Higher priced balls = better results?

After trying a lot of balls I think its just important to find one that fits your play. Some people really like softs that are great around the green, but that benefit is mitigated if you dont like them off the driver. I know two friends who are both less than 7 handicap who play with cheaper distance balls because they prefer the driver results and work them around the green just fine. It's up to people to find something they like, more expensive equipment, balls etc arent going to make you automatically better or deliver instantly better results.
 
I was at a charity scramble this past summer and there was a long drive champ or contender on a 350 yd part 4, for $25 he would hit your tee shot and if he put it on the green it was a auto birdie. We all gave him different balls from PV1 to ztec and he hit them all within 5 yards of each other.
I am the 1st to agree feel wise on the green I am very picky. But clearly at beast speed it really did not matter that day.
 
my question to fellow THP'ers, do you believe that higher priced balls help you to perform better than lower priced balls?

For reference, the Hot List has three price categories:
Over $35
$26 to $35
Under $26.

I've gotten decidedly less picky about balls over the last few years than before. I need a urethane ball but beyond that I don't get much more specific (except Bridgestones, hate them, don't know why, could be mental).

There is a cake and eat it too answer to your question. It is easy to find brand new premium tour balls from previous years at the low end of your pricing spectrum. For example, chrome+ perform very similarly to chrome softs for me. Same with nike 20xi/xi-x and rzn black/platinum. TM Pentas/Lethals/whatever insane name they come up with next. some previous year's pro v's vs. this year's. I've cleaned out quite a lot of clearance sales buying up boxes of previous releases for under $20 per. Granted, some years in particular may fit better than others because there are always stinkers in one release or other or they may tweak the compression or something minor but even then the difference is often negligible. And at those prices, it's hard to complain.
 
Whatever performs best for an individual is the right ball for that individual regardless of price.
 
If you are willing to play last year's version and wait for the good deals (and then stock up) you can generally get any of the manufacturers flag ship ball for $20 / dozen and their next level down for $10 to $15 / dozen. Must admit I would have to exclude Titleist from that list though.
 
I wouldn't necessarily say a higher priced ball would automatically equal better results, but I'd agree that a better quality ball would work. I prefer an e6 or Duo Spin to, say, a Warbird or a Mojo. But with my game, I don't think a Pro V1 would give the same ratio of better performance, if that makes any sense.
 
I wouldn't think so, except that I seem to play better with Prov's. Maybe it's just that I'm being more careful, not wanting to lose a $5 a piece golf ball.
 
I use a play that suits my game and ability. I believe it makes a difference as well. When I was learning the game, I didn't mind using a cheaper ball. But as my game progressed and I learned more I wanted a better ball. Just my opinion.
 
Higher priced balls = better results?

As Sox Fan stated above, there are balls that are better and worse for your game.
Too much side spin off the tee? There are balls that help fix that, and there are balls that spun so much that they won't stay in play.
Need greenside roll out? There are better and worse balls for that.
Like to hit the ball beyond the flag and have it spin back? There are balls that perform better than others.
Overall, you should know your game and what your weaknesses are before a blanket statement about "expensive balls are better" is believed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Best round I have ever played came with a ball that cost $19.99 a dozen.

I'm good with that.

For me, it's all about the ball fitting, and that's why I choose Bridgestone golf balls.
 
It all depends on your game I think. I play B330RX for certain reasons, can I shoot similar with the E6 sure but I don't love everything about that ball like I do the RX. Spending more on a ball doesn't mean you will score better but you don't have to be a pro to take advantage of some of the characteristics/technology of the tour ball.
 
More expensive balls do nothing for me.
 
I don't think more expensive = better. It might be better for some, but not better for all. I play just fine with a $20/dozen ball. Drove the heck out of a $12/dozen ball, and played more rounds (with drastically dropping scores) with a refinished knock off ball than I care to say.

Some need distance, some need less spin, some want more spin, some want durability. What you want in a ball doesn't make your needs wrong, they just make them personalized needs.
 
There are so many great balls out there now days that certainly you don't have to pay $40+ per dozen. Lot's of great urethane balls that spin well around the greens can be had for $30 or less if you buy wisely. I bought 13 dozen Maxfli U6's last year for $12.50 per dozen and couldn't be happier with their performance.
 
I would disagree. Forgiveness, distance and added spin around the greens seem like they would be helpful to players of all skill levels.

I have to agree. I'm not a great player but use a premium ball.

Better or high priced balls would generally mean (but not always) a higher spinning ball for greens control but not at all mean more distance nor forgiveness. We generally get that actually from cheaper balls that spin less. Less spin means less dispersion and longer tee shots. Many amateurs need less spin to better stay in control and longer off the tees and with approach shots too. And many amateurs have more to gain from that (for their overall play) then they would gain from having less of that ball ability while also may not gain as much help from greens spin because they don't posses the technique to generate enough backspin near the greens anyway. I have seen many fwiw stick and spin cheaper balls on greens too. Now imo they may have some more to gain from the higher end ball that would work even better for that. But imo that's only when they can do it well. And to be honest most people even with a high end ball cant do those things to any significant degree imo anyway. And even if they do or can do it barely enough they still need to consider imo how much help they need off the tees and with the approaches and weigh which area a ball can make the most difference in their overall play to best help them. But this is just how I view it.

Then there is always the durability factor too. Trees, cart paths, or just about anything, and even the occasional really poor hit can all scuff up a soft covered ball that is already 2 or 3 times the price to begin with where as the mid and cheaper priced balls can often far outlast the others not to mention losing them outright.

I honestly think that too many people are hurting themselves by playing the highest end balls that for several reasons may not be whats really best for them. A lot of good mid priced balls out there too. Not cheap but not ridiculous either. Of course then there is always the logic to play with whatever makes one feel happy and there is something to be said for that I guess.
 
I've played ProVs. I've played Mojos, Noodles, Top Flites I think I've played just about every line of ball out there (it's amazing what you find in the woods!) I can tell a difference between a softer compression ball and a harder ball. I don't like the ultra cheap balls (Top Flite's, Slazengers etc) at the same time, the last time I hit a ProV I handed it back to the person who gave it to me and said "No thanks" I like a softer ball, but I lose enough that paying out the teeth for them just isn't logical. I really like the Supersofts, and that's my prefered ball. So the most expensive ball on the market is not for me, but the cheapest isn't either. I think the best ball for me is a lower compression ball, and I don't need to pay $30/doz for that. When/if my game gets to the point where I need the ball to spin a certain way around the green I'll start looking for a ball that will do that, weather it be a ProV or an E6, or what have you.
 
I like a lot of the premium balls for most of the reasons listed here. I am different than most though in that I don't have much use for the mid priced balls. It's no secret that I have an affinity for the precept laddie x, which is one of the cheapest balls around, and I have tried most of the mid priced balls, but can't see any real benefit that they give me for the price vs the laddies. That's just my opinion however, and ymmv of course.
 
I like a lot of the premium balls for most of the reasons listed here. I am different than most though in that I don't have much use for the mid priced balls. It's no secret that I have an affinity for the precept laddie x, which is one of the cheapest balls around, and I have tried most of the mid priced balls, but can't see any real benefit that they give me for the price vs the laddies. That's just my opinion however, and ymmv of course.

I've played the laddie, not a bad ball by any means. I've still got one or two floating around in my office somewhere.
 
my question to fellow THP'ers, do you believe that higher priced balls help you to perform better than lower priced balls?


Not necessarily. I remember being at a skill level where the wonderful straightness of the e6 helped me a million times more than a urethane covered ball would.
 
I believe I'm at a level where I need all the help I can get in my game, so using a high performance ball removes one variable that I have to worry about.

That said, I'm not about to dump 8 dollars into the water, which is the retail price of 1 Pro V ball here, after importation and taxes.

So I settle for the next best thing - used high performance balls. I've been using Pro V's exclusively for more than a decade now, that's just force of habit.

I've tried the TM Penta and they're okay, and I'm just watching the prices of Bridgestone B330RX for them to reach a more tolerable level, say, ah, 2 dollars.
 
Better or high priced balls would generally mean (but not always) a higher spinning ball for greens control but not at all mean more distance nor forgiveness. We generally get that actually from cheaper balls that spin less. Less spin means less dispersion and longer tee shots. Many amateurs need less spin to better stay in control and longer off the tees and with approach shots too. And many amateurs have more to gain from that (for their overall play) then they would gain from having less of that ball ability while also may not gain as much help from greens spin because they don't posses the technique to generate enough backspin near the greens anyway. I have seen many fwiw stick and spin cheaper balls on greens too. Now imo they may have some more to gain from the higher end ball that would work even better for that. But imo that's only when they can do it well. And to be honest most people even with a high end ball cant do those things to any significant degree imo anyway. And even if they do or can do it barely enough they still need to consider imo how much help they need off the tees and with the approaches and weigh which area a ball can make the most difference in their overall play to best help them. But this is just how I view it.

Then there is always the durability factor too. Trees, cart paths, or just about anything, and even the occasional really poor hit can all scuff up a soft covered ball that is already 2 or 3 times the price to begin with where as the mid and cheaper priced balls can often far outlast the others not to mention losing them outright.

I honestly think that too many people are hurting themselves by playing the highest end balls that for several reasons may not be whats really best for them. A lot of good mid priced balls out there too. Not cheap but not ridiculous either. Of course then there is always the logic to play with whatever makes one feel happy and there is something to be said for that I guess.

This is not accurate. A urethane cover or premium ball does not mean more spin off the tee. Spin off the tee is generated by compression. Spin around the green is based (in part) by type of cover (urethane spins more than surlyn). A premium ball that is compressed, has less or as little the spin off the tee as does a less expensive call featuring surlyn.
 
This is not accurate. A urethane cover or premium ball does not mean more spin off the tee. Spin off the tee is generated by compression. Spin around the green is based (in part) by type of cover (urethane spins more than surlyn). A premium ball that is compressed, has less or as little the spin off the tee as does a less expensive call featuring surlyn.

But are not premium balls in general firmer cored (higher compression) harder to compress? Isnt the (softer core of the cheaper ball) one of the reasons cheaper balls are generally designed with the average amateur in mind?
If I am in general correct (with perhaps some exception I'm not really far off here with my logic.
 
But are not premium balls in general firmer cored (higher compression) harder to compress? Is that (softer core of the cheaper ball) one of the reasons cheaper balls are generally designed with the average amateur in mind?
If I am in general correct I'm not really far off here with my logic.

No sir. Premium golf balls come in many compressions and quite a few low compression golf balls exist in this segment such as Bridgestone RX, Callaway Chrome Soft, Wilson DUO Urethane, etc.
 
No sir. Premium golf balls come in many compressions and quite a few low compression golf balls exist in this segment such as Bridgestone RX, Callaway Chrome Soft, Wilson DUO Urethane, etc.

I suppose but (and forgive the questions and ignorance for things I though I knew better of and perhaps put my foot in my mouth) but aren't cheaper balls like pinnacles , dt solo, some topfliites, and others like the e-series (espec the e6) or the cal-super soft still even much softer cored than those balls? people always refer to cheaper balls as rocks (like pinnacle) but in reality while they have hard covers are soft cored. I remember finding a compression chart rating at one point and the pinnacles were far softer than a pro-v which is one the hardest cores.
 
I know some will disagree or scoff at this. But at my level 18 to 20 HC, I can absoutely see a difference in the performance of a Pro V and many of the other mid tier balls. Especially when it comes to shots around the green with wedges and high lofted irons. For years even though the Pro V performed better for me, I wouldn't play it as much as I tended to lose 3 to 4 balls a round off the tee.

Now that I'm straighter (which is a nice way of sharing shorter) off the tee, I don't lose as many balls per round, and with the cost I'm able to get them at, plan on playing them quite a bit this year. I played a round a couple weeks ago with a scratch golfer and actually asked him, if he thought I was crazy or stupid to be playing a Pro V at my level. He said not at all, that he actually could see I was getting the benefit of the soft cover on a lot of the wedge shots, and that I didn't lose any off the tee that day, he saw no reason for me not to use it, if I could afford them.

just :02 from a higher handicap perspective.
 
Back
Top