This final installment of my trilogy of rants about golf balls. I promise.

My claim throughout has been that just because a dozen balls costs more than a steak dinner doesn’t mean that that ball is the best choice for your game. As further (and final) support for this contention, I offer the following two examples.

On the rare occasions when I’m striking the ball well, especially with the Eidolon wedges I reviewed a couple of years ago, I absolutely rip the cover off the ball. I’ve skinned Pinnacles, for Pete’s sake. So when I play really soft, expensive balls, they’re toast after a couple of holes.

Now, for the pros this is no problem. They get money for nothing and their balls for free (thank you Dire Straits). They often switch out balls after every few holes for this very reason. For me, well, it’s just damned irritating. My frugal side keeps me playing that frayed ball until I can’t even read the name on it any more. This is one reason I like a little harder – and a little cheaper – ball.

As a second bit of evidence that you should try to find the right ball for your game, take this quote by Scott Verplank from the current issue of Golf Magazine. When asked about the change in the loft of his driver over the last few years, he said, “It’s stayed the same. A lot of guys have gone to more loft and less spin, but I don’t get the same benefit out of the new balls because I don’t swing fast enough.”

If a PGA Tour player, who ranked 25th on the money list last year, cannot benefit from the ultra-expensive, low-compression, low-spin balls, do you really think you can? You might indeed, but it is far from guaranteed.

OK. I’m off my soapbox (for now). I’ll be reviewing some balls come spring, but it will be no easy job. Often, the only insight I can offer is something like this: “Ball X appeared to sink a little less quickly than Ball Y, and Ball Z skipped all the way across the pond.”

Permalink 8 comments

Bookmark/Search this post with: