Review OnCore Vero X1 Golf Balls

Looks like a bit of issue between other son and dad. Shots freakin fiireeddd
He’s not wrong. We have a distance truther promoting a golf ball that markets speed. There is either irony or idiocy involved here.
 
He’s not wrong. We have a distance truther promoting a golf ball that markets speed. There is either irony or idiocy involved here.

Anyone who is a course architect really shouldn’t be promoting rolling back the ball. We’re not stupid, you’re just guaranteeing yourself work for when courses ask you to renovate their course that you probably built to these asinine distances to begin with. I find 18 major issues with at least one of the loudest voices of it too.
 
He’s not wrong. We have a distance truther promoting a golf ball that markets speed. There is either irony or idiocy involved here.
It's equally as asinine as Faldo (who's another distance truther) promoting golf shoes that claim increased yardage. These clowns need to decide which side of the fence they're on.

Whatever Player's claimed rationale behind it is, there's no denying that it's a really bad look.
 
So all of the logos everywhere, but there is a controversy over someone getting a pic with a ball sleeve one of the players was actually using..... Hummmmm.....
 
I think it's a dumb move. But I'll be honest, I didn't notice it, or if I did, I didn't think anything of it.
 
I think it's a dumb move. But I'll be honest, I didn't notice it, or if I did, I didn't think anything of it.

I noticed it, but honestly didn't think much of it. The dust up on social was pretty crazy however.
I still think its hysterical that a golf ball company that talks about speed is aligned with a golfer that is so adamant about rolling the ball back. Enough to where the day before the Masters, there were press releases and statements flying around like crazy haha
 
I noticed it, but honestly didn't think much of it. The dust up on social was pretty crazy however.
I still think its hysterical that a golf ball company that talks about speed is aligned with a golfer that is so adamant about rolling the ball back. Enough to where the day before the Masters, there were press releases and statements flying around like crazy haha

I don't disagree.
However, if they just bring back the Caliber golf ball, that should count as a rollback right?
 
I don't disagree.
However, if they just bring back the Caliber golf ball, that should count as a rollback right?

hahah.
 
This is what the CEO Keith Blakey said about it ....

oncore_criticism.jpg
 
So all of the logos everywhere, but there is a controversy over someone getting a pic with a ball sleeve one of the players was actually using..... Hummmmm.....
When you over simplify the situation like that, yeah there's controversy about it.

It's ok. I just won't buy any OnCore golf balls as long as Gary Player is associated with them.
 
When you over simplify the situation like that, yeah there's controversy about it.

It's ok. I just won't buy any OnCore golf balls as long as Gary Player is associated with them.

where you buying OnCore golf balls to begin with?
 
Ok, so I have a question about this "controversy". How is the sleeve of ball placement in the camera shot any different than the Ping logo on Lee's hat and golf bag, the Travis Mathew logo on Lee's shirt, or all the other logos on hats an shirts in the crowd behind him? Just asking.....
 
Ok, so I have a question about this "controversy". How is the sleeve of ball placement in the camera shot any different than the Ping logo on Lee's hat and golf bag, the Travis Mathew logo on Lee's shirt, or all the other logos on hats an shirts in the crowd behind him? Just asking.....
To me it's different because everybody at a PGA Tour event is wearing logos (thank you rampant commercialism) and it's a passive thing - they're just there. What he was doing was an active, deliberate move, and it was out of context for the situation he was in.
 
To me it's different because everybody at a PGA Tour event is wearing logos (thank you rampant commercialism) and it's a passive thing - they're just there. What he was doing was an active, deliberate move, and it was out of context for the situation he was in.

Passive? The way I understand it, the pros and caddies all get paid for wearing logos on hats, shirts, bags, etc...
All of those are deliberate moves. But....I respect your opinion.
 
Passive? The way I understand it, the pros and caddies all get paid for wearing logos on hats, shirts, bags, etc...
All of those are deliberate moves. But....I respect your opinion.

I think what was meant by passive is that it would be different if the hat was taken off and pointed to. Or someone held their collar out to make sure it was seen.
 
I think what was meant by passive is that it would be different if the hat was taken off and pointed to. Or someone held their collar out to make sure it was seen.

Ok...I get that now.
 
I think what was meant by passive is that it would be different if the hat was taken off and pointed to. Or someone held their collar out to make sure it was seen.

I hear next year he is going to rip open the caddie suit and show off the oncore shirt
 
Ok, so I have a question about this "controversy". How is the sleeve of ball placement in the camera shot any different than the Ping logo on Lee's hat and golf bag, the Travis Mathew logo on Lee's shirt, or all the other logos on hats an shirts in the crowd behind him? Just asking.....
If the zoom in is on Lee, I would think the only things that should be visible are what he's decided to have represented at the time. Things that he either liked or agreed to previous to the event.

What's gross to me, is the obvious intent. Take an opportunity like that to steal the spotlight in any sort of way for what they were attempting to honor and celebrate, and it's just SO slimy.
 
Anyone who is a course architect really shouldn’t be promoting rolling back the ball. We’re not stupid, you’re just guaranteeing yourself work for when courses ask you to renovate their course that you probably built to these asinine distances to begin with. I find 18 major issues with at least one of the loudest voices of it too.

Well, Nicklaus has said the same thing.

At any rate, I disagree with your position. Course designers make money building what their customer wants. If someone asks for a course that can test the best, cost little or no object, that's what they're going to design. But they usually have constraints to deal with like amount of land, amount of maintenance, water budget, etc. All of these conspire to limit how many new courses can be built, which ultimately costs them business.

If the ball is rolled back, it's pretty simple proposition for most courses. Ideally everyone moves up a set of tees. Or better still, just have maintenance move the markers up to the next tee box. Only cost is updating score cards with the new distances, don't need to hire an architect or pay for redesign.
 
Well, Nicklaus has said the same thing.

At any rate, I disagree with your position. Course designers make money building what their customer wants. If someone asks for a course that can test the best, cost little or no object, that's what they're going to design. But they usually have constraints to deal with like amount of land, amount of maintenance, water budget, etc. All of these conspire to limit how many new courses can be built, which ultimately costs them business.

If the ball is rolled back, it's pretty simple proposition for most courses. Ideally everyone moves up a set of tees. Or better still, just have maintenance move the markers up to the next tee box. Only cost is updating score cards with the new distances, don't need to hire an architect or pay for redesign.
A designer that is adamant that courses are too long and the ball needs to be rolled back, isn’t forced to design lengthy courses. They are allowed to refuse and set a limit.
 
If the zoom in is on Lee, I would think the only things that should be visible are what he's decided to have represented at the time. Things that he either liked or agreed to previous to the event.

What's gross to me, is the obvious intent. Take an opportunity like that to steal the spotlight in any sort of way for what they were attempting to honor and celebrate, and it's just SO slimy.
agree... very slimy and used car salesman style... There is no covering this one up, someone paid him. He is more concerned with the "presentation" and "viewpoint" of those logos and sleeves in every shot than his dad being there as a respected golfer.

Gross and would prefer they remove all logos for that ceremony.
 
A designer that is adamant that courses are too long and the ball needs to be rolled back, isn’t forced to design lengthy courses. They are allowed to refuse and set a limit.

If a designer is willing to forego business based on that belief, that's obviously their choice.

My main point was that a ball rollback is unlikely to spur a bunch of course renovations.
 
If a designer is willing to forego business based on that belief, that's obviously their choice.

My main point was that a ball rollback is unlikely to spur a bunch of course renovations.
I hear you, but I respectfully disagree. What the hell is the point of a 7600 yard course if the longest hitters aren’t breaking 300 anymore? You were just watering unnecessary tee boxes and grass that doesn’t need mowing?
 
Back
Top