Connect with us

Opinion & Analysis

See what GolfWRX members are saying about Titleist’s new AVX golf balls

Published

on

On October 6, Titleist released new “AVX” white and yellow golf balls in three states: Arizona, California and Florida. Our sources told us that the new golf ball was a premium offering with a urethane cover, and that it was made to have a softer feel than Titleist’s Pro V1 golf balls, and create more distance, too. The company was said to be merely testing the product, which is selling for the same price as Pro V1 golf balls, at retail in those locations.

It’s been several weeks now since the release, and as we await Titleist’s assessment of feedback from the public, let’s dive into what GolfWRX members are saying so far about the golf ball.

Click here to view the entire AVX forum thread.

Editor’s Note: Comments below were taken from posts on October 6th or after, since those are when the balls actually hit retail. Posts have been minimally edited for brevity and grammar. 

What’s the word on AVX?

tbowles411: Alternative to the V and X. Straight from the Titleist rep.

Homerun2Birdie: Am I the only one who thought these were NOT soft? Thought the ball performed admirably: spun enough around the greens, seemed a bit hard coming in on full iron shots, flight was noticeably lower as advertised. That being said, I did not feel like this ball was soft at all. 

Fiddy3: I can tell you one non-debatable fact. Golf stores are paying $36+ cost for the AVX.

QuigleyDU: It is right up there with every other premium ball out there. It has mid-high flight in my opinion. Full shots it is fine, wedges and green side are just… OK. Feels decent off the putter. In my opinion, it is slightly longer than the chrome soft x I currently play but does not spin near as well.

Break81: Took the AVX for a test today alternating holes with my Chrome Soft Truvis, and while the AVX was not bad, it’s didn’t really shine in any one area. Felt very similar to the Srixon Q-Star Tour and for the price difference I cannot see why someone would pay $18 more for the name or because they offer yellow. 

crazygolfnut: If it was priced in the $30 to $35 range I would try it. But the way it is, I will continue to play other brands.

mixedguy: Played 2 rounds with it today soft and spins. I hit it further than both the v1 and X. It’s right between the two, imo. Great ball but it is pricey. 

MysteryV: Played my first round with the AVX yesterday. Good ball. Soft off the putter, long off the driver, spins off wedges and irons. Not sure it’s worth the price premium over NXT Tour S as the two seem pretty similar. I did notice it was flying significantly further than I expected on every shot, however I was striking the ball better than usual yesterday, so tough to tell if it was new or the ball.

zeke66:

  • Driver: Very long 
  • Irons: Good through air and breeze, long. 
  • Putter: Felt and sounded great. 
  • Around the green: Didn’t hit enough shots to really know. Hit a few very good flop type shots after putting myself in bad positions. Felt and sounded pretty good off wedges. 

speeder757: The AVX reminds me of the Original Pro V1. Its softer than either of the current ProV1’s. Just picking the ball up it feels lighter than the Pro V1 or Pro V1x. I’m not sure if that would quantify on a scale or if its just the compression. The dimples are shallower similar to a Bridgestone ball. I have played this ball at my home course for 5 rounds now directly against the Pro V1 and Pro V1x and think it might be my new gamer. 
It’s slightly longer than either current Pro V1 off the tee. Flight seems to be more stable however and for whatever reason it seemed more consistent. The AVX was 3-5 yards longer than both Pro V1’s off the irons. AVX spins just a little less on green side short chip shots than the Pro V1x. I would say roughly the same as the Pro V1 with maybe a slight edge still to the Pro V1. I would say the AVX has enough greenside spin to be comparable to other premium balls though. I have heard some say the AVX feels heavy on chip shots. That wasn’t my experience at all. It feels light and springy if anything. Lastly the AVX is softer off the Putter than either Pro V1. All in all its a great ball. If it spun just a little bit more on short chip shots like the Pro V1x does it would be the best ball ever made. AVX does seem more durable than either Pro V1 and the cover doesn’t get chewed up on chips shots as easily as the Pro V1’s do. Price wise its overpriced like all current golf balls on the market are. But it does perform.

johnw29: I live in Arkansas and I ordered 2 dozen from Edwin Watts in Destin, Florida. They shipped them on a Monday and I got them on Wednesday. 

jrshelby: Played my first round with them. Let me say that they are just weird and confusing. Don’t know how else to put it. They have a slight advantage in having a little less spin but I definitely get very different flights at times. Sometimes higher then anything else I’ve hit and sometimes way lower as well. I’ll put another round in on them this Sunday before I start making any assessments I guess. 

After playing a round with the AVX and at least 30+ rounds with the Chrome soft this year and can honestly say the AVX is not in ANY way similar, and I mean no where close, and I mean to be redundant, but could not be further away design wise. The chrome soft is just that, soft. These are not. The chrome soft is moderate distance with moderate to high spin. AVX is very high launch with extremely low spin on most clubs I’d say down to 6 iron. Then spins slightly more then you’d expect from 7-PW. Then does not spin enough with wedges. 2 out of 3 is usually not bad, but in the case of the AVX it just may be.

drew_harvie: This is a pretty good ball imo. Lower, spins less off the driver. I think it’s a pretty good ball if you hit it really really high with a lot of spin (like myself). It’s crazy how popular these are in Arizona though. Wigwam is selling them for $64 for a dozen and have sold out twice. Not sure if I’d switch from the ProV1X but it’s much better than I was expecting.

See all of the comments about Titleist’s AVX golf ball here.

We share your golf passion. You can follow GolfWRX on Twitter @GolfWRX, Facebook and Instagram.

22 Comments

22 Comments

  1. Thomas A

    Dec 14, 2017 at 11:19 am

    Whatever. I’ll still by all of your once-hit-then-lost ProV1’s on lostgolfballs website for $16 a dozen.

  2. Mike

    Dec 4, 2017 at 12:23 pm

    Man,
    Every review seems to contradict the one above it. Wow

  3. d

    Nov 27, 2017 at 3:14 pm

    Generally plays like a Pro-V1. I have been playing them for a couple weeks, and they seem to fly higher and farther than the Pro-V1. They don’t seem to spin as much around the greens as the Pro-V1—maybe more like a Pro-V1X. However, it seems like they spin A LOT on full shots. I have spun back a full PW 25 feet on more than one occasion.

  4. Robin Weckesser

    Nov 2, 2017 at 7:08 pm

    I’ve tried the AVX. Was looking forward to them. Not impressed. They feel a bit harsh which Im not a fan of.
    I’ll stick with the VICE balls….better value, better feel, better distance, better consistancy….

  5. Mat

    Nov 2, 2017 at 5:33 am

    Synthesising all of these… basically, there’s nothing unique about it. It’s a Srixon at double the price, and a little harshness thrown in gratis… not good. I’ll stick with Bridgestone.

  6. Jack

    Nov 2, 2017 at 5:15 am

    I’d buy it for the logo.

  7. C.B.

    Nov 2, 2017 at 1:58 am

    No, no, no, you all have it wrong.
    The name is “it’s a Srixon XV copy by Acushnet.” That’s what it stands for. Therefore, AVX, backwards.

  8. Someone

    Nov 1, 2017 at 11:13 pm

    making an amateur VXball? isn’t that incongruent with their marketing? prov prov1 is supposed to be the best ball for any player…why now would you introduce an amateur ball priced like a pro ball? what are you now saying about your pro series? that it’s no longer the best ball for all players? they really need to handle that marketing strategy…

  9. Tom54

    Nov 1, 2017 at 4:52 pm

    My comment is to read Jeff’s opinion. I’m a decent 3 hdcp and truthfully I can’t tell one premium ball from another. To me if I hit it squarely all will probably do the same. I don’t claim to know all the spin rates, etc and all that jazz that some of these people claim.

    • chopper

      Nov 1, 2017 at 10:16 pm

      I am a 2 that hits it like a 0 (I can’t chip or putt). no way can I tell a difference between premium balls. the garbage nike balls from early 2000’s of course withstanding.

      • Table

        Nov 2, 2017 at 6:10 am

        Haha…so true….there are soo many posers on this site that can’t play a lick…and somehow “they know”..

  10. cody

    Nov 1, 2017 at 3:58 pm

    having been a member of GOLFWRX for a long time. i can tell you there are some very very good players that are making these comments. yes, feel is 100% subjective and the reviews are nonscientific but they are real and unbiased. i have played this ball and it is good but, so is every premium ball, so slight difference can be hard to see and explain, even though you know they are there.

  11. Dave

    Nov 1, 2017 at 3:35 pm

    Most amateurs; especially, double digit players are not consistent enough to quantify performance of golf balls! Yes, many can tell the difference between a pinnacle and a pro v1 but that is about as close as it gets!

  12. kennyboy

    Nov 1, 2017 at 3:22 pm

    I am more confused now than before i started reading these reviews.

  13. Stephenie

    Nov 1, 2017 at 3:11 pm

    I’ve played the AVX over several rounds this year and I’m unimpressed. I found it to sound and feel very similar to the Velocity. Mid summer, I switched from the ProV1x to Taylormade TP5x and noticed a big difference in distance, feel was the same. I also played the Volvik Vivid and loved that too. I paired the AVX against the Volvik and was 5 to 10 less yards off the tee and about 5 yards shorter on irons. The AVX also felt very clunky, with a lower launch. I gifted my two sleeves.

  14. Jeff

    Nov 1, 2017 at 2:08 pm

    I find it hilarious when people say “X ball seemed to fly higher” or “X ball spun more on a full 6-iron.” There is absolutely no way an amateur golfer can say that with conviction. We hit the ball off the center of the face most of the time and may hit a few clubs only 1 or 2 times a round. Just play what you like and don’t try to sound like a tour pro!

  15. Matt-78

    Nov 1, 2017 at 1:22 pm

    I don’t think there is anything complex about this ball, but I could be wrong. I just think it’s Titleist’s entry into the same area that the Chrome Soft, Q-Star Tour, etc. exists. A hybrid between a high-handicap ball and a tour ball. A core that is less expensive to manufacture, softer core than tour ball, the high lift dimple pattern of a “distance” ball (shallower dimples), but with a cast urethane cover (not a thermoset urethane cover like the Pro V). Compared to a tour ball it will be softer, higher lift dimples, and less spin. Compared to a traditional “distance” ball it will be softer, similar dimple lift, but with more spin. At least that’s what I think. YMMV.

  16. George

    Nov 1, 2017 at 1:01 pm

    Another ball from Titleist that underperforms, and is far overpriced. Stick to Snell, Vice, or now….Cut Golf! Premium urethane tour balls that truly PERFORM at huge huge savings!

  17. Chopper

    Nov 1, 2017 at 12:28 pm

    The range of comments seem to me to back up my theory that unless you are a supreme striker of the ball (think +4), paint all the premium balls white and the novice to scratch player will never be able to tell a difference.

  18. Steve S

    Nov 1, 2017 at 11:52 am

    As usual non-scientific evaluations are almost meaningless. Maybe “someone” will do a test of them vs. the proV’s like they did with the Costco ball.

  19. GMatt

    Nov 1, 2017 at 11:35 am

    I agree, after reading these reviews I’m not sure exactly where this ball stacks up and exactly how it might perform, just goes to show how it performs with one person doesn’t mean it performs the same way to another. I too would like to see head to head data on a simulator

  20. Aaron

    Nov 1, 2017 at 11:17 am

    These wildly different reviews simply prove “feel” means something different to all of us. I’m more confused now than before reading those reviews. Put the AVX on a Trackman and hit shots against the ProV1 & ProV1x.

Leave a Reply

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Opinion & Analysis

The 2 primary challenges golf equipment companies face

Published

on

As the editor-in-chief of this website and an observer of the GolfWRX forums and other online golf equipment discourse for over a decade, I’m pretty well attuned to the grunts and grumbles of a significant portion of the golf equipment purchasing spectrum. And before you accuse me of lording above all in some digital ivory tower, I’d like to offer that I worked at golf courses (public and private) for years prior to picking up my pen, so I’m well-versed in the non-degenerate golf equipment consumers out there. I touched (green)grass (retail)!

Complaints about the ills of and related to the OEMs usually follow some version of: Product cycles are too short for real innovation, tour equipment isn’t the same as retail (which is largely not true, by the way), too much is invested in marketing and not enough in R&D, top staffer X hasn’t even put the new driver in play, so it’s obviously not superior to the previous generation, prices are too high, and on and on.

Without digging into the merits of any of these claims, which I believe are mostly red herrings, I’d like to bring into view of our rangefinder what I believe to be the two primary difficulties golf equipment companies face.

One: As Terry Koehler, back when he was the CEO of Ben Hogan, told me at the time of the Ft Worth irons launch, if you can’t regularly hit the golf ball in a coin-sized area in the middle of the face, there’s not a ton that iron technology can do for you. Now, this is less true now with respect to irons than when he said it, and is less and less true by degrees as the clubs get larger (utilities, fairways, hybrids, drivers), but there remains a great deal of golf equipment truth in that statement. Think about it — which is to say, in TL;DR fashion, get lessons from a qualified instructor who will teach you about the fundamentals of repeatable impact and how the golf swing works, not just offer band-aid fixes. If you can’t repeatably deliver the golf club to the golf ball in something resembling the manner it was designed for, how can you expect to be getting the most out of the club — put another way, the maximum value from your investment?

Similarly, game improvement equipment can only improve your game if you game it. In other words, get fit for the clubs you ought to be playing rather than filling the bag with the ones you wish you could hit or used to be able to hit. Of course, don’t do this if you don’t care about performance and just want to hit a forged blade while playing off an 18 handicap. That’s absolutely fine. There were plenty of members in clubs back in the day playing Hogan Apex or Mizuno MP-32 irons who had no business doing so from a ballstriking standpoint, but they enjoyed their look, feel, and complementary qualities to their Gatsby hats and cashmere sweaters. Do what brings you a measure of joy in this maddening game.

Now, the second issue. This is not a plea for non-conforming equipment; rather, it is a statement of fact. USGA/R&A limits on every facet of golf equipment are detrimental to golf equipment manufacturers. Sure, you know this, but do you think about it as it applies to almost every element of equipment? A 500cc driver would be inherently more forgiving than a 460cc, as one with a COR measurement in excess of 0.83. 50-inch shafts. Box grooves. And on and on.

Would fewer regulations be objectively bad for the game? Would this erode its soul? Fortunately, that’s beside the point of this exercise, which is merely to point out the facts. The fact, in this case, is that equipment restrictions and regulations are the slaughterbench of an abundance of innovation in the golf equipment space. Is this for the best? Well, now I’ve asked the question twice and might as well give a partial response, I guess my answer to that would be, “It depends on what type of golf you’re playing and who you’re playing it with.”

For my part, I don’t mind embarrassing myself with vintage blades and persimmons chasing after the quasi-spiritual elevation of a well-struck shot, but that’s just me. Plenty of folks don’t give a damn if their grooves are conforming. Plenty of folks think the folks in Liberty Corner ought to add a prison to the museum for such offences. And those are just a few of the considerations for the amateur game — which doesn’t get inside the gallery ropes of the pro game…

Different strokes in the game of golf, in my humble opinion.

Anyway, I believe equipment company engineers are genuinely trying to build better equipment year over year. The marketing departments are trying to find ways to make this equipment appeal to the broadest segment of the golf market possible. All of this against (1) the backdrop of — at least for now — firm product cycles. And golfers who, with their ~15 average handicap (men), for the most part, are not striping the golf ball like Tiger in his prime and seem to have less and less time year over year to practice and improve. (2) Regulations that massively restrict what they’re able to do…

That’s the landscape as I see it and the real headwinds for golf equipment companies. No doubt, there’s more I haven’t considered, but I think the previous is a better — and better faith — point of departure when formulating any serious commentary on the golf equipment world than some of the more cynical and conspiratorial takes I hear.

Agree? Disagree? Think I’m worthy of an Adam Hadwin-esque security guard tackle? Let me know in the comments.

@golfoncbs The infamous Adam Hadwin tackle ? #golf #fyp #canada #pgatour #adamhadwin ? Ghibli-style nostalgic waltz – MaSssuguMusic

Continue Reading

Podcasts

Fore Love of Golf: Introducing a new club concept

Published

on

Episode #16 brings us Cliff McKinney. Cliff is the founder of Old Charlie Golf Club, a new club, and concept, to be built in the Florida panhandle. The model is quite interesting and aims to make great, private golf more affordable. We hope you enjoy the show!

Continue Reading

Opinion & Analysis

On Scottie Scheffler wondering ‘What’s the point of winning?’

Published

on

Last week, I came across a reel from BBC Sport on Instagram featuring Scottie Scheffler speaking to the media ahead of The Open at Royal Portrush. In it, he shared that he often wonders what the point is of wanting to win tournaments so badly — especially when he knows, deep down, that it doesn’t lead to a truly fulfilling life.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by BBC SPORT (@bbcsport)

“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf? Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport,” Scheffler said. “To have that kind of sense of accomplishment, I think, is a pretty cool feeling. To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers. I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world, because what’s the point?”

Ironically — or perhaps perfectly — he went on to win the claret jug.

That question — what’s the point of winning? — cuts straight to the heart of the human journey.

As someone who’s spent over two decades in the trenches of professional golf, and in deep study of the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the game, I see Scottie’s inner conflict as a sign of soul evolution in motion.

I came to golf late. I wasn’t a junior standout or college All-American. At 27, I left a steady corporate job to see if I could be on the PGA Tour starting as a 14-handicap, average-length hitter. Over the years, my journey has been defined less by trophies and more by the relentless effort to navigate the deeply inequitable and gated system of professional golf — an effort that ultimately turned inward and helped me evolve as both a golfer and a person.

One perspective that helped me make sense of this inner dissonance around competition and our culture’s tendency to overvalue winning is the idea of soul evolution.

The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has done extensive research on reincarnation, and Netflix’s Surviving Death (Episode 6) explores the topic, too. Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, the idea that we’re on a long arc of growth — from beginner to sage elder — offers a profound perspective.

If you accept the premise literally, then terms like “young soul” and “old soul” start to hold meaning. However, even if we set the word “soul” aside, it’s easy to see that different levels of life experience produce different worldviews.

Newer souls — or people in earlier stages of their development — may be curious and kind but still lack discernment or depth. There is a naivety, and they don’t yet question as deeply, tending to see things in black and white, partly because certainty feels safer than confronting the unknown.

As we gain more experience, we begin to experiment. We test limits. We chase extreme external goals — sometimes at the expense of health, relationships, or inner peace — still operating from hunger, ambition, and the fragility of the ego.

It’s a necessary stage, but often a turbulent and unfulfilling one.

David Duval fell off the map after reaching World No. 1. Bubba Watson had his own “Is this it?” moment with his caddie, Ted Scott, after winning the Masters.

In Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, reflecting on his 2011 Super Bowl win, Rodgers said:

“Now I’ve accomplished the only thing that I really, really wanted to do in my life. Now what? I was like, ‘Did I aim at the wrong thing? Did I spend too much time thinking about stuff that ultimately doesn’t give you true happiness?’”

Jim Carrey once said, “I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it’s not the answer.”

Eventually, though, something shifts.

We begin to see in shades of gray. Winning, dominating, accumulating—these pursuits lose their shine. The rewards feel more fleeting. Living in a constant state of fight-or-flight makes us feel alive, yes, but not happy and joyful.

Compassion begins to replace ambition. Love, presence, and gratitude become more fulfilling than status, profits, or trophies. We crave balance over burnout. Collaboration over competition. Meaning over metrics.

Interestingly, if we zoom out, we can apply this same model to nations and cultures. Countries, like people, have a collective “soul stage” made up of the individuals within them.

Take the United States, for example. I’d place it as a mid-level soul: highly competitive and deeply driven, but still learning emotional maturity. Still uncomfortable with nuance. Still believing that more is always better. Despite its global wins, the U.S. currently ranks just 23rd in happiness (as of 2025). You might liken it to a gifted teenager—bold, eager, and ambitious, but angsty and still figuring out how to live well and in balance. As much as a parent wants to protect their child, sometimes the child has to make their own mistakes to truly grow.

So when Scottie Scheffler wonders what the point of winning is, I don’t see someone losing strength.

I see someone evolving.

He’s beginning to look beyond the leaderboard. Beyond metrics of success that carry a lower vibration. And yet, in a poetic twist, Scheffler did go on to win The Open. But that only reinforces the point: even at the pinnacle, the question remains. And if more of us in the golf and sports world — and in U.S. culture at large — started asking similar questions, we might discover that the more meaningful trophy isn’t about accumulating or beating others at all costs.

It’s about awakening and evolving to something more than winning could ever promise.

Continue Reading

WITB

Facebook

Trending