Callaway ERC Soft Golf Ball

[erock9174]

They are an option in the rewards store.

Gotcha. I was looking on CPO. Not listed on there yet. Did see them on normal Cally site. Thanks

 

[Bullfrog]

Man I love the Truvis design. But, of course I’m going to try these out to compare. Part of me hopes I don’t like them better b/c that means no more Truvis, lol.

I need to get a few in the winter here to practice some carpet putting. I don’t like lines on the ball, but I’m willing to try out the triple track to see if it’s better for me.

I really want to try them from reading this thread. But this right here is why I'm hesitant...

 

[obedt]

I think the rationale would be the golfers want different performance out of their ball. I have been playing the CS a lot this last year. I like it, especially the yellow and black truvis. But as I get a little older some extra distance is quite nice. I don't normally compress the ball properly to spin it on approach shots anyway. Plus, there's the possibility that Triple Track works. So theoretically some people might see nominal difference on approach shots, extra distance on all clubs and better putting. If all those things happen as advertise (and TBD if that happens) then someone can play a better ball for them and save $5 a dozen while doing it.

In addition to Army’s testing, has anyone done a distance comparison of the ERC vs the CS and CSX? I don’t want to say I’m stuck on the ball speed difference, but it is on my mind, particularly since this is marketed as a distance ball.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mpeterson]

It matches up pretty well with what we have seen.

Generally I’d say they’ve performed pretty much exactly how Finley explained them during the tech talk. Time will tell if the ERC will be the ball for me long term but it’s going to get a shot next year, or maybe sooner if this potential golf trip pans out.

 

[tequila4kapp]

In addition to Army’s testing, has anyone done a distance comparison of the ERC vs the CS and CSX? I don’t want to say I’m stuck on the ball speed difference, but it is on my mind, particularly since this is marketed as a distance ball.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not on a machine the same way Army did. I played it on a course I’ve played a million times. ERC+Flash 3w on #1 put me to a place I’ve never reached with 3w before. I reached that normal driver spot on a colder winter day with soft fairways.

#7 is a 147 yard par 3. PTx + CS = front of the green (lower tier). Apex + CS = upper tier. Apex + ERC = through the back of the green. Again, cooler winter days for the Apex with CS and Apex with ERC.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[obedt]

Not on a machine the same way Army did. I played it on a course I’ve played a million times. ERC+Flash 3w on #1 put me to a place I’ve never reached with 3w before (on a colder winter day with soft fairways).

#7 is a 147 yard par 3. PTx + CS = front of the green (lower tier). Apex + CS = upper tier. Apex + ERC = through the back of the green. Again, cooler winter days for the Apex with CS and Apex with ERC.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks tequila. That's some good info - I do prefer on course info to LM. Would love to see a day where you can take a sleeve of each and wail away on a variety of holes. Difficult to do, but provides some valuable info.

 

[Phil75070]

That's the beauty of being Phil, they can add the triple track to whatever ball he wants haha (CSX in his case).

Both the CS and CS-X with the lines are on the USGA conforming ball list.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KEV]

Bottom line, I'm not saying the ball isn't worth the price point I'm just wondering why most golfers that are willing to spend that amount for the ERC wouldn't just play the Chrome Soft as you've suggested.

I think one case where someone may want the ERC vs. Chrome Soft would be for a high spin player that needs to knock spin off but still wants a high performing ball. That's the complete opposite issue from what I have but I could see that scenario.

 

[Nate]

I think one case where someone may want the ERC vs. Chrome Soft would be for a high spin player that needs to knock spin off but still wants a high performing ball. That's the complete opposite issue from what I have but I could see that scenario.

 

[ArmyGolf]

Bottom line, I'm not saying the ball isn't worth the price point I'm just wondering why most golfers that are willing to spend that amount for the ERC wouldn't just play the Chrome Soft as you've suggested.

I would say that the ERC is significantly lower spinning than the Chrome Soft and as such would fit a different player.

Also, as far as buying habits go I think the ERC simply targets a different audience than the Chrome Soft but I could be wrong there.

 

[Canadan]

I'll be honest, I want more time with these balls. Plenty of speed, there's definitely a production of spin around the green, and triple track is annoyingly efficient.

Even if I don't fully commit, there's a strong chance I'm going to mess around with a triple track profile here and there.

 

[brianmk24]

I think one case where someone may want the ERC vs. Chrome Soft would be for a high spin player that needs to knock spin off but still wants a high performing ball. That's the complete opposite issue from what I have but I could see that scenario.

Ooh, this is worth a try. Time to try to redeem some rewards points?

 

[rollin]

I too feel similar to what you've expressed here. While I understand the tech put into this ball, I'm wondering that even when I do try it for myself (and I will) I won't necessarily play it as often as a more affordable option. Even if this ball is way, way better than any other ball I've played I'm hard pressed to convince myself to play a ball that costs $3.33 each. I guess I'll need to wait a couple of years to be able to buy this ball at reduced rates or through something like lostgolfballs lol. And, like you, if I will pay the $3.33 per ball for this option why wouldn't I just pay the $3.75 per ball option of the Chrome Soft?

Bottom line, I'm not saying the ball isn't worth the price point I'm just wondering why most golfers that are willing to spend that amount for the ERC wouldn't just play the Chrome Soft as you've suggested.

To be fair (to the likes of what JB mentioned in response to my post) about my point which is similar to yours. Thats only if the ball does behave as well as or close to the CS in both the longer club dispersion rates as well as the greens spin control.

I think the rationale would be the golfers want different performance out of their ball. I have been playing the CS a lot this last year. I like it, especially the yellow and black truvis. But as I get a little older some extra distance is quite nice. I don't normally compress the ball properly to spin it on approach shots anyway. Plus, there's the possibility that Triple Track works. So theoretically some people might see nominal difference on approach shots, extra distance on all clubs and better putting. If all those things happen as advertise (and TBD if that happens) then someone can play a better ball for them and save $5 a dozen while doing it.

the following is only my opinion. so things are not dictated as law in any way.

The one thing in your post that is imo a little off base is the comment on approach spin. When talking approach spin I must assume we are referencing mid/short to shorter irons and wedges. That is not a core compression things so much as it is the cover. I mean that has generally been the primary difference in premium urethane balls vs surlyn and/or distance balls. Recent advancements in materials has somewhat changed some of that stuff to overlap or create some gray areas where as all of that is not really written in stone anymore. Hence the CS which its soft core reducing spin of tee and long clubs while persevering speed yet also with the benefit of great greens spin on the approaches via its cover in the shorter half of the bag. Kind of the best of both worlds and why its been the only urethane I moved to.

In a nut shell....core is about long and cover is about short control.

Imo distance balls are not really technically so much longer but are simply spinning less therefore flying straighter and straighter generally by default means longer. Thats not to say any ball is created equal if struck exactly the same and one may fly further than the other via material construction. But imo longer is mostly about compression and dispersion. i wasnt trying to give a ball lesson here but i brought it because you mention compression in relation to approach spin and i think that may be a bit misunderstood. But im no p[professional ball mind.

And also because Im wondering where does the mcr fit in while so closely priced to the CS. The two imo main characteristics of a ball are dispersion/distance and greens control. At one time till not long ago we basically had to sacrifice one for the other based on which one would be most helpful to the given player. But now, a ball like the Cs imo offers the best of both worlds. The mcr is a distance ball but said to offer greens control. Well,...if its price point is almost CS neighborhood, then it would stand to reason (to me) that it should be almost as good in greens spin yet its a distance ball so it should out do the Cs in distance/dispersion. if its not sacrificing greens spin and is as good (or better than CS) at distance, then this is anew great ball that should outsell the CS. However if its falling short of the Cs on the greens and also perhaps only similar distance and/or dispersion wise then the price point is not imo worthy because similar ball can be found with a more budget friendly tag. this is why im trying to figure just where the ball makes good sense. Part of the problem imo is becuase of the Cs itself that is a great ball in both worlds of distance/dispersion and greens control. If the mcr is not going to top the Cs in dispersion and distance then may as well play the Cs given the mcr price point and get the added benefit of greens. if it does top it in that distance category then well.... one needs to decide if its that much better than a ball at a lower price point.

 

[JB]

To be fair (to the likes of what JB mentioned in response to my post) about my point which is similar to yours. Thats only if the ball does behave as well as or close to the CS in both the longer club dispersion rates as well as the greens spin control.



the following is only my opinion. so things are not dictated as law in any way.

The one thing in your post that is imo a little off base is the comment on approach spin. When talking approach spin I must assume we are referencing mid/short to shorter irons and wedges. That is not a core compression things so much as it is the cover. I mean that has generally been the primary difference in premium urethane balls vs surlyn and/or distance balls. Recent advancements in materials has somewhat changed some of that stuff to overlap or create some gray areas where as all of that is not really written in stone anymore. Hence the CS which its soft core reducing spin of tee and long clubs while persevering speed yet also with the benefit of great greens spin on the approaches via its cover in the shorter half of the bag. Kind of the best of both worlds and why its been the only urethane I moved to.

In a nut shell....core is about long and cover is about short control.

Imo distance balls are not really technically so much longer but are simply spinning less therefore flying straighter and straighter generally by default means longer. Thats not to say any ball is created equal if struck exactly the same and one may fly further than the other via material construction. But imo longer is mostly about compression and dispersion. i wasnt trying to give a ball lesson here but i brought it because you mention compression in relation to approach spin and i think that may be a bit misunderstood. But im no p[professional ball mind.

And also because Im wondering where does the mcr fit in while so closely priced to the CS. The two imo main characteristics of a ball are dispersion/distance and greens control. At one time till not long ago we basically had to sacrifice one for the other based on which one would be most helpful to the given player. But now, a ball like the Cs imo offers the best of both worlds. The mcr is a distance ball but said to offer greens control. Well,...if its price point is almost CS neighborhood, then it would stand to reason (to me) that it should be almost as good in greens spin yet its a distance ball so it should out do the Cs in distance/dispersion. if its not sacrificing greens spin and is as good (or better than CS) at distance, then this is anew great ball that should outsell the CS. However if its falling short of the Cs on the greens and also perhaps only similar distance and/or dispersion wise then the price point is not imo worthy because similar ball can be found with a more budget friendly tag. this is why im trying to figure just where the ball makes good sense. Part of the problem imo is becuase of the Cs itself that is a great ball in both worlds of distance/dispersion and greens control. If the mcr is not going to top the Cs in dispersion and distance then may as well play the Cs given the mcr price point and get the added benefit of greens. if it does top it in that distance category then well.... one needs to decide if its that much better than a ball at a lower price point.

This is just not accurate my friend , sorry. Full swing approach shots is not just about cover, in fact you could make the case it’s just as much about the core.

The cover becomes the spin engine on partial swings and shots around the green.

 

[Phil75070]

$5/dz less expensive than the CS may not seem like a lot but adds up over the course of a season/year for someone who can't get through a round without typically losing a ball or more. What I have seen so far is a higher launching, higher flying ball, which I like, that gives me more distance on all full shots without sacrificing too much spin on shots around the green, and I am not a high spin player. In fact, during my fitting the issue was low spin. I also have found the Triple Track technology to be the real thing and until and unless Callaway makes that available to the consumer on the CS/CS-X I would play this ball for that alone, it works that well for me.

 

[PETE379]

Don't get me wrong here....im totally cool with the Triple Track tech....I think its great. But what I have to say is there were devices before this was released to make marks on a ball very similar if not exact like Triple Track. Granted, TT is already on the ball so you don't have to worry about taking a sharpie and the jig to mark each ball.

I plan to buy a sleeve of ERC and test out. I like testing out balls.

 

[PhillyV]

$5/dz less expensive than the CS may not seem like a lot but adds up over the course of a season/year for someone who can't get through a round without typically losing a ball or more. What I have seen so far is a higher launching, higher flying ball, which I like, that gives me more distance on all full shots without sacrificing too much spin on shots around the green, and I am not a high spin player. In fact, during my fitting the issue was low spin. I also have found the Triple Track technology to be the real thing and until and unless Callaway makes that available to the consumer on the CS/CS-X I would play this ball for that alone, it works that well for me.

So if Triple Track was available in the Chrome Soft, what would you game? We know Lefty has it on his Chrome Soft already and the trend usually is see it on tour, enough players ask for it, enough consumers want it and then it hits retail

 

[Phil75070]

So if Triple Track was available in the Chrome Soft, what would you game? We know Lefty has it on his Chrome Soft already and the trend usually is see it on tour, enough players ask for it, enough consumers want it and then it hits retail

Right now I would stick with the ERC because longer off the driver plus added distance off the irons probably equates to one full club less into greens, maybe slightly more. When one needs every bit of distance they can get due to advancing years.......

 

[rollin]

This is just not accurate my friend , sorry. Full swing approach shots is not just about cover, in fact you could make the case it’s just as much about the core.

The cover becomes the spin engine on partial swings and shots around the green.

I was going to add some text to that post but didnt think necessary......was going to say that the more towards driver we go the more the compression plays roll and the more towards wedge the more the cover plays roll. is that not just the nature of the blow we place on the ball? Do we not hit more a direct blow through the ball with driver or as the clubs get less lofted (longer)?, and do we not hit more with a downward glancing blow (swiping) placed upon the cover as the clubs get more lofted (shorter)? the lower (more upright) the club loft (think driver) the more direct the blow/force is placed through the ball while the more lofted the club (think wedge) the less force is through the core and more a glancing blow is placed upon the cover via more of a swiping of the ball. is that not proportional as the clubs get longer or shorter (more/less lofted)? less loft = more direct blow, more loft = more glancing blow. The percentage of each type of blow drops or rises proportionally as the clubs get less or more lofted. So a mid club (think 5 or 6iron perhaps) would have more percentage of direct blow than a wedge but have more percentage of a glancing blow than a driver and perhaps a much more balanced combination of both. While the other two clubs being on opposite ends of the spectrum would each favor one side more than the other.

Its kind of like when we may very drastically slice or hook a driver by mistake. The ball is being swiped from one side more than usual sacrificing some more of the direct blow to the core for some more of a swiping or glancing blow placed on the cover. Conversely, If we were to thin or blade a wedge and badly shoot it waaay past the green what we have essentially done is place more direct blow through the core and a lot less glancing blow upon the cover.

is that wrong? because if it is then im waaaay off. That to me is the general principle behind whats proportionality happening as we go from driver down the bag to the shortest club.

 

[PETE379]

@rollin....are you an engineer?

 

[rollin]

@rollin....are you an engineer?

No but I like to talk about these things and fwiw I havnt dictated anything. But only things as the way Ive come to learn or understand of them, The physics is interesting and fun. especially when golf related. And im not at all embarrassed to be wrong either.

 

[Iceman!]

So if Triple Track was available in the Chrome Soft, what would you game? We know Lefty has it on his Chrome Soft already and the trend usually is see it on tour, enough players ask for it, enough consumers want it and then it hits retail

I'm going to go ahead and predict that Triple Track will be available on Chrome Soft in Retail by June 15th.
I have no basis for this other that PM using it on tour and the anticipated feedback (IMHO) that Callaway will get on the ERC, that people want more Greenside that Chrome Soft will provide.

It's really a no brainer for Callaway as I see it. Can't NOT apply a proven technology on your best selling Golf Ball.
I know there could SKU issues at some retail stores however, if it sells, they'll make room for it and push something out.
I'd even wonder if TTT could replace a Truvis pattern?

 

[JB]

I was going to add some text to that post but didnt think necessary......was going to say that the more towards driver we go the more the compression plays roll and the more towards wedge the more the cover plays roll. is that not just the nature of the blow we place on the ball? Do we not hit more a direct blow through the ball with driver or as the clubs get less lofted (longer)?, and do we not hit more with a downward glancing blow (swiping) placed upon the cover as the clubs get more lofted (shorter)? the lower (more upright) the club loft (think driver) the more direct the blow/force is placed through the ball while the more lofted the club (think wedge) the less force is through the core and more a glancing blow is placed upon the cover via more of a swiping of the ball. is that not proportional as the clubs get longer or shorter (more/less lofted)? less loft = more direct blow, more loft = more glancing blow. The percentage of each type of blow drops or rises proportionally as the clubs get less or more lofted. So a mid club (think 5 or 6iron perhaps) would have more percentage of direct blow than a wedge but have more percentage of a glancing blow than a driver and perhaps a much more balanced combination of both. While the other two clubs being on opposite ends of the spectrum would each favor one side more than the other.

Its kind of like when we may very drastically slice or hook a driver by mistake. The ball is being swiped from one side more than usual sacrificing some more of the direct blow to the core for some more of a swiping or glancing blow placed on the cover. Conversely, If we were to thin or blade a wedge and badly shoot it waaay past the green what we have essentially done is place more direct blow through the core and a lot less glancing blow upon the cover.

is that wrong? because if it is then im waaaay off. That to me is the general principle behind whats proportionality happening as we go from driver down the bag to the shortest club.

Yes part of that is correct. Yet A full swing PW into the green, still has spin impacted through core. Its not a "this is a metal wood, therefore its core" and "this is an iron, therefore its cover". Glancing blow is not really the correct term or phrase because the ball is traveling (or trying to) up the face on all clubs with any loft. Add in the force used, in full swing, and the core impacts spin immensely on full shots...Even with scoring clubs.

The cover becomes the real driving force to spin on partial shots as you get closer to the green, when very little force is used.

 

[PhillyV]

I'm going to go ahead and predict that Triple Track will be available on Chrome Soft in Retail by June 15th.
I have no basis for this other that PM using it on tour and the anticipated feedback (IMHO) that Callaway will get on the ERC, that people want more Greenside that Chrome Soft will provide.

It's really a no brainer for Callaway as I see it. Can't NOT apply a proven technology on your best selling Golf Ball.
I know there could SKU issues at some retail stores however, if it sells, they'll make room for it and push something out.
I'd even wonder if TTT could replace a Truvis pattern?

If I had to guess, I would say Truvis grows before its pushed out

 

[Phil75070]

Don't get me wrong here....im totally cool with the Triple Track tech....I think its great. But what I have to say is there were devices before this was released to make marks on a ball very similar if not exact like Triple Track. Granted, TT is already on the ball so you don't have to worry about taking a sharpie and the jig to mark each ball.

I plan to buy a sleeve of ERC and test out. I like testing out balls.

It is not just the fact that there are three lines, but also the thickness of the lines plays into it and the colors, perhaps even the distances apart they are from each other? I think I have one of those ball marking tools you are referring to and it might work as well. I just never liked how weird and busy the ball looked when I did it. Of course I only used one color and the lines were all the same thickness...