MyGolfSpy Lab: Reload Pro V1 Refinished Golf Balls
Golf Balls

MyGolfSpy Lab: Reload Pro V1 Refinished Golf Balls

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

MyGolfSpy Lab: Reload Pro V1 Refinished Golf Balls

a photo or Reload Pro V1 golf balls

As part of this year’s golf ball test, we included the popular Reload brand of refurbished golf balls. While we know many of you are more than willing to pay the full ride for a premium golf ball, we also know that our audience is rife with bargain hunters.

There’s no shame in trying to save a few bucks and, when it come to golf balls, if golfers are buying it—particularly if it has a urethane cover—we want to know how it performs.

To that end, the Reloads were treated like every other ball in our test. The robot hit the full complement of shots at all three swing speeds for driver and irons.

While the performance was eye-opening (and not in a good way), we also quickly realized that performance was only part of the story.

Here’s what we found.

Key Takeaways

Refinishing Quality Is Sketchy At Best

Whatever damage there happens to be on the ball—cuts, scrapes or gouges—gets painted over with little (or possibly zero) effort to clean things up. The refinishing process is a bit like painting over unsanded drywall and, in some cases, painting right over a hole in the wall.

Repainting Changes the Design of the Ball

It’s evident that the extra layers of paint added during the refinishing (reloading) process alter the geometry of the dimples. You can clearly see in the photo below that the mold marks on the refinished balls have almost vanished (in other samples they have vanished entirely). The result is dimples that are shallower with smoother edge radii. Ultimately, this means that even without cuts in the cover, the balls won’t fly as originally designed.

Left: A used Pro V1 (from the same model year) Right: Reload Pro V1

Reloads Are Like a Box of Chocolates …

The box says Pro V1 but beyond that, there’s not much in the way of specificity. Our boxes contained a mix of 2015 and 2017 Pro V1 side stamps. Even in perfect conditions, balls will change over time. Having two different models in a single box isn’t ideal and we’ve found even greater variation among other refinished brands. The bottom line here is that a box of refinished balls will often span multiple generations.

The Performance Ain’t What It Used To Be

It’s probably unrealistic to think that a refinished golf ball (especially one going on seven years old) is going to match the performance of the latest model. I mean, newer means better and longer right? Not always, of course, but what’s telling is the ball speed of the Reloads relative to their compression. Despite an average compression of nearly 100 (we’d expect that to be really fast off the driver), the Reloads were consistently one of the slowest (very often THE slowest) balls in the test across three different speeds for both driver and irons.

The Quality is Wildly Inconsistent

Again, it’s not a perfect comparison but, as you’ll see below, a box of poorly refinished golf balls doesn’t come close to matching the consistency of what you’ll get with new balls.

Reload Pro V1 — Performance

Comparing a new 2021 Pro V1 to what turned out to be two different generations of refinished Pro V1s, we expected the performance to be different. Just not that different.

It’s absolutely reasonable to expect changes in launch and spin. That’s especially true since Titleist swapped the profiles of the Pro V1 and Pro V1 a couple of generations ago but it’s certainly noteworthy that, across all speeds, iron shots hit with the Reload Pro V1s launched lower, flew lower and spun considerably more than the new balls.

Off the driver, the Reloads launched lower, flew lower but did spin a bit less. That’s something, I guess. Not much, but something.

The giant red flag here is the ball speed. As we’ve noted a time or two before, there is a near-absolute correlation between ball speed and compression. Regardless of anything else, we would expect the firmer ball to be the faster ball but that’s definitively not the case with the Reload Pro V1.

Despite an average compression of 99 (12 points firmer than the 2021 Pro V1), the Reload was slower across the board.

How slow?

Driver Speeds and Distance

At 115 mph driver speed, it was almost three mph slower than the 2021 ball. It was two mph slower at 100 mph driver speed, and 1.5 mph slower at 85.

It goes without saying that launch and spin contribute to the distance equation but the headline is that the Reload was 13 yards shorter at 115 mph, 7.5 yards shorter at 100 and six yards shorter at 85.

Iron Speeds and Distance

Looking at irons, where firmer balls can be a tick slower because you’re not interacting with the core as much, the Reloads were still slower than expected.

Reloads were 1.3 mph slower at 115 mph equivalent iron speeds, 1.2 mph slower at 100 mph equivalent and one mph slower at 85 mph equivalent. That results in distance deficits of seven, five and 1.5 yards respectively.

How much distance are you willing to give up to save a few bucks?

Ball Lab Gauge Data

If you’re not familiar with Ball Lab, all you need to know is it’s where we test the quality and consistency of golf balls. The summary version of what we found goes like this:

The refinished Reload Pro V1s were bigger, heavier, firmer and significantly less consistent than the 2021 Pro V1.

Let’s take a closer look.

Reloads Are Bigger

Our sample of 2021 Titleist Pro V1s had an average diameter of 1.6807 inches. It’s not a stretch to assume that Titleist’s target for Pro V1 diameter has always been damn near 1.68. That’s the USGA’s minimum allowable size and most manufacturers want their Tour balls to be as close to that number as possible.

By comparison, the Reload Pro V1s we tested had an average diameter of 1.686. It’s safe to assume that’s a bit larger than when they rolled of Titleist’s assembly line.

We’re dealing with small numbers here so I know it doesn’t look like much of a difference but it matters. The refinished process has increased the size of the ball (we probably could have guessed as much) but the important detail is that a bigger ball is typically a shorter ball. Our data shows that to be the case here.

The diameter of the Reload Pro V1 is much more in line with what we’d expect from two-piece and even some inexpensive urethane balls. As a consequence, the performance is as well.

Reloads Are Heavier

The average weight of the 2021 Pro V1 is 1.6091 ounces. That’s comfortably under the USGA limit of 1.62 ounces and it’s worth mentioning that none of the balls in our sample even flirted with the limit.

Conversely, the Reload Pro V1s have an average weight of 1.6301. In case it’s not clear, the average weight of the Reloads is solidly .01 ounces above the USGA limit. Again, we’re not talking about huge numbers but the key takeaway here is that 23 of the 24 Reloads we tested exceeded the USGA’s weight limit. It’s probably also worth mentioning that the one conforming ball was appreciably underweight.

There’s probably not much in the way of expectation that a refinished golf ball is going to conform to USGA rules. It’s not like they’re on the USGA conforming list and it makes sense that adding paint would add weight but still … 23 of 24 being over the weight limit came as a bit of surprise.

Reloads Are Firmer

The 2021 Pro V1 has an average compression of 87. The Reloads came in at 99. That’s two points firmer than the current Pro V1x.

What’s notable is that while compression across the 2021 sample doesn’t deviate much from the average, getting to the 99 average for the Reloads requires a significant spread. The softest ball in the sample measured 93 (not bad) while the firmest measured an astounding 126. Other than an old Top Flite XL3000 that measured 135 or so, that 126 is the firmest ball we’ve measured to date.

Reloads Are Less Consistent

The compression spread gives a hint of the general inconsistency of the Reloads. To hammer the point home, I could throw some standard deviations at you but it’s probably easier if I tell you that the Reload sample was so inconsistent that it would qualify as Poor for every metric we test. In fact, it would actually redefine the standard for Poor. The Reload is so bad that its existence in the database would make every other ball better.

Here’s the ball-by-ball comparison alongside the 2021 ball. Note: We’ve had to adjust the scale of our charts to account for the Reload. That detail alone is probably reason enough not to buy.

a ball by ball chart showing the lack of consistency of the Reload Pro V1

The Takeaway

If you take one thing away from this article, let it be this:

Don’t buy recycled, refinished or Reload(ed) golf balls.

While we’re optimistic that some refinishing houses yield a better product than Reload, the likelihood is that refinished balls will always be your worst option for saving a few bucks on golf balls.

I could point out that if you’re only buying six dozen boxes a year, the dollar savings from buying refinished over new isn’t massive. That said, I understand that there are reasons why golfers want to spend less and, given that you’re not likely to find any “buy-3-get-1-free” deals right now, top-tier direct-to-consumer brands are definitely worth considering.

If your only objective is to spend the least amount of money possible, you’re probably better off buying Kirklands or premium-grade used balls from a reputable source (like lostgolfballs.com) instead of refinished.

In the case of the latter, we’re often talking about one-hit wonders and logo overruns that often cost even less than refinished balls. You’re probably not going to get the consistency that you’d get buying new but it’s probably true that golfers are losing more balls than ever so you’ll likely have nearly as many options. You’ll also know exactly what you’re getting and, quite frankly, there’s little chance you could do worse than refinished.

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

Irons
Apr 24, 2024
PXG Irons: Model By Model
Putters
Apr 23, 2024
PING 2024 Putter Line Extension
News
Apr 23, 2024
Nelly Korda Deserves Her Caitlin Clark Moment, So Why Isn’t She Getting It?
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.

      Brad

      4 months ago

      But, but, but I have a magnetic pond in my backyard (gravity). If I ever get motivated to dredge it, please shoot me.

      Reply

      Larry

      9 months ago

      To pose this question is similar to how retread tires compare to new tires. After laying in tall grass, water, dirt, etc for varying periods of time and exposure, then being scuffed and painted, the performance will not be the same and will very from ball to ball. It’s just silly to think otherwise, or to even go to the bother of testing them – in my humble opinion. I just bought 4 boxes of 24 balls per box at $5 a box. My use will be to pepper an empty field with them behind my house then go find them with the dog, then do it all over again. These are fine for practicing my swing and shanking them into a pond for entertainment. Think “These are my Reloads, these are my V1’s; V1’s are for golfing, Reloads are for fun!”

      Reply

      Pat Kotten

      1 year ago

      I was at the 2023 pga show and since you did this they have been purchased by Acushnet

      Reply

      R.J.vitti

      1 year ago

      Whaaat? Titleist has always been an Acudshnet product! So acushnet bought the PGA?

      Reply

      Pete

      2 years ago

      I look at it this way. Are they as good as new Pro V1s? No.. Are they better than other $20/dozen balls? Yes.

      Reply

      Mike

      2 years ago

      I’ve sold thousands of “found” pro V1’s to wholesalers (& some of them were already refurbished once). I’ve also sold tens of thousands of other balls to them too. Are you sure they’re all pro V1’s under all that new paint?

      Reply

      Rodman

      2 years ago

      Totally agree refurbs are not the same. But how ironic, the box of reloads shown from PG Golf of Sugar Land is owned by Acushnet the parent company of Titleist!

      Reply

      Evan

      2 years ago

      Not really sure where you got that from, PG Golf LLC isn’t affiliated with Titleist

      Reply

      Steve P

      1 year ago

      Read it and weep.
      https://www.linksmagazine.com/golfs-recycled-ball-market/

      “There are a host of other players in the field, most notably PG Golf, which was acquired by Titleist parent company Acushnet in 2018. The world’s largest recycled golf ball company, PG Golf retrieves and markets golf balls to retailers and golf shops as well as directly to the consumer via LostGolfBalls.com. Among the many U.S. courses it collects balls from are Spyglass Hill, Innisbrook Resort, Victoria National, Hazeltine National, and Medinah Country Club.”

      I would not touch a refinished ball even before this or any other article. I do however play “quality” used balls during casual play and find them satisfactory.. Since others have named their source I would say that I have had good service from “Golf Ball Nut”.

      Reply

      Mike

      2 years ago

      Look for me on eBay,” shortgress90″

      Reply

      Doug

      2 years ago

      I just bought a 30 pk of reload Tour B mixed. Bad move. Luckily they were cheap so I didnt lose too much $ but I feel more confident hitting new Top Flops

      These reloads are easily the crappiest golf balls ever. Total rash on one side, with overspray over fuzz on the other.

      I’ve had much better luck getting 4A or 5A used (not refurbed) from lostgolfballs.

      Reply

      Mike

      2 years ago

      Very informative article. But that picture at the top, every refinished/refurbished ball I’ve ever seen has a brand new coat of paint. No way you’d see a big magic marker player mark on one.

      Reply

      TR1PTIK

      2 years ago

      Yeah… those aren’t player marks, those are the marks Tony places on the ball during ball lab.

      Reply

      Don Derova

      2 years ago

      I play in a group with a guy that would look at those test numbers and go out to buy a bunch of Reloads. Given that he’s stepping up from using range balls, almost anything is acceptable just so long as he spends as little as possible. Golf for him is a way of socializing, nothing more.

      Reply

      Grasper Parsnip

      2 years ago

      Fair play to him, most golfers would notce little no difference between these reloads and a new ball anyway apart from maybe durability and there is a good chance they would lose the ball before it became unplayable. anyway.

      Reply

      Jim P.

      2 years ago

      It’s interesting to see the wide range of responses to these types of articles, Tony. There’s always the crowd saying “Who cares” or “I won’t notice because I’m a slow swinging hacker.” To those I would ask why are you even considering this ball in the first place? The people I know who play Reloads are usually doing so because they like ProV1s but don’t want to pay new prices. This article makes it pretty clear that not only are you not getting consistent performance, you may not even be getting Pro Vs at all. And if that doesn’t bother you, then why not just play the absolute cheapest ball you can find like a Top Flite or Pinnacle Practice? Seems like there’s a disconnect here or I’m just missing something.

      Reply

      Grasper Parsnip

      2 years ago

      The article shos that most golfers would notice no difference in performance between the 2 balls and yes they are PriV1s, just maybe 2 year old ones. If they were not then how come they are so close on performance to the new prov1?
      The only issue would be possibly durability but many who want to play a cheaper proV1 would most likel lose the bal b4 durability was a issue. These reloads give decent performance unless you are a tour speed swinger and not everyone has 5 quid to chuck at a ball that they may lose first hit.

      Reply

      Chris

      2 years ago

      Is there a test of recycled pro vs published or coming out?

      Tony says “ Don’t buy recycled, refinished or Reload(ed) golf balls.”

      You only tested reloaded (refinished) balls. I’ve played mint used balls for years but maybe i’m an idiot for doing so?? This article doesn’t have data on mint recycled but makes the statement above regardless.

      Andrew

      2 years ago

      I like the idea of this test. Love it actually.

      But “slow” speed hits their 8 iron with around 90 mph ball speed and that results in about 140 yards? Come on man, that makes no sense.

      The average LPGA player (according to trackman stats) hits an 8 iron with 100 mph ball speed and carries 130 yards.

      So how is 10 mph less ball speed equating to 10 more yards in this testing?

      Also, if we’re all being honest, a “slow” swing speed is not faster than the average LPGA player.

      Reply

      Matt R.

      2 years ago

      The speed shown is ball speed mate, not swing speed.

      Reply

      chuck h.

      2 years ago

      average hackers don”t buy pro v”s anyhow
      unless you”re a pro, who”s going to realize the slight differences, 5-6 yds-who cares?

      Reply

      Mike

      2 years ago

      Er, yes, average hackers do play Pro v1’s, I’ve found thousands of them at my local courses & I’m sure there ain’t no pros (& very few scratch golfers) playing there.

      But don’t understand why anyone would play ball that may suck when there are so many moderately priced ball options. Plus, you can always get great mint condition balls for probably half the price anyway.

      Reply

      Del S.

      2 years ago

      Life is too short to drink cheap beer or play bad golf balls. (Of course I’m 64).

      Reply

      James

      2 years ago

      Slow speed can get away with anything since you’re just bunting it down the fairway anyway

      Reply

      Glen

      2 years ago

      Hey guys you have to remember that 99% of use are in the loss of 1 to 3 yard category.. So for half the price you haven’t sold me… If you were to prove to me there was a 5 to 10 yard difference in dispersion then that would make me believe…Till then I’ll keep hitting my $2 ball into the trees..

      Reply

      bob

      2 years ago

      This is going back quite a few years but I remember when I used to play several days a week and was using the old feathery balls. If I applied mink oil to the covers the ball was way shorter off the tee. They smelled better and had a nice finish to the leather but the distance loss was noticeable.

      Reply

      Mike

      2 years ago

      Interesting. Can you fill us in more about how golf was played in the 1870s?

      Reply

      Alex

      2 years ago

      Great article, as usual. I have two comments:

      First, I think you have a math typo in the article. In the driver distance chart, the difference between a “real” ProV1 and the refurb at 80mph is 232.1 to 229.1 (a difference of three yards by my math). But in the article, you state the difference at that speed is 6 yards.

      Second, I wasn’t aware that these outfits repaint their balls. If adding paint to the surface of a ball changes its playability so much, why hasn’t the USGA stepped in to ban them from competition? What’s to prevent me from adding paint (or some other substance) to a ball to alter its playability to enhance my game?

      Reply

      Steve Smith

      2 years ago

      They are not on the conforming list for competition. From the article:
      “..There’s probably not much in the way of expectation that a refinished golf ball is going to conform to USGA rules. It’s not like they’re on the USGA conforming list …”

      Gee Tony, MGS is probably not going to earn a commision on sales of these. :-)

      Reply

      John

      2 years ago

      To your second point, there is no substance/material anyone could add to the surface of a golf ball that would result in ANY POSITIVE results.
      Also, if you believe that anyone in the world who plays golf in any competition level would never play a refurbished ball, the thought would never even be considered.
      Those comments/statements are facts, not my opinion.

      Reply

      Chris Kane

      2 years ago

      Great review. Articles such as this give invaluable and impartial information to the club golfer.

      Reply

      John Patrick Gilroy

      2 years ago

      I have personally found, cleaned, sorted, and sold hundreds of thousands of golf balls.. I have preached for years that buyers would be much better off buying my “used” balls than anybody’s refurbs. When cleaning the pro v refurbs, sometimes the numbers will wash off. It should be obvious to anyone that the ball can’t be the same size and weight of the original ball and almost every refurb ball has been soaking in a lake for at least one season which is very bad for their performance.. The age of the used balls is not really much of a factor as it has been proven that balls with solid cores will improve with age much like a fine wine. Bottom line; if you’re not going to buy new balls, buy some nice used ones!

      Reply

      Mike

      2 years ago

      Great response. I was going to say the exact same thing but you stole my thunder! I have sold thousands of beat up Pro v1s, some already refinished/refurbished, to a wholesaler who sells them to an outfit that refinishes/refurbishes them. Some have sat in water for a while, most have said in a damp forest and many of them are 2017 versions & older. So you’re playing a 4 to 6-year-old ball that’s sat in unfavorable conditions for most of that time. Good luck! You might as well just buy nice mint used Pro v1’s (like the ones I sell) on eBay.

      Reply

      Bart

      2 years ago

      Appreciate the analysis. It appears if your swing speed is less than your Mid swing speed, you can get away with refurbished, as the loss in distance is minimal.

      Keep in mind, you show Mid swing speed as hitting an 8 iron 175 yards.

      95% of the people reading this article don’t hit their 8 iron 175 yards and can use refurbished Pro-Vs without performance loss.

      Reply

      John Patrick Gilroy

      2 years ago

      Excellent points made.

      Reply

      dr. bloor

      2 years ago

      Well, maybe. As an exceedingly slow swinger, I wouldn’t notice the difference between the two off the tee. But I keep my scores competitive around the green–how do they spin and roll from 60 in?

      That said, you can get Mint grade ProV1s and lostgolfballs at the same price as the Reloads, if playing a tour ball without a tour speed swing is important to you. Not really a tough choice.

      Reply

      Ryan F

      2 years ago

      This article missed the biggest point of importance to everyone reading. For this ball lab, Rebel single ball needs to be cut in half!!!! We want to know how many of these balls are not even ProV1 balls.!

      Reply

      Miguel

      2 years ago

      I hope you can test used balls like mint, 5A, 4A and 3A versus brand-new golf balls.

      Reply

      James

      2 years ago

      Exactly. I buy a lot of 5A and 4A balls from LostGolfBalls.com and other sites. How do they compare to new in your testing?

      Reply

      Mike Vogel

      2 years ago

      Agreed

      Reply

      Rob

      2 years ago

      Completely agree with Miguel. The only balls I buy are used 5A. Would love to see that data.

      Reply

      JJ

      2 years ago

      I am donating money today in hopes this analysis is next. It will pay for itself in no time if the findings are limited to no difference between a brand new tour ball and a ball graded AAAAA.

      Reply

      CoryO

      2 years ago

      Not sure it would be worth the effort, but I’d also be curious to see if there is any chance that a refinished Pro V1 isn’t even a Pro V1 at all. When I see them up on eBay, I always wonder what would keep an unscrupulous company from just painting over any old balls then applying the Titleist and Pro V1 logos. Not like anyone is counting the dimples and the target market for refinished balls probably aren’t really noticing the performance difference either.

      Reply

      Grasper Parsnip

      2 years ago

      The testing here shows that they must be pro V1s maybe 2 years old but still proV1s. The performance difference between the Reloads and the New ProV1s are negligible if you are a slow to moderate swinger. Someone has to clean up after golfers errant shots and retrieve lost balls from Lakes, Ponds etc. and the gof divers due a great job so deserve some reward from it.
      The aaa reload balls perform well enough compared to a brand new ProV1 to make the cost of half price very appealing to some with less cash and who lose many balls.
      The only way the reloads fall down a little is with durability compared to a new ball.

      Reply

      Taken divots

      2 years ago

      I always think that as well! Just had this conversation with my girlfriend today as a matter of fact.. I’m not a scratch golfer by any stretch, and I notice the difference..

      Reply

      Mike

      2 years ago

      If your girlfriend is willing to talk golf with you, she’s a keeper!

      Meat

      2 years ago

      No surprises here. I know guys that have PXG clubs and play the cheapest ball they can get.

      Reply

      Shaunieboy652

      2 years ago

      Ur article confused me quite a bit as the numbers you quoted were quite a bit different (most of the time) than the numbers posted from the ball test. Don’t know which is correct. Your quotes definitely steer me away from the refurb”s, but the posted test numbers weren’t all that different.
      Of course, there is the compression difference and the numbers shouldn’t have been that close..
      Then there’s technology and the ramping up of QC after MGS’s 1st ball test making balls better today than they were 4+ years ago.
      It would have been a better test had you put the refurb’s up against prior generation Pro-V’s instead of what may be the best ball ever made!

      Reply

      Hayes Weidman

      2 years ago

      Great write-up. I”m curious about the compression numbers. I understand that this isn’t a comparison of a 2021 refinished Pro V1 to a new 2021 Pro V1, but even without knowing the “baseline” compression of a new 2015 or 2017 Pro V1, it seems like the refinishing process is having the effect of increasing the compression? How or why does refinishing increase compression??

      Reply

      Jonathan Farrington

      2 years ago

      Can you please test nearly new, non refinished balls?

      Reply

      Steve C

      2 years ago

      With the extra paint on the balls it would be interesting to see the accuracy comparison off a driver with a new ball.

      Reply

      Todd V

      2 years ago

      You also don’t know how long the ball may have been submerged in water prior to being refinished. Submerged in water affects ball distance in as little as a few days, I’ve seen the stats somewhere but can’t remember where or I’d provide the link.

      Reply

      Grasper Parsnip

      2 years ago

      No it doesnt, thats not true a golf ball can be submerged in water for at least 5 months and maybe longer and stil perform as well as a new ball would.

      Reply

      Mike

      2 years ago

      So that discoloration I see on the balls that have been in water a long time (usually a faint shade of brown), that’s irrelevant? Trying to get a definitive answer here because the world (especially the eBay world) generally won’t touch these balls when you try to sell them.

      Terry V

      2 years ago

      I used to use ProV1 referbs for my shag bag. Yes, there was a slight but noticeable difference in distance. But the bigger issue is some of them must have been refinished to cover serious flaws because they would go out so far and then turn wildly. Occasionally I would have one that would start out slicing then abruptly start hooking in mid flight. Okay for a shag bag but would never use them on the course…

      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.

    Irons
    Apr 24, 2024
    PXG Irons: Model By Model
    Putters
    Apr 23, 2024
    PING 2024 Putter Line Extension
    News
    Apr 23, 2024
    Nelly Korda Deserves Her Caitlin Clark Moment, So Why Isn’t She Getting It?
    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.