1998 Golf Ball Vs 2018 Golf Ball (20 Year Test)

1998 Golf Ball Vs 2018 Golf Ball (20 Year Test)
Rick Shiels tests the Titleist Professional 90 golf ball from (1998) against the latest Titleist ProV1 golf ball (2018) on GCQUAD


► Official Apparel and footwear partner: Nike Golf

►Official Resort Partner: Lumine

►Golf Monthly Top 25 Golf Coach
►My Links:
Facebook ► http://bit.ly/RickShielsFB
Twitter ► http://bit.ly/RickShielsTwitter
Instagram ► http://bit.ly/RickShielsIG
Vine ► http://bit.ly/GolfProVine
Web ► http://www.rickshielsgolf.co.uk/


Brent De Luca says:

How fucken boring. Jesus

Debbiebabe69 says:

Never knew golf balls had changed, always thought they always were core+elastic! As kids we took one apart using a hacksaw 😉
Try taking apart a rangeball, would love to see the difference between a rangeball and a proper golf ball.

sairast says:

wow tought that he would make more accured test like least 100 shots per test.

Nathan Abbott says:

Seriously this is awesome! Huge shoutout to the person that gave you that set of balls! How cool

darkhorse says:

Hilarious. If you listen to this on .25 speed, he sounds absolutely paralytic drunk. Great idea for a vid tho, thanks!

MrFunkinPure says:

I wonder if the density of the Pro V1 is closer to the Professional 100.

Cobb Knobbler says:

Unless you area good golfer you won’t notice any difference with golf balls. I always laugh at friends who shoot 100 buying new proV’s. Gimmie a break. I’ll play whatever is handy. I don’t play trash, but I don’t buy golf balls so I just play whatever I have. Usually stuff I find on courses. I have no problem playing a Top Flite or a fuckin lady’s ball. So what? Score is all that matters.

schnarff says:

Really interesting video, Rick. I’m a wee bit older than you (40, started playing in ’86 age 8). I can remember the Professional 90 being an absolute game changer. When my mates and I started getting good (into the single figures) we all used Titleist Tour 90 or Tour 100 balatas. Interesting that from your perspective you recall the durability of the Pro90s as poor. For us is was out of this world. If you pured a wedge with a Tour 90 you would scuff it like crazy. You were absolutely gutted if you thinned one because you just knew you had killed it and when you got to it it would have a huge smile in it. It was pretty easy to thin one hard enough to cut right through to the windings. When the Pro90s came out we considered them pretty much indestructible but with much the same feel around the greens as a Tour 90 but also with the distance of the harder PTS type balls. I’d love to see the difference between a Tour90/100 and a ProV1. Thanks for the vid though.

curtmastor says:

So pretty much unless you’re playing in a major you don’t need this much ball technology

Me Too says:

Always liked the professional model back then, titleist probably went to the solid core pro v1 because it was easier and cheaper to manufacture but jacked up the price to make you think it was better


Rick: Looks like you cut open an alien egg!!! By the way…do you think the professional 100 might compete better with the ProV 1? I prefer the Pro 90…but my club head speed only tops out at about 105 mph. I still love those balls…they feel like hitting a Superball!!!

John Codling says:

Not funny enough to laugh your cock off.

Richard says:

Come on Rick. You’re far too polite.

It’s no mystery everything the manufacturers say is true, if you, Tiger or Rory was using it and me a few years ago.

Take my advice, if you got £1000 to spend on golf equipment.

Spend a fifth or more on taking lessons from Rick and sure he has a suitable set for the remainder in his shop. You might think well if I give the money to him, I’ve lost it. Wrong!!

You play the game to enjoy and the better you play the better you enjoy it, so before you buy, see a pro, golf is not an old man’s game, it’s a game which old men can play, you will never ne Tiger Woods, but you can still play the same game.

Charles Scharf says:

Great vid !!!!!! Almost the same numbers after 20 years of dry rot.

James Overell says:

We called them soft center balls. Now I’m carrying a pair around with me everywhere I go. It’s not just the center of my balls that’s soft these days.

rickyt43515 says:

God this was a waste of time.

Owen Solmen says:

Ha “these were the balls! These were the ones you wanted to play with.” haha he said balls!

Joe Cholik says:

Just the age of the ball would diminish its performance, no?

J C says:

quite a short backswing

AJ Carson says:

Is there any consideration that older ball’s performance might have lacked because of age?

Sportyben says:

Would be good if my body was as similar to 20 years ago.

Andy Blackwood says:


Jonathan Davis says:

I remember when the liquid center balls came out. The commercial claimed it helped it stick on the green better. I cut one open when I was about 12. I had no idea that new balls were solid inside. I assumed they were all still wound.

Boygetrekt 1234 says:

Whoever was here for him cutting the golf ball 7:30

Greg Last says:

Ping pong balls have improved as well.

Doug Mckelvey Jr says:

Wouldn’t the professional 90 be “dead” after all these years?

rob carter says:

Interesting video. I’ll remember not to spend time trying to find some 20 year old balls on eBay when i next need to restock.

Chris Friedman says:

What launch monitor do you use?

Meesterbigger says:

what about the all black Titleist 100?…….that was the pro ball

Ray Gorman says:

I’ve had a few tries doing similar tests. The change in drivers is key. the new ‘softer’ low spin balls with 20 yo drivers are a joke. They just kind of go “splut” off the face and just die. Match technology with technology and the differences would be smaller. The older harder balls were meant to be smashed as hard as possible with no “trampoline” effect, “On the screws” as the phrase goes. there was no give to the face and all the energy was transferred to the ball. When balls got softer, Driver faces got springier to transfer that energy.

Emile Botes says:

do it on a course………….poes

force13b says:

When i was a kid i use to cut open golf balls all the time. The red numbered were liquid cores and the black were solid. Wonder if you would get the same results with a red numbered Pro 90 if you could fine 1.

Chuck Pope says:

So I wonder how many million dollars were spent on research to get minimal results.


I want to have a blast at some of that liquid it got him high instantly

Dave says:

Can I teach you about how science works? The way to test this would be to hit the 1998 balls now, then hit the current balls in twenty years. Then compare. I wouldn’t expect you to understand that. Just trust me. Just trust me. What you’re doing is inane and meaningless. The other INSANE fake science you’re performing involves the lack of a machine.

 Write a comment


Do you like our videos?
Do you want to see more like that?

Please click below to support us on Facebook!