- Admin
- #251
Callaway ERC Soft Golf Ball
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2015
- Messages
- 7,872
- Reaction score
- 5,455
Callaway ERC Soft Golf Ball
Honest question about this ball, as a 3 piece ionomer cover ball what makes it worth $40 a dozen?
Sell me on it
I am not trying to be negative I promise. The 40 for non urethane just keeps popping into my head.
Another question for the granddaddy guys did you prefer CS or ERC ?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Honest question about this ball, as a 3 piece ionomer cover ball what makes it worth $40 a dozen?
Sell me on it
I am not trying to be negative I promise. The 40 for non urethane just keeps popping into my head.
Another question for the granddaddy guys did you prefer CS or ERC ?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
- Admin
- #255
Honest question about this ball, as a 3 piece ionomer cover ball what makes it worth $40 a dozen?
Sell me on it
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Its not really an ionomer cover would be my first thought. A hybrid blend of material. Im going to dive a bit deep here to stay with me.
For years we (meaning golfers) learned that urethane cover was better than surlyn. And we thought more layers meant better. Then we learned that lower compression could mean lower spin (especially off the tee) and that higher compression could/should generate more speed. In laymen's terms for a number of years all of that was correct.
The problem is that major advances have been made in both materials and manufacturing and outside of a few (Callaway being one of them), the technology story has been muddied. Bridgestone, Wilson and Callaway have all told the story about how compression can be a very important part of choosing your golf ball. It can be about spin, speed and feel. All things that matter. The market leader (and some others) has said that it didn't matter.
Fast forward a few years and advancements have been made such as "Dual Fast Core" and a few others that say that number that golfers were starting to utilize to choose a ball, may not be the best way. A soft ball can now be quite fast and a firm ball can be easier to compress, at least going off the number alone. A ball with a soft core can get gradually firmer so that most golfers can compress it getting the benefits of both firm for speed and soft for spin reduction.
Now this is not even getting into the part of cover thickness and/or dimple design, which is under thought by the golfer, and generally speaking, thats probably a good thing. Fast forward to last year and Titleist releases the AVX golf ball. Which is a low compression urethane covered multi-layer golf ball. THPers seem to enjoy it, especially the distance they were getting. Why? Because it was lower compression (not all that fast ironically enough) and spun less. So much less that in some tests I have seen, that company's own 2 piece surlyn ball spun more around the green. I say that not as a knock on the company or the product, despite what it may sound like because the reviews are what they are and the feedback has been stellar.
So there we had a urethane covered ball spin less, on all areas and produced the distances many wanted. It goes back to the theory that ball testing and fitting should really be all facets, not just one area. So fast forward to now and we have made major strides in how compression can be "compressed" for lack of a better term. Which activates spin and speed on full swings. We have made stride in cover materials that can activate spin on partial swings. And we have even made strides in aerodynamics, which has taught us that layer numbers, compression number and cover materials solely as a decider are not actually the full story.
Which brings me back to this ball. Which has a blend of cover materials and a design that lets it be fast off the tee and low spin, with good spin on approach shots and enough green side for most to handle. While the Chrome Soft lineup will still spin more around the green.
I hope this helps, and if not fire some questions and I can answer them or get someone that can answer them better than I can here to do it.
Oh yes that does make 100 percent and helps. I was one that hated AVX, honestly I could stop a pinnacle on a chip as good as that ball.
Being it’s a hybrid cover it could be a good middle point for a lot golfers.
I also think stopping power for a golf ball is a term that is used wrong, example if I hit a really good 7 iron I can stop a pinnacle and a chrome soft, when I talk stopping power I am talking about half wedges, half swing flops etc.
I will give it a try outside when weather is a little warmer, I really do like the lines and I bet you see more of the coming soon from others
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My wife has trouble with alignment from tee to green to the point of if I don't correct her, she will lineup at 2o'clock relative to the hole. With the ERC I will have her place the ball after every shot and, hopefully, the alignment aid will help her overcome/compensate for whatever visual issues that she's having.
erock9174
Well-known member
Is what they added to the surlyn... aka the 'hybrid blend' proprietary?
Reason I ask is last year with the Chrome Soft and now with the ERC they were quick to tout Graphene in the core as being a benefit.
But with this cover I feel like they are being a bit secretive about what the component is that is being added to the surlyn mix.
So is the secrecy based in keeping intellectual property from the competition or based in trying to keep the customer from knowing there is not urethane used in the mixture?
From a consumer standpoint I think it would be cool if they were transparent in what the mix was to show they thought outside the box and found a new formulation that provides the playability they are touting.
I think it is distance with better feel and green side performance than a typical distance ball. And the alignment aid.Honest question about this ball, as a 3 piece ionomer cover ball what makes it worth $40 a dozen?
Sell me on it
I am not trying to be negative I promise. The 40 for non urethane just keeps popping into my head.
Another question for the granddaddy guys did you prefer CS or ERC ?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It is winter and really hard to draw certain conclusions, but here’s what I’ve seen so far. On home courses with very soft greens the ERC was staying at its pitch mark or rolling back less than 6”. CS in the same conditions were pulling back several feet. At Bandon this weekend - with tight lies and very firm greens - I was getting like 3-5’ of rollout with the CS and maybe 7-10’ with the ERC. Both of those conditions are kind of at the extremes. My guess is that in normal spring/summer conditions I’ll see one hop and stop type action, but that’s a guess.
In exchange for giving up some spin on approach shots we get extra distance. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to have a club less into greens with this ball in spring/summer. In which case the question becomes 9i with ERC vs 8i with CS. TBD.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Definitely more control on those half shots than a surlyn ball - I'm the same as you, I hit a high ball and will stop a mid/short iron with anything. Half wedges I thought this performed really well for me, both out in the desert and on the more wet conditions I've seen in some winter golf here. I think I talked about "control" greenside being the thing I though differentiated some of the urethane balls from the surlyn distance balls and I am not longing for that ball here.
Yes it spins a bit less but I didn't feel like I was going to ever roll a ball off the back of a green.
- Admin
- #261
Petra is great. She was awesome on our R&D / lab tour. I want to see the yellow ERC Soft in person, will probably give the white ones I have a try the next time I get out on the course (winter is rearing its ugly head here right now).
Great photo! Is street magician your side gig?
That’s a lot like asking McDonalds to give you the recipe for BigMac sauce. Sure it would be cool, but they’ve got IP to protect.
For me I don’t actually care what the ball is made out of as long as its conforming, and does what I need it to do on the course.
I see this ball performing very well for a big segment of golfers, people that need the ball to hold the green, but also people that aren’t trying to put a ball 8’ behind a pin and a little to the right, then spin it back 8’ and a little left. Those people probably need a CS/CSx. For people like me who are aiming at the green and hoping to be closeish, this ball will do great I believe.
Awesome feedback and info. I've never been one who used an alignment aid on the ball but I'm very interested to give it a go. I'm a big chrome soft fan but always willing to try something different.
And great floating photo JB!!
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
And great floating photo JB!!
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
erock9174
Well-known member
I totally understand the IP aspect which was part of my original question. I just thought it was odd to not spell out what their tech advances here were to help sell the ball; as last year they gushed over Graphene.
At the end of the day, you have a fair point, in that if the ball works for you and you are willing to pay for it that is all that matters.
In the long run I will be curious to see where this ball shakes out:
Will it be a upper-mid tier cash grab ball akin to the NXT/Tour Soft line that doesn't really have any more performance over a $20-23 surlyn 2 pc ball ?
Will it live up to the marketing in that the performance places it between a surlyn and urethane in terms of greenside spin?
And if so will the market pay $40 for a non-urethane hybrid cover ball? Especially when you have urethane balls like the QST, Snell MTB, Duo Professional and previous gen Tour balls at a cheaper price?
Will people find the alignment markings helpful or a distraction?
I think there's some differences between the graphine and this as far as IP goes.
I'm not sure how the market will react to this compared to some of the other offerings, but I suspect this ball will do ok, availability of this compared to some of the DTC balls and the brand behind it will make a difference at retail.
The markings are going to be well received by some, and some will absolutely hate them, based on personal preference or generic hatred towards the brand (as can be seen in this very thread), and it's certainly something that makes the ball stand out and gets it into the conversation, which isn't a bad thing IMO.
What you stated above is like the results I saw with E6, so back to my original question, what makes this ball $12 a dozen better than an e6?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Admin
- #268
That is definitely going to be up to the user. Construction wise there is more to it. It spins about as much as the RX does from that company's line. I would argue its designed to be faster as well. The e6 was all about reduction of spin off the tee to fly straight. They created the e7 for speed and then moved to the e6 soft and e6 speed after that.
I haven't actually broke into my dozen ERC balls yet. There are two reasons:
1) I freaking love the Chrome Soft X all the way through the bag.
2) I'm scared by the lower spin. I just dont have any spin to spare anywhere in the bag.
That said, I'm going to break them out next time I'm on GC2 and see how the spin compares.
1) I freaking love the Chrome Soft X all the way through the bag.
2) I'm scared by the lower spin. I just dont have any spin to spare anywhere in the bag.
That said, I'm going to break them out next time I'm on GC2 and see how the spin compares.
Im a big fan of the CSX too. It was the first version of the X that I loved and it really fits my game, but im real excited to get the ERC out on the course.
I received a sleeve of these from Callaway to test and review. Unfortunately, the day I received them we got hit with 3" of the "white stuff" but that's a topic for another conversation.
At first I wasn't too sure of the lines (looked a little too busy for my liking). I took these to a training center by us where they have a setup in their basement for short game practice. After a little while, I actually like the concept of these. I found it actually helps me square my putter face to the target (one of my putting faults). I was able to keep the ball rolling on line a lot easier than with my Q-Star Tour which is my normal ball. Now I only wish I could get these out for a round to get the full experience (LOL).
At first I wasn't too sure of the lines (looked a little too busy for my liking). I took these to a training center by us where they have a setup in their basement for short game practice. After a little while, I actually like the concept of these. I found it actually helps me square my putter face to the target (one of my putting faults). I was able to keep the ball rolling on line a lot easier than with my Q-Star Tour which is my normal ball. Now I only wish I could get these out for a round to get the full experience (LOL).
Really looking forward to testing this ball. I would like it if everyone put the three lines on all balls. It would save me a lot of time!! I wonder, if it's a hit, if this will migrate to their other offerings?
