A Tool For All Golfers
MyGolfSpy has a mantra. “Power to the Player”.
And, the old adage goes, knowledge is power. Through consumer education, we make it our mission to help golfers navigate an immense, expensive and oftentimes misleading market of golf equipment.
Each individual golfer is unique, but the common denominator all golfers have in common is that they each use a golf ball. And like every other aspect of the equipment market, golf ball offerings are vast and vary widely in a number of metrics.
MyGolfSpy is launching a new tool to help golfers determine which golf balls are the best on the market.
MyGolfSpy Ball Lab: The Genesis of The Comparison Tool
This quality comparison tool is meant to be utilized by golfers of all abilities and familiarities with equipment. In order to make it simple for you, our resident golf ball nerd Tony Covey has been methodically measuring and classifying golf ball quality for more than a year.
You might have seen the first dividends of his work in MyGolfSpy Ball Lab.
So why did we do this?
Over the course of our golf ball performance test, it became abundantly clear that some models were significantly more consistent than others. The best balls landed in roughly the same spot time and time again, while the worst balls produced inconsistent distance and flew wildly offline. Tony wanted to learn why and see if there was a way to correlate what we saw during our robot test with data collected in a lab environment.
After months of conversations with R&D teams across the industry and hours on the phone with Harvey Glantz (the man who holds the patent on our compression gauge which is used in ball factories around the world), and more than $20K in equipment, Ball Lab became a reality.
While Ball Lab takes a methodical one ball at a time approach, we know that’s not how you buy balls. You want to know how one ball stacks up against every other. The Ball Lab Comparison Tool allows you to see just that.
The comparison tool is a major step that gives you the power to harness Ball Lab data.
Why Quality Matters
We’re often asked why quality matters. Many golfers believe they’re incapable of noticing the difference between a good ball and a bad one. As Tony is fond of saying, “even if you’re not good enough to tell the difference, you’re good enough to appreciate it”. What that means is that whether you’re aware of it not, inconsistencies in the golf ball can manifest as subtle as a shot that’s a few extra yards from the hole or, in the most extreme of cases, can be the difference between the middle of the fairway and the wrong side of the white stakes.
Golf is inherently a game of variables, your golf ball shouldn’t be one of them, and yet too often golfers assume that the ball is an inconsequential part of the equation.
Said another way, if you play an inconsistent golf ball or play whatever ball you happen to pull out of your bag, what you’re doing isn’t wildly different than randomly adjusting the loft and lie angles on every club in your bag every time you put a new ball into play. Most golfers understand that the clubs in your bag contribute to the speed, launch, and spin of a golf shot. The same is true for the golf ball.
Quality and consistency absolutely matter.
Understanding the Comparison Tool
If you’re no stranger to Ball Lab, some of what you’ll see in the comparison tool will look familiar. Ball Lab and the comparison tool have an unbreakable bond, so we’ll also show you some behind-the-scenes footage to help you understand how we gather the data that’s presented to you in the tool. Here’s a breakdown of all of the metrics used to determine the quality of a golf ball.
Score
Remember, Ball Lab, and thus the Comparison Tool, rank balls based on quality control, not performance. We’re not arguing that both aren’t important, but if a ball lacks quality control, if it isn’t consistent, performance will be inconsistent as well.
The new score metric is an “out of 100” ranking or an overall grade. In simple terms, it represents a calculation of all metrics.
If you are familiar with Ball Lab, you’ll likely remember the “True Price” ranking. While we thought it was an interesting metric, it didn’t resonate with everyone. With the release of our golf ball comparison tool, we’ve done away with True Price.
Like True Price, the overall score is based on consistency across our key metrics and the ratio between “good” and “bad” balls.
Moving forward, the “out of 100” score will replace our True Price metric in all Ball Lab reviews.
% Good Balls
% Good Balls shows the percentage of balls in the sample that were free from a significant disqualifying defect. Think of it like this: If you purchased 100 golf balls, it’s the number you can reasonably expect to meet the basic quality standards of Ball Lab.
A ball can be flagged as bad for several reasons. Any ball that doesn’t meet the USGA standard is deemed “bad”. A ball can also be deemed bad if either of our compression metrics falls significantly outside the norm. Finally, a ball can be flagged as bad when there are significant defects identified during our visual inspection though in most cases, those closely correlate with anomalies in the gauge measurements.
It IS NOT a measure of the performance of a golf ball. When it comes to performance, there are few balls that are absolutely good or absolutely bad, it’s simply a matter how what segment of the market a given ball fits. Performance data will come, but Ball Lab is about quantifying the quality and consistency of the golf balls we test.
Compression
Compression most closely correlates with speed. A firmer ball is typically a faster ball. Softer balls are slower and often rely on low spin to offset distance lost to that lack of speed. While we rarely recommend soft golf balls for faster swing speed players. As your driver speed dips below 85, and especially below 80, ball speed differences are often minimal.
When we measure compression we’re looking at several factors. The total compression value allows us to quantify the relative hardness of the golf ball. We also look at how consistent the compression is from one ball to the next and for the 3-points we measure on each ball. When there is a wide variation in compression, not only will one ball perform differently from another, when there’s a wide gap across the 3-points measured, the performance of your ball can vary based on where you hit it.
Diameter
We measure the diameter of each ball at 4-points (two locations on the seam, the pole, and a point in-between. Our diameter measurements serve several purposes. They give us insight into the relative size of the golf ball. Smaller balls tend to be longer (especially for faster players) while larger balls tend to be a little bit easier to hit in the air.
We use our diameter measurements to judge consistency across the sample. They also serve as the basis for the calculation that determines whether or not a ball is round…or at least round-enough.
As the second part of our diameter measurements, we leverage a custom-made 1.6800″ ring gauge to test each ball for conformance to the USGA’s minimum size rule.
Weight
It’s important to capture the weight of the golf ball for several reasons. First, we want to to know that every ball we test conforms to the USGA rule for the maximum weight (1.62 ounces). While it’s rare, we do occasionally find balls over the weight limit – and often in bunches.
Generally speaking, a heavier ball is a longer ball, so most manufacturers will target a weight value as close to the limit as they can consistently achieve.
As with our other metrics, the data we collect from our scale allows us to determine how consistent a given model is from one ball to the next.
Using the Comparison Tool
We’ve tried to make the initial release of the tools as simple as possible. In addition to Score and % Good Balls, we also provide you with our consistency metrics. The icons represent how consistent each model is for a given metric relative to the database as a whole.
- Dark Green = Excellent
- Green = Good
- Yellow = Average
- Orange = Fair
- Red = Poor
Not to jump too deep into the weeds, but ratings are based on standard deviations across the sample.
For example, a rating of Good for a given metric means the ball model was more than one standard deviation better than the database average. A rating of Poor means the ball was more than two standard deviations worse than the database average.
Filter Your Selections
We’ve provided the capability to narrow your selections. You can filter balls by Price, Year, Brand, Model, Cover Material and “Feel.”
Our Feel scale is based on total ball compression. Here’s the breakdown:
- X-Soft: 45 (measured compression points) and below
- Soft: 46-62
- Medium: 63-79
- Firm: 80-96
- X-Firm: 97-113
We’ve also provided the ability to sort the columns for Score and Good Ball% as well as our Compression, Diameter and Weight Consistency metrics.
As the database grows, we’ll look to add additional filtering capabilities.
Links to Reviews
Where applicable, we’ve added links to individual Ball Lab reviews. And, yes, for those of you looking to buy, we’ve added links for that as well.
Moving forward, not every ball we measure will be featured in a full Ball Lab review but every ball we test will be added to the golf ball comparison tool.
More To Come
As our ball comparison tool evolves, it will become the hub of our golf ball review and ranking process. Eventually, we plan to add performance data and additional points of comparison.
Let us know what else you’d like to see.
For more information on our process, visit our How We Test page.
*We may earn a commission when you buy through links on our site.
Paul Grant
8 months agoNicklaus Black Golf Balls.
I tried to send this yesterday and my phone crashed while I was typing. If that went through, I apologize for sending the same question twice. A few years ago you had a review of the Nicklaus brand of golf balls. Do you know if there have been any upgrades to the balls? Are they still manufactured at a Bridgestone golf ball plant? Is there a way to use the chart to compare the Black version of the brand stand up against the other golf balls in your chart?
Thank you
Dennis Beach
8 months agoAs I wrote in Golf Balls II, there are those of us that will never tee up a ProV1 or a TP5. And there are lots of us. Not playing a $4 ball just to see it head into the trees, never to be found. So, lets get real, and test some of the most played balls on the market. Start with Titleist TruFeel(benchmark), and work thru Srixon SoftFeel, Callaway SuperSoft, Maxfli SoftFli, StraightFli, Pinnacle Rush, TopFlite Hammers and XL’s, Bridgestone E series, etc, etc…
RT
3 weeks agoI second that request it’s time to test the avg. Joe golfer’s ball that most use in everyday play…
Lou
8 months agoMy ball, the $40 Titleist Tour Speed is ranked in the mid-60’s. In this chart, it is, by far, the worst Titleist ever made. It is sort of on the same level as all those Srixon Q Star Tours that were not round. How does Titleist market a ball that is so awful? For goodness sake, it’s just a point or so above a TopFlite gamer made in the basement of some house in China. Obviously, Titleist doesn’t bother to X-ray Tour Speed balls, or check for compression or roundness. This ball isn’t even as good as a repaint ProV. Yet, despite all that, I’ve never found a flaw in the ones I’ve bought. Perfect paint, perfect markings and terrific performance. Except, Tony found them to be just dreadfully awful. The US Podo from 1954 would be ranked higher.
Rich
8 months agoPlease test the new Srixon X/XV Divide Balls and Diamond. Noticed they are made in Japan compared to I think Taiwan on the balls they run promotions on.
steve
8 months agoWhen we going to hear anything about the Trust Bison golf balls? Claim to be the in house brand at Kerichem Science Co. in Taiwan.. Kerichem claims they have made and sold golf ball materials to many different golf ball manufactures for years and now offer their own line of in house golf balls….
don
8 months agoI love this and it has changed what ball I play, but I have 1 more test. Durability especially urethane covers. Some don’t stand up to 1 sand shot while other brands last several rounds.. Dramatically changes how much they cost.
Amir
8 months agoGreat Job as usual guys. What I find most important for me – which I find hard to figure a test for is – putting performance. I love the ProV1 and have found a lot other balls (V1x, Callaway, Taylormade, Bridgestone, Snell, Vice, etc.) might perform better in some aspect but none have the putting performance (feel, consistency, roll etc…) of a ProV1. Is there a way to test for those characteristics?
Don Banks
8 months agoWhile I appreciate all the unbiased testing and opinions here, I just simply find it hard to believe Titleist is that much better than Bridgestone, Calloway and others.. They simply haven’t ever been in my golfing experience. They do make less bulge in the wallet, however. I think Titleist must do what Nike does. just saturate the market and buy a lot of endorsements.
Frank Cacciola
11 months agowhen will Snell MTB be added
Tom R
1 year agoWhen this originally came out I started to perform my own testing, then eventually I did a golf ball fitting. The 3 golf balls that came out in front were the V1X, Chrome Soft X and the Bridgestone B-XS. After further extensive testing, the B-XS won out. That ball might be lower on the consistency scale but for me, it goes further and performs the way I need to around the greens.
Greg
1 year agoYou asked for some feedback and It would be good to see the next step taken when doing your sampling. 5 Balls is a small sample 25 balls would now be a better sample. for checking Std deviation and more reliable accurate to find flyers as it would be more accurate of the the production process.
Six SIgma is the ultimate measurements from the mean and a bell curve and where they fall would show us all how they compare.
The quality test for cheaper balls may be OK to 3 std deviations but a expensive ball would not cut it. We would want it to hold up to six std deviations ..
It is probably unfair to call a cheaper ball not fit for purpose as it may well fit into the bell curve that it was designed for without flyers ..
As you say the flyers are the problem. Ben Hogan never played a ball that he never hit in a practice round. so he then knew it would perform in a tournament.
Steve (the real one, pithy and insufferable)
1 year agoNot following your comment? They test 36 balls, not 5. From three different boxes from different sources (if available).. ???
Greg
1 year agoThanks for the reply Steve and I apologise .That is a very good sample and flyers would definitely be detected . . My next box of balls will be Pro v1 in that case .As always thank you and the team for the great work you do.
It is nice to know sometimes that it is not the balls fault but your own swing broke down .
Dr Tee
1 year agoToo much data–gave me a headache. Rather than adding clarity, you have merely confused the situation
Sport Cole
1 year agoGreat DATA but, it is a starting point to on the course experimentation. I have found thru personal experimentation with my clubs (FW15’s & Epic Max LS) and swing speed @100-110…..Temps below 70= TP5, Temp 70-88= TP5X Temp 88+ ProV1x/ChromeSoft LS. I find the LS-x too low spin off my LS driver and falls out of the sky like a rock! I’ve been an NIH certified researcher and have contributed to healthcare journals and medical product review journals and I appreciate DATA but you still must individually test as we all are variable as are the conditions we play.
Brian Shuman
1 year agoHi! About 10% of your supporters are RED/GREEN color blind. Depending on the chart set up this van make deciphering differences between very good, good and poor somewhat difficult and often confusing.
Is there any chance the color scheme could be altered to allow greater contrast. Navy blue, black, white , yellow rather than shades of red or green??
Thank you
Brian
STEVEGP
1 year agoI also am significantly red-green colorblind. I have the same challenge reading charts and spreadsheets for my work. The best solution is to use bright “lollipop” colors.
A quick anecdote: Several years ago I was playing one of my regular courses. They had red flags on the pins. On an unusually still day with no wind I couldn’t see the red flag against the green background of the trees and foliage. I was depending on a breeze to make the flag move to see the pin. I mentioned it to the course manager. Thankfully, for whatever reason, the next year they changed to a blue and white checkerboard pattern on the flags.
19thole Al
1 year agoWow, are you guys a danger on the road….?…..jk
AlexC
1 year agoI am also red/green color blind. I like the lollipop scheme as a solution.
@jk No we aren’t a danger on the road. Traffic lights have a fixed order top to bottom or left to right!
Jon Silverberg
1 year agoI second this request. Given the prevalence of male color-blindedness in the red/green spectrum, it makes no sense for graphic presentations not to default to a non-red/green color differentiation scheme.
STEVEGP
1 year agoMy red-green color blindness definitely does not make me a danger on the road. Some shades of green and red I can see distinctly (like in traffic lights); others cause a problem. For example: olive, forest, or lime green cause no problem. But it’s the shades of green that are close to certain shades of gray, and brown (like in some clothing) that cause me to make an educated guess. And if it’s called a ” xxx heather,” forget it! One more example: certain shades of red and orange pose absolutely no problem, But where red meets orange–like with some “red rubber balls”– it becomes a coin flip.
Greg
1 year agoThe quality control techniques are excellent.
Why wouldn’t you also do balance checks ?
I have had good quality balls that fly like they have mud stuck on them as the balance was so bad.
I have done some on bridgestone top liners and they seem to align it with the alignment mark .
Also what do manufacturer’s do to stop these balls reaching the market place..?
You have told us about maxfli that is good but we need to know more.
Thank you for your time and good work
Mark
1 year agoThis article kept jumping all over the place, so I’ve given up on trying to finish reading it.
Jim
1 year agoDitto
Steven M.
1 year agoHey guys1 Mr. Cheap here. I’m currently playing with the Kirkland V.2 ball and carrying a (12) handicap. Is there any chance of a review of their updated ball in the near future?
Derrick
1 year agoThey did on Nov 2
Derrick
1 year agoThey did on Nov 4th. You can just YouTube it
Rick Colt
1 year agoIt’s interesting that you show a Kirkland ball in some of the article’s video, but I don’t see it on the list.
Steve (the real one, pithy and insufferable)
1 year agoClick on the “Brand” to the left of the chart
Click on “All” to turn off “All”
Scroll down to “Kirkland” and click the check box
Scroll further down and click on “Apply”
In a couple of seconds the two Kirkland ball results will appear
Ryan
1 year agoIt would be really interesting to see a study on how each of these balls compare to range balls. Readers of these articles love to get the most out of their equipment, but unfortunately the nature of the game forces us to play with range balls a large majority of the time. It is hard to know in on course situations how your “gamer” ball is going to react unless you’ve used it consistently for some time.
KVAN26
1 year agoIn the most recent test, they did!
Don’t have the link handy but it shouldn’t be hard to find 🙂
Tim
1 year agoAll this being said….what # is getting into an area that would be considered “bad” or a time to consider higher scored balls? is 80 and above a good ranking? or 70? i think the scoring is too subjective and hard to follow
Imafitter
2 years agoI’m now convinced that MGS has become another junk mail nothing company. You once did honest reviews, now whoever pays you the most gets the best results. You’re a complete waste of time.
rick agel
1 year agoCan you.be specific in your observations?
L. John Miller
1 year agoWow. That’s a pretty big grenade to lob w out ant explanation…..I admire MGS for posting this…..but come on…put up or shut up.
Stuart Riddell
1 year agoIMAFITTER Really !!! That’s a little shortsighted of you? Until MGS did this follow up on the Golfball Industry who was overseeing the lack of Manufacturers quality and value for money comparisons in a ball ?? They have made the Golf Ball manufacturers stand up and be accountable, have you been paying attention? maybe you should actually read an article all the way through. These guys have been Stellar on their independent reviews, who cares if they make some money from some of these reviews ?? Would you do this for nothing? anyway I think you are missing the point, these reviews are actually making your job as a Fitter easier, who else would you trust for accurate Data like this….. The Manufacturers. ? Merry Christmas
RAY FARRELL
2 years agoFirst of all, well done.
Do you plan to review the RZN HS Tour? Or any of the RZN line?
And keep up the great work!
Karl H
2 years agoWould be really interest in RZN Tour UK results, believe this is the MS ball is the US
Geoff
2 years agoTony, great work – I’d be curious to see how Titleist Velocity compares to the other models given the lower price point. Keep up the good work!
AJ
2 years agoLoving this list! When will we see the 2020 Vice Pro Plus / 2020 Vice Pro Soft / Oncore Vero X1 (my ball)??? Please say it’s some time soon! Thank you for putting this together. Love it.
Scott Bacon
2 years agoNever mind. My phone was SLOOOOW to download the entire article. I see it now!
Scott Bacon
2 years agoAm I completely blind? I’ve read the article three times and yet to find then link to the actual tool! Help?!?!
P.J.
1 year agoI think we saw the word ‘tool’ and thought there would be some sort of golf ball fitting tool. But, what is actually here is spreadsheet-like data summary from previous articles and tests.
John Holmes
2 years agoLove the work and results here! What about the Bridgestone e12 contact? Would love to buy Pro v1 but cost is a little prohibitive given still losing too many balls and this type of ball may be good alternative. Thanks
19thole Al
1 year agoJohn, I’m telling you. The best urethane ball for the money that you can buy immediately from the store (Dick’s or Golf Galaxy) is Maxfli’s ’21 Tour or tour X. $30 a dozen when you buy two. I’m a 13 hcp and to me they rival the Pro V’s. And with that price you can limit your search down to one minute for your lost balls……lol
Kyle Puttick
2 years agoHI Tony
I am a PGA pro from South Africa, if you need balls from ball plant 4 let me know and I will send them over to you, majority of balls in our market come from there.
lefty
2 years agoLooks like I am going to throw away all my balls that in the previous articles were as good or better than Titleist. Where is the Z-star? I did not see any Srixon balls measured. Of course, we could all just buy the Maxfli-tour because it is the only ball that measured consistently in all the MGS articles. It was at the top and I can save 13 dollars a dozen. Also, is there anyway to look at a ball on the outside other than cover imperfections to tell if it sucks.
Ryano
2 years agoThere srixon balls are there…
mardukes
2 years agoSeems like rating is a function of feel. X-firm high, soft low. So are we saying simply that harder is better — easier to manufacture consistently? I know this goes back to the performance debate but, has the golfing population pretty much rejected the use of “non-tour” balls? Is there no reason to expect to play well under 90 compression?
Rob
2 years agoI agree Mardukes! Tour balls are good for well… tour players. But the other 99%? I am probably above average player with swing speed (driver 95-100 mph) but my best rounds are always with soft/medium balls. Its just more forgiving. Sacrificing distance on a drive for added forgiveness is a trade I will take. The full impact on score of the poor manufactured softer ball isn’t clear to me either.
Alex
2 years agoNice one! Thanks for that. I’d like to see a test about which kind of ball is best related to average swing speed. I guess this could help a lot most of us to pick the right one.
Jonathan McCain
2 years agoDoes this mean that the Prov1x is the new MGS test ball? Hasn’t it been Bridgestone?
Rob
2 years agoGreat article! Love the side by side comparison. Seems like the ‘best’ balls are all firm balls. Do you think it’s easier to make consistent firm balls? I like to play 80 compression or less but based on the data there hasn’t been one that has been tested and is also a consistent build.
Davin The Fader
2 years agoFinally, a way to do a ball to ball comparison performed by a concerned third party. Now, I know there are folks who will read the article and filter through the comparison table looking for brand of ball played by many, but claimed by none.
Where’s the TOP FLITE DATA? I find Hammers, Gamers and XL Distance balls everywhere. Let’s keep it real……. and show some love to the unsung balls that help keep the game we all love alive!
You gotta start somewhere and a PROV1 is definitely not an entry level ball 😉
Rob V.
2 years agoI am anxiously awaiting everyone’s hard work in the Lab. There’s a few Callaway balls I’m eager to see the results. Currently your reviews and data have me making the move from Refurb TP5’s to new Vice Pro’s.
thank you for the hard work and consumer reporting!
Joe S
2 years agoReally hoping for a review of these Sugar Golf balls I am starting to see people talk about. Good reviews so far, but I need to see what you guys say about them.
Bob lannon
2 years agoThanks for another job well done.
Myles Graham
2 years agoVery impressive work, Tony & all!
Results are very interesting, many of my perceptions have been validated, however there are several balls with ratings that are surprising. In particular, how poorly the Bridgestone line up has tested – their highest ranking ball being on par with the pinnacle practice ball – WOW! Can’t wait to see the list develop and look forward to my ball (AVX) being added. Cheers!
Donald
2 years agoI appreciate these tests with some reservations. The chrome soft has a reported 89% good balls. This would seem to me to indicate that one ball in every dozen would be a squirrel. I play all kinds of balls, primarily found Pro V1 and Pro V1x, TP5 and X, and Chrome Soft and X. I can’t for the life of me remember any ball that came up consistently with loss of direction or distance based on anything other than a bad swing. And remember, these are found balls. You might expect some of them disappeared in the desert landscape due to performance/quality, consistency problems, but nope, they work for me. I just think testing should be done on an Iron Byron or similar and if a ball comes off squirrelly, then conduct the tests including cutting it open to see what the problem is.. Just sayin
Desert Hack
2 years agoThat’s how this while thing got started. The boys were testing balls out here in AZ. (course with an Iron Byron) and noticed balls that should have landed in a small radius, landing much further offline…Ahem, Callaway.
If you go back and search through the 2019 ball testing results post and videos (no putts giving) they talk about it.
Mike T
2 years agoCan you tell me if the 2020 or 2021 OnCore Elixr is any diffreent than the one you tested from 2017?
Desert Hack
2 years agoI can tell you what the guys at OnCore told me in a reply to my email about their 4 piece Elixer ball.
“The 4th layer is a thin transitional layer of unique chemistry from the second and 3rd layers. It is not visible to the naked eye.”
Which I later found out from Tony, is a total crock of sh#t! It’s actually a bonding layer used in golf balls to hold it together.
Those OnCore guys are lying to and deceiving their customers. 👎
Leon
1 year agoI just ordered 2 dozen OnCore balls, a box each of Avant and Elixr, based on MGS performance testing article & chart. Their website lists Elixr as a 3-pc., Avant as 2, and Vero as 4, so maybe in the meantime they have “cleaned up their act”.
Scott
2 years agoGreat Job. Appreciate all the time and effort that you guys have put into this.
Really looking forward to seeing the results as more balls are added.
Lou
2 years agoWhen you go to buy an automobile are you most concerned with how it’s built and what the gas tank weighs? Or are you interested in the performance? What about a TV? The screen weight or the picture vs others you are looking at? When you buy, or hit, a golf ball, I would guess 99%+ golfers care more about performance than weight or cover. Kudos to Tony for nice work but the majority of readers buy, and play, a certain ball for performance. That is the key element and what is missing no matter how the Ball Lab is sold to the public. MGS is the #1 unbiased site. To relegate golf ball performance to sometime in the 2nd half of the year just isn’t good time management.
RonW
2 years agoPerformance??….. Just using your analogy, if you were to buy yourself a Ferrari, you would know by research that the quality of the car is excellent.
Still, the performance would be atrocious if you don’t know how to shift gears.
This tool is excellent to determine the quality of the ball. Performance is up to the player. My opinion of course.
Tommas
2 years agoI think with balls since everyone swings at different speeds, there won’t be one specific best performing ball for everyone. I believe there is a direct correlation between the metrics analyzed in the ball labs with consistent performance. These tests are necessary for those who value consistency
Christopher
2 years agoI’d argue that the best would have the least “performance bleed” from ball to ball, so you get the most consistent results shot after shot. A bad ball is like having a mud ball and you can’t see the mud. Yes, you may only see the full extent with robot testing, but premium balls aren’t cheap and I think most players given the knowledge would steer towards the balls with the best consistencies and tolerances.
JD
2 years agoAnd if the car you go to buy has a reported 3 lemons out of ever 12, wouldn’t that influence your decision and price you’re willing to pay?
Wayne
2 years agoNot a good sign when the ball I use is not on the list 🙁 Srixon soft feel
What would be a good upgrade anyone?
Steve
1 year agoNothing wrong with your ball, I’ve used it and several others mentioned and not mentioned on the list. It all comes down to one’s golfing abilities! Most average golfers can’t afford to play more than once or twice a week, thus becoming a mid to low handicap is out of the question…So, why buy a $4 dollar ball when a $2 dollar ball will work for those individuals!?!?!? Unless you can shape your shot and spin it like the Pros on your shot into the green, you’re WASTING Money!!! ENJOY the game and forget about the Golf Ball SNOBS!!!
McaseyM
2 years agoBased on these results, i just returned some Q-star Tours I had picked up a few weeks ago and picked up some previous generation Maxfli Tour X balls from Dick’s (2 dozen for $55 shipped). i know MGS only tested the Tours, but based on quality control, Maxfli seems to be very consistent.
My ball pocket is so mixed with different balls, i’ve needed to pick a consistent ball that I wouldn’t overly regret losing 3-4 over a round. Thasnk MGS
Jeremy
2 years agoThis is a great tool, that you for putting it together! I do have a question though…how does it make sense that the MTB-X has a 97% good ball % and was in the excellent category in the performance test last year but still only has an overall score of 76? Is it simply because is has “Average” Consistency metrics? Will you also be adding the MTB Black as well?
Jimmy N.
2 years agoFirst off, amazing job Tony and the MyGolfSpy team on this comparison tool. This is such a valuable resource to have when comparison shopping before possibly dropping $50 on a dozen golf balls. However, I am a little confused and need further explanation on what I am seeing on the charts. When I looked at the Bridgestone Tour RX it has a 92% rating for good balls, but yet it only scored a 59? Is this because the 8% of bad golf balls were so bad that it brought the score down or are there other factors involved? How can Krikland which only has a rating of 78% of good balls score so much higher then the Bridgestone Tour RX?
Bringer of Rain
2 years agoI am so excited! Thank you so much for getting this information out and filterable.
I can’t wait for more data to be added!
Eric
2 years agoI am really surprised by the 76 score for Snell…their ball review was really close to retail price and seems like it would have a much better score than 76. I love this tool and what a great way to see all the reviews in one spot! Good Job everyone!
Andrew Han
2 years agoTony,
Yes, can you please elaborate on this? I switched to Snell exclusively in 2020 from ProVIx due to price and quality. I would’ve guessed it the number four spot or something closer to Titleist. Thanks
Kody
8 months agoAndrew, I did the same and switched to Snell after their ball review got such high praise last year for both mtb and mtb-x
Greg B
2 years agoThank you for your work and this comparison chart. With the limited amount of current models on their. Will you be updating and adding new balls and when can we expect updates? Thanks again.
Frank
2 years agoPretty good tool, nice job. Would have liked a “NONE” selector in the list with the “All”. Would greatly speed up using an online tool instead of having to wait for each new iteration to appear as you un-check values in the list. Other than that pretty nice tool.
El
2 years agoJust FYI….
2021 Q-Star Tour box says Made in Japan.
sorry if this posted twice.
Scott S
2 years agoAnother example of great work by the MGS Team. Thanks folks!
David
2 years agoYou are becoming the “UL” of golf.
R Wehde
2 years agoI appreciate the efforts in providing all golfers an independent evaluation of the most important item in your golf bag – the ball. I have played Titlest for over twenty years.
Thanks Tony for your passion for the truth.
Well done,
Nocke Chiangmai
2 years agoWhere is TP5x ?
Michael Gualandi
2 years agoAre you going to review the cut Blue and grey?
Jess Tilley
2 years agoLove those balls but durability is horrible
Robert Dicks
2 years agoAm I losing my mind? I have read the article three times but I cannot find the chart/tool. Where is it? Thx.
Chris Nickel
2 years agoIt’s at the top under “A tool for all golfers” – It may take a couple seconds to load.
Stevegp
2 years agoRobert, I had the same problem. I couldn’t see the spreadsheet (chart). I tried and tried opening, then closing, and re-opening the article about seven or eight times…. (absolutely NO exaggeration). At last, I succeeded! I finally saw the spreadsheet (chart). After studying it for a while, I closed the article, but was surprised upon returning that I had to repeat the multiple-step process to have the chart reappear.
This time I received an error message from “Tableau,” evidently the administrator of the table (chart). In conclusion, I came back again later tonight and had to repeat this process to have the spreadsheet (chart) reappear. This time I pulled out paper and hand wrote down the ratings in which I have a personal interest.
Switching gears, Tony, I genuinely appreciate the work you invested and the wide-ranging scope of this process. My thoughts were confirmed last night when I listened to the new episode of “No Putts Given,” in which you discussed the expanse of the project. Your Ball Lab reviews are of particular interest to me, and I want to say thanks to you and the MGS team. Great job!
Dan
2 years agoThis is why you guys are the best in the Biz!
Thx for putting in the work for us consumers!!
Antonio
2 years agoThanks guys. Awesome work. What about inesis tour?
Frank Cacciola
2 years agoHow does Taylormade TP5 have lower % good balls then Snell MTBX yet has a better score?
Nocke Chiangmai
2 years agoWhere is Taylormade TP5x ?
Rick
2 years agoThank you for this. It is great and I know much work and time goes into this.
Richard Allen
2 years agoStarted playing the Maxfli Tour based upon your test last year. Glad to see it still rates high on this list, great golf ball for those of us that want a mid priced quality golf ball.
Greg
2 years agoGreat information! Solidify’s my latest Pro V1 purchase! Curious as to why this year’s TP5/TP5x were not in there, or did I miss them?
Joe Domill
2 years agocan you send me address so I can sent a check.
Joe Domill
2 years agogreat job as always continue the great work.
David P
2 years agoNot sure that I understand. I must have missed something. If you have 100% good balls, how do you get a score of only 93? I would think it would be 100 and 100. Thanks!
Chris
2 years agoThe rating takes into account that compression, diameter and weight consistency is not rated as “excellent” for all 3 metrics. You would have a 100 rated ball then.
Rik Wall
2 years agoTeam,
I’m yours.. Great work. Tell me how best to support you. I’d like information like this as much and as often as possible.
gticlay
2 years agoThank you for doing all this work. The only thing missing is a value vs rating comparison. Is there a cheap ball that offers good (enough) quality? I simply cannot afford to play the left dash ball even though it’s probably the best one for me.
HAC
2 years agoHow useful is a value comparison when many (most) of us rarely pay retail. Titleist, Callaway and TaylorMade have all had 4 for 3 deals. Srixon often has 3 for 2 or even 2 for 1 deals. Snell and other direct to consumer brands have different prices depending on how many you buy. I like the way MGS has set this up. Tell us the quality. I will try to find the best prices I can and determine value. Like this measurement much more than true price. So much easier to understand IMHO.
Brian Shuman
1 year agoMany of us are color blind red green
Is there any chance the color scheme could be altered to allow greater contrast. Navy blue, black, white , yellow rather than shades of red or green??
Thank you
Brian
Brian Shuman
1 year ago10% of us are color blind red green. Any chance of blue white yellow etc
Tom Gregory
2 years agoThanks, Tony, et.al for this great work, KUDOS for all the info, no one else is going to this format…yet but they probably will, you guys have tweaked a fine well-oiled machine….Keep up the good work! If you add any other dimension to this it might be the float the ball in salt test, sounds corny but works especially for a true line in putting. Great Job yall!
Kyle
2 years agoIs it me, or does the Chrome Soft & Chrome Soft X both have the same review?? They both read as the Chrome Soft’s review???
Thank you for this list.
EMERY
2 years agoMakes you wonder how anyone could win on the Tours playing anything else than a ProV1x or -……..or, how perfect does a golf ball NEED to be in order for it to be playable, obviously, wins by Taylor Made and others already.
Ryan
2 years agoTitleist has 21 PGA Tour Ball wins this season. TaylorMade is the nearest competitor with 3, followed by Bridgestone and Srixon at 2, then Callaway at 1.
Ernest
2 years agoCan you please explain why some balls seem to have such a wide gap between the score and percent good?. How should a consumer interpret this? (Like the B RX – 59 vs 92%)
shortside
2 years agoNice to see the Maxfli Tour continuing to hold it’s own. I’ve been playing it exclusively since MGS turned me on to them. Currently about $58 for 2 dozen out the door. Can often be had for a bit less.
Yes when it comes to top performance in consistency and accuracy Titleist holds the crown. If I was sniffing a single digit handicap they’d be in my bag.
Bob
2 years agoThank you MGS for outstanding work you do for the benefit of golfers everywhere. A special thanks to Tony for all the hard work and time that went into developing Ball Lab .!!!
Ken Rappold
2 years agoI’ll second the Thank You. Every person who asks me about equipment I always say “MyGolfSpy.com should be your first stop”.
I recall the Z Star being a better ball if manufactured in Japan (not Indonesia)? Nonetheless, the BOGO for Z Star around Father’s day makes it a great buy for me.
El
2 years agoListed on the box that the 2021 Q-Star Tour was manufactured in Japan!
(Golf Galaxy last week)
Just FYI…..
Robert
2 years agoOnce again MGS shows why it is the on another level with the quality and depth of it’s articles and information put out on golf products.
A question for Tony, I was quite impressed with the Wilson Staff Model being the ball with the highest score outside of any Titleist balls. If I am correct the ball is not produced directly by Wilson in the US as some of the other major ball companies are?
What would you attribute the great quality/consistency in it’s ball to? Is it produced at the same plant overseas as any of the other ball companies?
Jack
2 years agoTons of hype on the Bridgestone balls & I’m shocked this is where they came in. I switched over to Tour BX last year after the initial articles here about the Reactiv cover & advancements in tech. What surprises me the most is the compression rating/consistency.
I was expecting them to be very high-graded & now am considering switching back to Pro V1x.
Cory
2 years agoI know the hours and hours of work that went into this data. I appreciate you taking the time and effort to quality control all of the balls tested so that we the consumer can know that we are getting what we pay for and that performance from ball-to-Ball is consistent. Not only can we make better decisions about where we spend our money, but the confidence of knowing that we have a QCed product (by you, not those selling us the marketing) is truly invaluable.
Many thanks again!
Dstijn
2 years agoI would love to see the difference in spin, distance, etc.. with each ball when a robot hits a consistent 7 iron. Don’t know if a robot that consistent exists.
Rob W.
2 years agoThis is a Quality comparison tool, not performance.
MGS did performance testing in April of 2019
https://mygolfspy.com/most-wanted-golf-ball/
Any news on updating that with the 2021 models, and maybe even comingling the two?
Danny
2 years agoWhere is my Inesis Tour 900?
Richard Garcia
2 years agoAny information on Callaway’s Super Softs???
David
2 years agoSo many use supersoft by callaway. Would love an analysis.
Jesse
2 years agoLike the tool but I would love to see this woth some spin numbers like your old ball comparison. As a lower spin player, i play the mizuno rb tour x for the extra spin and i am loving how my shots are holding greens. Something like that would be huge for this, in my opinion
tscdave
2 years agoThat’s a lot of info, nice work.
Bill
2 years agoThis is wonderful, thank you Tony for all your hard work!
Jelopster
2 years agoThanks for putting this tool together; it give much greater context to the Ball Lab results. .
The development of the Ball Lab, and now the comparison tool, personifies the mission of MGS: to inform and protect the golf consumer. Thanks for investing the time and expense in gathering and sharing this data. Golfer’s everywhere are better for it and golf manufacturers are on notice that they can’t hide behind a logo if their products don’t perform.
Boris
2 years agoThank you for the work that you do!
Tony
2 years agoCompletely agree. Thanks so much for doing this!
Tony
2 years agoGreat job on this!!!