2-Piece Soft Ball Shootout! Is it the right ball for you?

[oxHadokenxo]

I'm a super high handicap, who plays 36 holes a month if I'm lucky.  Normally rotate between a ZStar XV or Maxfli Tour X (opposite end of the compression scale of what you're comparing here).

 

After reading your thread I decided to dig through my "found" balls and pick out a few 2 piece low compression balls to see the difference.  First up was a Srixon SoftFeel.  I played the entire 9 with that 1 ball (rare for me) and played one of the best 9s I've played all year.

 

My miss is a slice and there were a few shots that were a few yards from being OB, that I'm pretty sure would have been OB with a higher spinning ball.

Knowing the ball wouldn't spin, I committed to playing as many chip shots as I could low and running, which is probably better for someone of my skill level than attempting the high, fast stopping option.

 

The course was wet so I can't comment much on the distance, but I never felt way out of position.

 

Am I saying the 2 PC soft ball made the difference?  Not entirely, in fact I'm sure if I committed to the "easier" chip shots with a premium ball I would score better.  But the low spinning ball made me not even attempt the hero shot.

 

I did miss several putts short and missed the firmer ball off of my insert putter.  The greens were soaked so I wouldn't blame that all on the low compression ball.  In the past I've liked firmer balls off of an insert putter and softer balls off of a milled putter, but that's probably a mental disease.

 

So thanks for starting this thread, it's good to get a reminder to try something different and be surprised.

 

 

 

Edited July 23 by oxHadokenxo

[ScooterMcTavish]

9 hours ago, Nickb333 said:

Wifey and I have tried several of those in different colors. I find them difficult to see. 

I actually found them easy to spot in the air.

 

However, they are a little tougher to spot when they sit down in the rough.  Although somewhat counterintuitive, the green (very neon) does give them a little extra visual pop.

[ScooterMcTavish]

19 minutes ago, oxHadokenxo said:

So thanks for starting this thread, it's good to get a reminder to try something different and be surprised.

Loved reading your reply, and I think you’ve keyed on a number of the conclusions I’m going to be posting when the test is complete.

[ScooterMcTavish]

So today's review is for the first comparison tour ball, the Mizuno Pro S.  Advertised as the "soft" one in the family, I picked up 3 dozen when they were on sale for $38 CAD ($28 USD)/dozen.

What first strikes me about the ball is how soft its cover is.  My suspicion is that it uses a thermoset (2-piece) urethane design, which is typically softer and "grippier" compared to an injected TPU urethane cover.  This also means the ball is more easily damaged, and the thing looked beat up after four holes, and real beat up after 9. 

 

Second observation is the ball is confusingly both soft and hard at the same time.  The soft cover gives it a very muted sound off the clubs, yet the feel in the hands is rather firm.  According to the scant information provided by Mizuno, they thickened the mantle versus a prior tour model, and made a thinner cover.  Net result is despite having a softer feel, the firmness of the mantle keeps the ball from feeling marshmallow-y like some of the 2-piece soft balls.  If asked to compare it to another ball, I'd suggest the OG FG Tour X, which also had a very soft cover, yet a bit of firmness when compressed.

Using my scoring system the ball scored 3.22 on tee shots, 4.2 on approaches, and 3.0 on chips/pitches. 

 

From the tee, the ball was no longer than my normal gamer, and was a wee bit shorter (~5 yards) on two holes where I drove the ball well.  It was notably shorter when I came in on one drive with a open club face, leaving me in a bad spot (tree jail).  But it was very good with irons off the tee on Par 3s, and it certainly had less sidespin off the driver.

 

After playing a two-piece ball for the last few weeks, I could not believe how well it worked on approaches.  I hit (for me) a very high number of GIR (5/9), and loved how the ball would hop and stop, even with a 7i.  It came off the club very nicely, and the additional backspin was apparent with a trajectory that was notably higher than the two piece balls I have been playing.

 

Chipping and pitching was a mixed bag, but I should note I had 2 beers too many at league last night, and I saw the effect on my game as the round progressed.  (Un)fortunately, with 5/9 GIR I have a very low sample size for pitches and chips, with four of the P/C being on the last five holes (well into the beer).  As I began striking the ball a bit more inconsistently at this point of the round, I didn't punish the ball in my scoring, as even a ball made of fairy dust and angel farts wouldn't have helped some of the poor shots I made.

 

Putting had the same dichotomy of sounding soft off the putter, yet feeling firm in the hands. 

 

Score was a 44, and this was  mostly due to poor putting, where I missed 3/3 makeable birdie putts on the first 4 holes (all around 10'), and 3 putted the final four greens from no more than 20' away.  Round could have easily been a 39 despite two errant tee shots.  The y-word is creeping into my thoughts.

 

Putter is being sent to the sin bin (Sabretooth White Ice has always run hot and cold for me), and I'm almost tempted to pull out the old My Day. 

 

Who am I kidding this is GolfWRX.  New putter incoming.

 

Overall, I really do like this ball.  The feel is good, the backspin and height is fantastic for a lower-spin player like me, yet (as advertised) spin off the driver is surprisingly low.  I have a feeling the X version could grab a few extra yards withe the driver, but I'll give up 5 yards to be as accurate as I was with this ball. 

In fact, I actually prefer the "height and bite" of this ball to my regular gamer.  Will be interested to see how the Z-Star holds up against it in my final round of this test.  Updated table:
  

 

 

Edited July 24 by ScooterMcTavish

[jjfcpa]

What an enjoyable read.  You've obviously devoted some serious time and money to your evaluations and I would like to thank you.  I can see some definite advantages to playing a 2-piece non-urethane ball, but right now my gamer is the Maxfli Tour S.  This is about an 85 compression ball and has performed very well for me.  

 

However, I can see some definite advantages to moving to a 2-piece ball that might help my scoring.  Of the balls that you have evaluated so far, I think the TM Speed Soft might be the one that I would try first.  

 

Will definitely report back with my comparison numbers.

 

With the price of these 2-piece balls, it's probably not worth adding a column in your chart for durability but some might be interested in that as helping with the selection process.  In my case, I only play a ball for one round so the durability factor is not important to me.

[subrew]

I've been playing my yellow Spalding Pure Spin balls I got for just over $5/dozen.  My daily course is a small local 6-hole Par 3 course.  It's not a pitch and putt, it's real length Par 3 holes.  I'm generally hitting 9i to 4i, sometimes one of the holes will play 200yd from the back tee box to a back flag and I'm pulling a hybrid or wood.  I've played the same two balls for 10 days now.  I usually play either best ball or worst ball, so I'm hitting each ball on every hole, and I can get around the course three times and play 18 holes in like 1h15m.  we're talking about 180 or so full iron tee shots, plus 10-20 chips/pitches for each ball.

 

These things are so durable.  When I've played Callaway Supersofts, the inked logos are usually scraped off within a day or two.  Srixon Soft Feels are better but seem to get scrapes and nicks easier.  These Spalding have little to no damage to the cover or the "Spalding" ink.  

 

These 72 balls are probably going to last me about three years.

Edited July 24 by subrew

[ScooterMcTavish]

5 hours ago, jjfcpa said:

With the price of these 2-piece balls, it's probably not worth adding a column in your chart for durability but some might be interested in that as helping with the selection process.  In my case, I only play a ball for one round so the durability factor is not important to me.

 

Durability should be a consideration though, especially for folks like me that are OCD about any blemish or mark on the ball.  I forced myself to use the same Tour S all 9 holes last night, even though I would have typically pulled it out of play sooner.

 

Challenge with judging durability is that all two-piece ionomer balls are generally very durable.  I'd score all of them 9 or 10/10 except for the Softfeel which I'd give an 8/10 to (and this was more of a matte finish issue).  Even when my Duo hit the cart path and took off some of the 360º markings, I did not feel any severe damage to the surface that would have made me take it out of play.

Urethane balls seem much more susceptible to damage, and as you can see in the photo, thermocast covers are soft and prone to damage easily.  I've played the same Z-Star for 36 holes (TPU cover) without complaint, but the Mizuno ball had serious markings after 4 holes, and has gone into the scrap ball bucket after 9.  On a durability scale, I'd give it a 4/10.

 

5 hours ago, jjfcpa said:

However, I can see some definite advantages to moving to a 2-piece ball that might help my scoring.  Of the balls that you have evaluated so far, I think the TM Speed Soft might be the one that I would try first.

 There is a bit of nuance to this, but I'll expound upon this in my conclusions next week.  If you need more bite and have a decent driver speed, I'd start with the Speedsoft.  If you need more release/distance from your approach irons, I'd start with the e6 Soft.  Regardless, neither seemed to have the distance penalty that the others had on drives, with the e6 Soft being incredibly straight. 

Edited July 24 by ScooterMcTavish

[jjfcpa]

3 hours ago, ScooterMcTavish said:

 

Durability should be a consideration though, especially for folks like me that are OCD about any blemish or mark on the ball.  I forced myself to use the same Tour S all 9 holes last night, even though I would have typically pulled it out of play sooner.

 

Challenge with judging durability is that all two-piece ionomer balls are generally very durable.  I'd score all of them 9 or 10/10 except for the Softfeel which I'd give an 8/10 to (and this was more of a matte finish issue).  Even when my Duo hit the cart path and took off some of the 360º markings, I did not feel any severe damage to the surface that would have made me take it out of play.

Urethane balls seem much more susceptible to damage, and as you can see in the photo, thermocast covers are soft and prone to damage easily.  I've played the same Z-Star for 36 holes (TPU cover) without complaint, but the Mizuno ball had serious markings after 4 holes, and has gone into the scrap ball bucket after 9.  On a durability scale, I'd give it a 4/10.

 

 There is a bit of nuance to this, but I'll expound upon this in my conclusions next week.  If you need more bite and have a decent driver speed, I'd start with the Speedsoft.  If you need more release/distance from your approach irons, I'd start with the e6 Soft.  Regardless, neither seemed to have the distance penalty that the others had on drives, with the e6 Soft being incredibly straight. 

 

I'm just like you... very OCD when it comes to the ball and clubs.  I clean both after every shot and will only play one ball per round whether it's 9 or 18 holes.  If I get any damage to the ball that I even remotely suspect will affect the trajectory, I just swap it out.  I have a grab bag of balls that I've retired from play.

 

With regard to the balls you recommended - e6 vs Speedsoft - I think I see a little advantage to driving with the e6, but the iron and wedge would favor the Speedsoft.  For me, it's going to come down to which one feels the best off the putter and responds accordingly.  I'm going to pick up a dozen of each tomorrow and share with an employee of mine.  

 

My plan is to play both the Tour S and the either the Speedsoft or e6 during the round.  I'll pick out 4  holes (typically a par 3, 2 par 4's, and one par 5) and play best ball from tee to green with both balls.  I play pretty quickly so hitting two balls generally will not be an issue for me.  My playing partners know that I do this from time to time and they are good with it.  

 

My grading process is a little more straight forward.  I give the ball that performed the best a 2 and the one that performed second best a 1.  And I score every shot.  I figure over the course of playing 4 holes over the course of about 20 shots/putts with each ball (assuming bogey on every hole), I'll be able to judge which one performed best.  I break it down like you do into 4 categories - drives, irons, approaches, and putting.  If it's too close to call, I'll add another 1 or 2 holes.  

 

I'll let you know my results but it won't happen till next week as we are having a really hot streak of weather and we don't tee it up again until 5 days from now.

 

 

[jjfcpa]

Here's a link to a guy that pretty much focuses on golf balls.  He recently did a review of 3 of the balls that you looked at.  Interestingly, he liked one of them because of the driving distance that you rated pretty low.  I think he was reviewing the latest iteration of the ball and stated that the previous version was subpar.  

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzkMyywUP6o?si=pzlH6PvkRJ8k4_vn

[ScooterMcTavish]

4 hours ago, jjfcpa said:

Here's a link to a guy that pretty much focuses on golf balls.  He recently did a review of 3 of the balls that you looked at.  Interestingly, he liked one of them because of the driving distance that you rated pretty low.  

 

I do always take what I find on YouTube with a grain of salt, as most of these reviewers are generally looking for advertising revenue, and are hesitant to be too critical of any of the products they test, assuming they even paid out of pocket for them.

 

But as normal, the devil is in the details:

 

 

The measured clubspeed is ~7 MPH higher than mine, yet he is hitting the ball the same distance I hit my gamer.  What stands out to me is the lower smash factor, with the 1.45 costing roughly 5 MPH in ball speed versus a 1.50 factor.  That 5 MPH (assuming a linear relationship, which it's not, but it is illustrative) could cost over 10 yards in carry and up to 15 yards in total distance.  This is where soft balls suffer the most off driver, as lower compression usually means a lower smash factor.  

 

I could even suggest that the combination of launch angle and spin RPM is too high in both categories where he'd either want to pull down the launch angle a few degrees, or get a more positive AoA on the ball using a lower-lofted driver.  Seeing these numbers, I am curious what his "tour ball" numbers are like, as the launch angle and backspin is already not optimal with a 2-piece.

 

And in fairness to this chap, a few times I considered that due to my positive AoA, I may have been "underspinning" the two piece balls causing them to come up shorter than they would if I had made a conscious effort to reduce my AoA.  

 

As a last note, a 3 yard variability between drives is pretty tight.  Understanding the inconsistencies we all have when driving (even the Pros do), a 3 yard difference is statistically irrelevant, made even more clear when looking at his dispersion images.

Will touch on some of these concepts when presenting my conclusion. 

[ScooterMcTavish]

The Grand Conclusion!

After some thought, I decided to wrap up this thread, as I am very familiar with the Z-Star/XV, so did not see re-introducing it as having any value.  As my main ball off and on for the better part of a decade, it is safe to consider that I have used it for thousands of shots, and the "average" score of 3.0 is made up of a combination of everything from very good shots to very bad shots.  A wide frame of reference simply means it cannot accurately be compared against 9 holes with a 2-piece ball. 

 

By the same token, I'm not sure I have even played the Mizuno for more than a few holes prior to the test, so it was a much more objective view of a "tour ball" versus a soft 2-piece.  This is a much fairer comparison.  Final table, ranked in highest to lowest score:

 

 

So let's go back to the title of the thread:

2-Piece Soft Ball Shootout! Is it the right ball for you?

 

And like so many things in life, the answer is "it depends".  But I can make a few broad statements:

- Soft 2-piece balls will reduce all types of spin versus most urethane "tour" balls

- Soft 2-piece balls will generally be shorter with driver for golfers hitting 85 MPH and up, with the possible exception of the Speedsoft

- Soft 2-piece balls will generally launch higher off most lower lofted clubs

- Soft 2-piece balls will launch lower off higher lofted clubs (8i-up) if you can put decent backspin on a ball

- Soft 2-piece balls are more durable than urethane balls 

 

And I think the key to answering "Is it the right ball for you?" depends on answering three questions in order of priority.  If you answer "yes" to a question, stop reading, and go buy yourself some soft 2-piece balls to try.  If you get through all three questions without answering "yes", go buy some and try them out anyways.  It's a fun way to add some variety to your game, and you can pick a color or pattern that annoys your playing partners!

 

The questions are:

 

Question 1: Do you have spin issues?

Question 2: Is your driver swing speed under 85 MPH? 

Question 3: Do you need a "soft feel" in your golf ball?

 

Really that's it.

 

To Question 1, a combination of backspin and sidespin will often determine the quality of your shot.  If you have too much of either spin, a 2-piece ball can help.  But be warned, it is not a panacea, and a wicked out-to-in club path with an open face will still go OB, just not quite as far OB.  But it can give you some forgiveness while you work on the swing issue causing the spin issue.

 

To Question 2, it is pretty clear that the softer ball will cost you yards on drives with even a moderate swing speed - unless you have a spin issue that the 2-piece corrects (back to Question 1).  The Speedsoft and e6 Soft did well off the tee, but their scores were boosted by excellent performance on non-driver holes, where the smash factor would not have suffered as much due to non-driver clubhead speeds.

 

And Question 3 is a wild card.  Some people just need their ball to feel a certain way, and cannot get used to hitting a firmer ball - DDH 110 anyone?  If you feel comfortable over a soft and predictable ball, this may matter more than any other singular factor. 

 

 

From my own perspective, I genuinely enjoyed the testing and sharing the data with everyone.  And it still amazes me that the ball that performed the best had the highest 9-hole score.  If the "y" word hadn't shown up last week, I could have flirted with par based on my driving and iron play.

 

As someone who has worked extensively on driver swing flaws, and now have a very predictable baby fade that ends up at 230-240 depending on course conditions, side and backspin is not an issue.  So for me, the added benefit of back spin on approach irons, pitches, and chips is worth a little more movement off any other club.  And it is rare I pull or flare an iron. 

 

Therefore, a 2-piece soft ball is not the right ball for me, other than if it is early spring/late fall and I need something soft for low temperatures that I do not mind losing. 
 

Even on price, if I can pick up tour balls for under $40/doz, yet the soft balls are priced between $30-35/doz, there’s not a value proposition here either.  I could see playing them if I lost a dozen a week, but I don’t.  In fact, I’ve only lost one soft ball, and it was a mishit into a water hazard during warmup a few weeks ago.

 

Hope you had fun following along, and please post some of your own experiences if you give it a try.

Edited July 26 by ScooterMcTavish

[1tdc]

Thanks for the test data, @ScooterMcTavish!  It's been an interesting time following along. 

 

I've done some indoor testing during the winter with 3-piece urethane mid-range balls (Srixon Q-Star Tour, TaylorMade Tour Response, Wilson Triad), as well as the Titleist Tour Soft, and ProV1/ProV1x.  My driver swing speed is probably around 88-90.

 

Below is an example of the the data collected in those sessions.  Green cells are highest number for each category, Yellow are second, and Red are lowest -- no judgement as to whether the highest is best/better.

 

 

I have just upgraded my Shot Scope watch so I can keep more accurate data on shot length (total distance only unfortunately).  I'll have to do a combination of the empirical and feel/eye test on the course.

 

Again, thanks for letting us in on your testing.

[ScooterMcTavish]

27 minutes ago, 1tdc said:

Thanks for the test data, @ScooterMcTavish!  It's been an interesting time following along. 

 

I've done some indoor testing during the winter with 3-piece urethane mid-range balls (Srixon Q-Star Tour, TaylorMade Tour Response, Wilson Triad), as well as the Titleist Tour Soft, and ProV1/ProV1x.  My driver swing speed is probably around 88-90.

 

Below is an example of the the data collected in those sessions.  Green cells are highest number for each category, Yellow are second, and Red are lowest -- no judgement as to whether the highest is best/better.

 

 

I have just upgraded my Shot Scope watch so I can keep more accurate data on shot length (total distance only unfortunately).  I'll have to do a combination of the empirical and feel/eye test on the course.

 

Again, thanks for letting us in on your testing.

Thanks for sharing your data.  Mid-range tour balls is an interesting market segment, especially if someone is partial to Titleist or TM, neither of whom discount their premium (ProV1/TP5) balls frequently.

 

[jjfcpa]

13 hours ago, 1tdc said:

Thanks for the test data, @ScooterMcTavish!  It's been an interesting time following along. 

 

I've done some indoor testing during the winter with 3-piece urethane mid-range balls (Srixon Q-Star Tour, TaylorMade Tour Response, Wilson Triad), as well as the Titleist Tour Soft, and ProV1/ProV1x.  My driver swing speed is probably around 88-90.

 

Below is an example of the the data collected in those sessions.  Green cells are highest number for each category, Yellow are second, and Red are lowest -- no judgement as to whether the highest is best/better.

 

 

I have just upgraded my Shot Scope watch so I can keep more accurate data on shot length (total distance only unfortunately).  I'll have to do a combination of the empirical and feel/eye test on the course.

 

Again, thanks for letting us in on your testing.

 

Thanks for sharing.  My swing speed with driver is probably between 75 - 80 and I found the Triad to be shorter than my then gamer the Callaway Chrome Soft.  I've played the Q Star Tour, Tour Soft and Tour Response and discounted them because they were shorter with the driver than the Chrome Soft.

 

A few months ago I switched to the Maxfli Tour S which is both longer than the Chrome Soft with the driver, but also has better spin characteristics on approach shots than the Chrome Soft.  

 

Based on @ScooterMcTavish info, I'm definitely going to try the TM Speedsoft.  I probably don't warrant using a "tour" level ball but I do need the spin when hitting into greens with irons or wedge since my short game is the key to lower scores since my GIR's are typically around 25-35% per round.  Price is not a consideration for me, but the Maxfli's are probably one of the best prices when purchased in the 4 dozen pack.  

[jjfcpa]

I picked up a dozen TM Speedsoft this morning and did some short-game pitching and putting with it and my gamer Maxfli Tour S.  Initial impressions are good, not great.  I found the Tour S much easier to control but this may be because I know how it's going to react.

 

One thing that surprised me is that the Speedsoft did not feel any softer than the Maxfli with the wedge or the putter.  Especially considering the difference in compression (<50 for the Speedsoft and 85 for the Tour S).

 

What I can't explain is that I did find the short putts easier to make with the TM - I purchased the green ink version instead of the white and I'm normally a purist and only play white balls.  I'm guessing the putting difference is attributable to the fact that the Speedsoft seemed go a little further with the same putting stroke.  

 

I didn't see a noticeable difference when hitting chips into the green.  The rollout was pretty much the same.  

 

I think I've got to see how the Speedsoft compares with driving and irons before deciding on whether it would be a better fit for my game than the Tour S.  Right now, I'd have to give the edge to the Tour S but this may simply be because I've been playing it for a few months.  

 

One other thing, the TM Speedsoft is currently on sale at Golf Galaxy for $ 22.50 a dozen.  I paid $ 29.75 a dozen for the Tour S.  I seldom lose a ball so the difference in price is not an issue for me.

 

I'll post my comments about driving and iron play after my next round.

[1tdc]

2 hours ago, jjfcpa said:

One thing that surprised me is that the Speedsoft did not feel any softer than the Maxfli with the wedge or the putter.  Especially considering the difference in compression (<50 for the Speedsoft and 85 for the Tour S).

 

I'll go out on a limb and say that Urethane is generally a softer feel than surlyn/ionomer so that, as opposed to compression (at lower swing speed of a wedge), may have something to do with feel with wedge and putter.  Just a guess.

[ScooterMcTavish]

2 hours ago, 1tdc said:

I'll go out on a limb and say that Urethane is generally a softer feel than surlyn/ionomer so that, as opposed to compression (at lower swing speed of a wedge), may have something to do with feel with wedge and putter.  Just a guess.

This is an interesting observation.

 

From experience I’d suggest that some urethane balls do have a very soft cover that makes them feel softer on certain shots (like putts, chips, and pitches).

 

But if someone is compressing the ball with a full swing, I have yet to feel any urethane ball feel as soft as some of these low-compression 2-piece balls.

 

Excepting the original W/S FG Tour of course.

[jjfcpa]

4 hours ago, 1tdc said:

I'll go out on a limb and say that Urethane is generally a softer feel than surlyn/ionomer so that, as opposed to compression (at lower swing speed of a wedge), may have something to do with feel with wedge and putter.  Just a guess.

 

I have to admit that most of the ball comparisons that I've done is with urethan to urethane rather than urethane to non-urethane.  

 

As with any ball change, I think there is always an adjustment period where you just need to get used to the feel of the ball and the way it reacts to different shots.  I'm really anxious to see how it plays off the driver.  I have a hitting bay in my basement so I'm going to do some iron comparison shots tomorrow, but hitting into a net and hitting on a course are two different things.  I would never make a decision based on hitting into a net.  I like to see the flight of the ball before deciding.

 

One short game session is not nearly enough to reach a final decision, but I saw enough that makes me want to consider the Speedsoft, since I've had a preference for a softer ball.  Being a slow swing speed player, I like to feel like I'm compressing the ball with the driver and irons even if it doesn't result in more distance.

[jjfcpa]

FYI - I have no way to confirm this.. but found this in the comments section of another review of the Speedsoft.

 

Tried the ink and loved it, so next round tried a white speedsoft, totally different feel! on investigation I found that the ink is manufactured in Korea, the white in China, and the yellow in Taiwan! So effectively three different balls and three different feels. Not complaining as I’m happy to use the ink, but …….

 

Anyway to confirm this?  I purchased the ink green version for testing.

[1tdc]

25 minutes ago, jjfcpa said:

One short game session is not nearly enough to reach a final decision, but I saw enough that makes me want to consider the Speedsoft, since I've had a preference for a softer ball.  Being a slow swing speed player, I like to feel like I'm compressing the ball with the driver and irons even if it doesn't result in more distance.

 

I got sent a free dozen of the Speedsoft Ink -- not sure why but probably from filling out a survey.  I haven't played a full round with them yet but I like the Tour Response.  Not an apples-to-apples comparison, I know, but it will be interesting to see them in action together.  

 

As an aside:  I received one sleeve each of the green, blue, pink, and rust (muted orange?).  I'm not sure I'll find the blue or the rust in the rough so I'll reserve them for par 3s.  The solid yellow would be my first choice but I'm intrigued by the solid pink which would be very easy to follow and find, I think, but they look like they might be a matte finish on the TaylorMade website.

[1tdc]

13 minutes ago, jjfcpa said:

FYI - I have no way to confirm this.. but found this in the comments section of another review of the Speedsoft.

 

Tried the ink and loved it, so next round tried a white speedsoft, totally different feel! on investigation I found that the ink is manufactured in Korea, the white in China, and the yellow in Taiwan! So effectively three different balls and three different feels. Not complaining as I’m happy to use the ink, but …….

 

Anyway to confirm this?  I purchased the ink green version for testing.

 

Some conflicting info out there.  There was a video tour of the TaylorMade plant in South Carolina (?) that is explicit in saying cores come from Asia but covers/painting are done in US.  Would be interested to hear if you find something definitive.

[ScooterMcTavish]

Just as a side note, my big box retailer in Canada just put last model Z-Star on sale at 2 dozen for $65 CAD ($47 USD).  
 

At that price, it’s actually cheaper than the Supersoft, Speedsoft, e6 Soft, and TruFeel.

 

If someone doesn’t need the spin-muting properties of a 2-piece, it’s pretty difficult to choose one of the test balls based on price.

Edited July 28 by ScooterMcTavish

[jjfcpa]

1 hour ago, ScooterMcTavish said:

Just as a side note, my big box retailer in Canada just put last model Z-Star on sale at 2 dozen for $65 CAD ($47 USD).  
 

At that price, it’s actually cheaper than the Supersoft, Speedsoft, e6 Soft, and TruFeel.

 

If someone doesn’t need the spin-muting properties of a 2-piece, it’s pretty difficult to choose one of the test balls based on price.

 

The weather here has been brutally hot so I have not been out for a round lately.  However, I did do a little putting and 7-iron indoor testing with the Speedsoft and my gamer the Maxfli Tour S.  

 

Results as follows:

 

Putting - definitely a more muted feeling off the putter (Evnroll) and definitely a softer feeling.  As I have stated before, I think it's just a matter of commitment and getting used to the new feeling of the Speedsoft.  I can't say it's better or worse than the Tour S, just different.  

 

7-iron - I expected to see some distance advantage with the Speedsoft, but I really didn't.  I can't even say that it felt softer than the Tour S.  I honestly did not really see any advantage performance wise for the Speedsoft.  I paid particular attention to those performance numbers where the swing speeds were pretty close and I'd give the nod to the Tour S on spin numbers and perhaps a slightly high launch angle with the Speedsoft, but distance wise, nada.  

 

Right now, the only advantage I see in the Speedsoft comes down to price.  

 

I should be able to compare performance numbers later this week when I play 18 holes and able to compare the Speedsoft to the Tour S OUTDOORS.  

[ScooterMcTavish]

1 hour ago, jjfcpa said:

Putting - definitely a more muted feeling off the putter (Evnroll) and definitely a softer feeling.  As I have stated before, I think it's just a matter of commitment and getting used to the new feeling of the Speedsoft.  I can't say it's better or worse than the Tour S, just different.  

 

7-iron - I expected to see some distance advantage with the Speedsoft, but I really didn't.  I can't even say that it felt softer than the Tour S.  I honestly did not really see any advantage performance wise for the Speedsoft.  I paid particular attention to those performance numbers where the swing speeds were pretty close and I'd give the nod to the Tour S on spin numbers and perhaps a slightly high launch angle with the Speedsoft, but distance wise, nada.  

 

Right now, the only advantage I see in the Speedsoft comes down to price.  

 

There's very positive feedback about the Tour S online, even though it has higher compression than the two-piece ones.  But a couple of thoughts:

 

- Putting is where I find the 2-piece balls feel mutest/softest, and I believe this is mostly due to no ionomer mantle.  I believe this is what gives "soft" tour balls a clickier feel, even when they have a very soft (i.e. thermoset) cover
 

- With the 7i, I would not expect to see a substantial distance difference between the two.  Only time I saw the 2-piece go a bit longer was when I had a mishit, usually toe side or thin.
 

- If you like the Tour S and the spin is more advantageous, it becomes difficult to justify the marginal savings from an 2-piece ball

 

This has actually given me some further thoughts about these "premium" soft golf balls I tested.

 

If someone is an adequate player without huge spin issues, and who rarely loses balls, a bargain or sale tour ball is likely a better value/money proposition for them.

 

If someone is launching a half dozen balls OB or into hazards every round, then they should maybe look at even less expensive soft 2-piece ball options, like the 2 dozen/$20 Top Flite Gamers at Dick's right now.  

 

 

[jjfcpa]

On 7/28/2025 at 11:19 AM, ScooterMcTavish said:

 

There's very positive feedback about the Tour S online, even though it has higher compression than the two-piece ones.  But a couple of thoughts:

 

- Putting is where I find the 2-piece balls feel mutest/softest, and I believe this is mostly due to no ionomer mantle.  I believe this is what gives "soft" tour balls a clickier feel, even when they have a very soft (i.e. thermoset) cover
 

- With the 7i, I would not expect to see a substantial distance difference between the two.  Only time I saw the 2-piece go a bit longer was when I had a mishit, usually toe side or thin.
 

- If you like the Tour S and the spin is more advantageous, it becomes difficult to justify the marginal savings from an 2-piece ball

 

This has actually given me some further thoughts about these "premium" soft golf balls I tested.

 

If someone is an adequate player without huge spin issues, and who rarely loses balls, a bargain or sale tour ball is likely a better value/money proposition for them.

 

If someone is launching a half dozen balls OB or into hazards every round, then they should maybe look at even less expensive soft 2-piece ball options, like the 2 dozen/$20 Top Flite Gamers at Dick's right now.  

 

 

 

Your logic about ball selection makes sense to me.  

 

I stopped playing the Maxfli ball for a while and went back to the Callaway Chrome Soft, but when the new (2025) version of the Maxfli Tour S was released, I got tempted because I read that they increased the compression a bit which to me meant more spin, which I really needed.  

 

They also have a decent price when purchased in bulk so I think I will be sticking with the Tour S for a while.

 

 

[Greenie]

OP interesting read. 

 

My SS is around 90-92 with the driver.

 

I am familiar with the balls you tested except for the Speedsoft. I found three Speedsoft balls a few weeks ago but I have not tried them yet. 

 

The best for distance and performance on and around the greens on your list for me is the Callaway Supersoft. 

 

I would say the e6 is longer but it lacks control on and around the greens for me.

 

Interesting take on the Supersoft being shorter for you. I play in a group of 8. Three use the Supersoft and three use the Maxfli softfli because they get good distance and all around performance at a cheaper price.

[ScooterMcTavish]

1 hour ago, Greenie said:

OP interesting read. 

 

My SS is around 90-92 with the driver.

 

I am familiar with the balls you tested except for the Speedsoft. I found three Speedsoft balls a few weeks ago but I have not tried them yet. 

 

The best for distance and performance on and around the greens on your list for me is the Callaway Supersoft. 

 

I would say the e6 is longer but it lacks control on and around the greens for me.

 

Interesting take on the Supersoft being shorter for you. I play in a group of 8. Three use the Supersoft and three use the Maxfli softfli because they get good distance and all around performance at a cheaper price.

I have worked diligently on having a positive AoA when driving, which has been geared around using tour balls.  I also swing an LS driver.

 

As admitted, there is the possibility that I’m not getting enough back spin on my drives to maximize the 2-piece balls.

 

But ignoring the spin differences, the main thing I’ve noted is the drop in smash factor when using soft balls on a launch monitor.  A change in even 0.04 points equates to a loss of approximately 9 yards for a 220 yard driver.

 

This means the energy from the clubhead is not transferring as efficiently to the ball, mainly as the soft ball is absorbing a little more energy vs a firmer ball.

[munichop]

15 hours ago, Greenie said:

OP interesting read. 

 

My SS is around 90-92 with the driver.

 

I am familiar with the balls you tested except for the Speedsoft. I found three Speedsoft balls a few weeks ago but I have not tried them yet. 

 

The best for distance and performance on and around the greens on your list for me is the Callaway Supersoft. 

 

I would say the e6 is longer but it lacks control on and around the greens for me.

 

Interesting take on the Supersoft being shorter for you. I play in a group of 8. Three use the Supersoft and three use the Maxfli softfli because they get good distance and all around performance at a cheaper price.

I have played the supersoft and softfli the most the last 2 years. The maxfli seems to work better at elevation while the SS seems better at lower elevations.  Just got 2doz for 30 dollars of the previous version of the softfli. They seem to shape a little more than the new ones and chip more consistently for me.

[Greenie]

10 minutes ago, munichop said:

I have played the supersoft and softfli the most the last 2 years. The maxfli seems to work better at elevation while the SS seems better at lower elevations.  Just got 2doz for 30 dollars of the previous version of the softfli. They seem to shape a little more than the new ones and chip more consistently for me.

 

I find your comments spot on even when you mention the previous version of the Softfli being better for you. 

 

I recently gave one of the guys in my group that plays the newest version of the Softfli  a dozen of the old model for his birthday. I have ten dozen in my stock pile.  I said try out the old model you will like these better than the new model trust me. After several rounds he says hey you want to get rid of the rest of your dozens?  You are right they do play better. 

 

I am just a plain old guy. I play balls, I see how the ball plays, and I make my judgement. I am not someone that has data to support any findings. I go by playing a ball for a round or two and coming to a conclusion. 

 

I play the Vice Pro, Chrome Soft, Softfli, and Supersoft in that order. In the cooler months the Tour Response works well for me.