Buffalo, NY is the home of the Buffalo Wing, the Buffalo Bills, and even the Toronto Blue Jays (2020, am I right?), but it is also the home of OnCore Golf. OnCore is a direct-to-consumer (DTC) brand that first made some noise back in 2012 when they introduced a golf ball with a hollow metal core, and while some may have looked at that product as a bit of a gimmick, it’s hard not to recognize the amount of growth the company has gone through. Their current lineup no longer includes that ball; however, it does have a low-compression 2-piece ball (Avant 55), a 3-piece tour ball (Elixr), and now for the first time, it includes a 4-piece golf ball thanks to the introduction of the Vero X1.
OnCore gained some steam with their Elixr golf ball. For two straight years, it has received a gold medal in Golf Digest’s Hot List, which is a pretty big deal for a DTC brand. Instead of just sitting back on this new notoriety, they pushed forward to create a product that would improve specific characteristics of that ball, and hopefully bring in even more customers. Mainly, the goal was to create an option that would spin more off of the irons and produce a little more speed and distance off of the tee. To achieve these results, OnCore created a thicker mantle that provided more speed, and a thinner cast urethane cover assisted in generating more spin on irons and wedges.
During on-course testing, the Vero performed well in several areas. Visually, Vero appeared to fly higher than the Elixr, especially with my irons. Where I noticed the height difference the most was on shots taken with long irons. That alone gave me a slight confidence boost that I could hit my four or five iron into some firm greens because the added height could help the ball land softer. To my naked eye, peak height differences didn’t seem all the different, aside from the long irons. When looking at numbers later collected on a Foresight GC2, those thoughts pretty much fall in line. Not to say that the Vero X1 didn’t fly high, because as you look down, I was able to achieve ball flights that peaked around 34 yards for a 7-iron.
OnCore Elixr was one of my frequently used golf balls last season. Performance-wise, that ball fell a little short in the amount of spin I was able to generate with my wedges, so hearing that the Vero might get a boost in that department was intriguing. Here is one of those times where I am glad to see something on the course that a launch monitor backs up, and backs up big time (more on that later). While playing, there was undoubtedly more control of my golf ball with wedges in hand. Full shots were hitting and stopping, and pitch shots had noticeably more grab.
Above is data collected with my driver, 7-iron, and SW when paired with the Vero golf ball. Without dissecting every detail, I think it’s important to highlight what this ball has provided over the Elixr. Off of the driver, the ball speed sits at 146, representing a 3 MPH improvement over the speeds obtained with the Elixr. The 7-iron numbers are pretty much right where I’d expect, seeing both good spin and height.
When looking at the wedges, OnCore delivered on their promise of increased short game spin. Earlier I mentioned that the on-course testing showed that the Vero had more stopping power on both full and pitch shots. On full swings, maybe for the first time, our average spin was over 10,000 RPM. On those long pitch shots, the high spin numbers remained, coming in about 7,000 RPM. Directly comparing those numbers to the Elixr, Vero generated an extra 1,000 RPM difference for both shot types. The Italian translation of Vero is true, to which OnCore says this ball is a true performance option. Well, when it comes to short game control, this ball was impressive.
Having had plenty of experience with their previous offerings, I feel confident in saying that this is the most complete golf ball that OnCore has brought to the market. Vero produced more ball speed off the driver, increased short game spin, and frankly, it felt better off every club in the bag. Entering into this end of the market with a 4-piece golf ball costing $39.99 as a direct-to-consumer brand will be interesting to follow. Part of the lure of the DTC model is that golfers could get good golf balls, at a more budget-friendly price. At this price tag, there are some savings, but will it be enough to entice those who play the more well-known brands to give them a chance? If you do, there is a good chance that you will like what you see.
More information on the Vero X1 can be found at www.oncoregolf.com.
The Details
Available: Now
Price: $39.99
Construction: 4 Piece, Cast Urethane Cover
Looks like a bit of issue between other son and dad. Shots freakin fiireeddd
Father+son and son (who manages the brand)
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.
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.
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?
hahah.
View attachment 9002128
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?
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.
This is pretty damn well said right here.
They won’t miss the business they never had.
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.
Ok…I get that now.
I hear next year he is going to rip open the caddie suit and show off the oncore shirt
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.
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.
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.
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?
The only thing that I Intended to respond to was your suggestion that designers building long courses that are also advocating for rollbacks stand to profit from it by doing renovations as a result.
I don’t even think that the goal of the ruling bodies is to eliminate the 300 yard drive. Again, Jack and others were doing it back in the day. With persimmon heads and shorter steel shafts, no less. I think what the ruling bodies would like is for them to be the exception rather than the norm at the highest levels, and/or trying to do it brings a greater degree of risk with it.
To your question though, what I’m saying is that the course would no longer be 7600. The tee boxes that get the distance would be no more. Of course if the tee boxes aren’t needed anymore, that area can be shrunk accordingly, and adding less resource intensive plants where appropriate.
I’ll allow that if any rollback is significant you very well could be right that adjustments might be needed at courses specifically intended to challenge the pros, but if that were to happen, resistance from both manufacturers and pro tours will probably be a way bigger problem.
I agree, I got a dozen for about that price when they had a special. It’s a decent ball, but with the shady guerilla marketing done at the masters in 2021, I haven’t bought any more of their golf balls
So was there a conclusion to this. Was it the brand or was it a rogue solo tactic by players son!?
They said rogue solo tactic, but wasn’t his son on the board or worked for OnCore?
No clue honestly. Not to take away from the classless act but I was impressed with the ball performance
Agreed with the performance of the ball, it’s solid, just disappointed that is what I associate with this golf ball ?