf balls fly farther when it’s hot as it was during our test. Carry and total distance numbers will be longer than in cooler conditions. What’s important isn’t the final number but rather the relative performance differences between balls. Those relationships should be minimally impacted by environmental conditions.
A: Finding the right ball is a process. Our recommendation is to start with a few you think might work. If you’ve got a launch monitor, use it to trim the list. If you don’t have access to a launch monitor, our data should help you narrow the field. Test on the course and side by side. For the best comparison, don’t test more than two balls at a time.
The conventional wisdom is to start around the green and work backward. The idea is to see how the ball performs on relatively short shots (partial wedges). From there, move to your irons. That’s where the biggest differences are and where you’re most likely to notice them.
Chances are you have an adjustable driver so once you’ve found the ball that performs best through the rest of the bag, take advantage of the driver’s adjustability and tune it to fit the ball.
A: For the swing speed closest to yours, the ball speed, launch and spin relationships between balls should translate reasonably well. The fastest balls will be fast. The “spinny-est” balls will still be spinny. How those factors come together in the total distance equation heavily depends on other factors in your swing (attack angle, loft, impact). Realistically, the more your launch and spin characteristics diverge from our baseline, the less reliable the distance numbers will be for you personally.
A: For the most part, yes. While balls played on the PGA Tour often pass additional checks to ensure they’re conforming, nobody is sitting on a secret stash of high-performance Tour-only balls. Ball manufacturers want their Tour staff playing the retail ball and that’s mostly what happens.
That said, nearly every manufacturer has a couple of secret menu offerings. These are typical niche balls (very low or very high spin offerings, for example) that won’t be a good fit for most golfers.
It’s also true that some Tour pros play prior-generation balls that were once the stock retail ball but have been superseded by newer models.
A: MyGolfSpy purchased all of the balls used in this test at retail from multiple vendors.
A: For this year’s test, we leverage Trackman’s native bounce and roll algorithm. Every indication is that it’s built off PGA Tour (or similar) conditions. That is to say firm and fast with an emphasis on roll. It is what it is but we’d suggest cross-referencing total distance numbers with carry values for a more complete picture of distance.
While the distance should be relative regardless, you may want to focus on carry yards, particularly for irons and wedges.
A: Golfers have been trained to think in terms of launch angle but, when it comes to the golf ball, launch angles tend to be very similar and it’s not uncommon, for example, for a ball with a low initial launch angle to have a comparatively high peak height.
When we discuss trajectory, we’re primarily looking at the max height number as it indicates which balls flew the highest. Those small differences in launch angle, along with descent angle and max height distance (how far down-range the ball reached its apex), can help paint a more complete picture of a ball’s trajectory.
You’ll find a more complete picture of each ball’s trajectory under each of our test conditions in the tool above.
A: Not a question and also false. We know golfers want to see distance numbers but the test parameters were meant to reflect the real-world averages for each swing speed. Simply put: we didn’t optimize for distance; we configured the robot to meet launch and spin targets consistent with those of average golfers in each group.
While distance is not unimportant, we want to emphasize that the right ball for your game is the one that is optimized for the trajectory and spin properties created by your swing.
A: Selecting a control ball is an interesting challenge. We wanted something we know to be consistent but also not a ball that’s in the test.
While differences between the yellow and white versions of the Pro V1 are small and often statistically insignificant, it provides a reliable option with middle-of-the-market performance characteristics from a ball that isn’t otherwise in the test.
A: As readers have noted, the yellow and white versions of the ball are produced in different factories. That alone doesn’t guarantee performance differences but enough of you have suggested that real differences exist that we wanted to look into it further.
The data tells a compelling story and we’ll have a deeper dive on this in the coming weeks.
A: Ball Test capacity is always limited so we can’t test everything. The inclusion of more low-cost/ionomer models limited the number of urethane offerings we could include. Testing the most popular options on the market is not optional. To round out the field, we asked our readers what we should include. The balls we tested reflect what our users chose.
Our hope is to include more brands and more models in the future.
World-class testing requires world-class equipment. This is the gear we trust to help us fulfill our Most Wanted testing.
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.
| Driver Titleist GT3 9° | Mini Driver TaylorMade R7 Quad 13° |
| 4-Wood Titleist GT2 16.5° | 4-Hybrid Titleist GT3 |
| Irons (5-PW) Titleist T350 | Wedges Vokey SM10 (48° F, 54° F, 58° T) |
| L.A.B. Golf DF3 | Ball Titleist Pro V1x Left Dash |
4 hours ago
Thanks for the info. It makes picking balls to test for our personal use less expensive.
10 hours ago
Out of curiosity, exactly how is height and carry measured? Do launch monitors actually “see” the ball during the entire flight, or do they calculate expected height and carry by extrapolating from seeing how the ball leaves the clubface?
11 hours ago
Is it possible to give a list of any balls NOT recommended due to too many cuckoo balls?
11 hours ago
Thanks again for all the hard work. Since you mention a few times that carry is more important/less algorithm dependent than total distance, than why do all the tables in the article use total distance? Similarly, why even include 7i ball speed data if it’s all so close and distance and stopping power are more influenced by spin anyway? It always drives me nuts on the CBS golf broadcasts when they show ball speed on a 9i or wedge shot, like who cares??
Did I miss it, or will you have some observations on full swing wedge shots?
thanks again!
11 hours ago
Thank you for taking the time to produce this in-depth of coverage the golf balls included. It is most appreciated!
12 hours ago
Don’t take this as harsh criticism. What you do is very hard. Here’s my dilemma. I have played a variety of balls, notably: Titleist Tour Soft, Callaway Chrome Soft, Chrome Tour, and Bridgestone E6. I have played well with the E6 and Callaways, each with it’s own pros and cons. By comparing data, I can get a glimpse of what MY SWING likes about each ball, but I can’t find data on the E6 to understand why an inexpensive two-piece performs so well against the other premium options. Maybe a test of non-premium balls with the same rigor as premium balls would be an option. You could then merge the data and allow cost to be a factor for us to determine. The less expensive balls have to be some of the best-sellers, too! Or have I grossly missed the numbers on the E6 and E12 golf balls??
12 hours ago
Lots of great information and almost overwhelming. Thanks for all the work and extra effort done to put this together!
12 hours ago
Which ones are the balls that listen to you when you talk to them?
12 hours ago
Sorry, all golf balls are In their teenage years and rarely listen to adults,
12 hours ago
Thanks to you and the MGS staff for your hard work and dedication to finding objective outcomes. Having followed the MGS ball testing since the first ball test, it is apparent that the MGS team takes these evaluation seriously and evolves the testing in each iteration to constantly improve the information you provide your readers. Your evaluations cuts through the OEM’s marketing claims, plus the minutia and general misinformation found across the internet. My only suggestion for the future is to possibly add a fourth swing speed category (i.e. driver < 75 MPH) to provide similar information for your female and senior readers. Both are a growing segment of the golfing population that could benefit from your testing and insights. Many of them take their games just as seriously as the faster swing speed players.
13 hours ago
Curious that you chose Scottsdale as the test location. One, you risk brutally hot weather. Two, the elevation (2165′) is perhaps meaningfully higher than where most of your readers play. High temp and high elevation both lower air density relative to presumed readers’ norms and would be expected to influence aerodynamic factors. A ball optimized for sea level may not work so well there.
How about testing somewhere lower and cooler next time? If not practical for the whole ball test, maybe test a handful a balls elsewhere to see how aero shakes things up.
8 hours ago
Apparently you didn’t read the explanation that that yes the higher elevation may not be relative to where you play. But all balls were tested in the same conditions, they even paused during an increase in wind. So the results should be compared to the performance of the test, not compared to how you hit your ball.
I don’t know of any manufacturer that design a ball to perform differently based on sea level.
Talk about picking nits!
13 hours ago
Great work! Thank you for the results! Maybe just mybe an old codger like me can find a ball that work again.
13 hours ago
As always, the most detailed and comprehensive ball testing methodology and results available. The amount of data and effort that goes into this is incredible. Really appreciate everything you guys do for golfers and for bringing some objectivity to the equipment conversation.
15 hours ago
Thanks for all of your hard work as always. Great info!
16 hours ago
Great article as useful. I’m really interested in some of these dispersion numbers. Looking at my Maxfli Tour X and the fast 7 iron dispersion figures which look pretty poor.
Mark Williams
3 hours ago
Thankyou to All that have put this incredible amount of data together. It is a great insight into what Balls and what level they are to be played at. Me personally. I will still be playing Titleist ProV1. Although costing is abit more than some (especially when you’re on a Pension😔) It’s imperative to know that it’s going to possibly go in the direction & at what spin rate as expected. Also since swapping to the ProV1 my Handicap has dropped.