The ball doesn't matter! (Formerly, the Ultimate Ball Test)

14567810»

Comments

  • MtlJeffMtlJeff MontrealMembers Posts: 28,360 ✭✭
    FWIW i have played a lot of balls this year for at least 1 round, from my recollection of what i've used:



    -Callaway SuperSoft

    -Srixon Qstar

    -Pro V1

    -Pro V1x

    -Tour Preferred X

    -NXT Tour S

    -Srixon Z star

    -Callaway Hex Chrome

    -Callaway Diablo Tour

    -Taylormade Penta TP

    -Nike 20XI



    I haven't noticed any difference in scores, or how the ball moves on solid shots. I prefer the feel of some of them (Pro V1 at the top of the list) and some like the SuperSoft i find is harder for chipping as it doesn't bite as much on crisp chips



    But usually it's like 1 chip and i adjust



    For a competitive round i'm not sure what i would use. Probably a Pro V because i like the feel, but i would use anything
    Ping G400 Max 9 w/Matrix Black Tie 80
    Callaway Epic Subzero 14* w/Matrix Black Tie 80
    Callaway Apex Hybrid 20 w/Diamana D+ 95
    Callaway 2016 Apex Pro 4-PW w/S300
    Callaway MD Forged 52,56 w/S300
    Callaway MD 2.0 60 PM grind w/s300
    SGC Northwood Center Shaft 400g
  • MadGolfer76MadGolfer76 Admiration is the state furthest from understanding. Members Posts: 19,888 ✭✭
    edited Jun 10, 2016 #273
    BrianL99 wrote:

    BillyZ2 wrote:


    wow some of you guys have a lot of time on your hand or nothing better to do. Maybe you guys should try golfing has a hobby instead of debating. LOL




    I'm still waiting for one of the detractors to play 5 rounds with a particular ball and 5 more with a different one ... forget about the fact that I played 40 rounds before coming to a conclusion.



    9 pages of responses and not a single poster has said "I alternated balls every day for a week and shot significantly different scores".



    The sum total of responses seems to be: "Let's spend $1,000,000 to conduct an experiment that may or may not produce valid data" or "I don't (do) think it matters".



    https://www.youtube....h?v=Ug75diEyiA0




    Oh my goodness. Forty whole rounds, Brian? A few more years of that and you will arrive at "validity for one." You've already been proved wrong, and now it seems you're doing everything you can not to engage with the reasoning. Frustrated little distractions like this post only serve our other viewpoint.



    And what makes you think that at some point in my 25 years of playing golf that I haven't played a lower tier ball and noticed the difference? What do you think led me to a balata/urethane in the first place? image/wink.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />



    Nice try.
    Titleist 915 D4 10.5
    Callaway GBB Alpha 816 16
    Mizuno CLK 19, 22
    Mizuno JPX 900HM 5-Gw/Sw/Lw
    PING Sigma G Tyne
    Srixon Z-Star
    WITB
  • BrianL99BrianL99 Banned Posts: 5,116 ClubWRX

    BrianL99 wrote:

    BillyZ2 wrote:


    wow some of you guys have a lot of time on your hand or nothing better to do. Maybe you guys should try golfing has a hobby instead of debating. LOL




    I'm still waiting for one of the detractors to play 5 rounds with a particular ball and 5 more with a different one ... forget about the fact that I played 40 rounds before coming to a conclusion.



    9 pages of responses and not a single poster has said "I alternated balls every day for a week and shot significantly different scores".



    The sum total of responses seems to be: "Let's spend $1,000,000 to conduct an experiment that may or may not produce valid data" or "I don't (do) think it matters".



    https://www.youtube....h?v=Ug75diEyiA0




    You've already been proved wrong,










    I could go back and read all the posts over the last year, but as near as I recall, not a single person has posted any contrary data points, derived over more than a couple of rounds ... including yourself.



    Everyone seems to have an opinion, but other than MtlJeff and a couple of others, hardly anyone has said ... "I played xyz ball and my scores changed significantly".
  • MadGolfer76MadGolfer76 Admiration is the state furthest from understanding. Members Posts: 19,888 ✭✭
    BrianL99 wrote:


    BrianL99 wrote:

    BillyZ2 wrote:


    wow some of you guys have a lot of time on your hand or nothing better to do. Maybe you guys should try golfing has a hobby instead of debating. LOL




    I'm still waiting for one of the detractors to play 5 rounds with a particular ball and 5 more with a different one ... forget about the fact that I played 40 rounds before coming to a conclusion.



    9 pages of responses and not a single poster has said "I alternated balls every day for a week and shot significantly different scores".



    The sum total of responses seems to be: "Let's spend $1,000,000 to conduct an experiment that may or may not produce valid data" or "I don't (do) think it matters".



    https://www.youtube....h?v=Ug75diEyiA0




    You've already been proved wrong,










    I could go back and read all the posts over the last year, but as near as I recall, not a single person has posted any contrary data points, derived over more than a couple of rounds ... including yourself.



    Everyone seems to have an opinion, but other than MtlJeff and a couple of others, hardly anyone has said ... "I played xyz ball and my scores changed significantly".




    Brain, you claim to be too lazy to read, but when your method is flawed on its face, that means I don't have to post data because...you didn't post any "data" either. Despite that, here is the standard of evidence needed to disprove your claim:



    "Just speculation, but it probably matters on the Pro Tour and likely in national caliber Amateur tournaments, but I don't think anyone at a lower level than that, has sufficient consistency that the ball will substantively effect his score."



    For such a broad suggestion, if even a single person out there had a different outcome it would disprove your claim, and here I am (for lack of a better example) - the ball makes a difference in my game, and I play worse when I don't have a urethane in play. And now fast forward to this latest grab at legitimacy - you are in one post saying 100,000 golfers need to be surveyed to prove you wrong, and now less than 100 responses in this thread are enough to prove you right? Further proof that you don't know a lick about data gathering, and that you would rather mislead anyone reading this than admit you exaggerated.



    And by all means, keep pulling out only those part of my posts that you think you can take on. I'll take that practice to mean that you can't account for the rest.
    Titleist 915 D4 10.5
    Callaway GBB Alpha 816 16
    Mizuno CLK 19, 22
    Mizuno JPX 900HM 5-Gw/Sw/Lw
    PING Sigma G Tyne
    Srixon Z-Star
    WITB
  • gophergutsgopherguts Banned Posts: 2,511


    and that you would rather mislead anyone reading this than admit you exaggerated.



    And by all means, keep pulling out only those part of my posts that you think you can take on. I'll take that practice to mean that you can't account for the rest.




    Those things go on around here ?!?!?! image/dntknw.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':dntknw:' />



    Say it ain't so,,,,,,,,,,,, image/cheesy.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':cheesy:' /> image/cheesy.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':cheesy:' /> image/cheesy.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':cheesy:' />
    [font=comic sans ms,cursive]Cobra Bio Cell+
    Adams A12 Pro 16, 20, 23
    Ping G20, 5-SW, C-Taper stiff
    TM xft wedge 64
    Scotty Futura X[/font]
    [font=comic sans ms,cursive]ProV1x[/font]
  • The PearlThe Pearl Members Posts: 1,951 ✭✭
    This thread is pure gold. A candidate for the GolfWRX thread HOF.





    I may regret this post, but what the heck. Let's invert the problem. Doesn't the USGA rules and regulations governing golf balls that results in the USGA Conforming Golf Ball list essentially support Brian's conclusions? It seems to me that the rules result in each conforming ball performing essentially the same within a small margin of difference. The only true difference between balls is spin characteristics. This is obvious to us all that if we use a ProV1 vs a Pinnacle that the ProV will spin more. So with that in mind, let's assume we can conduct a test that meets the most rigorous scientific standards so that we can control for all the variables needed except for spin.



    Does anybody really think that if the study were applied across a wide cross-section of golfer's that the single variable of "spin" would have any statistically significant effect on overall scores?
  • MadGolfer76MadGolfer76 Admiration is the state furthest from understanding. Members Posts: 19,888 ✭✭
    gopherguts wrote:



    and that you would rather mislead anyone reading this than admit you exaggerated.



    And by all means, keep pulling out only those part of my posts that you think you can take on. I'll take that practice to mean that you can't account for the rest.




    Those things go on around here ?!?!?! image/dntknw.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':dntknw:' />



    Say it ain't so,,,,,,,,,,,, image/cheesy.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':cheesy:' /> image/cheesy.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':cheesy:' /> image/cheesy.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':cheesy:' />




    Irony
    Titleist 915 D4 10.5
    Callaway GBB Alpha 816 16
    Mizuno CLK 19, 22
    Mizuno JPX 900HM 5-Gw/Sw/Lw
    PING Sigma G Tyne
    Srixon Z-Star
    WITB
  • lenman73lenman73 Members Posts: 809 ✭✭
    edited Jun 12, 2016 #279
    As a higher handicapper I feel the op's premise is legit when referring to higher handicaps. Alot of the detractors probably have a better game anyway so it doesn't apply to them but it's the internet and it's where people go to argue.



    Now to my game. I am a higher handicapper but I practice my short game 10 times to one to my long game. I can get a wedge to stop but not back up. I can get chips to check when using a premium ball but not out of the rough where alot of us higher indexes wind up. I read the entire thread and alot of talk was about 150 yard approach shots. Well I haven't played yet with a high index that hits the green consistently from 150 and further out.



    I play a variety of courses with greens ranging from granite counter tops to shag carpet. On faster greens i like a ball with more spin but it doesn't really produce better scores when it is more crooked for me off the tee. Remember the original premise of the op was about score. Not feel. Not spin. Not the sound the ball makes coming off the club. It was simply about the score. This year I have played very consistent for me score wise and it did not matter what ball i used. Five so far.

    1. Prov1

    2. Prov1x

    3. Nike crush

    4. Strata tour (new favorite)

    5. Pinnacle precise



    Can I tell a difference in them. Yes. Do some make a different sound. Yes. Was I blown away with how much lower i scored with one. Ha absolutely not. Was this some test I conducted with statistical significance, nope. Just something I noticed playing twenty rounds or so this year and pretty much every year leading up to this one. I think most of it is attributed to inconsistency, and the whole gamut of problems high indexes have. Now would more established players benefit more from a premium ball? I have no problem concurring with that. But in all the golf i play, in the groups i play with, there are more confirmed sightings of Bigfoot than someone who would score lower with a $50 box of golf balls.



    I read alot about people wanting a ball that will be consistent. I want a swing that is consistent. A higher index without a consistent swing is not going to have a consistent ball reaction to any ball. So the op's original premise was to score, so if you can't produce consistency shot to shot I would like to see the data analysis on how a more expensive ball magically finds its way to the hole. If it exists i will buy it to help win more beer off my playing partners. Now after reading this thread, it was average players the op referred to. I understand there are a bunch of players on here are just one backed up wedge from going pro, i don't think the study he did was aimed at you, but more towards me and the unwashed i associate with.
  • propmanpropman Members Posts: 1,725 ✭✭
    lenman73 wrote:


    As a higher handicapper I feel the op's premise is legit when referring to higher handicaps. Alot of the detractors probably have a better game anyway so it doesn't apply to them but it's the internet and it's where people go to argue.



    Now to my game. I am a higher handicapper but I practice my short game 10 times to one to my long game. I can get a wedge to stop but not back up. I can get chips to check when using a premium ball but not out of the rough where alot of us higher indexes wind up. I read the entire thread and alot of talk was about 150 yard approach shots. Well I haven't played yet with a high index that hits the green consistently from 150 and further out.



    I play a variety of courses with greens ranging from granite counter tops to shag carpet. On faster greens i like a ball with more spin but it doesn't really produce better scores when it is more crooked for me off the tee. Remember the original premise of the op was about score. Not feel. Not spin. Not the sound the ball makes coming off the club. It was simply about the score. This year I have played very consistent for me score wise and it did not matter what ball i used. Five so far.

    1. Prov1

    2. Prov1x

    3. Nike crush

    4. Strata tour (new favorite)

    5. Pinnacle precise



    Can I tell a difference in them. Yes. Do some make a different sound. Yes. Was I blown away with how much lower i scored with one. Ha absolutely not. Was this some test I conducted with statistical significance, nope. Just something I noticed playing twenty rounds or so this year and pretty much every year leading up to this one. I think most of it is attributed to inconsistency, and the whole gamut of problems high indexes have. Now would more established players benefit more from a premium ball? I have no problem concurring with that. But in all the golf i play, in the groups i play with, there are more confirmed sightings of Bigfoot than someone who would score lower with a $50 box of golf balls.



    I read alot about people wanting a ball that will be consistent. I want a swing that is consistent. A higher index without a consistent swing is not going to have a consistent ball reaction to any ball. So the op's original premise was to score, so if you can't produce consistency shot to shot I would like to see the data analysis on how a more expensive ball magically finds its way to the hole. If it exists i will buy it to help win more beer off my playing partners. Now after reading this thread, it was average players the op referred to. I understand there are a bunch of players on here are just one backed up wedge from going pro, i don't think the study he did was aimed at you, but more towards me and the unwashed i associate with.






    +1. My bil plays only provs. He is a 8 hccper. Have I seem him spin it? Yes, but rarely to his advantage. The infatuation of spinning a ball is almost hilarious.
    15 hcp
  • BillyZ2BillyZ2 Members Posts: 5,248
    propman wrote:

    lenman73 wrote:


    As a higher handicapper I feel the op's premise is legit when referring to higher handicaps. Alot of the detractors probably have a better game anyway so it doesn't apply to them but it's the internet and it's where people go to argue.



    Now to my game. I am a higher handicapper but I practice my short game 10 times to one to my long game. I can get a wedge to stop but not back up. I can get chips to check when using a premium ball but not out of the rough where alot of us higher indexes wind up. I read the entire thread and alot of talk was about 150 yard approach shots. Well I haven't played yet with a high index that hits the green consistently from 150 and further out.



    I play a variety of courses with greens ranging from granite counter tops to shag carpet. On faster greens i like a ball with more spin but it doesn't really produce better scores when it is more crooked for me off the tee. Remember the original premise of the op was about score. Not feel. Not spin. Not the sound the ball makes coming off the club. It was simply about the score. This year I have played very consistent for me score wise and it did not matter what ball i used. Five so far.

    1. Prov1

    2. Prov1x

    3. Nike crush

    4. Strata tour (new favorite)

    5. Pinnacle precise



    Can I tell a difference in them. Yes. Do some make a different sound. Yes. Was I blown away with how much lower i scored with one. Ha absolutely not. Was this some test I conducted with statistical significance, nope. Just something I noticed playing twenty rounds or so this year and pretty much every year leading up to this one. I think most of it is attributed to inconsistency, and the whole gamut of problems high indexes have. Now would more established players benefit more from a premium ball? I have no problem concurring with that. But in all the golf i play, in the groups i play with, there are more confirmed sightings of Bigfoot than someone who would score lower with a $50 box of golf balls.



    I read alot about people wanting a ball that will be consistent. I want a swing that is consistent. A higher index without a consistent swing is not going to have a consistent ball reaction to any ball. So the op's original premise was to score, so if you can't produce consistency shot to shot I would like to see the data analysis on how a more expensive ball magically finds its way to the hole. If it exists i will buy it to help win more beer off my playing partners. Now after reading this thread, it was average players the op referred to. I understand there are a bunch of players on here are just one backed up wedge from going pro, i don't think the study he did was aimed at you, but more towards me and the unwashed i associate with.






    +1. My bil plays only provs. He is a 8 hccper. Have I seem him spin it? Yes, but rarely to his advantage. The infatuation of spinning a ball is almost hilarious.
    now this is some good information I totally agree with, very good!
  • kenstlkenstl Members Posts: 423 ✭✭
    +1
    Cobra LTD Driver
    Wishon 929 4 wood
    SL Sterling Irons 5-LW
    Evnroll Arm Lock Putter
  • lenman73lenman73 Members Posts: 809 ✭✭
    I think a prov1 has actually cost me more strokes than it saved. By going crooked off the driver and then trying to get cute by putting some cheese on chip shots. End up hitting them thin or fat. Where if I would of just had a top flight I would have slapped it on the green and got on with my life.
  • chippa13chippa13 Members Posts: 2,249 ✭✭
    Translation: when you try to play outside your ability then you cost yourself strokes. The ball doesn't make the decisions.
  • BillyZ2BillyZ2 Members Posts: 5,248
    I am a 15 handicap and have experimenting with the pro v1's and the Bridgestone B330S Tours. My usual ball is the Top Flite XL distance, which stays straight and long. Personally I don't notice much of any difference in my game using the top-rated golf balls as opposed to my top flights. Actually the top-flight stay straight for me then the high price golf balls. I guess that's just the nature of my skill set but that's the way it is. The biggest issues in scoring for higher handicap golfers is not how well you can spend it on the Green, it's all about keeping the ball in play and good course management. Does anybody think it will do me any good to be able to stop my ball on the green if it takes me 6 Strokes to get there? Heck it's hard to even hit the green for higher handicap golfers let alone trying to stop it when you actually do hit it.
  • thug the bunnythug the bunny Members Posts: 6,141 ✭✭
    darnoldil wrote:


    darnoldil wrote:


    I agree that expressing opinion is a good thing, and I also wrote that the OP's attempted work was a good thing as well. What I was writing to had nothing to do with anyone's belief about golf balls. My concern was with the OP's insistence that his experiment was both proof positive of his opinion, and that it was generalizable in it applicability. When other people spoke of their opinions to the contrary the OP referrenced his experiment's results as proof that contrarian opinions were mute. Those two points were the only issues that I wrote to. I also agree with you that research is difficult work. Furthermore, I agree with you that we may not be able to construct such an encompassing experiment to begin with. However, what we do seem to be getting here is that some people are more or less affected by differences in balls than others, or they at least reason that this could be the case.



    So to the point of a potential experiment:



    Potential variables for consideration:

    - Spin (Side, Back)

    - Feel (Compression, Construction, Materials)

    - Condtions (Course/Hole Layout, Fairway/Green Firmness, Penalty Constructs, Distance)

    - Player (Shot Shape, Consistency, Typical Miss Shot Shape, Short Game Prowes)



    Potential Questions:

    A) What effects do side and back spin have on accuracy and distance?

    B) What effects can/do conditions have upon the exaggeration of side and back spin?

    C) Can combinations of side and back spin and course conditions impair different player's ability to adjust to balls that have more or less types of spin?

    D) What constitutes a negative scoring impact?

    E) How would standardization with a player's control ball be kept over time for possible scoring deviations between side spin and back spin category balls?

    F) Does course familiarity impact a player's ability to adapt to the selected side spin and back spin balls, and if so to what degree does it impact scoring differentials?

    G) Is there a difference in score between playing the different spin balls vs the player's standard ball on different holes within the round?

    H) Will there be a difference in scoring for each ball when playing multiple balls (with random order) from each category per hole?

    I) Are we measuring player adaptive capacity instead of ball differentiation characteristic impact?



    Potential Experiment Parameters:

    1) Differentiating Player types based upon degree of shot shape. This would require determining minimum and maximum values of typical deviation from target.

    2) Determining ball type categories for minimum and maximum side spin values, and separately, for backspin values (yes balls may blend these two).

    3) Creating Course Layout impacts on scoring per shot shape categories (which tracks more heavily penalize slice vs hooks).

    4) Categorizing course layout impacts on both distance and green receptivity.

    5) Determining environmental categorization constructs for weather, course, and time impacts (these are some of the external validity points that would exist).

    6) Determining representative balls for each category of side spin and back spin.

    7) Creating Std Deviation reference platforms of each player's standard ball in relationship to the side spin and back spin reference balls.

    8) Drafting course rotation schedules (alternate between standard ball round at one course with high side spin ball at another, then the low side spin ball representative at another course, etc, etc, etc, until one round with each ball has been played in a scrambled way).



    This above only represents a possible foundation for constructing a more generalizable experiment





    I know what you meant, The point of bringing in a full scientific thesis to this topic, is just plane overboard.



    By dissecting's OP post, we can find every flaw in the way a test was done including 99.99999% of all "said test on Golf WRX". But the point that the OP was expressing and I say "POINT" not scientifically, flux-capacitor, 121 jiggawatts test that was conducted. Was that at a mortal level at a normal round of golf, The ball does not really matter.



    Yes yes, we can do all that test... feel free to do so and take the time out, but I personally feel, it wont matter.





    a higher spinning ball, personally is that 1 benefit..... more spin, other than that......Again you have to have greens that are receptive to the increased spin and the actual skill to manipulate the spin on command.



    If you have neither, then the shot consistency that will ALWAYS occur is a roll out and thus players should adapt to that roll out until, they either play greens that are impossible to hold and or they develop a skill to manipulate a golf ball.




    I appreciate your point, however you only site one variable which is backspin, and further, you only site one application of backspin which is in "holding greens". The reality is that backspin can affect distance, even for the average player as well. Also, side spin will affect deviation from the target line, and THAT can affect just how much "Army golf" a person is playing. It can also significantly impact a player's score depending upon course layout and OB. Remember, Bridgestone DOES market a ball that they tout as having less side spin in order to cut down on slices (what the majority of right hand golfer's do) and hooks, with the expressed point that it will help you to SCORE better. LOL



    Regarding the "dissection" of the OP's experiment NOT needing to be done: my point was that it DID need some review for the claims that he was making regarding it's applicability to all but the super small minority of pro golfer's. There are a number of people who not only disagree with the OP's findings, but THEY have experienced for themselves, and or seen others experience that the ball CAN and DOES make a difference. The OP strongly inferred and basically wrote that HIS testing PROVES that they are wrong. Thus, since the OP wanted to have his experiment hold as proof that his hypothesis applies to just about everyone else it made it fair game to examine it from a scientific research methodology perspective.



    Just take a moment to think about it please. When the OP did his "experiment" what balls did he use? How close were the characteristics of those balls to his own in both side spin and back spin? How did he "rotate" the balls; was it between holes or rounds? Did the OP ever question or realize how good HE may actually be, in the sense that he may not put any significant side spin on his shots unless he WANTS to? If that's the case then the OP effectively confined the test to more of a "distance" test, where he primarily only had to adjust for the roll out that you speak of. Taking that one step further, if he played on greens that were not very firm, or that had large amounts of run out area, and or that were not sloped, then the OP REALLY took even the green holding factor out of the test, thereby further narrowing it to a "distance" ADJUST ABILITY test. In fact, the whole test may have been measuring how well the OP could adjust to a ball's characteristics, instead of how much those characteristics, left unchecked, would have impacted his scores. Then the OP's conclusions ASSUME that everyone else could make the same adjustments, and thus charges them to be as adaptable as he may be. In other words, the OP may not, and probably did not, measure what he intended to measure, and that means the test wasn't internally valid; let alone generalize-able to the vast amount of golfers.



    The point of the OP, and it seems based upon what you have just written, yourself included, is that the ball doesn't matter: primarily it seems, due to the ability of people to adjust to any differences in ball characteristics that may exits, or because the differences simply do not make enough of a difference to negatively impact anyone. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. What people aren't entitled to is to create an "experiment" that isn't well constructed according to even basic research methodology principles, and then say that their test "proves" that they were right and anyone else that thinks and or experiences anything differently is simply wrong. In my opinion, doing THAT is going overboard; using voodoo science and telling everyone that they simply must accept your conclusions because they are "scientific" when they aren't.



    Look, there are very serious flaws on a basic level here with the construction of the OP's tests if he is going to generalize it to the overwhelming majority of golfers; it's not nitpicking. Trying to discount these flaws as being insignificant or overburdening as a way of ignoring that the OP's experiment ISN'T as applicable as he, and others may want it to be doesn't make sense. Why? Because we all have the right to use whatever ball we want to, and we all know what we do on the course and can/have tried things (including different balls) to help us with our own individual idiosyncrasies.



    Furthermore, we all know that for SOME "X" % of golfers the ball doesn't matter. We can also hypothesize that for SOME "Y" % of golfers the ball will have less of an impact on their scores then the "Z" golfers. We can even Hypothesize that the "A" golfers, the very few that they are, maybe would experience a significant impact to their scores with different ball characteristics. However, to say that the ONLY group that would experience an impact in their scores based upon ball characteristics are the type "A" golfers, because those people are "good", and thus everyone else just needs to forget about it because the OP's tests proved they are all wrong and just deluding themselves??? Well, that simply doesn't work. Therefore the OP doesn't get a pass when he wants to tell everyone else that they are delusional because he and his experiment say so.



    Now with that written, there really isn't anything else to be said; it's all been laid out by all of the posters on this thread. When you look at it all, we see that there ARE NON-low to + handicap players that DO believe/find that differences in ball characteristics can impact their scores. We also see that others believe/find that ball characteristics can not only impact their scores, but do so to an extent that they struggle to adapt well enough to the differences to negate them. And still others believe/find that they/golfer's in general, are able to adapt, or even find no disconcerting differences that would significantly impact their scores.



    And THAT'S what I think we can all take away from this: The fact that a golf ball's characteristics May, or May Not impact YOU. Therefore you have to try it for yourself and see, instead of simply accepting someone's belief/logic that it will or it won't.




  • gophergutsgopherguts Banned Posts: 2,511
    BillyZ2 wrote:


    I am a 15 handicap and have experimenting with the pro v1's and the Bridgestone B330S Tours. My usual ball is the Top Flite XL distance, which stays straight and long. Personally I don't notice much of any difference in my game using the top-rated golf balls as opposed to my top flights. Actually the top-flight stay straight for me then the high price golf balls. I guess that's just the nature of my skill set but that's the way it is. The biggest issues in scoring for higher handicap golfers is not how well you can spend it on the Green, it's all about keeping the ball in play and good course management. Does anybody think it will do me any good to be able to stop my ball on the green if it takes me 6 Strokes to get there? Heck it's hard to even hit the green for higher handicap golfers let alone trying to stop it when you actually do hit it.




    i.e. you agree with those who suggest that the lower the handicap the more the ball matters,,,,,,,,,,,,



    Thanks
    [font=comic sans ms,cursive]Cobra Bio Cell+
    Adams A12 Pro 16, 20, 23
    Ping G20, 5-SW, C-Taper stiff
    TM xft wedge 64
    Scotty Futura X[/font]
    [font=comic sans ms,cursive]ProV1x[/font]
  • BogeySwineBogeySwine Members Posts: 21 ✭✭
    Just signed up this morning. Read through this rather long topic from beginning to end. I certainly have had favorite brands or models of golf balls over the years. I don't hit a lot of greens in regulation but use mid-level balls with a bit of spin just in case I do hit the green! I believe the OP has done a reasonable job of representing how we can adapt to different types of golf balls. Because I miss so many greens in a round I usually chip or pitch a ball onto the green. I practice this a lot because I know from experience that I will miss greens from even a 7 iron distance! I get most of my pars with a short one putt.

    Fall has arrived here and the softer feeling entry level golf balls I have found all summer long are now in the bag. They fly fairly well in the colder weather without shocking the hands too much! The approach shots won't hold on the colder, harder greens so when I miss the greens short as so often happens many shots roll up to the edge or onto the green. If my putting holds up I'll score better than in the Summer!
Sign In or Register to comment.