The Shot-Shank Redemption

"How often do you look at a man's shoes?" - the line famously delivered by Ellis "Red" Boyd during Andy Dufresne's last moments as a guest at Shawshank Prison.  I'm sure that most of you retifists lose it over a new pair of Jordans, or need to have a nice pair of going out shoes but that's beside the point.  How much do you really think about your shoes in golf? We may look at the style, name, or comfort of them - even the spike pattern since that's what matters most, right?  What if I told you the reason you shot 85 on tuesday and 99 on wednesday is laced up and matches that Ricky Fowler flat brim perfectly?

So I decided to do a little bit of scientific method throughout my season. After a few WTF rounds of golf and having my wonderful low single digit handicap turn mid, I needed to find out what the hell was going on. Not paying attention for the most part, just marking down everything about my round in the notes. What pair of sunglasses I wore, pants or shorts, how early I got there for the tee time and even the shoes I had worn after each round.  At the beginning, I thought I was honestly wasting my time. I was grasping for straws and I remember thinking to myself there's no way that any of this would be costing me strokes. I can tell you, they most certainly did. Turns out - my shoes were killing my score. No knock on the brand, because I do really like the spikes, but I use 3 pairs of footjoys. 2 pairs of FJ Energize - 1 white/ 1 black and 1 pair of FJ Contour - Brown.  I bought them like anyone would - to match my golf attire when needed. A shoe is a shoe, right? Honestly, I bought the contours because generally I wanted something that I didn't have to change at the course and could just go right out after - Thinking golf shoes were golf shoes. I looked at my notes and noticed something peculiar....

On days that I practiced with a shoe, then golfed the next time with that same shoe I tended to shoot relatively well. One of my best rounds came on the third day of wearing a particular type of shoe in a row. In each instance, I noticed that when I changed from Energize to Contour and vice versa, my score ballooned significantly. Sometimes up to 10 strokes and my ball striking went to hell. Granted, this was not at the forefront of my mind when playing the rounds. I was just playing my game and trying to score.

Slowly a pattern began to emerge.... When I switched shoes, my swing just felt out of sorts for a while. I couldn't figure it out. Nothing was different and I JUST played. I wasn't rusty, but there was no fixing it until the 10th hole or later.  There were even outliers in the rounds where I had changed shoes but my game didn't change. Was it all in my head? Am I just a crazy, neurotic golfer who blames things like shaft label placement and ball marking technique rather than his own swing? I needed a drink.

I glanced over things again and eventually I caught on. Turns out, the Energize are almost 1/2" higher than the Contours. This put my weight a little more neutral at address, since I tend to lean backwards naturally with my weight shift (Thanks, Dr. Scholl's contraption at walmart!). This means that the Energize were actually a better fit for me in terms of posture and weight transfer. It wasn't something I could necessarily feel, but it's something I could compensate for EVENTUALLY when it wasn't there - which was the case. When I changed back to the flatter, more casual Contour style, I needed to consciously change my weight displacement or at least allow for it. This is why it took a good bit of time during the round, or a practice session, to get my bearings.  But what about the days when I changed and I was ok??? I took another sip and thought harder and realized. INSOLES. 


Remember that Dr. Scholl's thing I was talking about? Well it's there to help you choose what insoles are right for you. I have back troubles and can't really walk on hard surfaces for a long time without stopping, stretching, and at the very least saying "ow".   This was because of that rearward CG of mine, and I was putting all the shock and weight on my heels, sending the feedback right up to my spine. Insoles cured that, and I had put them into the Contours when I walked the course making them about 1/2" higher (probably more like 3/8). Closer to the Energize - which felt good enough NOT to put the insoles in. I didn't put them in when I took a cart, or if it was particularly soft out. EUREKA!!! How could I be so dumb?!


Is this a complete study of the subject... no, not by a long shot - BUT you may want to do a little experiment of your own. See which shoes you play best in and what kind of specs they have. Every person will be different, just like using a particular golf club, but you might find that you can actually shave a few strokes wearing a certain type of shoe. There's a lot of talk about stability in the golf swing and the golf shoe, but how much do we really think about the height and balance of our golf shoes?

A couple years back - in a campaign that I believe continues to this day - Shoe companies like Adidas were saying you needed to be as close to the ground as possible. They touted thin soles and "more interaction with the turf".  Sounds good on paper, but we all know that there's only one thing that can keep you stable in the golf swing - balance. Proper weight displacement is 100% the key to a good setup and starting point for the swing. Perhaps it's time for the Carrie Bradshaws of the golf world to take a look in their closets and ask "Does my collection of golf shoes love me as much as I love them?"

First Impression: Directed force ...OR... "Is there actually any innovation left in golf?"

I've posted before about new technology. Ins and outs, innovations and old hack ideas. I lie awake at night - after coming in from the shop - and think about golf. Late night and early morning TV are filled with infomercials... Hundreds of them. Everything from training aids, to the next big "technology" in clubs. Guys yelling BOOM and POW and hitting the ball 400 yards, promises of clubs "so easy to hit it's like cheating".

It hurts me to watch these things. They prey on golfers and their desire to play better golf by making promises that sound legit but are in fact nothing but snake oil meant to separate golfers from money they could use as greens fees or lessons - further diluting the equipment business and depressing the golf market more.  Even leaving the television for the Internet I find little but "reviews" of how great things are. This and that - more distance - everything that's great about the products and no reasons why other than "it helps your game'.  There is absolutely no shortage of miracle clubs with any combination of letters and numbers that boast "innovative" technology and while some of them may deliver a few gains - they're not for the majority of golfers. How much of that really CAN BE real? How much is bunk?

So a number of months ago, I came across "Directed Force Putters".   A small company with a big idea - make a better putter.  Simple. No infomercials yet, nothing blowing up my email and Facebook, just saw one out at a tournament and heard loads of people saying they love their DFP.  What the hell, man?

A gentleman by the name of Bill Presse heading up the team, and coming out of the USA, Directed Force pushes it's business based on "lie angle balancing".   Whatever dude, just another kitsch phrase... or is it? I was duly skeptical. Nevertheless, I decided to do some digging. I searched and searched online for a used putter that I could at least test and didn't find one. Are they really that good that nobody wants to get rid of one?  Everyone that I found that owned one of these franken-putters just did not want to part with it. Literally every single one I contacted. Want to sell it? "NO". ...Please?  "Get off my lawn, dude!"..... You had my interest, now you have my attention. This is something I want to get into - a club people want to play until it wears out....

Flash forward, I FINALLY got my hands on one. One of these guys walks into the shop and wants some changes to his.  Knowing there's some weird arcane magic stuff going on here, I contact DF to make sure we don't ruin his flatstick. After researching and talking the man himself, Mr. Presse, we're going to get it done, but first - "let me test it huh?" Score! I took a few putts on my carpet downstairs and immediately know this club is different from anything else I've used before.

Background:  I've used and/or tested just about every putter out there. Especially recently with some new-found putting woes. My list includes but is not limited to: (BREATH) Cure, Brainstorm, Scotty, All the Major brands, wooden putters, long putters, belly putters, extra short putters, long putters, heavy putters, ultra light putters and even mini-golf putters. Face on, face balanced, toe hang, toe up, high moi, center shafted, plumbers neck, single and double bend - every.....fucking.... putter. I can honestly say that NOTHING that has come before it is anything like what the Directed Force putter is. DEFINITELY nothing looks like it - which is what i found to be the biggest hurdle...albeit a pretty low one.

Looking down, I couldn't even totally describe it without a picture. A branding iron maybe? Metal detector? (Find me a fortune!!) Large hitting face, ample reflective sight lines with a center mounted/center BODY shaft, and a large trailing weighted head.  The shaft sets in at an angle, and the grip is drilled such that it mounts vertically on the shaft. Essentially it's something between the recent Backstryke putters and the high moi Spiders you see now yet still TOTALLY different.  It's just the strangest gosh darn thing.....and I really started to fall in love with it.

For all it's quirks and idiosyncrasies, it sets up PERFECT. I mean, spot on balls perfect. I know exactly where that ball is going when i put the head down. This is great because it's like my older Ghost Spider in that respect: Very easy to line up and once you have the line, that part of the equation is out of the picture. It's all speed and roll after that.


 The grip fits very well in my hands - and rumor has it they have a larger version - but i don't have that one to test. It's not really needed though at this point- the "Press grip" is just the right size.  The shaft lean is unobtrusive to the eye, and the sight line just makes a great shape in relation to the trailing ball-catch. One thing I'm a little put off by is the shiny nature of the aim T. Shiny. Real shiny. It seems to just glow at address which is nice, but man when the sun hits that thing directly, look out! Good news is that I spoke to the creator and this issue is solved - They're now laser etched on all the new putters  - but you can still get the milled version if you're a paint fill kinda person.


The swing. The swing is effortless. The technology they're touting actually seems to be on display.  I know that with my Spider, and pretty much most putters it's very easy to leave the face open on a putt or put a little too much oomph into releasing the putter and close it.  Even if you're stroking it perfectly by the shoulders, the putter fights you a little. The stroke has to be perfect, and there's weight that needs to be compensated for in the head. You can feel it, no matter the putter. That being said...there is zero effort needed when making a stroke with this putter. It seems to know what to do and when to do it. Literally take a neutral grip and rock your shoulders and the ball starts on line every.....single....time. One handed, either hand, as long as the club started soled flat on the lie angle, the ball started right on the intended line.  I nearly soiled my pants to be honest. Now..... does that mean you can't miss? No, not in the slightest. It's not a gyroscope. You can almost feel it fighting you though in the back swing and through swing trying to stay on line and not have your nasty meathooks ruin your chance at birdie. The club WANTS to be square to your stroke. It's like a physical being. After about 10 "getting used to it" putts, there was no part of me that felt i had to do anything to get the putt rolling... and roll it did. It was a mental block to come to terms that i had to do NOTHING to make this putter work other than set up and rock my shoulders.

Roll and feel.  The strike is hard to qualify.  It's solid but soft.  If you're a fan of urethane inserts, you're going to have a period of time to become familiar with the new non-insert feel. In addition, it takes cues from the type of ball you're using. If it's a harder cover ball - the sound is going to be more of a pronounced and harder feel. If it's a softer players ball, you'll have a more muted feel and with either type you can really hear a light "tink" type of sound resonating through the head. It's actually rather pleasant any way you hit it, but coming off of soft insert putters, it does take a little getting used to - but no more than any other putter out there.  It's a confidence building sound in my ears.

Even if you put ear plugs in and wear oven mitts, there's no denying the roll. Pure, unadulterated Velcro on the green. No bounce. The ball just tumbles and tumbles and tumbles. Over marks, across hills, just tumbles. Full disclosure, I skidded a couple in the beginning because I used the same stroke i needed on my old putter to make it roll.   Newsflash.... This is as close to a "point and shoot" putter as we've got to date. The grooves on the face are apparently a roll machine.  Set up, rock shoulders, collect winnings. *drops mic*

Credit; "Back to the Future" - Universal Pictures 1985
If you haven't seen it..... what's the matter with you?

*picks mic back up*  So what does all this mean.. Well, to me, it means that there's at least a little bit of morality left in the golf equipment business other than yours truly. There's some real thought and real innovation in this putter and from first use - it's not a smoke and mirrors marketing speak type of campaign slapped on the same old thing. You're certainly not paying for a name, but I honestly think you're going to be hearing  a LOT more of the Directed Force name in the next year or so. With a silver metal on the Golf Digest Hot List already and momentum starting to build, for the first time since metal woods initially came on the scene - to quote Doc Brown - we're about to see some serious shit....Look out, big OEMs.

 There will be a  part 2.  This is not over. A putter's true self is not brought out until you get in the pressure of a real match. Since I have this for quite some time, I'll be using it in the match play this weekend and really giving it a test. Let's see how you handle it when the cheddar's on the line Mr. Force......

How often do we fall for marketing over performance? Do you really want to know? DEMO DAY!

Let's talk marketing. Every cent paid to pros to play equipment, every ad, every paint job, every cardboard standup, and every little Google ad to the right or left of the page you're surfing on.  Marketing is what sells clubs. Why is that? Are we as golfers so inept at knowing what we want, or recognizing performance that we need other people to tell us how to spend our money? Certainly not. Are we tiny striped varmints that must have the shiniest new toy and keep up with the (Bobby) Joneses? Unfortunately that might be it.

When talking about technology - things don't leap forward at the pace manufacturers would have you believe - with one exception but I'll get to that later. Thing is, MOI, Trampoline effect, CC head size, Groove depth -- it's all CAPPED.  The USGA says "hey, that's enough. NO more".  There's an entire section in the rule book about what a club can and can't look like, all the way down to the amount of bend you can have in your plumber's neck putter. Not kidding at all. It's all carefully worded, carefully measured, and ham-fistedly capped by the USGA.  So why are there new clubs coming out every 6 months saying they're increasing this or that? Because it's 2016 and +1 micron is an increase. No joke, that's about what's happening too. Think of it this way:

Club A 2015 says it's average dispersion is 10 yards (just keeping round numbers here, kids) offline due to XYZ technology.  Club A 2016 promises a 10% improvement in dispersion over the previous model!  Sounds big, but that 10% improvement is 1 yard in this case. Actually it's half-a-yard on each side of the dispersion chart (right and left).  So, is 1/2 a yard closer to the center line really worth $500?  If you say yes, you have too much money and not enough grey matter....  The thing is, manufacturers have found the "buzz words" that golfers think they want to hear. They brought the tech side out and if they say it enough times, we'll just have to buy. Talk about turning a 50 cent word into a million bucks!

No, not the G crossover - Hybrid irons
just like it have been on the market and
performing to high standards for YEARS.

To continue.... These new clubs ARE released with some genuine technology in them - things like adjustable weights and adjustable hosel sleeves are really nice to help dial in the specific launch conditions that a player might need (not to mention they save the manufacturers MILLIONS by not having to manufacture different lofts). Some of it is even old tech recycled for a new generation. I remember in my youth (not too long ago actually) there were carbon fiber crowns and sliding weights.  They went away and came back just the same and now it's the "hot shit" with people buying it up like mad.  It's all reference and marketing.   "BUT CHRIS!" you say "I gained 10 yards over my last club!".   I'm sure you did, and there's a few good reasons for that - one of which I said I would get back to above.

1st, not to beat a dead horse but clubs are getting physically longer. We've covered this before. 5 irons the length of 4 irons. Drivers to 45.5 inches or more. That will get you distance if you hit it well, but the real reason is something nobody really thinks about outside of one letter::

THE SHAFT!  I'm not talking about just the length though. Every single one of those new drivers out there has a brand spanking new, redesigned shaft. There are options where you can get an older variety -- oddly enough considered an "upgrade" but for the most part each one has a new or different shaft.  Why is that? Because shaft technology is the only thing in golf equipment that's not limited.  WHAT? -- -Yes. --- NO!--- yes.   The length limit and shape of shaft is defined in the rule book, but there's really no way to limit kick, material, and energetic response of something like a shaft. Steel or graphite, if they're straight and under 48" playing length, they're legal. This is good news for us.

Over the past couple of years, shaft tech has absolutely EXPLODED. You can customize not only your flex, but your torque, kick point, materials, and balance point. Fujikura has an entire line of shafts that are all completely different flex profiles and amount of torque. There are shafts with multi-material blends where metal and graphite co-exist to make a crazy powerful combo.  Some have more resin or higher thread counts in certain areas to stiffen them up.  All of this combined allows more energy to get to the ball and provide you with more distance and accuracy. Piles of data is analyzed from what goes on at takeaway through just before impact and even afterward to create shafts that more or less hit it for you!  They know how you swing and are engineered to do one thing - deliver whatever you put on the end of them as hard and fast as it can into the back of that unsuspecting white orb on the tee in front of you.   Last week, I literally put a brand new 2016 shaft in a driver head that is 5 years old and it out performed every new driver that the client tested it against. Even if it came in a close second, that's still an immense improvement for not a lot of buck.

Now, a great shaft will not help a mis-engineered head. That's not what is going on here.  What's true is that there are caps made by the USGA on the heads of golf clubs. Believe me when I say that they are all within a few points of that legal limit. Unnoticeable by human perception kind of points. Even the little no-name component companies.  Look into a good engine for your club - it's going to be cheaper, and a better fit than picking up something new off the rack and trying to make it be your old faithful. Going back to another post from months past - you have to like what you're looking down at. If you like it, give it a tune-up.  Ol' Betsy still has some yards to be had, trust me......


If you wanna see what it can do - We're having a demo meet and greet at Leisure Lanes Driving range in Lancaster, PA this wednesday April 6th, 6-8:30pm (ish).  Come see what a shaft tweak can do for your driver, get your numbers on our flightscope, or just hit one of our component heads against your current neutron stick. It'll be fun!

My day with a Monsta......

PROLOGUE AND RAMBLES:

Being a perfectionist and knowing that there is not just one road to reach perfection, I tend to look to the "little guys" a lot for new ideas and better products. The reason is because sometimes we just get caught up in the money, fame, and flash of the big guys.  They spend millions upon millions each year to research not only performance, but what people want to look at.  It's called "rack appeal" and it happens all the time with clubs. Not so much with balls, however - well- outside of the packaging that is. A flashy box always helps, but what's inside is a little white sphere with dimples that has the unfortunate purpose of being smashed as hard as possible with a heavy piece of metal - repeatedly - until it's discarded or lost. The former - smashing as hard as possible - is what makes us want a premium performance ball.  The latter is what makes us not want to pay a premium for it.  Enter the "little guy".   This time around, it's MonstaGolf.  

From their site: 

  ""Monsta Golf started as an idea back in the spring of 2013 by 2 working dads from Boston who love the game of golf.  Dave and Ken, the founders of Monsta Golf, realize(like most of us) the key to an exceptional golf game is consistency and the short game.  Money is in the short game, as we all know.  Using the same golf ball while honing your skills is an important factor in being consistent.  Almost every brand of golf ball performs differently, especially around the greens. This causes variations in accuracy and performance. Some golf balls are for distance, some for spin.  The top performing brands currently on the market that are constructed to do both,  retail for $48/dozen or more.  Golf can be expensive enough!

“We need to create a pro performance golf ball that’s  affordable,  so it can be used every round you play.  Allowing  the development of  a more consistant game and control around the greens.  In addition,  we don’t want to cringe every time we lose a $4-$5 ball in the woods.” (Yes, this will probably happen no matter what ball you use!)

FAST FORWARD A YEAR LATER AND MONSTA GOLF IS BORN."

I couldn't have said it better myself --- so I copied and pasted. Hey, I've got things to do, clubs to build and cigars to smoke. I digress....

MonstaGolf intriqued me from the get-go. I saw them on twitter (@monstagolf) and followed them to Facebook (facebook.com/monstagolf) and stalked their feed reading all the stuff people were saying about them. I got on some of my own forums and asked around if anybody had tried them.  The people who had couldn't say enough about them. There were even people who said they had tried them and though they're not the go-to ball, are still using them on occasion. That tells me there's got to be something to them. 

About me:  If you've been following the blog - few and far between as it sometimes is (hey I'm busy!!!) you know that I'm a decent player. I'm currently playing off 3.7 (GHIN#2111361) and I get out maybe once per week.  I've been playing a LONG time and I'm pretty sure I'm one of a handful of people under 45 who have actually used persimmon clubs in a tournament because that was still the only technology out there.  So, I know something about feel and the like, on top of being a club builder.  My current ball bobbles between a ProV1 and the Callaway SR3 (what's left of them).  They're both pretty comparable for me but I tend to play the ProV1 on drier days since I do get a little more spin on the greens, and the Callaway flies longer so I get more carry in normal to wet conditions. Both retail around $45 for the dozen and have very soft covers so you can imagine that I'm always looking to save a few bucks. 

THE REVIEW - AS COMPARED TO MY PROV1:   If you want the hard facts just go to the end. If not, hang on for the story. For the record, I paid for these balls and the only reason I'm doing a review is because I like to do them. My style is putting you in a story setting and allowing you to follow me and the way I play.  Real life is the only way to test, in my opinion. Talk it out- nitpick - whatever. If you want numbers, there's like 20 other sites that have compression and yardage numbers you can pick at. 

oooooh Shiny.

So anyway.....

I pulled the trigger on MonstaGolf balls just this week. Out of Massachusetts they got here to PA in 2 days via USPS. Free shipping as well. Great start for those of us who don't like to pay shipping that's a big one. I opted for the "naked" dozen. No packaging. You can call me green, but the difference between $32.99 and $34.99 is enough to prompt me to skip the shiny black box and Green Monsta eye.  If you like to think I did it solely for the environment, please do.

As I opened them, I was really impressed. Very nice cover which had that "sticky ball" feel to it. (Insert joke about sticky balls here) It was pleasing to look at with the big green logo and single number. Very clean and minimalistic.  The aim stripe is just two arrows with MonstaGolf written in. Very easy to line up for putting or tee ball. Not too long and not short like some other balls. I took to putting right away putting it right up against a proV1 and a ProV1x that I had. Both brand new - hey we gotta be fair. 

Immediately I could feel that the MonstaGolf was soft. Super soft. I use an all metal putter with no insert so I felt everything. Dead heat with the ProV1, softer than V1X. I liked it. I even did a blind test where I closed my eyes and had a friend put them down in front of my putter to strike. I picked out the same two balls but couldn't tell which was which.  

Since it was still evening and I didn't tee off until the next day, I decided for the "wedge bounce test". You know, the old Tiger Woods juggle it off the blade and then between the legs - just without the 200 yard rocket at the end. Here's where the balls started to differ.  The MonstaGolf felt soft. Almost TOO soft, but it wasn't a disgusting marshmallow feel. I could feel the ball but it had a hint of a "thud". The PV1 was soft but more "crisp".  In non-golf terms and assuming you've eaten both of these, it was the difference between biting a Red Delicious apple and a Mcintosh.  The red delicious has a softer bite but still good and hearty - where as the Mc is a touch more snappy.  At this point, it didn't bother me but it's worth noting if you're a player that likes a harder feeling ball like a TopFlite Gamer or the like.   Seeing as how they both have urethane covers, I believe the MonstaGolf is thicker in this regard. I'll explain later.....

LOL - googly eyes

Flash forward to my round. Dauphin Highlands Golf Course.  We're playing the whites (myself, Cigar Joe , and a friend Dave). On the putting green I put 2 balls down and putted. Drained them both from 10 feet. Was it the ball or was it me, dunno, but I did have confidence looking down and reading "MonstaGolf"with those heavy black arrows saying - this way to the hole.   Pre-round I also chipped in 4 times out of 10. The balls grabbed the green like velcro - no exaggeration - even on the little chips so I had to hit my chips to carry a little farther than normal because they weren't running out as much as with the PV1 but it was consistent so once I got used to it things were no problem. MGB gets the square here because more spin around the green is always a plus in my book. 

On the tee,  I set it up so I was looking right into that green eye. It was a great focus point and since it was like a smaller ball I felt it was the literal interpretation of "aim small, miss small".  I didn't miss. My first drive was a touch on the toe and fading but SkyCaddy measured it at 317yds. I'll take that.  There was very little side spin when I KNOW there should have been more. Instead of the right rough just off the fairway I SHOULD have been by the cart path 10 yards farther right. Intriguing. 

2nd shot was a 58* wedge to a tucked pin. I was so stoked for the drive that I plopped it in the bunker short. Perfect to test the sand capabilities and durability. If anything destroys a Urethane cover it's a sand trap. I played a perfect splash from 30 feet to  settle 3 feet from the pin.  One hop and stop.  Ball completely in tact. 

Initial look after the long bunker shot.
Sand still lodged in. 

2nd hole it performed very well off the tee again, although i skunked the shot and ended up in the bunker about 60 yards in front of the green on the fly (drivable par 4- 270 yards).  You'd think I was doing it on purpose to test a ball or something.  I used a 54* wedge to play the long bunker shot into the green. I hit it to roughly 12 feet but upon picking up the ball I noticed it had a large grain of sand lodged in the cover.  I expected this out of the first bunker but my thoughts are that the resilient thick cover provides nice cushion against this sort of thing where normally the thin cover of the PV1 nicks or gets some sand burn. A harder swing was enough to embed the sand though. I was able to dig it out and remove the piece of cover that was torn and play on.  Through the next holes the ball performed EXACTLY as it had the first two. I even put a new ball in play just as a for-instance but saw no flight issues due to the deep puncture in the cover. 

A few holes after I removed the "scab" cover and
dug out the grit piece.

Iron feel is solid and regarding the "thunk" of the wedge bounce test - that wasn't really an issue once you actually were swinging at the ball. Chips felt good, like the ball was compressing well and it JUMPS off of irons. I really felt like I had compression on the face and got very good flight out of it. No ballooning, but still retaining the pretty wicked spin I experienced at the chipping green throughout all the irons. I guess theres' something to that 3 piece construction and high energy core they talk about. 

Here's where the review gets short because I've told you all I can about the performance of the ball. The reason being it was so consistent. It was consistent with itself from brand new until the last shot, and it was consistent with the ProV1 that I'm very used to with the difference being more spin from the MGB on the little chip shots. I would go so far as to say it's a little difficult to get it to run out with a lofted club - but I'm not going to complain about that. 

I think the one thing I can say I honestly DISLIKE about the MonstaGolf ball is it's visual durability in relation to other premium golf balls. I think this is where it loses the race.  The ball gets dingy. Like REALLY dingy.  When I play a full round with a golf ball, it gets battered and the like but when I wash it, generally it gets clean.  Over the course of the round, the ball got to LOOKING chewed up. it was still very much playable and very much performing perfectly but it really started to kind of look like a monster. If I could equate it to something, maybe like a refurbished ball that was hit too many times and the paint started to come off the raised areas?  Even while we were looking for the balls and rolling up to it in the cart, I had no problem identifying mine because that shine was lost. I don't know if I'm OK with that or not because they really look USED after one round, whereas I can get 2, sometimes 3 out of the same ball otherwise.  Believe me, I'm still going to play it again, but it's a peeve, maybe even a deal breaker for some people. Even my buddy Dave said "that thing looks awful". 

18 holes, 1 ball. The "reconditioned ball" scabs I
was referencing. All over.  Are these balls painted?

FINAL TALLY: 

Overall performance:  It is my opinion that MonstaGolf balls perform on par with a premium golf ball. In this case the ProV1 (grey stripe).  MonstaGolf has  a little more spin for me around the greens and is sometimes difficult to release to the hole - which may be an issue for some golfers if they like to chip and run. You might need a lower lofted club to play some of your normal shots. There was no drop in performance throughout the entire round despite the blemishing. 

Look:  Awesome minimalist logo design and a nice focal point for the tee ball.  Alignment aid isn't obnoxious and does the job in lining up putts or tee balls if you prefer that. One additional thing I feel the need to mention is that there is no all white area on this ball. From every angle you will see either the aim mark, the number, or a good portion of the green eye. I don't mind because you can immediately identify it even in the rough, but some people do like that one area where you look down and see white ball. 

Durability: I feel the ball could be more durable over the course of the round. The fact that it can take a hit like a large piece of sand from a bunker and not make a big gouge out of the cover or begin peeling of after being hit a few times in that wound is great, but If I'm not bouncing it off cart paths or trees, I want to have a Grade A used ball at the end of the round, not a C+ at best. 

Price:  This can go either way. I like that the ball continues to perform despite the dingy, rashed look but players who do mind that will have to put a new ball in play more often than they would another premium performance ball. That being said, is the $13 savings a wash because of the frequency of replacement?? I don't know.  I'll continue to play the ball until it seriously falls apart or I notice a decrease in playability. 

Bottom line: It's a great ball for the price performance wise. It could be a FANTASTIC ball for the price if they can sort out that cleanliness/ visible durability issue. I'm glad I made the purchase and will be playing these balls until I lose them. A dozen will usually last me a good 1/2 season counting cart paths and whatnot. I wish I would have hit one to see how it took it but damnit I'm not good enough to hit that kind of target! 

If anybody wonders, I shot 76.  Made the turn in Even and pulled a BUNCH of putts on the back. Grr. 

Serious Equipment: Part 2

Recently I blogged a touch about my ball fitting.  With the help of a Tracman and a fitting professional I take all the numbers and info from my golf swing and see which ball is going to squeeze the most performance out of my swing. Now, I know some of you are saying "it's not the arrow it's the indian", so I'll reply GET OFF MY BLOG YOU RACIST FUCK! No seriously though... if you think equipment has no bearing on your game, you need to stop thinking that way because you're really not doing your game any favors. Sure, having the latest neutron stick for a driver isn't going to let you hit it as far as Tiger Woods, but it's sure as hell going to be easier to hit than that old persimmon driver  with the 1/2 inch deep face that's been in your closet for 20 years. Or that old Maxfli that's been at the bottom of the lake for 3 weeks in the mud. In fact, the ball is the one piece of equipment you use on every shot and it's so powerful even Jack Nicklaus himself said the USGA should have limits on ball technology. Playing "found balls" might be good for a beginner's wallet, but if you're breaking 100 you need to get a good hold on your balls. You're throwing strokes and enjoyment out the window.

With that, I've been sampling about 10 balls from the fitting and it was narrowed down to two contenders: Bridgestone's B330 Tour and Callaway's SR3.

My swing speed is upwards of 108mph - even after my back injury - so these balls are built perfectly for me and my game. Yours may not be as power driven as mine but rest assured these manufacturers build a ball to suit your game that is very similar to these. 

Talking numbers:

Swing Speed

The first thing looked at was obviously swing speed.  In order to get the most from your ball, you HAVE TO compress it. There is no room for error on this. Compressing the ball is what transfers energy, it's what creates grip on the club for backspin, and it's what gives you that wonderful solid feeling when you hit it.  My speed, as I said, averages out around 108mph. Not tour quality, but faster than your average hacker. Still that puts me in "premium tour ball" range. Once that is done, it's time for the hard truth: is the ball helping?

Ball Speed

Ball speed is the next thing to look at after getting the right compression.  Obviously the higher the ball speed, the farther the ball goes. In a perfect world, this number will be 1.5 times the swing speed. This indicates that there was an efficient transfer of energy to the ball, it compressed, and most likely said "ouch" .  Both balls scored right on the mark.

Spin Rate

Spin rate is what will generate the height and distance in your ball (on long clubs) and stopping power (on shorter clubs). Ideally you want to be under 3000 RPM for the driver. The lower you get the better, some say, but I was happy settling into about 2700 with both of these balls. That means there's enough spin to get a sufficiently high tee shot, but not so much that it loses roll when it hits the ground. With both of these balls, I gained 15 yards of distance with the driver over my previous ball (ProV1) due to lower spin, but I lost about 72RPM in the wedges. This is not a big deal becaus eit' a match on a fire, and because I spun the PV1 too much anyway. For you, the loss of stopping power may be a deal breaker so don't just go for the most distance.  Overall average was 9100RPM with the callaway slightly edging out the Bridgestone.

Deviation

In my opinion, the last but definitely not the least important number.  Deviation is how far left or right the ball curved. Now, obviously this will be affected by the quality of swing as well. This number should coincide with he spin rate off the long clubs. The lower the spin rate, the lower the deviation - obviously since its' not spinning as much it's not going to slice or hook as badly. The B330 halved the Callaway in this stat - making it a tough choice when it came right down to it.

So now that I've bored you to death with technicalities, let's get to the meat and potatoes and something that you can do without any fancy equipment: FEEL

Feel is something that can't be taught, measured, or bottled. You're the only one who can say what is good and bad.  Feel is the reason I play Taylormade and my buddy plays Nike.  Feel is what builds confidence and keeps you coming back for more. Feel is also why I chose the Callaway ball. While both balls produced similar distance and Bridgestone was quite a bit more accurate, I couldn't get over how "clicky" the Bridgestone ball felt to me. I would hit the ball flush and it just seemed harder than the Callaway. It was a little unnerving, and I don't like that. Part of the reason I played the ProV1 is because when I hit it on the screws it felt like a marshmallow.  I don't like the feeling of the ball pressing back against my club. To me, a solidly struck shot should feel like this photo:

Winner:  Callaway SR3.  

What's your ball? Have you thought about what you really want in a ball?  With many varieties, pricepoints, and manufacturers there's sure to be a ball that fits you to a tee.  OH yes... I went there. 

Without fail, I'm going to buy the SR3 for this season and use it exclusively.  I'm getting the stopping power I need with increased distance and I'm no longer the short knocker when I play with my scratch buddies.  I haven't noticed a problem with the ball going left or right so until that happens exclusively it's going to be my go-to rock.