Tag: taylormade project a

Categories
GOLF

TAYLORMADE PROJECT A VS SRIXON Q-STAR TOUR

Srixon Q-Star Tour Golf Balls

About halfway through this golf season I switched from the Taylormade Project A golf ball to the Srixon Q-Star Tour ball. After a few months of play with the Q-Star Tour it’s time for a comparison.

Both balls are specifically designed for golfers that swing their Drivers at a little less than 100mph. Both balls have a 3 layer design with a Urethane cover. In other words they should be perfect for me.

The Project A has a 322 dimple pattern, and 70 compression.

The Q-Star Tour has a 338 dimple pattern, and a 72 compression.

COMPARISONS

DRIVER

Neither of these balls have proven to be the longest balls off the Tee for me. That Award belongs to the Nike RZN Red unfortunately. A ball that’s no longer in production. That being said the Srixon Q-Star Tour is slightly longer off the Tee than the Project A. Both fly relatively straight, but like any 3 piece ball will slice or hook if you hit it poorly. Both balls promote a mid to high ball flight but don’t sail too high.

Taylormade Project A 3.5 out of 5

Srixon Q-Star Tour 4 out of 5

WOODS AND HYBRIDS

Both balls performed great off my 3 Wood and Hybrid clubs. Once again the dimple patterns and ball compression promoted a high ball flight. That made long approaches into Greens less daunting. 2 piece balls rarely hold the Green off my Hybrids, but these 3 piece balls landed soft enough to attack Pins. There was almost no difference in Hybrid distance, but the Srixon Q-Star Tour did travel further off the 3 Wood. The Project A generated a little more spin so it held Greens slightly better. I was able to hold Greens with my 4 Hybrid from 180 yards out with the Project A. That’s ridiculous!

Taylormade Project A 4.5 out of 5

Srixon Q-Star Tour 4 out of 5

IRONS

Once again both balls performed great off the Irons. When attacking Greens with an Iron in hand it’s hard not to smile. I used to club down and aim for the front of Greens with 2 piece balls expecting about 5 yards of roll out. With the Taylormade Project A, and Srixon Q-Star Tour I can take aim at the flag and stick it. In fact if I opened the club face just slightly I could spin the ball back a couple yards. This allowed me to play shots to the back of Greens for the first time. The opportunities this provided me in certain situations was amazing. If ever there was an argument to switch to a premium 3 piece ball that would be it.

Taylormade Project A 5 out of 5

Srixon Q-Star Tour 5 out of 5

SHORT GAME WEDGES AND PUTTER

My Short game is very consistent. I don’t have that many different shots that I use around the Greens. I prefer to use Chip and Runs whenever I can. I hit flop shots when necessary, and I occasionally hit a one hop Pitch shot. Chip and Runs are actually a little more difficult with 3 piece Urethane covered balls because they want to check up. As a result of that I was forced to hit them a little harder than what felt natural. Hitting flops over hazards or out of bunkers was a blast. Even out of the Rough I could generate a fair amount of spin. The Srixon Q-Star Tour was a little more durable which surprised me. The newest Spinskin is far more durable than the original version. Off the Putter I found the Project A to be a little more responsive. It felt a little hotter off the face which is great for me because I have a tendency to leave putts short.

Taylormade Project A 4 out of 5

Srixon Q-Star Tour 4 out of 5

CONCLUSION

Obviously I was impressed with both balls. If you add up the scores it’s a tie, but the numbers don’t tell you everything. For me there is an obvious winner, and that’s the Srixon Q-Star Tour. If I was a naturally longer hitter than I would have chosen the Taylormade Project A. I love the amount of control, and Spin that I can generate with that ball. It’s also a pleasure to putt. The additional distance I get with the Srixon Q-Star Tour is impossible to ignore though. An extra 10 yards can make a world of difference on some doglegs, and it Spins well enough to attack Greens. In other words it’s the better ball for me.

Categories
GOLF

GOLF ONGOING REVIEW UPDATES 2019

The value of ongoing reviews

When I started the ongoing review format last season I wasn’t sure how effective it would be. The results were staggering to say the least. Products I originally assumed wouldn’t stand the test of time actually did. In fact I am still using some of them. I also learned that first impressions are more about personal bias, or effective marketing than actual fact. Kudos to the successful marketing departments out there.

This season has been no different. Some of my early impressions haven’t been correct, and time has shown the occasional flaw I wouldn’t have noticed in a traditional review. So after four months of testing, which is around the halfway mark for my ongoing reviews. Here are a few updates on the products I’ve been putting to the test.

Taylormade Project A Golf balls

If you would like a complete review on the Project A golf balls check my previous blog post. The ongoing review of the Taylormade Project A golf balls has come to an end because I actually began testing them last October. Simply put the Taylormade Project A isn’t for me. I’m not saying it’s a bad golf ball. Quite the contrary actually. It Spins well off the Irons, and Wedges. It is one of the best balls I’ve ever tested on the greens to putt with. Where the Project A is lacking is distance. In the simulator it constantly came up with slower ball speeds than other balls I had tested. It was obvious on the course as well where I would be short off the tee or on long approach shots. If I was a naturally long hitter than the Project A would be perfect but I’m not.

My first impressions of the Project A were great! I loved the Spin I was seeing in the simulator, and it felt so good off the Putter. It’s why I chose to do an ongoing review in the firsat place. It took a couple of months out on the course to realize that distance was going to be a serious issue for me.

Swing Caddie SC200

I can tell you that my initial impressions of the Swing Caddie SC200 were fueled by excitement for the product. First and foremost the Swing Caddie SC200 does what it’s supposed to do. It is an accurate portable launch monitor. I’ve tested it right alongside a brand new GC Hawk by foresight and it was within a yard in acuuracy. Now I will say that the accuracy was poor on total miss hits. The Swing Caddie is much better at reading swing speed and ball speed, but fails at trajectory. Of course total miss hits are easy for almost any golfer to notice so just ignore those numbers and move on. Where the Swing Caddie SC200 really shines is in the hitting bay. Hitting into a net gets boring real quick without some sort of launch monitor tech. I’ve spent up to 4 hours swinging in a hitting bay with the Swing Caddie. The more swings you take, the more data it compiles. This is a feature I wasn’t originally interested in, but have come to rely on as the season progresses. The SC200 tracks your average swing distance with each club. As you improve the numbers will improve. You will also become aware of weaknesses in your game that you maybe weren’t aware of.

There have been a few flaws with the Swing Caddie SC200 that you should be aware of. The SC200 needs to be positioned on a surface that’s level with the hitting surface. Sounds simple but it can be a pain at times. Most of the Ranges in Canada only have mats to hit off of early in the season. This means that I have to bring something for the Swing Caddie to sit on in order to raise it up to the correct level. If it isn’t just right it can provide you with incorrect distances. The remote that comes with it is relatively easy to use, but I have found myself having to be within a foot of the screen to get it to work sometimes. Otherwise I have enjoyed my time with the Swing Caddie SC200 thus far.

Arccos 360

The Arccos 360 Golf Performance Tracking system might be the product we were most excited to test. Manny a Cobe Life contributor installed it on to his complete set of clubs, and we couldn’t wait to see how it worked.

The first impressions were poor because 4 of the sensors that came with the kit were faulty. Fortunately Arccos replaced them quickly through their customer service department. Out on the course the Arccos 360 system does what it’s supposed to do most of the time. You need to keep monitoring what the Arccos 360 system is successfully registering. Now at first we thought it was entirely the Arccos 360 system’s fault but there is a certain amount of user error you should be aware of. We noticed after a few rounds that some of the shots weren’t being recorded. Well the Arccos 360 system doesn’t know when you’ve duffed one. If you completely flub a shot and end up walking only a few feet forward to take your next shot. The Arccos 360 assumes the previous shot was just a practice swing. Even shots that you might have considered successful chips can be missed if they traveled more upwards than outwards, and your next shot is with the same club. So you need to be aware of these situations. Another habit you need to develop is remembering to hit your gimme putts. Something Manny wasn’t used to, and it’s best to hit them firmly to ensure that they register.

What we have been most impressed with is the club suggestion system when out on the course. The Arccos 360 doesn’t just suggest the appropriate club based on distance. It factors in your successful shot percentage with each club as well. In a situation where you would normally choose to hit Driver off the tee, it might suggest you choose a 4 Hybrid instead because your chances of finding the fairway are greatly increased with that club, and your approach percentages are almost the same with either your wedge or 7 iron.

Ping G SFT Driver

When it came to selecting which Driver I would be doing an ongoing review of, first impressions were important. I did some extensive testing in the simulator of a number of different Drivers before selecting the Ping G SFT.

So did I choose correctly? The jury is still out on that one. The first question on everyone’s mind is, does the Straight Flight Technology actually work? I can confidently say that it does. Will it straighten out a swing that’s way over the top with a club face totally open to path? Hell no. What it will do is make closing the club face easier, and create a sweet spot slightly closer to the heel of the club where most Beginners tend to hit it. There are times when my swing is just atrocious, and I can’t blame the club for that. When my swing is working though I’ve never hit it that straight with any other Driver.

One issue I’ve had is generating a decent smash factor to increase ball speed. Now I know that part of the issue has been the balls I was using, but even with practice balls in the simulator my Smash Factor has been relatively low. I’m sure part of it has been me, but so far the Ping G SFT does not appear to have a Hot face.

Winn JumboLite Grip

If you follow me on cobesports on Instagram then you will know how excited I was when I first tested the Winn JumboLite grip on my putting mat at home. It felt like sinking putts was going to be automatic when I hit the course. I will say that my putting has improved. It just hasn’t improved as much as I expected it would. Brand new the grip felt absolutely perfect, but after a few months it’s already lost some of it’s cushion in the hands. It’s obvious that this grip has some durability issues because already the rubber on the butt end is beginning to peel, and the grip itself is getting a touch hard in spots. For someone who golfs maybe once a month it’s fine but for an addict like myself durability is a concern. This is the first “jumbo grip” I’ve used, and I won’t be going back to regular sized grips. The next grip I choose won’t be as large, but it will be made of a more durable material. A soft grip is nice in the hands, but as the wear sets in the feel changes. That is something you don’t want to have to deal with when putting.

I don’t mind the look.

Acer XK Chipper

The Acer XK Chipper, or Flipper as they call it because of the increased loft didn’t impress me much out of the box. Be honest would you be impressed? First of all it’s made by Acer. This is a company known for making inexpensive computers, not golf equipment. I’d Tag them on social media but it appears as though they don’t have a golfing social media account. It’s not particularly impressive to look at, and the build quality is about as plain as can be. Still after last season I felt it was time to test a Chipper, and quite frankly I’m glad I did. Using the Acer XK took a bit of practice, but so does any new club. Once I got a feel for it, my results with it have constantly improved. Would I suggest it to anyone having troubles around the greens? Yes, a resounding yes, but it does have a few limitations.

Keep in mind that this is a $60 club so you shouldn’t expect it to be perfect. What the Acer XK lacks the most is Feel. It doesn’t have a Milled face, or a special insert that took years of R&D to design. It’s just plain old steel with 5 horizontal lines across the face. The reason I’m constantly improving with this club is because it takes a lot of use to get used to how hard you need to hit it. Correct weight is achieved through muscle memory not feel. If Spin is your goal then this isn’t the right club for you. I’ve managed to make the odd Chip check up a bit, but for the most part using a Chipper is about rolling it all the way to the hole. It’s so easy to use that I honestly don’t care if I miss the green. In fact sometimes it’s better to come up short than leave myself a long putt with lots of break. With the Acer XK chipper I can fly some of the break and leave myself an easier roll to the hole.

Ongoing Reviews are the best indication

I can tell you that if I only spent a day with some of these products my conclusions would be very different. Even a week would have yielded different results. The only reviews that genuinely inform you of a products worth are ongoing reviews. Anyone who says different is flat out lying, ignorant to the fact, or biased through marketing.

THANKS AND PLEASE SUBSCRIBE

Categories
GOLF

TAYLORMADE PROJECT A GOLF BALL REVIEW

What I have learned in 8 months

When I review a product I don’t just spend an hour or two in the simulator, at the range, or play a Round of golf on the course. I continue to test the product through my ongoing reviews until there is no doubt left in my mind about my conclusions. There are so many variables that come into play when you evaluate a product with a very small sample size. I don’t care if you are a 20+ Handicap golfer or Rory McIlroy. Every golfer has good days and bad days with their swing. If I tested a Driver one time in the Simulator on a good swing day. I might conclude that particular Driver is the best I’ve ever tested. The same is true for a Ball test. Without testing products on an ongoing basis it’s impossible to differentiate between what the product is responsible for and what your swing is responsible for. Tour

I’ve spent the last 8 months playing the Project A ball which theoretically should be the right ball for me. The A in Project A stands for Amateur. The ball has a Tour ball type of design with 3 layers including a Urethane cover. What separates it from the ProV1, TP5, and Tour B balls is the Compression. The Taylormade Project A has a lower Compression than the top Tour balls so slower swing speed Players can properly compress the ball at impact. According to Taylormade the Project A’s design should “combine to increase Driver and Long Iron distance while maintaining excellent greenside control and feel”.

Do I agree with Taylormade’s claims about the Poject A? Well to be honest I do and I don’t.

DRIVER RESULTS

Over the last 8 months I’ve switched from the Cobra Fly-Z Driver to the Ping G SFT Driver so my results are derived from a combination of shots taken with both. Having a slightly lower compression than the top Tour balls had me excited about the distances I should expect to see off the tee. My swing speed with the Driver fluctuates between 92 and 98 mph. I don’t consistently make center face contact so smash factor and ball speed can vary. There is one thing I’m very good at with both Drivers, and that’s knowing when I hit one perfectly. fortunately both Drivers provide a lot of feedback. Whether it was in the Simulator, at the Range, or on the course when I really smashed one the results were the same. The Smash Factor was a little bit lower than expected resulting in a slightly lower ball speed than what I’ve seen with some other balls I’ve tested. Carry and Total distances were an average of 5 to 8 yards shorter than the longest balls I’ve tested. Off center hits resulted in an even greater drop off.

Unfortunately for a Beginner like myself the Project A didn’t provide me with an advantage Off the Tee with the Driver. It isn’t the shortest ball by any means but it wasn’t particularly long either. Dispersion was decent. I have a tendency to hit a Fade to a Slice and I was able to find the Fairway the majority of the time. Of course the lack of distance is partially responsible for allowing me to hold some of those Fairways.

WOOD & HYBRID RESULTS

i play more Hybrid clubs in my bag than the majority of golfers. I have a 3, 4, 5, and 6 Hybrid. I also play with a 3 Wood. How well I score on the course has a lot to do with how well I hit my Hybrids that day. The 3 Wood doesn’t get used much except occasionally off the tee or as the set up shot on a long Par 5. The 3 Wood is more about total distance whereas the Hybrids are about accuracy.

My results with the Project A provided excellent accuracy with my Hybrids, but not much distance with the 3 Wood. This was an acceptable compromise for me because it meant that even long approaches into Greens could find the dance floor and have me putting for Birdie. I was impressed with the amount of Spin I could generate with my Hybrids. The Project A was easy to control, and did a good job of cutting through the wind on those very gusty days.

IRON & WEDGE RESULTS

If you haven’t already done the math my longest Iron is a 7 so these are the scoring clubs in my bag. I also play with a 52 degree Attack Wedge, 56 degree Sand Wedge, and a 60 degree Lob Wedge or Chipper. These are the clubs in my bag that I really expected the Project A ball to shine. With a Urethane outer shell you would expect the Project A to spin like crazy.

Well, I was not disappointed! I used to be really impressed with 2 yards of roll out when I attacked the Pin with my Pitching Wedge. Now I fully expect to stick it on the Carry number. Just last week I used my 9 Iron to attack a 105 yard Par 3 that was about 30 feet downhill. Normally that would be far too much club for me. Pin was in the front of the Green, and the Green runs downhill from back to front. I gripped down about an inch on the grip which would add a little bit of Spin and took aim at the center of the Green. I struck the Project A clean and hit my target. the Spin quickly brought the ball back toward the Pin almost 4 yards and left me with a 5 footer for Birdie.

You know I sunk it. Otherwise why even tell the story. The real beauty of that shot is that I called it before I made it. My cousin Greg was there and questioned my 9 Iron choice. With total confidence I told him that I was going to aim at the center of the Green and Spin it back. 8 months playing with the Taylormade Project A ball taught me that I could do it. Something I’ve never done with any other ball.

Wedge control can be too good at times. My Wedge game consists of three shots. I can hit a Flop shot from 25 to 50 yards out. I can Chip and Run from 15 yards and in. I can hit a decent Chipper shot from 25 yards and in. With the Project A my Flop shots are beautiful to watch. My Chip and Runs have a tendency to come up short because the check up to much. The Chipper shots are fairly accurate because the Project A rolls quite well on Greens. I used to hit the majority of my greenside shots as Chip and Runs but the Project A made that a little too difficult. As a result my Putting has had to improve because my distance to the hole has increased.

PUTTER RESULTS

Last but not least the flat stick. I’ve said it many times, if I can’t accurately Putt a ball it doesn’t matter how great it is at everything else, I can’t play it. Fortunately I can Putt a Project A or I would have never done an ongoing review on it.

I’ve putted balls with Surlyn, Lothane, and Urethane covers. I can confidently say that there is a difference. The advantage goes to the Urethane cover if, and only if you are confident with your putting stroke. I’ve noticed that the energy you put into the stroke is proportionate to the result you get from most Urethane balls. This might sound like a generalization that you could say about any golf ball, but I promise you that it isn’t. I’m sure that you’ve come across reviews of balls that others have said “felt like putting a marshmallow”. I’ve experienced it, and maybe some of you have as well. Those balls reduce the the energy transferred from your putt. Some balls have been described as “clicky or hot off the face”. Those balls increase the energy transferred from your putt. These shouldn’t be seen as negatives because depending on your stroke it might be perfect for you. When I first began playing seriously I wasn’t very confident on the Greens. I favoured a “hot off the face” ball because I tended to decelerate during the putting stroke. I’ve spent a lot of time working on my putting stroke since then. I know have a very pure stroke , and want a ball that travels at exactly the same pace of my swing. I’m happ to say that the Project A does exactly that.

It ranks at the very top of accurate balls I’ve putted . There are other balls that I’ve putted just as well, but none better. On the Greens the Project A is a perfect fit for me, and probably anyone with a confident putting stroke.

DURABILITY

The Taylormade Project A is a relatively durable ball. The outer layer does get noticeably scuffed from full Wedge shots, but I’ve found this to be the case for most second tier (just below tour level) golf balls. Considering that this ball is aimed at Beginners looking to improve their games, it’s unlikely that you will go through a full Round with one ball anyways. On average I go through a sleeve of balls each round on a full size golf course so a few minor cuts or scuff marks won’t bother me too much. On a short course where you expect to hit a lot of Wedges or short Irons it can be an issue which is too bad. Those are the courses where the Taylormade Project A’s abilities would shine but you would require quite a few balls to get through the round.

CONCLUSION

Obviously the good outweighs the bad when it comes to the Taylormade Project A golf ball, but will it be my ball of choice going forward…

No it won’t

You are probably wondering why. Especially after that spin back birdie story I told. The answer is simpler than you may have thought. The Taylormade Project A retails at $45 Canadian. I have routinely seen it go on sale for between $35 and $40 over the last year. At $40 Canadian for a dozen I honestly expect more from a golf ball. As great as the control may be off the Irons, and how pleasurable it is to Putt. It’s difficult to justify the price when I routinely find myself as the shortest off the tee. If the Taylormade Project A was $30 per dozen it would have stayed in the bag. Although I have played quite well with it. I can’t help but think a ball with a little more distance, and little less spin would benefit me more.

If you already hit a relatively long ball, than switching to the Project A might be the right move for you. For shorter hitters like myself it just magnifies that particular weakness. At the price, it just isn’t worth it for me.