MyGolfSpy Ball Lab is where we quantify the quality and consistency of the golf balls on the market to help you find the best ball for your money. 

About the TaylorMade Tour Response

The TaylorMade Tour Response is the replacement for the Project (a). That was a ball that got a lot of love among connoisseurs of soft golf balls and rightfully so, I suppose. The Project (a), and now the Tour Response, are among the softest urethane-covered balls on the market. And while TaylorMade is not immune to the liabilities of soft (soft really is slow), greenside spin was a bit better than similar balls. We’d expect that to carry over with the Tour Response, due in no small part to the noticeably thin cover.

TaylorMade Tour Response — Compression

On our gauges, the TaylorMade Tour Response measures 71 compression points on average. That equals the softest balls in our database—a list that includes the Bridgestone Tour B RXS and Vice Pro Soft. For reference, we’re talking about a handful of points softer than the Callaway Chrome Soft.

TaylorMade Tour Response — Diameter and Weight

Starting with the good: Not a single ball in our TaylorMade Tour Response sample failed to meet our standard of roundness.

Moving on to the bad: Three percent of our sample came up shy of the USGA’s minimum diameter in our ball track test. This isn’t entirely unexpected as TaylorMade perpetually flirts with the line and occasionally trips over it. As you’ll see with our ball-by-ball measurements, it’s rare to find a TaylorMade ball that isn’t pushing boundaries.

It’s perhaps notable that all three of the undersized balls came from the same sleeve in Box 3.

TaylorMade Tour Response — Inspection

Centeredness and Concentricity

While we did note a number of minor issues with concentricity in the mantle and cover layers, we didn’t find anything significant enough to raise any serious performance concerns.

Core Consistency

It’s hard to know exactly what to make of the core consistency. While we did note relatively small chunks of non-standard material in a couple of cores, the more noticeable issue was the variation in core color. Our sample included both light blue (perhaps teal) as well as navy blue (purplish cores). A bonus sleeve which we cut for the videos more or less matched the navy cores, though with significantly more regrind.

As we’ve said before, color variations are not necessarily cause for concern as there can be variation (sometimes significant variation) between batches. We rely on our gauges to tell us when variation equals inconsistency.

Cover

No significant cover defects were noted.

var divElement = document.getElementById('viz1619609245515'); var vizElement = divElement.getElementsByTagName('object')[0]; if ( divElement.offsetWidth > 800 ) { vizElement.style.width='1000px';vizElement.style.height='827px';} else if ( divElement.offsetWidth > 500 ) { vizElement.style.width='1000px';vizElement.style.height='827px';} else { vizElement.style.width='100%';vizElement.style.height='1027px';} var scriptElement = document.createElement('script'); scriptElement.src = 'https://public.tableau.com/javascripts/api/viz_v1.js'; vizElement.parentNode.insertBefore(scriptElement, vizElement);

TaylorMade Tour Response — Consistency

In this section, we detail the consistency of the TaylorMade Tour Response. Our consistency metrics provide a measure of how similar the balls in our sample were to one another relative to all of the models we’ve tested to date.

The side-by-side charts for the TaylorMade Tour Response tell a somewhat complicated story.

 

Weight Consistency

In general, the weight consistency for the sample fell within the high end of our Fair range which is to say it was a bit below average. As you can see from the chart, Box 1 had a reasonably significant outlier while Box 3 was appreciably lighter in general.

Diameter Consistency

Regarding diameter consistency, TaylorMade Tour Response falls within the high end of the average range. Box 3, which was a bit smaller overall, contained the three balls which failed the minimum diameter test.

Compression Consistency

Overall compression consistency falls within the Average range. While compression consistency was average, the compression delta (the difference between the three points measured on each ball) falls inside the Good range. Box 2 was generally more consistent but neither of the other boxes was appreciably firmer or softer (on average).

TaylorMade Tour Response — Summary

To learn more about our test process, how we define “bad” balls and our True Price metric, check out our About MyGolfSpy Ball Lab page.

The Good

Consistency is as good or better than most balls at the soft end of the urethane category.

The Bad

Three balls did not meet USGA minimum size requirements. A variety of core compositions could be cause for concern over a larger sample.

TaylorMade Response — Final Grade

The TaylorMade Tour Response gets an overall grade of 77.

The score is slightly above the average for the market as a whole and among the best of any “soft” urethane balls. While three balls failed to meet USGA standards (inconsistency is never good), a slightly undersized ball will typically provide a small distance benefit so, in that respect, even the “bad” isn’t all bad.

The variation in core color may be cause for concern over a larger sample. However, the data we have suggests that if you’re looking for a soft (sub-75 compression) urethane ball, the Tour Response is likely the one to beat.

The “True Price” of the TaylorMade Tour Response is $38.17. That’s an increase of nine percent over retail.

An overview of the equipment we use can be found here. To learn more about our test process, how we define “bad” balls and our True Price metric, check out our About MyGolfSpy Ball Lab page.

The post Ball Lab: TaylorMade Tour Response Review appeared first on MyGolfSpy.