Check this golf ball review...

[Bravo]

Anybody here a fan of Consumer Reports? I am.

On virtually every major purchase I have made in the past 20 years, I check with CR before I buy. They are right about 95% of the time. Cars, dishwashers, clothes dryers, lawn mowers, blenders...you name it. I've checked CR before buying and then made a purchase and really liked what I bought. In particular, their products rated with a "Best Buy" are usually just that - a great value for the $$.

So here is what they say about golf balls...

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/t...ings/index.htm

According to this, a $14/dozen Nike ball is as good as the Pro-V1's, HX Tour Hots, yadayadaya...

What do you think??

[cyberious]

I did an informal test this weekend of that ball (because of that report) vs. the new Taylormade TP Black last weekend. Normally I use the ProV1x but thought I'd give the others a try.

First off the TP Black is really similar to the Black Max as some have already stated. It performs well but isn't spectacularly different from any good quality ball.

I liked the little Nike. It was long off the tee and surprisingly mild mannered around the greens. I don't believe it is quite the ball the Pro V1x is but it is better than alot of supposedly premium balls and a dozen of them costs about the same as a single sleeve of the ProV1x's. I recommend folks try this ball you may be pleasantly surprised.

Of the two I preferred the Cheap Nike ball.

[Pa Jayhawk]

To save time, I'll simply quote my opinion on what I thought of their study:

Originally Posted by FKA PA Jayhawk

Personally, I don't trust the results simply because they did not provide enough information on how they rated the balls. There are alot of flaws I see right off the back. I need more info to give this any credibility, and I am not convinced they did not use cost in the ratings even though they only said it was used in the quick picks. " The Ratings rank golf balls by overall performance. Quick Picks takes other considerations, such as value and cost, into account."

Just a few examples 13 appears lower than 15 (clearly), 16, 18.
16 and 18 are identical. THe list goes on.

I also question their knowledge of golf.
"The lab uses a computerized robot programmed to swing a golf club so it hits the ball in the middle of the club face (or the “sweet spot”) on every swing." Sorry, but the sweet spot on a driver is not in the middle.

Also seeing the range they used I would question what they are hitting into. That in itself would seem to influence the results.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/t...ings/index.htm

and lastly, why would I give more credibility to a "Retail Golf Professional" to provide information on the feel of the ball. Why not just call the company, it would seem as realistic, and possibly as unbiased .

Personally with the info they provided, I have a hard time trusting the results on this. With more information or possibly a number rating in each field it may be helpful, but IMO they should stay away from golf balls. Either there is much more to the ratings or they used cost as a major determinant when indicating it was not a factor.

Again, I think their lack of information leaves me with questioning the validity of the review. If you can't figure it out from looking at their ratings why two equal rating are not the same score, and it doesn't list their exact criteria for making a final number score then it does lack the validity of anything other than a half assed review and certainly makes me question whether I would use their information to choose a golf ball.

They give no information why one like rating is say 2 points better than the other identical rating. Again, if they had a point scale and not their standard circles, then it would maybe give you an idea why one is better than the other. For all I know it could be 20 yards shorter 10 yards wider but have a bigger approval rating of the Retail Golf Professional. If that were the case, which ball would you buy?

Nothing against CR, because I do respect a large portion of their studies and reviews, but I feel they failed on providing necessary information in this case. Usually they at least give you a write up on each product explaining their decision. Although since they outsourced this one, it leaves me with a lot of questions that they would not be able to answer. The main one being the validity of their results.

Another example. 13 and 17 are identical in ratings, what makes 13 4 points better? 16 and 18, same thing

[Jay McNasty]

I believe the Nike PD Super Soft is last years model. I was at Dicks the other day looking for a box of them and all the varieties of Power Distance are now Power ___. I did pick up a box of the Power Distance PowerSoft in hopes that they might be similar to the Super Soft balls.

I've played two rounds with them and notice they are much softer than anything else that I've played at that price point, but still not near as soft as say a V1x. I'm far from a good enough hack to have my choice of ball matter that much, but I can tell the difference between a rock and a decent ball. I'll probably continue playing these for a while.

I hope I can find a box of the PD Super Softs and can compare between the new model and the old.

[Bravo]

Originally Posted by Jay McNasty

I believe the Nike PD Super Soft is last years model. I was at Dicks the other day looking for a box of them and all the varieties of Power Distance are now Power ___. I did pick up a box of the Power Distance PowerSoft in hopes that they might be similar to the Super Soft balls.

I've played two rounds with them and notice they are much softer than anything else that I've played at that price point, but still not near as soft as say a V1x. I'm far from a good enough hack to have my choice of ball matter that much, but I can tell the difference between a rock and a decent ball. I'll probably continue playing these for a while.

I hope I can find a box of the PD Super Softs and can compare between the new model and the old.

I am a real cheapskate at heart. Thanks for your note. I am headed to pick up my new driver tomorrow at Golfsmith and will look for a sleeve. There is a special on Callaway golf shoes over at Dicks that I want to look at too - and will try to get a sleeve there...there's just something in my blood that is always looking for a way to shave a buck here and there...

[Bravo]

Originally Posted by FKA Pa Jayhawk

To save time, I'll simply quote my opinion on what I thought of their study:

It’s the same robot that the United States Golf Association’s Test Center and many manufacturers use to test golf balls.

We also enlisted local teaching and retail golf professionals as panelists to help us determine the feel of each ball. We covered any identifying marks, then asked the panelists to putt each rated ball, along with a very hard and very soft ball for reference points, a distance of 10 feet. Panelists putted each ball eight times, then scored it on a scale of 1 (hardest) to 9 (softest).

I don't know if you are familiar with Consumer Reports. They are an independent testing laboratory that accepts no advertising. They are located in the state of New York.

Since they say that they use the same machine used by the USGA and other golf ball manufacturers, my estimation would be that they are using a widely accepted testing method, therefore your assertion that their testing method is suspect does not have validity.

Next, about the cost issue. If you will read CR, it is not uncommon to find in the ratings, a product that is among the top 5-6 that is priced meaningfully lower than others that have similar performance. I have bought tons of these "Best Buys" over the years and 95% of the time, the product has performed highly and reliably for me. Similarly, it is not uncommon to see the very highest cost product receive the #1 score or a very average or even low score in their testing as well. So please know that the price of the product has no influence on the performance rating in a CR test. It is taken into account only when listing the product in the ratings ranking.

Look at this rating of lawnmowers...I read it before choosing the Toro that is described as a Best Buy. As you can see, there are higher priced mowers that are rated both higher and lower than the Toro, including a Snapper at $150 more that is near the bottom of the rankings, while a very expensive mower was indeed rated #1. So this chart shows that pricing can commonly be all over the board relative to product performance. Note the John Deer that is priced more than double the Toro, has virtually the same performance. My Toro is two years old and I love it...

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/h...ings/index.htm

[SiberianDVM]

Not to change the subject (and I'm sure Consumer Reports is more than adequately qualified to test golf balls) but I quit reading CR when they starting getting into the veterinary medicine business.

In addition they are not perfect. Remember the dog food review, when Old Roy (Walmart) was top-rated? Consumers Reports neglected the followup report on how same product killed a bunch of dogs in AR and TX due to poor quality control resulting in mycotoxicosis.

[Bravo]

Originally Posted by SiberianDVM

In addition they are not perfect. Remember the dog food review, when Old Roy (Walmart) was top-rated? Consumers Reports neglected the followup report on how same product killed a bunch of dogs in AR and TX due to poor quality control resulting in mycotoxicosis.

I agree that they are not perfect too. Occaisonally I disagree with their recommendations. Take tires for example. They did some tire testing recently and published the results.

I then compared them to The Tire Rack, which has ratings of tires based on reviews of owners after millions and millions of miles of cumulative usage. The Tire Rack had substantially different ratings on a few of the tires and since the owners reported their findings over a long period of time and under a variety of conditions, I like the Tire Rack's ratings more than CR.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/survey...y.jsp?type=HAS

My main reason in putting up the post was not that I absolutely agreed with whatever CR said. It was just that I really respect them and have had overall (95%) great experience with them over about 20 years and they happened to rate a very inexpensive ball highly using the same machine that the USGA uses. Just a bit of trivia...

Yeah my vet feels the same way you do about Ol Roy. He thinks it's garbage....

[Pa Jayhawk]

Originally Posted by Bravo

Since they say that they use the same machine used by the USGA and other golf ball manufacturers, my estimation would be that they are using a widely accepted testing method, therefore your assertion that their testing method is suspect does not have validity.

My comment is not regarding the machine, but the facility. This is by viewing the picture in their article in the link I attached. Their rating include not only carry, but roll. The facility does not look like something I would trust to accuratly reflect roll. View the picture here: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/t...ings/index.htm

Originally Posted by Bravo

Next, about the cost issue.
...
So please know that the price of the product has no influence on the performance rating in a CR test. It is taken into account only when listing the product in the ratings ranking.

As indicated, I did see that they indicated cost had nothing to do with their ratings, however it is pretty inconclusive what difference accounted for a higher rating in some of the cases hence my statement " For all I know it could be 20 yards shorter 10 yards wider but have a bigger approval rating of the Retail Golf Professional. If that were the case, which ball would you buy? "

Posting the numbered results would be much more helpful, without them I would dismiss trying to judge the better ball for my needs.

And finally, just reiterating my final comment:

"Nothing against CR, because I do respect a large portion of their studies and reviews, but I feel they failed on providing necessary information in this case. Usually they at least give you a write up on each product explaining their decision. Although since they outsourced this one, it leaves me with a lot of questions that they would not be able to answer. The main one being the validity of their results."

Edit 1 - In a nutshell, I too have the utmost respect for 95% of their ratings and articles, however I think for me based on the info they provided, this one fits into the other 5%. Probably because it was outsourced and they did not have enough of an understanding.

[Bravo]

Well I must honestly say the photo of the area where the balls landed was not something I took into consideration. I guess I just trusted that they would have a decent landing area that would approximate a golf course fairway.

Overall the highest ranked balls were the most expensive, well known and most widely played by excellent amateurs and touring pros. It was just that one really cheap Nike ball that caught my eye...

Just for fun, I picked up a dozen at Dick's today for $12.49. I am going to give them a go over the weekend and see how I like em...

[SiberianDVM]

I bought 100 AAAA Titleist DT So-Lo on eBay this week for $45 including shipping. That's only $7/dozen and it's ranked #7 on the CR list.

[wirehair]

Originally Posted by SiberianDVM

I bought 100 AAAA Titleist DT So-Lo on eBay this week for $45 including shipping. That's only $7/dozen and it's ranked #7 on the CR list.

Gosh Doc, that's a good deal. I've liked SoLos for a long time. Tried Maxfli's, Bridgestones, etc. etc. etc, Keep returming to SoLo's.
A 100, that's what about 5 rounds.

[Pa Jayhawk]

Originally Posted by Bravo

Well I must honestly say the photo of the area where the balls landed was not something I took into consideration. I guess I just trusted that they would have a decent landing area that would approximate a golf course fairway.

Overall the highest ranked balls were the most expensive, well known and most widely played by excellent amateurs and touring pros. It was just that one really cheap Nike ball that caught my eye...

Just for fun, I picked up a dozen at Dick's today for $12.49. I am going to give them a go over the weekend and see how I like em...

I guess it is just my analyst nature. Probably more important, none of the points I mentioned would necessarily mean that the results are not valid, just things that caught my eye. I would even say that I would probably still use the results to make a decision or refer them to people who are looking for information, although they certainly wouldn't be the entire basis for my decision. Again, just my analyst nature. In all honesty the reports that CR usually post are probably in part responsible for my skeptical nature with reviews. This is not a shot a CR, it is actually a compliment for the nature of their work and what they stand for in general. They certainly usually support their findings and tell you what to look for in making a decision, or more importantly what to be skeptical of in reviews. I have seen a few CR reviews in the past that I do not agree with for one reason or another, although I still consider them a valuable resource. Although I usually like to make the final decision, simply because I would rather blame my self for a bad one. Just my nature

[SiberianDVM]

A 100, that's what about 5 rounds

4, if I play up to my potential.

[Pa Jayhawk]

Originally Posted by SiberianDVM

4, if I play up to my potential.

Yeah, Bravo said $12.49 was a cheap ball. I haven't paid more than $15 for a dozen balls in 6 years of playing. Went from Smartcores at 2 dozen for $30, to A-10 Solids at $12.50, and now to Maxfli Rev Tours at $11.99. I can go through anywhere from 4-9 balls on my home course and 1-2 on any other course. $12.50 is living high on the hog.