We've launched the new forums! Read more here

The Golf Ball: is there a trade-off between performance and durability?

SuperStroke
That post

That post

Hey look at me
Albatross 2026 Club
Joined
Jul 5, 2021
Messages
37,928
Reaction score
68,512
Location
Cincy
Handicap
5.0
Maybe I'm mistaken, but my own testing over the past couple of years seems to show me that when a ball lives at an extreme end of something, whether that be spin or speed, it tends to not be as durable.

Is that something to do with the way the cover construction is to get to those extreme ends of the spectrum? I know golf ball manufacturers are constantly pushing the limits and I'm sure that some kind of give and take has to happen in the engineering process.

I wonder if we trade performance for durability? I genuinely don't know and think it would be an interesting discussion.
 
I’m sure there is. For example, I suspect an ultra-thin cover could get you more spin, until it got shredded in a few swings. There’s probably tons of give and take to find something that holds up long enough while giving optimal performance

I feel like I saw something where someone asked AI to make the best golf ball and it spit out like a 180 compression ball
 
Durability is at the lower end of my concerns for a golf ball. Mainly due to me losing them so often. That sucks.

I haven't done as much testing as others. I do hit plenty on a sim into a net and most urethane cover balls hold up the same. I haven't noticed many outliers.

The most I see is the outer layer and markings wearing off. No chunks missing or anything you can feel or see. I imagine most of the marks that happen on course come from dirt, debris, and sand getting in between the ball and the club. They probably take out some chunks at swing speeds.
 
Cheap 2 piece balls are usually quite durable compared to urethane covered balls.
 
A scuffed ball is usually not a problem. I would venture to say that most amateurs will lose a ball before it ever becomes unplayable.
 
The fastest ball I recall using is Left Dash and it seems to be incredibly durable so I'm not sure there's any correlation.
 
Probably to some degree.

Expectations can be so variable. A vast majority of people will very rarely keep a ball past one round. So 30-50 hard shots.
Then people will lose their mind when a ball in a simulator cracks after a couple weeks and 100s and 100s of hard swings.

There's a realistic business component to it as well. A ball that is too durable is not a good thing from that perspective.
 
Out on the course, I feel like most of us lose a golf ball before we suffer any sort of durability concerns unless of course we're hitting cart paths, rocks, trees etc- but at that point something outside has caused the durability.

Overall though, I would say there is likely some trade off but I feel like the ball manufacturers have done a much better job of narrowing that trade off gap.
 
I would assume to a degree there is. However, I know a few balls that perform well for me and are durable so I'm fine with it, if that makes sense.

I don't have any real experience with a fragile ball that has out performed others in my time.
 
Yes there is definitely a trade off of durability to get better performance. I don't think it's quite as great as some believe as most will likely lose a ball before needing to pull it out of play due to damage that affects the performance of the golf ball.
 
Sure. There's always are in some ways. And there's trade offs for the consumer as well with price vs performance vs durability.

If I've said it once I've said it at least 6-10 times, if you want your ball to be made of kevlar expect it to perform like it is.

I should amend that by adding if you want it to be made of ultra badass high spin performance kevlar expect to sell a kidney for it.
 
I think durability for premium golf balls has improved over the years, but there's still a trade-off. A two-piece distance ball is generally going to hold up longer under normal use than a 3/4/5 piece urethane ball will...but the latter will spin more on approach/around the green and feel better when putting than the former will.
 
Yes I am sure there is some difference between a Surlyn cover and a Urethane cover but golf balls are cheap.
 
blugold said:
A scuffed ball is usually not a problem. I would venture to say that most amateurs will lose a ball before it ever becomes unplayable.
Click to expand...

I feel personally attacked...


there is a ton of truth to this though.

I bounced around between 9.1 and 10.6 I think last year on my handicap and the number of rounds played with one ball could probably be counted on one hand. Almost all of them were on one specific course. I would love to run into a problem where I was retiring balls for wear and tear...it would make any price point reasonable for me. There is a huge difference between a box of balls lasting 4 rounds...and lasting 12.
 
CTRosarian said:
Cheap 2 piece balls are usually quite durable compared to urethane covered balls.
Click to expand...
Exactly and that's part of the reason why I started this thread.

Side note. I'm sad to see that so many have such a defeatist attitude about hanging onto a golf ball long enough for it to matter.
 
There are trade offs. Most of us are all searching for the best combination of distance, spin and durability, and OEMs offer different constructions in the urethane segment for certain performance metrics.

I've found several balls that give me more spin and distance than others (this is observed performance, not LM verified). The other 2 factors being fairly equal, durability bothers me probably more than it should. Once a ball get a significant old man wedge mark or scuff where I can see it when I line up a putt or tee shot, it's gone to the shag bag, even though I know that most of those for which I pull a ball won't impact performance.
 
darthweasel said:
I feel personally attacked...


there is a ton of truth to this though.

I bounced around between 9.1 and 10.6 I think last year on my handicap and the number of rounds played with one ball could probably be counted on one hand. Almost all of them were on one specific course. I would love to run into a problem where I was retiring balls for wear and tear...it would make any price point reasonable for me. There is a huge difference between a box of balls lasting 4 rounds...and lasting 12.
Click to expand...
Talking to the people at Callaway, the amount of wear we put on golf balls, the scuffs and scratches don't really matter. Smooth out a section of the cover by bouncing off a cart path or have visible mantle and that's a problem. But anything else is cosmetic and aesthetic and probably not the reason for any acute performance reduction.
 
Last edited:
I dont think there is or should be a trade off anymore. If you think there is, you should be playing a different ball.
 
Absolutely. My "Gamer" ball is a TP5 and I use a SuperSoft matte finish primarily as my colder season / not feeling the swing days and I get tired of losing $7 balls...

The TP5 definitely scuffs/cuts more but spins great and I know it will stop on a dime... The SuperSoft on the other hand can hit cart paths, a tree, etc. and look fine or jsut have a rub mark.... however it does not have the stopping power of teh Tp5
 
blugold said:
Talking to the people at Callaway, the amount of wear we put on golf balls, the scuffs and scratches don't really matter. Smooth out a section of the face off a cart path of, have visible mantle and that's a problem. But anything else is cosmetic and aesthetic and probably not the reason for any acute performance reduction.
Click to expand...
I'll just say that's in contrast to every modern performance test I've seen on the subject.

I suppose there could be some language nuance with "acute".
 
I have found no trade off in this years model Chrome Tour. Its early and several rounds to be played but I'm impressed so far
 
That post said:
Maybe I'm mistaken, but my own testing over the past couple of years seems to show me that when a ball lives at an extreme end of something, whether that be spin or speed, it tends to not be as durable.

Is that something to do with the way the cover construction is to get to those extreme ends of the spectrum? I know golf ball manufacturers are constantly pushing the limits and I'm sure that some kind of give and take has to happen in the engineering process.

I wonder if we trade performance for durability? I genuinely don't know and think it would be an interesting discussion.
Click to expand...
Generally I lose the golf balls before this question becomes real /shrug
 
Bryndom said:
Generally I lose the golf balls before this question becomes real /shrug
Click to expand...
Yeah I sent four one hit virgin balls to a watery grave last round. I guess I owed the golf godz for my new personal best. 🤣
 
hedley_lamarr said:
I have found no trade off in this years model Chrome Tour. Its early and several rounds to be played but I'm impressed so far
Click to expand...
Seems like a lot of guys in the 2026 CT thread are posting pics of damaged balls. It'll be interesting to see if a trend emerges or if this is just early feedback, those kinds of durability pics happen in most ball threads at the start.
 
That post said:
Seems like a lot of guys in the 2026 CT thread are posting pics of damaged balls. It'll be interesting to see if a trend emerges or if this is just early feedback, those kinds of durability pics happen in most ball threads at the start.
Click to expand...
I've had no issues with durability. Played 36 holes and done 2 sim sessions with the same ball. Its chewed up now because of teh sheer volume. Didn't have a drop of in performance but I wouldn't use it because of the scuffing.

General rule of thumb is that cart paths and trees will tear up any golf ball
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top