Most Used Ball On Tour

JB

Follow @THPGolf on Social Media
Albatross 2024 Club
Staff member
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
281,681
Reaction score
422,972
Location
THP Experiences
Each week their are "counts" done on the clubs and balls and companies praising themselves for being the most used ______ on tour.

Last week TaylorMade had 55 drivers in play and led with that. Just about 40 of them being the latest 2011 models. Pretty high percentage.

Titleist has dominated the ball count for years. Last week they had 94 players using the Titleist golf ball and leading with over 64% of all players. Staggering numbers. However less than 50% of them are playing the current model (based on stats we received)

My questions are these.
Why is that?
Is that an indication of the golf ball?
Since consumers are buying it based on some level of that (whether we like it or not), is it misleading?
Would you have an issue if a player was saying "Play this driver like me" but was not playing it?

I often wonder these things because almost all of their players appeared to put the new driver in play quickly this year (many brands, and especially Titleist)
 
Because it's a simple marketing ploy, just like any product that is repackaged or has a 'new formula' it has more appeal because people are naturally curious and think that product is better even though most times it's the same. Pro golfers know what they like and like the Titleist commercial says they use it for every shot so they know how a certain ball will play in all situations so no need for them to change.
 
I think its misleading that titleist doesnt sell the ball that is actually the one being most played on tour. That being said, and Im only guessing here, is maybe the guys who are playing the old ball because they have been playing it for so long and are used to it. But Ive heard all too many times that the best ProV that ever hit the market is the 392. Which a ton of guys played at Aronimink if Im not mistaken
 
Why is that?

Many players just get used to the performance of a certain ball and don't want to make the switch right away until they have a chance to practice with the newer ball. I remember stocking up on the ProV1* back when Titleist was replacing them with the ProV1X because I loved the performance of the *.

Is that an indication of the golf ball?

As I mentioned in the previous answer, I think its more of an indication of the player and not the ball.

Since consumers are buying it based on some level of that (whether we like it or not), is it misleading?

I feel its up to the consumer to educate themselves on the product they are purchasing. Especially if they are simply purchasing the item because certain players on tour are using it.

Would you have an issue if a player was saying "Play this driver like me" but was not playing it?

Doesn't bother me at all. I know how fickle golf can be and players are likely to change their clubs at any moment. Not to mention how backwards a golfer's thinking is if they really let what guys on tour are using influence their own equipment choices.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Admin
  • #5
I know many will say its a comfort thing. I just dont buy that. It was not a comfort thing when they switched to that ball. It is not a comfort thing when they switched every other piece of their equipment. I just dont buy the comfort thing.

Every pro golfer we have ever worked with uses hard data and numbers to determine if something works.
 
Why is that? Pros are creatures of habit and it's probably what they started out using when they first started playing or have been using for some time?
Is that an indication of the golf ball? I would guess pros tinker more with equipment than golf balls so if they find something they like they'll rarely swich?
Since consumers are buying it based on some level of that (whether we like it or not), is it misleading? It may be but some amateurs may be more concerned with social credit vs. performance for their particular game
Would you have an issue if a player was saying "Play this driver like me" but was not playing it? Yes
 
Every pro golfer we have ever worked with uses hard data and numbers to determine if something works.

I'm not 100% sure of the new specs of the ProV's but is it possible that because it's a different composition, that it may improve some areas of a players game, but it doesn't suit all the pros?
 
That, to me, means the older ball is better than their new ball and theyre currently selling a lesser ball while still claiming the benefit of the performance of the previous ball.

Maybe the older ball is better for a tour swing speed, and maybe the newer balls are geared toward slightly slower swing speeds? Doubt it, but its FFT.

I know many will say its a comfort thing. I just dont buy that. It was not a comfort thing when they switched to that ball. It is not a comfort thing when they switched every other piece of their equipment. I just dont buy the comfort thing.

Every pro golfer we have ever worked with uses hard data and numbers to determine if something works.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Admin
  • #9
I'm not 100% sure of the new specs of the ProV's but is it possible that because it's a different composition, that it may improve some areas of a players game, but it doesn't suit all the pros?

That is my guess. I just could not believe the number was OVER 50% that were not playing it. That to me says something. I would feel the same way about a driver from Taylormade, an iron set from Callaway, or any other company that claims "most used on tour". Over 50% is a pretty high number.
 
I know many will say its a comfort thing. I just dont buy that. It was not a comfort thing when they switched to that ball. It is not a comfort thing when they switched every other piece of their equipment. I just dont buy the comfort thing.

Every pro golfer we have ever worked with uses hard data and numbers to determine if something works.

I never used hard data and numbers to determine if something worked. The numbers say a golf ball should travel further in humid air but I just don't see it that way in my experiences on the golf course.

I think you are underestimating the comfort factor.
 
That, to me, means the older ball is better than their new ball and theyre currently selling a lesser ball while still claiming the benefit of the performance of the previous ball.

Maybe the older ball is better for a tour swing speed, and maybe the newer balls are geared toward slightly slower swing speeds? Doubt it, but its FFT.

That could be true Hundy. You might have something there. perhaps in their thoughts to increase spin due to groove rules, they created too much spin for some off of irons and drivers thus resulting in ballooning at the highest level? All guesses of course, but that does make sense. Losing marketshare to the "tour level ball for slower swing speeds" does give that some merit.
 
Each week their are "counts" done on the clubs and balls and companies praising themselves for being the most used ______ on tour.

Last week TaylorMade had 55 drivers in play and led with that. Just about 40 of them being the latest 2011 models. Pretty high percentage.

Titleist has dominated the ball count for years. Last week they had 94 players using the Titleist golf ball and leading with over 64% of all players. Staggering numbers. However less than 50% of them are playing the current model (based on stats we received)

My questions are these.
Why is that?
Is that an indication of the golf ball?
Since consumers are buying it based on some level of that (whether we like it or not), is it misleading?
Would you have an issue if a player was saying "Play this driver like me" but was not playing it?

I often wonder these things because almost all of their players appeared to put the new driver in play quickly this year (many brands, and especially Titleist)
I think it speaks volumes. Some players, not all are a creature of habit and don't like to change. But that's some, if it's better, most would change, which your numbers are no indicating.

I'm bothered when pros have the latest and greatest driver headcover, but stuck with an older model, that grinds my gears. It's all about selling the latest and greatest though.
 
I never used hard data and numbers to determine if something worked. The numbers say a golf ball should travel further in humid air but I just don't see it that way in my experiences on the golf course.

I think you are underestimating the comfort factor.

Maybe, but I am basing it off being in tour vans and on PGA Tour tournament ranges and watching guys getting fit for golf balls and clubs. I can only go with the information that we witness first hand. We have never seen anybody not use some sort of hard data in these decisions at the highest level.
 
Aren't tour players switching to Polara's?
 
I think it is because the ball is not as visible as clubs. When the ball is out there I can't tell who makes it, but most of the drivers and other club we can tell who make them. I think pros play clubs due to money a lot of times, but the ball they use what really works for them.
 
I've yet to try the new Titleist balls, but based on the numbers I'd have to say this don't bode well for their product. I think it's very misleading, but show's a quick snap shot of what most weekend players do, they try to emulate the pros and swallow all the marketing without addressing their own needs. I did the same for a long time, heck Titleist wouldn't steer me wrong.
 
I think the older ball being in play is a product of choice by the player. Remember when Titleist launched the Professional, not alot of guys switched. The same with the old PROV1 with the seam. I know some players that order and stock piled that ball for the distance. Once a player gets in his/her head that a ball works they seem to be slow to make the move. I am not sure the average player could tell you the difference between the new an old PROV1 or any high end ball.

I don't have a problem playing equipment pushed but not played by touring pros. I play what works for me regardless of what my favs are playing. No if a Pro says it's the greatest thing since slice bread and then I see him playing a completely different club, I know he did it for the money. It's the business of golf.
 
From what I gather, they just like a certain year ball and play it because they dont like the new one as much or hate change. Different launch characterstics and maybe a different feel. I know when I play the RX it's very hard for me to tell the difference between this years and the previous model but I know there's supposed to be. Marketing plays a huge part in that. But I think for pro's and the very good golfers, they can tell a difference.

I'm not sure it's an indication of the ball quality but I would usually associate the next year model as a natural progression. Marketing will usually tell me the newer model is better (which is why I pay more for it) and even if it isn't, I still have it in my head at least.

I'm torn on whether or not its misleading. I could probably write a lot on this but I don't want to put anyone to sleep more than I may have already haha. If you have a successful line, I almost think, why change it unless its a new ball completely? Eventually at some point with all the changes, you get a different ball but I personally like the idea of keeping ball lines the same because as a consumer it gets frustrating. I know I like the E series. I know for now, what I can expect on a base level from each line. Same with RX and B series. They may "improve" the ball from year to year but the main characteristics are still the same.

If a player was saying, I don't think I would knowing what I know now. If I didn't know pro's have so many options that we may never see I would be upset. It's just a different perspective I have now from really trying to educate myself on what's out there.
 
From what I gather, they just like a certain year ball and play it because they dont like the new one as much or hate change. Different launch characterstics and maybe a different feel. I know when I play the RX it's very hard for me to tell the difference between this years and the previous model but I know there's supposed to be. Marketing plays a huge part in that. But I think for pro's and the very good golfers, they can tell a difference.

I'm not sure it's an indication of the ball quality but I would usually associate the next year model as a natural progression. Marketing will usually tell me the newer model is better (which is why I pay more for it) and even if it isn't, I still have it in my head at least.

I'm torn on whether or not its misleading. I could probably write a lot on this but I don't want to put anyone to sleep more than I may have already haha. If you have a successful line, I almost think, why change it unless its a new ball completely? Eventually at some point with all the changes, you get a different ball but I personally like the idea of keeping ball lines the same because as a consumer it gets frustrating. I know I like the E series. I know for now, what I can expect on a base level from each line. Same with RX and B series. They may "improve" the ball from year to year but the main characteristics are still the same.

If a player was saying, I don't think I would knowing what I know now. If I didn't know pro's have so many options that we may never see I would be upset. It's just a different perspective I have now from really trying to educate myself on what's out there.

Yoccos,
I agree with most of this. I dont think its necessarily an indication that the new ball is inferior at all. Just maybe not right for that level.

I also always wonder why improve or change. Why not keep the "train rolling".
 
Maybe, but I am basing it off being in tour vans and on PGA Tour tournament ranges and watching guys getting fit for golf balls and clubs. I can only go with the information that we witness first hand. We have never seen anybody not use some sort of hard data in these decisions at the highest level.

Things have changed a good bit since I played on the Hooters Tour back in 2001-2002, and I admit that certainly isn't the highest level. There wasn't a such thing as ball fitting and launch monitors had not even been invented yet so we couldn't go by hard data. We had tons of resources at our disposal but it still had to worked out on the course and the range. The number of guys still using steel shafts in their drivers was surprising, certainly they could get better numbers by embracing newer technology. I figured it could only have amounted to the comfort level they had in their equipment because even in those days there we great advancements in graphite shaft technology. The Speeder 757 and EI-70 shafts come to mind.
 
Pros have the opportunity to try whatever they like for free. So if they stick with something, it has to be because they are comfortable with it. I read one of the recent golf Magazines that had "what's in the bag" feat. Steve Marino. He had a bunch of old clubs in his bag. One that I can remember was the XLS driver. That driver is quite a few models back, but Steve still uses it. Why? Is it because the XLS was the best driver made by cleveland?

Call it BS, but I value the opinions of my peers over pros and advertisements. They're great to watch, but they don't spend money on the game, we do. And as I see THP members give insight on clubs like the Mashie and others, it doesn't make me run out and buy it, but it definitely peaks my interest, and makes me look for demo days coming up in my area for certain items.

The marketing scheme works as I see so many "White" drivers on the range lately.

I'm rambling, so I'll tap out. Hope I made a little sense.
 
All I know is that the majority of the balls werent their new balls being shipped to Aronimink when I was going through them. That, and ZJ plays a ball that no one else does.
That could be true Hundy. You might have something there. perhaps in their thoughts to increase spin due to groove rules, they created too much spin for some off of irons and drivers thus resulting in ballooning at the highest level? All guesses of course, but that does make sense. Losing marketshare to the "tour level ball for slower swing speeds" does give that some merit.
 
Things have changed a good bit since I played on the Hooters Tour back in 2001-2002, and I admit that certainly isn't the highest level. There wasn't a such thing as ball fitting and launch monitors had not even been invented yet so we couldn't go by hard data. We had tons of resources at our disposal but it still had to worked out on the course and the range. The number of guys still using steel shafts in their drivers was surprising, certainly they could get better numbers by embracing newer technology. I figured it could only have amounted to the comfort level they had in their equipment because even in those days there we great advancements in graphite shaft technology. The Speeder 757 and EI-70 shafts come to mind.

I thnk you are dead on accurate. I think that as the money and biz side of things changed so did technology and it has made fitting better and finding the right product at all levels better.

Do you believe that sponsorships at this level and winners pools make it vastly different?
 
I definitely agree that Titleist is sketchy with the release of new products claiming how they are so much better, especially with golf balls. I feel that there is a difference in the last 3 model ProV1's. I'd love to know the actual stats on which model ProV1's the pros were hitting.
 
Back
Top