Any Feedback on the New Pro-V1s?

ShriekingSheet

Maybe it's a sign of the times but there seems to be remarkably little hype around new equipment these days. As someone who rarely changes clubs, I welcome this shift from the heady days of "OMFG, the new one goes 27 yards further and is 13% more workable than the old model they released 6 weeks ago...". Anyway, the downside of this is the low level of feedback and opinion being bandied around about things like the R9 driver and the new Pro-V1 balls.

I've been a user of the standard black number Pro-V1 since a reluctantly buying a box at Munster Youths years ago, only because the pro-shop ran out of Maxfli Revolutions.

It's durability is a big thing for me. I ain't exactly David Toms so the ball I'm playing needs to stand up to some iffy strikes. The X ones most definitely goes further with all clubs, but the cover seems to flake away and sheer quite easily which put me off.

Anyway, not for the first time, Titleist have "improved" both the Pro-V1 and Pro-V1x. Has anyone found any real difference? The Titleist site is (unsurprisingly) rather weak on detail.

I've bought a dozen of the X ones (red number) as it does seem that the cover is more resiliant and I've always been attracted by the reduced spin it offers. I think this has an effect on keeping my drives straighter and I don't get as many silly ones with the SW that spin back half the length of the green. Mostly though, I like the extra few yards it gives over the black one.

All-in-all, the only difference I can see in either ball is the X has a better cover.

Mister Sifter

I was given a pack of three (ooh er!) last week of the new prov1. Played 14 holes with one on Saturday and i have to say i noticed absolutely no difference in performance from the old model.

As far as i could tell, the change was made more for legal reasons than because of any real technological advancement.

ShriekingSheet

Graeme1982 wrote: »

As far as i could tell, the change was made more for legal reasons than because of any real technological advancement.

Eh? What legal reasons?

thegen

I heard that Titleist lost a long running battle with Callaway and Bridgestone on the technology they were using on the Pro v1.

Mister Sifter

Yeh, if you google it Sheet it should come up. Callaway Golf won a patent infringement case against Acushnet about 18 months ago... i'm pretty sure that is the main reason behind the change.

f22

Yeah, the guys are correct. The new Pro V1 is radically different seeing as Titleist lost a huge patent battle against Callaway.

Apparently they don't cut up quite as easy now with those slinky u-grooves either.

I got some freebie X's but haven't used them yet.

kagni

In a nutshell...

Callaway originally stole the multi piece urethane ball idea from Spalding/Top Flite in the mid 90's. Spalding had a number of patents for this.

Callaway infringed the patents to develop their Rule 35 Ball which was set to dominate the market.

Titleist came under pressure (from their Tour players in particular) to come up with something to compete. They take the technology used in the Rule 35 ball and from other competitors balls and include it in the design of the Pro V1. This ball, as we all know, dominates the market for years.

A few years ago Spalding won a lawsuit against Callaway for stealing their patents when developing the Rule 35 ball. Callaway solves the problem by buying the Spalding/Top Flite company.

Callaway then sues Tiltleist for infringing on the patents that they originally stole themselves, but now own. They win the case.

The Pro V1 has been redeveloped to avoid any infringements of these patents.

WHIP IT!

It was interesting to notice young Rory make a point to mention the "new Prov V1x ball" he was using while being interview a few weeks ago. Think it was a week or two after he won on tour.

He was mentioning how much more distance and control it had given him. You're never sure how much of this to swallow and how much of it is just said to please sponsors.

I suppose, reading the above, you would have to assume the latter...

Mister Sifter

WHIP IT! wrote: »

It was interesting to notice young Rory make a point to mention the "new Prov V1x ball" he was using while being interview a few weeks ago. Think it was a week or two after he won on tour.

He was mentioning how much more distance and control it had given him. You're never sure how much of this to swallow and how much of it is just said to please sponsors.

I suppose, reading the above, you would have to assume the latter...

I tend not to listen to what pros say about stuff like that. Their judgement is totally clouded.

In my opinion, i think it's better to seek advice from fellow amatuers and guys around the same handicap range. Failing the forums like this ain't bad either...

Sandwich

Roughly spherical apparantly. 1.68" dia. 1.62 oz.

If that helps

Sandwich

Sorry for the above:rolleyes:

kagni wrote: »

The Pro V1 has been redeveloped to avoid any infringements of these patents.

But seriously, so the 'New Pro V1' isnt really a Pro V1 at at all. Its a new ball that just happens to have the same name. Are Callaway not suing for the rights to use the name instead of Tirleist, since it is their patent that has made it a leading brand?

gerp

I have to say guys there is nothing in the difference.

Still the only ball to play with.

PaulHardwick

WHIP IT! wrote: »

It was interesting to notice young Rory make a point to mention the "new Prov V1x ball" he was using while being interview a few weeks ago. Think it was a week or two after he won on tour.

.

I tell you, Chubby has a lot to answer for. Ever read big Darren's column in Golf World, or his blog for that matter. He is like one long promotional advancement.

We get it big D, your clubs are great, Oceanico is great, Queenwood is great, you drive flash cars and love "guinness".

At his age you would think he would have gotten over the "i am a big boozer" stage. Most people get past that at 18.

I tell you it is sickening.

For all but the top 1% of golfers, any new golf ball is far in excess of the golfers playing ability. Nick Faldo said this a few years back (when he was between sponsors).

PaulHardwick

gerp wrote: »

Still the only ball to play with.

I don't agree. At €6.50 a skite, it can make for an expensive round. I play Pinnacles, and I shoot in the high 70's on an average day.

ShriekingSheet

PaulHardwick wrote: »

I don't agree. At €6.50 a skite, it can make for an expensive round. I play Pinnacles, and I shoot in the high 70's on an average day.

Eh? That's total boll*x. You're quoting way over the cost there.

At the price you state, a dozen would be €78???

In our pro shop they're €49 a dozen, €4.08 per ball.

You can't disagree with someone's choice. You might walk to work in a pair of shoes twice as expensive as the other guy. He might have one less night out a month or something but the opportunity cost is he tees up a brand new pro v1 in every comp. There's as much functional difference between a pro v1 and a pinnacle as there is between an expensive and lesss expensive pair of shoes, ie: not that much difference. But people can choose for themselves.

If you applied your golf ball logic accross the board you'd have a cheap immitation set of irons which probably wouldn't cost you a single shot. But I bet you don't have an immitation set...

PaulHardwick

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

Eh? That's total boll*x. You're quoting way over the cost there.

At the price you state, a dozen would be €78???

In our pro shop they're €49 a dozen, €4.08 per ball.

You can't disagree with someone's choice. You might walk to work in a pair of shoes twice as expensive as the other guy. He has a worse car but the opportunity cost is he tees up a brand new pro v1 in every comp. There's as much functional difference between a pro v1 and a pinnacle as there is between an expensive and lesss expensive pair of shoes, ie: not that much difference.

If you applied your golf ball logic accross the board you'd have a cheap immitation set which probably wouldn't cost you a single shot. But I bet you don't have an immitation set...

A pack of three costs around €20, last time I checked.

IN my opinion, iron technology has been at a stand still for the last 8 years. (Since the Callaway X12's). Driver technology has not moved on since the R500 series by Taylormade (That's why you have square drivers and so on. Anything to update the model, they cannot advance the technology)

As for wedges, since Cleveland perfected the 588, things are just the same.

Putters: The Rossie II, used by Faldo was the last major step, following on from the Ping Anser. Mark McNulty still jabs away with a 40 year old blade design.

The only major change in technology in the last five years has been the introduction of hybrid woods. And the original Taylormade Rescue is still the best of that bunch.

ShriekingSheet

PaulHardwick wrote: »

A pack of three costs around €20, last time I checked.

€20 is way off as well but that's beside the point. For someone who's abviously cost conscious (as we all are these days) it's ridiculous to suggest that your typical prov1 player would buy in threes, which is such bad value.

PaulHardwick wrote: »

IN my opinion, iron technology has been at a stand still for the last 8 years. (Since the Callaway X12's). Driver technology has not moved on since the R500 series by Taylormade (That's why you have square drivers and so on. Anything to update the model, they cannot advance the technology)

As for wedges, since Cleveland perfected the 588, things are just the same.

Putters: The Rossie II, used by Faldo was the last major step, following on from the Ping Anser. Mark McNulty still jabs away with a 40 year old blade design.

The only major change in technology in the last five years has been the introduction of hybrid woods. And the original Taylormade Rescue is still the best of that bunch.

I'm struggling to see how your opinion on developments in technology is relevant to our debate. Can you clarify?

PaulHardwick

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

I'm struggling to see how your opinion on developments in technology is relevant to our debate. Can you clarify?

Thread title "Any Feedback on the New Pro-v1s?"

ShriekingSheet

PaulHardwick wrote: »

Thread title "Any Feedback on the New Pro-v1s?"

Oh right, well you're in agreement with most of us if you're saying there's no real improvement from old pro v1 to new pro v1.

We're talking about you disagreeing with those of us who think it's the best ball to play and advocating the use of a Pinnacle.

Hobart

gerp wrote: »

I have to say guys there is nothing in the difference.

Still the only ball to play with.

I've tried both, old and new tbh, and I don't like either. I find the old one cut up like this and the new 3 pack I was given, were no better. For the last few years I've used the Calloway HX Tour. Slightly cheaper than the Pro V1, but 1 ball will happily last 72+ strokes , and they are very soft on and around the green, with great feel and a good distance. No comparison imo.

ShriekingSheet

Hobart wrote: »

I've tried both, old and new tbh, and I don't like either. I find the old one cut up like this and the new 3 pack I was given, were no better. For the last few years I've used the Calloway HX Tour. Slightly cheaper than the Pro V1, but 1 ball will happily last 72+ strokes , and they are very soft on and around the green, with great feel and a good distance. No comparison imo.

Yeah funny thing I found about the Callaway balls was that (for me) they deteriorated gradually and picked up minor damage more frequently than the Pro V1. With the Titleist, I agree, when you chop it up it is well and truly toast. But you know when it's toast. I found with the Callaway I had to see a few dodgy flights to know the ball needed to be changed. When it picked up damage it was subtle and less noticable until you hit it.

Not explaining myself to well but you see what I'm getting at. Anyway, in all honesty if someone handed me a dozen HX Tours I wouldn't bother going to swap them for the Pro Vs. They're the same ball pretty much.

PaulHardwick

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

Oh right, well you're in agreement with most of us if you're saying there's no real improvement from old pro v1 to new pro v1.

We're talking about you disagreeing with those of us who think it's the best ball to play and advocating the use of a Pinnacle.

Well I have not tried the latest ball, however I have found very little difference when comparing previous updates of the V1.

I fully believe that anyone playing with a handicap over 4 would benefit from using a harder and cheaper ball. Remember, a hard ball will spin less.

This has a number of benefits. It will not "balloon" as much when hitting into the wind. It will not slice or hook to the same extent, and given the lenght of courses these days, the extra few yards on the drive tend to be more than useful.

Mister Sifter

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

In all honesty if someone handed me a dozen HX Tours I wouldn't bother going to swap them for the Pro Vs. They're the same ball pretty much.

I'd agree with that. If i'm buying balls i'd always go for the ProV1, but i also find the HX Tours to be bang on. I picked up some Nike One Black over the winter too and found them to be pretty decent also. Same goes for the TP Red.

Hobart

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

Yeah funny thing I found about the Callaway balls was that (for me) they deteriorated gradually and picked up minor damage more frequently than the Pro V1. With the Titleist, I agree, when you chop it up it is well and truly toast. But you know when it's toast. I found with the Callaway I had to see a few dodgy flights to know the ball needed to be changed. When it picked up damage it was subtle and less noticable until you hit it.

Not explaining myself to well but you see what I'm getting at. Anyway, in all honesty if someone handed me a dozen HX Tours I wouldn't bother going to swap them for the Pro Vs. They're the same ball pretty much.

I also think a lot of it can be in the head for most people (and I count myself in that bunch). If you like a certain ball, but play with another, you tend to blame anything and everything for a poor shot, bar the handicapped golfer holding the club .

ShriekingSheet

PaulHardwick wrote: »

This has a number of benefits. It will not "balloon" as much when hitting into the wind. It will not slice or hook to the same extent, and given the lenght of courses these days, the extra few yards on the drive tend to be more than useful.

But it's not as not as easy to get up and down with a hard ball...

PaulHardwick

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

But it's not as not as easy to get up and down with a hard ball...

Very true. And after all Tiger uses one of the softest balls on tour for that very reason.

Mister Sifter

I've said it before on here, but i reckon, given a bit of practice, i could get used to playing any ball and it wouldn't affect my score. Be it a Pinnacle or a Prov1.

I choose to play the Prov1 as i like the way it reacts around the greens and I know how it plays.

It's a preference thing. I prefer putting the ball in high to greens and watching it stop quickly and playing it in short and running it up. I'm pretty sure that given a few rounds with a Pinnacle i could get used to it though.

Mister Sifter

PaulHardwick wrote: »

Very true. And after all Tiger uses one of the softest balls on tour for that very reason.

Who? Don't you mean Woody?;)

ShriekingSheet

Hobart wrote: »

I also think a lot of it can be in the head for most people (and I count myself in that bunch). If you like a certain ball, but play with another, you tend to blame anything and everything for a poor shot, bar the handicapped golfer holding the club .

Totally agree. As I said, I started using ProVs purely because my usual ball was out of stock at a tournament where I went and played well with the new ball and will always have that association.

But these little nuances are important I think, even if not in a rational way!

What I disagree with is the "only players of X h'cap should use good ball, all others should play a cheap hard ball".

PaulHardwick

Graeme1982 wrote: »

Who? Don't you mean Woody?;)

:cool:

ShriekingSheet

PaulHardwick wrote: »

Very true. And after all Tiger uses one of the softest balls on tour for that very reason.

Right, but a 9 h'cap player who plays on a modern course with bunkered and raised greens can benefit more from being able to chip and putt better with the softer ball than the few extra yards straighter he'd be off the tee with a hard ball.

ShriekingSheet

Graeme1982 wrote: »

I've said it before on here, but i reckon, given a bit of practice, i could get used to playing any ball and it wouldn't affect my score. Be it a Pinnacle or a Prov1.

I choose to play the Prov1 as i like the way it reacts around the greens and I know how it plays.

It's a preference thing. I prefer putting the ball in high to greens and watching it stop quickly and playing it in short and running it up. I'm pretty sure that given a few rounds with a Pinnacle i could get used to it though.

Bullsh*t Graeme!

Bring your Pinnacles to Headfort Junior Scratch!

PaulHardwick

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

Right, but a 9 h'cap player who plays on a modern course with bunkered and raised greens can benefit more from being able to chip and putt better with the softer ball than the few extra yards straighter he'd be off the tee.

I would take the yards off the tee anyday.

In my opinion spin around the greens is more harm than anything else. I play all my greenside shots to allow for the roll. I the past I have tried the soft ball, using the lobber and so on to spin the ball in. Very inconsistent.

Mister Sifter

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

Bullsh*t Graeme!

Bring your Pinnacles to Headfort Junior Scratch!

You'd better hope i don't... Played 14 holes with a top flite Xl distance last year - was 1 under par. Imagine what i'd do with a mightly Pinnacle!!

ShriekingSheet

PaulHardwick wrote: »

I would take the yards off the tee anyday.

In my opinion spin around the greens is more harm than anything else. I play all my greenside shots to allow for the roll. I the past I have tried the soft ball, using the lobber and so on to spin the ball in. Very inconsistent.

Yeah, it's all about yards off the tee.

ShriekingSheet

Graeme1982 wrote: »

You'd better hope i don't... Played 14 holes with a top flite Xl distance last year - was 1 under par. Imagine what i'd do with a mightly Pinnacle!!

Just be sure you don't lose it. I can just imagine the guys helping you look...

"there's one here! ...oh no sorry, false alarm, it's a Pinnacle" as he chucks it disgustedly into th lake

Mister Sifter

PaulHardwick wrote: »

I would take the yards off the tee anyday.

In my opinion spin around the greens is more harm than anything else. I play all my greenside shots to allow for the roll. I the past I have tried the soft ball, using the lobber and so on to spin the ball in. Very inconsistent.

It's that not a reflection of you more than the ball though? The majority of players with a handicap over say 7 or 8 that i see using the Prov1 don't know how to play them properly.

The stats are well documents about the percentage of shots taken around the green. Hitting it 250 yards as opposed to 240 yards off the tee means nothing compared to being able to knock it stone dead from 20 yards, over a bunker to a tight pin as opposed to knocking it 15 feet past the pin.

Mister Sifter

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

Just be sure you don't lose it. I can just imagine the guys helping you look...

"there's one here! ...oh no sorry, false alarm, it's a Pinnacle" as he chucks it disgustedly into th lake

i don't lose golf balls, i'm Scottish. Til death to us part. Have you see the price of them!?

ShriekingSheet

I'll say one thing though. I didn't play foor a couple of years and found myself chopping helplessly around the golf course upon my return. I got a higher handicap than my previous one of 9 and yes, I did use harder, cheaper golf balls because as you say, I couldn't justify using soft balls. By that I mean I didn't have the required skill to "use" the benefits of the ball - so I might as well play something basic.

But once I started to play regularly, especially in the summer when the greens hardened, I found it just too hard to get up and down from some spots and the softer ball makes a world of difference when you have the ability to strike it.

kagni

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

Just be sure you don't lose it. I can just imagine the guys helping you look...

"there's one here! ...oh no sorry, false alarm, it's a Pinnacle" as he chucks it disgustedly into th lake

Hey lads, less of the Pinnacle bashing!
Used to use the Pinnacle Exceptions, liked them a lot, but they don't seem to make them any more.

Par72

Played a few holes with the new Pro V1 x yesterday and I felt like I was playing with a Top Flite XL, it felt like a rock. I usually use the regular Pro V1's but I had tried the old Pro V1 x's before and I don't remember them feeling anywhere near as hard as the new one. Have they made it more rock-like or what's the story?

Jasonw

Par72 wrote: »

Played a few holes with the new Pro V1 x yesterday and I felt like I was playing with a Top Flite XL, it felt like a rock. I usually use the regular Pro V1's but I had tried the old Pro V1 x's before and I don't remember them feeling anywhere near as hard as the new one. Have they made it more rock-like or what's the story?

I don't know but this "now even more durable" is total bull. I bought a box of 'em and they cut up very easy. Just bought a couple of boxes of the old PRO V1's before they get sold out.