The Perfect Senior Golf Ball

[Pepperturbo]

I read and took exception with the "perfect ball" for an ole fart.  At 70+ I qualify.  Regardless of age, there is NO such thing. 

 

It's physical strength and swing that determines how far any ball goes, and maybe what your goal is.  Last week I played with someone 10yrs my junior that played a Supersoft.  It gave him decent distance, but was worthless around the green, where it counts.  His pitching and chipping around the green was like army golf, ball didn't spin well, so it ran out past the pin.  I'd rather compromise 10yds of distance and have greenside performance to score.   One man's opinion.

 

Chrome Soft is NOW out of the mix.  The biggest reason, don't like the confusion that comes from testing multiple balls.  Back to DASH -ProV1x and AVX. 

Edited July 12, 2023 by Pepperturbo
Update

[Is Golf Fun or Work]

$ not a concern, Bridgestone RXS

$ a concern, Vice Pro or Pro Soft (I think Pro is better)

[jarediogolf]

For the typical old fart that pulls out the ball retriever every time they drive past a lake: K-Sig. 

Cheap and spinny to keep the ball in the air. 
 

For the typical Golf WRX old fart that smokes their 2 iron and is disappointed that their drives only Carry 280 now: not sure but maybe Chrome Soft X, Pro V1x, Maxfli Tour X, etc. 

 

[Greenie]

On 5/4/2023 at 4:21 PM, Pepperturbo said:

I read and took exception with the "perfect ball" for an ole fart.  At 70+ I qualify.  Regardless of age, there is NO such thing. 

 

It's physical strength and swing that determines how far any ball goes, and maybe what your goal is.  Last week I played with a guy 10yrs my junior that played a Supersoft.  It gave him decent distance, but was worthless around the green, where it counts.  His pitching and chipping around the green was like army golf, ball didn't spin well so it ran out past the pin.  I'd rather compromise 10yds of distance and have greenside performance to score.   One man's opinion.

 

Currently, I am liking ChomeSoft X better than AVX

 

I'm 63..I play the Callaway Supersoft because it gives me a little more distance, holds greens well for me and checks up good on my short game. As you mention it comes down to someone's swing.

 

I agree with you. I would never play just a distance ball. I need the greenside performance too.

 

If the greens are hard and fast I may switch to the Callaway Chrome Soft for a little extra spin and give up a little distance because they are a little shorter for me.

[Justsomeguy]

E12. Old farts seem to love straight balls that roll out consistently.

[kwcsports]

I tried the Noodle L&S the other day and really liked it. Good distance and decent around the green.

[darsony]

On 3/31/2023 at 1:51 PM, platgof said:

This is for those who do not hit it 250 yards on average, but more like 210-220 on average, or less. I played some Volvik DS 55"s yesterday and they are stupid long. Plus usually in the fairway. I shot my lowest round with them, a 76 as well. I just got my favorite golf ball in, the Yellow Triple Track from Callaway. I like these for the compression and greenside play, I also find them to be good on distance as well. I also played the Srixon Q-Star Tour and like it, but it seems to play a little shorter than the Chrome Soft. So, my pick is the Triple Track overall, but the Volvik DS55 gave me my lowest round so far. Something to be said for distance.

Go with the ball that gives the lowest score.  It's the only way to judge a golf ball IMO.

[tsecor]

prov1x

[platgof]

Tried the Volvik; New Vivic and shot 80 today at Western hills. Long and straight for me. Plus, it feels like a marshmallow off the driver. I am back in Tennessee after 6 weeks in the Sarasota Florida inferno. It has been a long while since shooting an 80.

[myspinonit]

I switched from the Srixon QStar Tour to the Soft Feel this year.   I'm getting a bit more distance and am getting adequate spin around the green.  I'm in better physical shape than I was last year, so that could be part  any distance gains, but the softer impact (60 vs 72 compression) is appreciated from my old hands.

 

I recently have played some rounds in quite heavy winds and  still have had some of the best shot-making and scoring rounds in a while.   I do not recall significant ball-flight deviations from the wind. So I assume that reflects on the amount of sidespin.

 

I got rid of 6 dozen of the QST when shortly after I made the switch (I'm a golf ball monogomist) and have no intention of leaving the Soft Feel.

[platgof]

Played a yellow Chrome Soft all day and did very well, shot 41 and 43. One of my better days when the brain is functioning. On the last hole the ground hog decided to take a bite of my golf ball while it was on the green. I am officially blaming the bite mark for the bogey and want a ruling on this affair. Obviously, the bite mark caused my first putt to come up woefully short.

[rwbloom93]

On 4/10/2023 at 7:55 PM, bomberman said:

I recommend the prov1x, srixon xv or diamond, callaway csx, bridgestone bx and taylormadr tp5x.

 

Despite the fact these seem to cater to high speed players that are mainly c0ck and ribcage. The data suggests they have a bigger edge for the Grey folk. 

 

 

If you are referring to Robot data that's actually mixed.  Today's Golfer robot presents different data than the MSG robot.  Regardless of competing robots and Quad/Trackman data everybody's swing is unique so there really is no "one ball fits all".

 

I play all the Tour brands and they are excellent short game.  They are nice for me Tee to Green **if I am having a good ball striking day***. Very consistent and predictable. 

 

I also play all the soft balls and for my swing (<85 mph and kind of flat with a "push/draw") low compression are superior in distance with the Driver and irons to the firmer Tour balls. Especially the irons, I hit some real high flying beauties with the Supersoft, Soft Feel, TruFeel, etc....I also find them more forgiving on less than quality strikes whereas the Tour balls punish me more for a poor swing.

 

The drawback for ionomer cover low compression is the 1 time or so a round  I hit a WTF was that "flyer" from a clean lie.  Tour balls almost NEVER do that to me, incredibly reliable on pure strikes. The other drawback is obviously greenside performance.

 

Anyway, I think if a golfer has enough time to practice full shots (not with range balls) you'll find the robot data doesn't really translate....but maybe it does for many, idk.

 

Back to the Topic---> My pick is Callaway SuperSoft.

 

Regards

Edited September 1, 2023 by rwbloom93

[bomberman]

On 8/31/2023 at 11:02 PM, rwbloom93 said:

If you are referring to Robot data that's actually mixed.  Today's Golfer robot presents different data than the MSG robot.  Regardless of competing robots and Quad/Trackman data everybody's swing is unique so there really is no "one ball fits all".

 

I play all the Tour brands and they are excellent short game.  They are nice for me Tee to Green **if I am having a good ball striking day***. Very consistent and predictable. 

 

I also play all the soft balls and for my swing (<85 mph and kind of flat with a "push/draw") low compression are superior in distance with the Driver and irons to the firmer Tour balls. Especially the irons, I hit some real high flying beauties with the Supersoft, Soft Feel, TruFeel, etc....I also find them more forgiving on less than quality strikes whereas the Tour balls punish me more for a poor swing.

 

The drawback for ionomer cover low compression is the 1 time or so a round  I hit a WTF was that "flyer" from a clean lie.  Tour balls almost NEVER do that to me, incredibly reliable on pure strikes. The other drawback is obviously greenside performance.

 

Anyway, I think if a golfer has enough time to practice full shots (not with range balls) you'll find the robot data doesn't really translate....but maybe it does for many, idk.

 

Back to the Topic---> My pick is Callaway SuperSoft.

 

Regards

That really depends on how seriously you take your game. If you mostly want a cheap ball that feels decent the supersoft or Srixon Q-star these are good, as are the "ladies" balls. If you take golf a bit more seriously then you 100% want a 3+ piece ball with a urethane cover. Within the urethane market most slower swingers would benefit from higher trajectory and more spin, the balls mentioned check those boxes. If you want more feel you generally need to sacrifice something, which often is spin and something like the Chrome soft, Bridgestone RX or Q-star tour would check those boxes. Distance differences will largely be based on trajectory and spin and can vary slightly but that depends on the individual, most but the lowest spinning balls will be close in distance at the lower speeds.

 

That being said selecting a ball is give or take, spin vs feel generally on full shots. 

 

 

[platgof]

I'm playing an E6 and doing great with it.

[SwooshLT]

Almost 60 and loving Chrome Tour! 

[ahenderX]

On 5/4/2023 at 4:52 PM, Is Golf Fun or Work said:

$ not a concern, Bridgestone RXS

$ a concern, Vice Pro or Pro Soft (I think Pro is better)

In Today’s Golfer ball test, the single best ball pick overall was the Vice Pro. I’m a 70 year old with ~85 mph driver speed and the compression range which best suits me is 75-85. Maxfli Tour and Tour S are my favorites. 

[phil75070]

The two balls that I have found best for my slow swing speed, being 77 years old, are at the extremes somewhat. Surprisingly, the Vice Pro Plus recommended for high swing speed players, and the Callaway ERC Soft perform almost the same for me!

[jjfcpa]

77 years old - the two balls that I've found the most successful for me are the Taylormade Tour Response (2025 version) and the Callaway Chrome Soft (2024 version).  

 

Off the putter, I tend to favor the CS.  For driver, I tend to favor the TR.

[streak]

Once a week I play with my buddies I've known since high school, now well into 70s, they hate it when I refer to them as "casual golfers", but they are just average folks who enjoy playing and can't really tell much difference in ball performance.  Typically I recommend to them and give them Callaway Supersofts that I find (and I find a lot of them).  But I think more experienced players who typically do fly approach shots onto putting surfaces and do have a variety of short game shots benefit from a urethane cover ball.

 

I'm 75, if I have a good day putting I'm a bit better than my 7 handicap, these days a 200 yard driver carry is okay.  Intrigued by the manufacturer's explanation of the ball design and some published test results, I ordered a dozen 2025 version of the Wilson Triad from Amazon Prime, with a discount plus state tax $37.05, figured if I didn't like them, no problem giving them to friends.  I've played 36 holes, impressed, the ball doesn't disappoint in any area.  Some well struck drives good distance, approach distance control spot on, approaches stopping and short game check like a decent urethane ball, putts well, decent durability.  My tendency is toward higher trajectory and higher spin than is most effective for driver overall distance, so far the Triad has not shown any ballooning tendency at all, nice more flattish trajectory I like, not as low as the AVX.  I believe the 2025 version is a little softer than the previous version, around 80 compression I think, not sure.  Definitely feels like a soft ball, certainly compared to the 2024 TP5x that was my last season go to.  I played various Chrome Softs for years until last year, the Triad performs as well if not a bit better for me but feels a touch mushier than my recall of a Chrome Soft, closer to a Tour Response but feels better to me than the Tour Response.  I have no issues with the ball, will need a little time getting used to the feel.  For now, a keeper, especially at the price.

[jjfcpa]

21 hours ago, streak said:

Once a week I play with my buddies I've known since high school, now well into 70s, they hate it when I refer to them as "casual golfers", but they are just average folks who enjoy playing and can't really tell much difference in ball performance.  Typically I recommend to them and give them Callaway Supersofts that I find (and I find a lot of them).  But I think more experienced players who typically do fly approach shots onto putting surfaces and do have a variety of short game shots benefit from a urethane cover ball.

 

I'm 75, if I have a good day putting I'm a bit better than my 7 handicap, these days a 200 yard driver carry is okay.  Intrigued by the manufacturer's explanation of the ball design and some published test results, I ordered a dozen 2025 version of the Wilson Triad from Amazon Prime, with a discount plus state tax $37.05, figured if I didn't like them, no problem giving them to friends.  I've played 36 holes, impressed, the ball doesn't disappoint in any area.  Some well struck drives good distance, approach distance control spot on, approaches stopping and short game check like a decent urethane ball, putts well, decent durability.  My tendency is toward higher trajectory and higher spin than is most effective for driver overall distance, so far the Triad has not shown any ballooning tendency at all, nice more flattish trajectory I like, not as low as the AVX.  I believe the 2025 version is a little softer than the previous version, around 80 compression I think, not sure.  Definitely feels like a soft ball, certainly compared to the 2024 TP5x that was my last season go to.  I played various Chrome Softs for years until last year, the Triad performs as well if not a bit better for me but feels a touch mushier than my recall of a Chrome Soft, closer to a Tour Response but feels better to me than the Tour Response.  I have no issues with the ball, will need a little time getting used to the feel.  For now, a keeper, especially at the price.

 

I bought a couple dozen Triads to experiment with them and initially, I felt like you did that they were a good performer in pretty much all areas.  By the time I got to the 3rd sleeve (due to losses and only play a ball for one round), I felt like they were not performing any better than the Chrome Soft (my normal gamer).  So I decided to play both the Triad and CS on a couple holes during one of my rounds.  To my surprise, the CS was superior and where I thought the Triad was doing better - chips / pitches into the greens - it really wasn't.

 

I also tried the 2025 Taylormade Tour Response and found it to be very very close to the CS except the CS is a little softer, which I prefer.

 

Not sure if you've done any ballnamic input but I've done 5 of them and the Chrome Soft always seems to be one of the recommended balls for me.  

 

After experimenting with the Triad and Tour Response, I'm back to the Chrome Soft.  My only knock against the CS is it does seem to scuff up a little faster than the other two, but since I only play a ball for one round... doesn't really matter to me.  I also don't tend to lose many balls so cost is not a big factor to me.

 

BTW, 77 years old and about a 10-12 hc depending on the day.

[Nickb333]

So, I’ve been playing the tp5x for many years because it never seems to slice or hook badly for me. I also like the clicker sound/feel. 
 

Recently, I grabbed a box of speedsoft balls just out of curiosity. So far, I’m pretty impressed. They are a tad shorter with my irons but the driver didn’t miss a beat. I’ve also had some super long (for me) and super straight 7w shots. Like over 200 yards when that’s usually my 185 club. 
 

They hold the greens well. In fairness, our greens are currently very receptive so we’ll see…

 

The soft feel has been and easy adjustment and I actually like it off the carbon face driver. For less than half the cost of the TP5x, I can see making this change permanent. 
 

Finally, the speedsoft seem to be a tad more durable as well. 

[streak]

48 minutes ago, jjfcpa said:

 

I bought a couple dozen Triads to experiment with them and initially, I felt like you did that they were a good performer in pretty much all areas.  By the time I got to the 3rd sleeve (due to losses and only play a ball for one round), I felt like they were not performing any better than the Chrome Soft (my normal gamer).  So I decided to play both the Triad and CS on a couple holes during one of my rounds.  To my surprise, the CS was superior and where I thought the Triad was doing better - chips / pitches into the greens - it really wasn't.

 

I also tried the 2025 Taylormade Tour Response and found it to be very very close to the CS except the CS is a little softer, which I prefer.

 

Not sure if you've done any ballnamic input but I've done 5 of them and the Chrome Soft always seems to be one of the recommended balls for me.  

 

After experimenting with the Triad and Tour Response, I'm back to the Chrome Soft.  My only knock against the CS is it does seem to scuff up a little faster than the other two, but since I only play a ball for one round... doesn't really matter to me.  I also don't tend to lose many balls so cost is not a big factor to me.

 

BTW, 77 years old and about a 10-12 hc depending on the day.

Chrome Soft was my default ball for several years, last year went down the rabbit hole of trying new models, was surprised how well I did with the 2024 TP5x (previous models spun too much in the air for me), but every time I select a Chrome Soft for a while they are still a good fit.  I’ve had many rounds with Tour Response models, no issues other than a little higher trajectory than I prefer.  I have not yet had adequate opportunity to do side by side testing, but in play I’m seeing consistent results from the Triad.  It does have a price advantage.  I’m wanting to settle on one model for the season, unless it disappoints somehow in the next couple of rounds, seems like a good option for a stingy old duff like me.

[Hat Trick]

The last 10 years ProV1X has been my ball... but I found a Chrome Tour and really, really liked it.  So now I bought a sleeve and love the feel off all my clubs.  Age 63 with a 6.6 index.

 

This could be a problem with the 7 dz 2025 V1Xs I have in my inventory.

[m d g]

On 4/10/2023 at 4:55 PM, bomberman said:

I recommend the prov1x, srixon xv or diamond, callaway csx, bridgestone bx and taylormadr tp5x.

 

Despite the fact these seem to cater to high speed players that are mainly c0ck and ribcage. The data suggests they have a bigger edge for the Grey folk. 

 

 

 

I like my AVX; it's softer than the ProV1. But lately I've been playing the ProV1 and it seems as long as any other. And durable. I'm on my fourth or fifth round with one ball and it looks fine. 

[phil59]

73 ans

 

presque toutes les balles TOUR  (couverture URETHANE)

 

mes balles préférées

TITLEIST  prov1x AVX prov1  TOUR-SPEED

VICE  PRO plus  , PRO 

 

Bon golf

[munichop]

Played my first round of the season at elevation (5000 ft.) with the new maxfli Softfli last Friday and tied my career best 65 for this course. Bogey free 5 birdies and an eagle. The new version is a smidge longer and straighter than the one it replaced. My friend got a dozen of these after the round because he witnessed first hand the extra rollout I get from this ball up here. I missed one fairway all day.  What a great value at two doz for $35.

[munichop]

On 7/11/2023 at 7:18 PM, darsony said:

Go with the ball that gives the lowest score.  It's the only way to judge a golf ball IMO.

This

I tried 8 or 9 different balls at elevation last summer and the unlikely winner was the softfli.  They have a newer model this year and it still wins vs the other balls.  I played it in pretty good winds my last round and hit 16 greens with it. Very consistent for me. 

[gumpy]

I’m get my dad (70s) Yellow ERCs or Yellow Tour Responses. Works well for him distance and visibility wise while providing decent green side control. 

[A.Princey]

On 5/4/2023 at 3:21 PM, Pepperturbo said:

I read and took exception with the "perfect ball" for an ole fart.  At 70+ I qualify.  Regardless of age, there is NO such thing. 

 

It's physical strength and swing that determines how far any ball goes, and maybe what your goal is.  Last week I played with someone 10yrs my junior that played a Supersoft.  It gave him decent distance, but was worthless around the green, where it counts.  His pitching and chipping around the green was like army golf, ball didn't spin well, so it ran out past the pin.  I'd rather compromise 10yds of distance and have greenside performance to score.   One man's opinion.

 

Chrome Soft is NOW out of the mix.  The biggest reason, don't like the confusion that comes from testing multiple balls.  Back to DASH -ProV1x and AVX. 

I'd wager most amateurs aren't skilled enough to actually control spin on greenside shots, so the amount of check-up varies drastically, from pitch to pitch. On a spinnier urethane ball, this can mean stopping 20-30ft short of the pin, or chipping a "flyer" that spins sub 2k that runs equally as far past the hole.

 

I play a surlyn ball that spins/holds as well or better than urethane on full shots, and just play for a little more run out on chips & pitches. Once you account for the little added rollout, the spin variability is a non issue, and that runout becomes very predictable. For added stopping power, one can add loft or open-face a lob wedge. The spin variance on a chip with surlyn is probably less than ±700rpm, but with urethane that variance jumps up to ±2500rpm. There are usually less than 2-3 shots during an entire round where I'd benefit personally from having a urethane ball, and that's assuming I nip the ball cleanly to gain the extra spin in the first place. Ymmv.

Edited June 27 by A.Princey

[bluedot]

3 hours ago, A.Princey said:

I'd wager most amateurs aren't skilled enough to actually control spin on greenside shots, so the amount of check-up varies drastically, from pitch to pitch. On a spinnier urethane ball, this can mean stopping 20-30ft short of the pin, or chipping a "flyer" that spins sub 2k that runs equally as far past the hole.

 

I play a surlyn ball that spins/holds as well or better than urethane on full shots, and just play for a little more run out on chips & pitches. Once you account for the little added rollout, the spin variability is a non issue, and that runout becomes very predictable. For added stopping power, one can add loft or open-face a lob wedge. The spin variance on a chip with surlyn is probably less than ±700rpm, but with urethane that variance jumps up to ±2500rpm. There are usually less than 2-3 shots during an entire round where I'd benefit personally from having a urethane ball, and that's assuming I nip the ball cleanly to gain the extra spin in the first place. Ymmv.

You’re saying that while “most amateurs aren’t skilled enough to actually control spin on green side shots” that those same skill-challenged amateurs can add loft and/or manipulate the clubface, including with a lob wedge, to add “stopping power”.  I have never seen any study that shows that unskilled players generate the kind of spin rates you’re talking about that cause their chips to come up 20-30’ short; when they do that, and they do it a LOT, it’s primarily because they hit the chip fat, rather than that all of a sudden they generated Tour level sauce on a chip.

 

The best answer to the question of the “perfect” ball for ANY player is the same one you played yesterday and the same one you will be playing tomorrow; familiarity with a ball’s performance is far, far more important than than the characteristics of any particular ball. 
 

That said, seniors are absolutely going to benefit more from a premium, urethane cover ball.  Seniors are likely to depend more on wedge play, especially on par 5’s, than younger, longer players, and spin adds control; there’s no way to reasonably argue otherwise.  
 

There is one (and ONLY one) good reason to play a surlyn ball; they’re cheaper.  I do not mean to minimize the significance of cost, but there are no performance advantages to surlyn; none.  And even the cost advantage isn’t significant anymore because of DTC balls, the Maxflis, the Kirkland, Sam’s Club, and so on.

 

 

face to add “stopping power” with a surlyn ball.