Trackman numbers/experience with lower compression balls with 90 MPH swing

rickeygrickeyg Posts: 206 ✭✭
Doe's a lower compression ball help with distance? Thanks.
«1

Comments

  • The PearlThe Pearl Posts: 1,951 ✭✭
    My swing speed is in the high 80s, low 90s depending on day and mood. Despite the marketing by certain ball manufacturers I have never noticed any significant distance difference in low compression balls vs. your standard tour issue ball. Some people swear by such claims, but I would be willing to bet that there is little statistical evidence to support any claims if rigorous scientific methods were applied.



    Sure, some golfer's may experience certain differences, but I suspect much of the perceived advantages of a low compression ball are largely random.



    With that said, there is really no need to split hairs. You can find lower compression, urethane tour balls for reasonable prices.
  • rickeygrickeyg Posts: 206 ✭✭
    The Pearl wrote:


    My swing speed is in the high 80s, low 90s depending on day and mood. Despite the marketing by certain ball manufacturers I have never noticed any significant distance difference in low compression balls vs. your standard tour issue ball. Some people swear by such claims, but I would be willing to bet that there is little statistical evidence to support any claims if rigorous scientific methods were applied.



    Sure, some golfer's may experience certain differences, but I suspect much of the perceived advantages of a low compression ball are largely random.



    With that said, there is really no need to split hairs. You can find lower compression, urethane tour balls for reasonable prices.
    Thanks.
  • North ButteNorth Butte Members Posts: 9,763 ✭✭
    Not according to Dean Snell (owner of Snell Golf and co-designer of the original ProV1 and the TM Penta, among many others) and not according to Frank Simonetti (designer of the Wilson Staff Duo). Compression is all about feel and has negligible if any effect on distance.
    Everything has its drawbacks, as the man said when his mother-in-law died, and they came down upon him for the funeral expenses.
  • rickeygrickeyg Posts: 206 ✭✭


    Not according to Dean Snell (owner of Snell Golf and co-designer of the original ProV1 and the TM Penta, among many others) and not according to Frank Simonetti (designer of the Wilson Staff Duo). Compression is all about feel and has negligible if any effect on distance.
    Thanks.
  • GolfrnutGolfrnut Members Posts: 7,104 ✭✭
    I’ve seen better distance in cold temps off clubs like wedges where I can get a little better compression. Off drivers, normal temps, etc...no.
    TM Supertri V2 w/ AD DI (Testing a new one that's on probation)
    Callaway 3Deep w/ 73 BB or Stage 2 3W w/ 73 BB
    Stage 2 3H w/ i80 Steelfiber
    Callaway Apex UT 21* w/ i80 Steelfiber
    Callaway X Prototype MBs 4-PW w/ Steelfiber AMI 99s
    Callaway MD3 52* & 58* PM grind (both X100 8 iron SS)
    Odyssey MXM 1W
  • lawsonmanlawsonman Members Posts: 5,166 ✭✭
    edited Sep 8, 2018 #7
    I've found that many of us average golfers are distance challenged more by spin than compression. If I play a high spin 4 piece ball I'll lose up to a club in distance because of excessive spin. The excessive spin is caused by swing flaws which we all have. Experiment with balls such as the Bridgestone E6 or other lower spinning balls and see if you don't notice a difference. As it's been said before, compression is more about feel.
    Welcome to where dumb opinions are better than no opinion. :)

    Ping G400 9°
    Ping Anser 17,20,23, hybrid
    Ping G25 6-UW
    Ping Glide 54,58ES
    Ping Ketsch Vault 2.0
    Ping DLX Bag

    Snell MTB Black
  • lil'mikelil'mike Members Posts: 1,264 ✭✭
    Golfrnut wrote:


    I've seen better distance in cold temps off clubs like wedges where I can get a little better compression. Off drivers, normal temps, etc...no.




    I would agree with this and what was mentioned above about too much spin causing yardage loss. With today's golf balls, I don't think there is much difference. Now if you played twenty years ago and compared a Strata vs the Pinnacle Gold or old Rockflites (topflites) then yeah there was a yardage difference! image/smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />
  • 1badbadger1badbadger Members Posts: 140
    If compression had no effect on anything but "feel", wouldn't most models be low compression? The majority of players prefer a soft-feeling ball, so why would manufacturers make high compression balls?



    The fact is, compression affects more than just feel. A lower compression ball will launch higher and spin less off the driver than a higher compression ball. This is a benefit for many players because a common issue is low launch/high spin. So a softer ball might produce a more efficient trajectory and reduce the amount the ball curves.



    As far as distance is concerned, a firmer ball will usually be longer...if it's hit on the sweet-spot. If the ball is hit off the sweet-spot, even by a little bit, the lower compression ball will be longer. As the miss gets further away from the sweet-spot, the bigger the difference. Because the majority of an average player's shots are not flush, a low compression ball is usually longer day-in and day-out.
  • North ButteNorth Butte Members Posts: 9,763 ✭✭
    1badbadger wrote:


    If compression had no effect on anything but "feel", wouldn't most models be low compression? The majority of players prefer a soft-feeling ball, so why would manufacturers make high compression balls?



    The fact is, compression affects more than just feel. A lower compression ball will launch higher and spin less off the driver than a higher compression ball. This is a benefit for many players because a common issue is low launch/high spin. So a softer ball might produce a more efficient trajectory and reduce the amount the ball curves.



    As far as distance is concerned, a firmer ball will usually be longer...if it's hit on the sweet-spot. If the ball is hit off the sweet-spot, even by a little bit, the lower compression ball will be longer. As the miss gets further away from the sweet-spot, the bigger the difference. Because the majority of an average player's shots are not flush, a low compression ball is usually longer day-in and day-out.




    None of what you just said is true but believe what you like.
    Everything has its drawbacks, as the man said when his mother-in-law died, and they came down upon him for the funeral expenses.
  • 0psi0psi Members Posts: 72
    What about the other end of the spectrum? Does compression have a greater effect for those of us that swing at 120+mph?



    One of the ball review videos on the TXG channel seemed to suggest that at higher swing speeds at least some balls can compress too much causing a little loss in distance. Those guys seem fairly knowledgable so I'd like to think there's some truth to what they're saying.
    [font=lucida sans unicode,lucida grande,sans-serif]Ping G400. Ping Tour 65 X.[/font]
    Titleist 917 F3. Fujikura Pro 73 X.
    Mizuno MP H4 3 iron. DG X100
    Mizuno MP 53 4-PW. DG X100
    Mizuno T7. 50, 55, 60. DG X100
    Bettinardi Inovai
  • 1badbadger1badbadger Members Posts: 140

    1badbadger wrote:


    If compression had no effect on anything but "feel", wouldn't most models be low compression? The majority of players prefer a soft-feeling ball, so why would manufacturers make high compression balls?



    The fact is, compression affects more than just feel. A lower compression ball will launch higher and spin less off the driver than a higher compression ball. This is a benefit for many players because a common issue is low launch/high spin. So a softer ball might produce a more efficient trajectory and reduce the amount the ball curves.



    As far as distance is concerned, a firmer ball will usually be longer...if it's hit on the sweet-spot. If the ball is hit off the sweet-spot, even by a little bit, the lower compression ball will be longer. As the miss gets further away from the sweet-spot, the bigger the difference. Because the majority of an average player's shots are not flush, a low compression ball is usually longer day-in and day-out.




    None of what you just said is true but believe what you like.




    Yes, it's absolutely true. Believe what you like.
  • lawsonmanlawsonman Members Posts: 5,166 ✭✭
    1badbadger wrote:


    1badbadger wrote:


    If compression had no effect on anything but "feel", wouldn't most models be low compression? The majority of players prefer a soft-feeling ball, so why would manufacturers make high compression balls?



    The fact is, compression affects more than just feel. A lower compression ball will launch higher and spin less off the driver than a higher compression ball. This is a benefit for many players because a common issue is low launch/high spin. So a softer ball might produce a more efficient trajectory and reduce the amount the ball curves.



    As far as distance is concerned, a firmer ball will usually be longer...if it's hit on the sweet-spot. If the ball is hit off the sweet-spot, even by a little bit, the lower compression ball will be longer. As the miss gets further away from the sweet-spot, the bigger the difference. Because the majority of an average player's shots are not flush, a low compression ball is usually longer day-in and day-out.




    None of what you just said is true but believe what you like.




    Yes, it's absolutely true. Believe what you like.




    Watch Dean Snell's video's and you'll learn the truth.
    Welcome to where dumb opinions are better than no opinion. :)

    Ping G400 9°
    Ping Anser 17,20,23, hybrid
    Ping G25 6-UW
    Ping Glide 54,58ES
    Ping Ketsch Vault 2.0
    Ping DLX Bag

    Snell MTB Black
  • Snowman9000Snowman9000 Members Posts: 1,062 ✭✭
    I gain distance with irons with softer balls. I figure it’s due to lower spin. Essentially like hitting flyers.
    Driver 915 D2
    5W Wilson Fybrid
    4h, 5h Adams Idea Tech 2015
    5-AW Snake Eyes Viper MS, graphite
    58º Callaway MD2 Forged S grind
    Putter TM Rossa Daytona 6
  • North ButteNorth Butte Members Posts: 9,763 ✭✭
    lawsonman wrote:

    1badbadger wrote:


    1badbadger wrote:


    If compression had no effect on anything but "feel", wouldn't most models be low compression? The majority of players prefer a soft-feeling ball, so why would manufacturers make high compression balls?



    The fact is, compression affects more than just feel. A lower compression ball will launch higher and spin less off the driver than a higher compression ball. This is a benefit for many players because a common issue is low launch/high spin. So a softer ball might produce a more efficient trajectory and reduce the amount the ball curves.



    As far as distance is concerned, a firmer ball will usually be longer...if it's hit on the sweet-spot. If the ball is hit off the sweet-spot, even by a little bit, the lower compression ball will be longer. As the miss gets further away from the sweet-spot, the bigger the difference. Because the majority of an average player's shots are not flush, a low compression ball is usually longer day-in and day-out.




    None of what you just said is true but believe what you like.




    Yes, it's absolutely true. Believe what you like.




    Watch Dean Snell's video's and you'll learn the truth.




    Or the ones from Frank Simonetti (sp?) from Wilson.
    Everything has its drawbacks, as the man said when his mother-in-law died, and they came down upon him for the funeral expenses.
  • ghoul31ghoul31 Members Posts: 454 ✭✭
    I would rather see real numbers, rather that Dean Snell running his mouth with nothing to back it up
  • North ButteNorth Butte Members Posts: 9,763 ✭✭
    edited Sep 11, 2018 #17
    ghoul31 wrote:


    I would rather see real numbers, rather that Dean Snell running his mouth with nothing to back it up




    And so what "back it up" is there for some doofus on an anonymous Internet forum pontificating about his imaginary golf ball physics?



    I think I'll believe the two guys with a few dozen golf-ball patents between them, myself. But maybe that's just me.



    P.S. Spend 20 minutes on Google and you'll find the numbers Frank Simonetti published answering your question. But I know you won't believe that either because it conflicts with your fantasies.
    Everything has its drawbacks, as the man said when his mother-in-law died, and they came down upon him for the funeral expenses.
  • GolfrnutGolfrnut Members Posts: 7,104 ✭✭
    ghoul31 wrote:


    I would rather see real numbers, rather that Dean Snell running his mouth with nothing to back it up






    Plenty out there already...launch monitors are an easy way to record ball speed and we have been able to do that for years. Same for spin and all the other launch conditions. There's not enough depreciable differences with today's balls to be noticeable on course. From a physics standpoint, I am sure there are differences as deformation of the golf ball will cause energy potential to decrease (same reason we have flexing faces on high COR clubs), but ball designers are also very smart and know what they are doing.
    TM Supertri V2 w/ AD DI (Testing a new one that's on probation)
    Callaway 3Deep w/ 73 BB or Stage 2 3W w/ 73 BB
    Stage 2 3H w/ i80 Steelfiber
    Callaway Apex UT 21* w/ i80 Steelfiber
    Callaway X Prototype MBs 4-PW w/ Steelfiber AMI 99s
    Callaway MD3 52* & 58* PM grind (both X100 8 iron SS)
    Odyssey MXM 1W
  • ghoul31ghoul31 Members Posts: 454 ✭✭


    Here are some real numbers


    At slow swing speeds the longest balls were balls like Srixon soft feel ladies, pinacle platinum feel








    110 MPH Driver

    The Top 5 distance balls at this speed were as follows (the data in ( ) indicates the rank vs. all 63 balls tested)



    BallDistance (yards)Deviation (yards)Pinnacle Gold FX Long312.93 (1)5.67 (16)Taylor Made TP Black311.95 (2)12.40 (62)Callaway HX Pearl308.58 (3)12.36 (61)Srixon Z-URC307.57 (4)5.27 (10)Titleist Pro V1x307.54 (5)7.17 (33)

    The average ball at this speed traveled 300.52 yards. The shortest ball went only 282.97 yards. From the longest ball to the shortest ball, the difference is nearly 30 yards! Remember, these were all hit with the exact same driver and the exact same swing every time.





    100 MPH Driver

    The Top 5 distance balls at this speed were as follows (the data in ( ) indicates the rank vs. all 63 balls tested)



    BallDistance (yards)Deviation (yards)Titleist Pro V1x280.51 (1)5.17 (18)Pinnacle Gold FX Long280.40 (2)4.20 (10)Callaway HX Pearl279.71 (3)8.04 (52)Taylor Made TP Black279.43 (4)8.27 (55)Nike One Black279.39 (5)6.08 (35)



    200px-Logo_NIKE.svg.png

    NIKE, Inc. — Just Do It


    Inspiration and innovation for every athlete in the world. Experience sports, training, shopping and everything else that is new at Nike.

    Read more...



    The average ball at this speed traveled 273.83 yards. The shortest ball went 261.06 yards.





    90 MPH Driver

    The Top 5 distance balls at this speed were as follows (the data in ( ) indicates the rank vs. all 63 balls tested)



    BallDistance (yards)Deviation (yards)Callaway HX Pearl246.18 (1)8.91 (55)Bridgestone B330245.03 (2)4.84 (4)Titleist Pro V1x244.97 (3)9.38 (59)Top Flite XL 5000 Straight244.79 (4)5.96 (16)Pinnacle Gold FX Long244.26 (5)8.25 (49)

    The average ball at this speed traveled 240.73 yards. The shortest ball went 230.75 yards.





    80 MPH Driver

    The Top 5 distance balls at this speed were as follows (the data in ( ) indicates the rank vs. all 63 balls tested)



    BallDistance (yards)Deviation (yards)Volvik Crystal Control208.48 (1)3.12 (11)Srixon Soft Feel Ladies208.29 (2)4.79 (38)Top Flite D2 Straight207.24 (3)1.90 (2)Callaway HX Pearl207.05 (4)3.53 (16)Bridgestone B330S207.00 (5)3.73 (18)

    The average ball at this speed traveled 204.01 yards. The shortest ball went 194.56 yards.





    70 MPH Driver

    The Top 5 distance balls at this speed were as follows (the data in ( ) indicates the rank vs. all the balls tested)



    BallDistance (yards)Deviation (yards)Titleist DT Carry175.91 (1)5.02 (53)Pinnacle Platinum Feel175.36 (2)5.15 (54)Srixon AD333175.07 (3)5.80 (60)Callaway Tour i174.57 (4)3.31 (16)Bridgestone E5+174.32 (5)3.83 (30)

    The average ball at this speed traveled 171.64 yards. The shortest ball went 160.98 yards.
  • The PearlThe Pearl Posts: 1,951 ✭✭
    ghoul31 wrote:




    Here are some real numbers

    At slow swing speeds the longest balls were balls like Srixon soft feel ladies, pinacle platinum feel







    110 MPH Driver

    The Top 5 distance balls at this speed were as follows (the data in ( ) indicates the rank vs. all 63 balls tested)



    BallDistance (yards)Deviation (yards)Pinnacle Gold FX Long312.93 (1)5.67 (16)Taylor Made TP Black311.95 (2)12.40 (62)Callaway HX Pearl308.58 (3)12.36 (61)Srixon Z-URC307.57 (4)5.27 (10)Titleist Pro V1x307.54 (5)7.17 (33)

    The average ball at this speed traveled 300.52 yards. The shortest ball went only 282.97 yards. From the longest ball to the shortest ball, the difference is nearly 30 yards! Remember, these were all hit with the exact same driver and the exact same swing every time.





    100 MPH Driver

    The Top 5 distance balls at this speed were as follows (the data in ( ) indicates the rank vs. all 63 balls tested)



    BallDistance (yards)Deviation (yards)Titleist Pro V1x280.51 (1)5.17 (18)Pinnacle Gold FX Long280.40 (2)4.20 (10)Callaway HX Pearl279.71 (3)8.04 (52)Taylor Made TP Black279.43 (4)8.27 (55)Nike One Black279.39 (5)6.08 (35)



    200px-Logo_NIKE.svg.png

    NIKE, Inc. — Just Do It


    Inspiration and innovation for every athlete in the world. Experience sports, training, shopping and everything else that is new at Nike.

    Read more...



    The average ball at this speed traveled 273.83 yards. The shortest ball went 261.06 yards.





    90 MPH Driver

    The Top 5 distance balls at this speed were as follows (the data in ( ) indicates the rank vs. all 63 balls tested)



    BallDistance (yards)Deviation (yards)Callaway HX Pearl246.18 (1)8.91 (55)Bridgestone B330245.03 (2)4.84 (4)Titleist Pro V1x244.97 (3)9.38 (59)Top Flite XL 5000 Straight244.79 (4)5.96 (16)Pinnacle Gold FX Long244.26 (5)8.25 (49)

    The average ball at this speed traveled 240.73 yards. The shortest ball went 230.75 yards.





    80 MPH Driver

    The Top 5 distance balls at this speed were as follows (the data in ( ) indicates the rank vs. all 63 balls tested)



    BallDistance (yards)Deviation (yards)Volvik Crystal Control208.48 (1)3.12 (11)Srixon Soft Feel Ladies208.29 (2)4.79 (38)Top Flite D2 Straight207.24 (3)1.90 (2)Callaway HX Pearl207.05 (4)3.53 (16)Bridgestone B330S207.00 (5)3.73 (18)

    The average ball at this speed traveled 204.01 yards. The shortest ball went 194.56 yards.





    70 MPH Driver

    The Top 5 distance balls at this speed were as follows (the data in ( ) indicates the rank vs. all the balls tested)



    BallDistance (yards)Deviation (yards)Titleist DT Carry175.91 (1)5.02 (53)Pinnacle Platinum Feel175.36 (2)5.15 (54)Srixon AD333175.07 (3)5.80 (60)Callaway Tour i174.57 (4)3.31 (16)Bridgestone E5+174.32 (5)3.83 (30)

    The average ball at this speed traveled 171.64 yards. The shortest ball went 160.98 yards.






    You realize that some of this data disproves your theory?



    First of all, this data and many of the balls are 10 years old. This data is not even relevant to a "current" discussion on today's golf balls. Many of the balls in the tests for the 90/80/70 mph are not low compression golf balls relative what is being marketed today. For instance, the Bridgestone B330 was a straight up tour ball and in the study is only 1.48 yds behind the Volvik at 80MPH. The same with the Callway Tour I and the Bridgestone E5. The Callway Tour I was a tour ball and the E5 was a two piece urethane. Neither was marketed as a "Low compression" golf ball for slow swing speed players.



    You also have the ProV1X less than 2 yds behind the Callaway HX Pearl at 90 MPH which literally disproves your entire argument.
  • North ButteNorth Butte Members Posts: 9,763 ✭✭
    The Pearl wrote:
    The same with the Callway Tour I and the Bridgestone E5. The Callway Tour I was a tour ball and the E5 was a two piece urethane. Neither was marketed as a "Low compression" golf ball for slow swing speed players.




    And those two particular models were absolute rocks even relative to other balls of their generation!
    Everything has its drawbacks, as the man said when his mother-in-law died, and they came down upon him for the funeral expenses.
  • The PearlThe Pearl Posts: 1,951 ✭✭

    The Pearl wrote:
    The same with the Callway Tour I and the Bridgestone E5. The Callway Tour I was a tour ball and the E5 was a two piece urethane. Neither was marketed as a "Low compression" golf ball for slow swing speed players.




    And those two particular models were absolute rocks even relative to other balls of their generation!




    The Tour Ix was even worse.
  • trackcoach13trackcoach13 Members Posts: 918 ✭✭
    ghoul31 wrote:


    I would rather see real numbers, rather that Dean Snell running his mouth with nothing to back it up


    I nominate this as the dumbest post...ever.
    [font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Driver: Cobra F9 w/ Aldila NV 2KXV Green 65 Stiff
    3W: Titleist 917F2 w/Fujikura Speeder Pro Tour Spec 84 Stiff [/font]

    [font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]2I: Srixon Z U65 18 Degree w/Miyazaki Kaula 7s
    Irons: Wilson FG Tour v6 4-GW DG S300 AMT
    Wedge: 56/11 Wilson FG Tour PMP Raw Tour Grind[/font]

    Wedge: Vokey SM6 60-12 K-Grind
    [font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Putter: [/font]Odyssey O-WORKS Red Marxman
  • CelerasCeleras Posts: 147 ✭✭
    edited Sep 19, 2018 #24
    The myth has been gone over ad nauseum. Frequently in response to badbadger, who I've seen parrot this misinformation more than once. Always be skeptical of the "this is what I think and I have no data to back it up" crowd.



    Callaway Big Bertha Fusion 10.5* PX Even Flow Black 75 6.0
    Callaway Rogue Sub Zero 15* PX Even Flow Blue 75 6.0
    Ping G400 Hybrid 19* Alta CB 70 Stiff
    Ping G400 5-UW AWT 2.0 Stiff, Green Dot
    Cleveland RTX 2.0 CB Wedge Set 56/60*
    Odyssey White Hot Pro 2.0 #7
    Callaway Fusion 14
  • GolfrnutGolfrnut Members Posts: 7,104 ✭✭
    edited Sep 19, 2018 #25
    I agree with the above, so hopefully this doesn't get misinterpreted.



    There are some studies (not smart enough to challenge accuracy/potential errors in data collection) that suggest that compression vs temp will create some distance differences as we go cold/hot. From the data I have seen, hotter temps seem to effect the ball more than the colder temps do, which is contrary to what most would tend to think.



    Edit: This is referring to ball temp, not ambient
    TM Supertri V2 w/ AD DI (Testing a new one that's on probation)
    Callaway 3Deep w/ 73 BB or Stage 2 3W w/ 73 BB
    Stage 2 3H w/ i80 Steelfiber
    Callaway Apex UT 21* w/ i80 Steelfiber
    Callaway X Prototype MBs 4-PW w/ Steelfiber AMI 99s
    Callaway MD3 52* & 58* PM grind (both X100 8 iron SS)
    Odyssey MXM 1W
  • North ButteNorth Butte Members Posts: 9,763 ✭✭
    Golfrnut wrote:


    I agree with the above, so hopefully this doesn't get misinterpreted.



    There are some studies (not smart enough to challenge accuracy/potential errors in data collection) that suggest that compression vs temp will create some distance differences as we go cold/hot. From the data I have seen, hotter temps seem to effect the ball more than the colder temps do, which is contrary to what most would tend to think.




    But hot or cold does not affect high-compression or low-compression balls differently. I believe it was Frank Simonuetti who also published graphs showing how the distance-vs-temperature relationship is the same regardless of "compression".



    If you normally play a high compression ball it will not go as far when the ball and the atmosphere get cold. But you can't regain any of that distance loss by switching to a lower compression ball. Low compression balls are equally affected by the cold temps.
    Everything has its drawbacks, as the man said when his mother-in-law died, and they came down upon him for the funeral expenses.
  • Z1ggy16Z1ggy16 Members Posts: 7,173 ✭✭
    Celeras wrote:


    The myth has been gone over ad nauseum. Frequently in response to badbadger, who I've seen parrot this misinformation more than once. Always be skeptical of the "this is what I think and I have no data to back it up" crowd.





    ahhh I was wondering where this graph went. When I saw the other thread on this topic I immediately recalled this test. Good post.



    And FWIW I tend to play softer lower spin balls in the spring/winter, but not because I think compression makes a difference but because I was a little lower spin to help with roll out on the softer greens, and to gain back a few yards due to lower spin on my irons from the lower temps and slower CHS that I tend to have in those months.
    WITB
    DRIVER MIA
    LTD Kai'li 70X
    818H2 Tour Blue 85X
    P790 4i Modus 120X
    P770 5-PW KBS Tour FLT
    Glide Stealth 2.0 50/10SS AMT Wedge
    Glide Stealth 2.0 54/12SS AMT Wedge
    Glide Stealth 2.0 58/12SS Modus 125 Wedge (Hi Toe 58 KBS Wedge in test)
    TP Black Copper Juno w/ PX 7.0 Wedge
    TP5X
    Sun Mountain 4.5 Bag

  • GolfrnutGolfrnut Members Posts: 7,104 ✭✭

    Golfrnut wrote:


    I agree with the above, so hopefully this doesn't get misinterpreted.



    There are some studies (not smart enough to challenge accuracy/potential errors in data collection) that suggest that compression vs temp will create some distance differences as we go cold/hot. From the data I have seen, hotter temps seem to effect the ball more than the colder temps do, which is contrary to what most would tend to think.




    But hot or cold does not affect high-compression or low-compression balls differently. I believe it was Frank Simonuetti who also published graphs showing how the distance-vs-temperature relationship is the same regardless of "compression".



    If you normally play a high compression ball it will not go as far when the ball and the atmosphere get cold. But you can't regain any of that distance loss by switching to a lower compression ball. Low compression balls are equally affected by the cold temps.




    Maybe I should have worded that differently, and not targeted compression directly as the defining factor. Different ball compositions are most likely going to react differently to temperature, so perhaps a better representation would be to attribute it to that than the compression numbers?
    TM Supertri V2 w/ AD DI (Testing a new one that's on probation)
    Callaway 3Deep w/ 73 BB or Stage 2 3W w/ 73 BB
    Stage 2 3H w/ i80 Steelfiber
    Callaway Apex UT 21* w/ i80 Steelfiber
    Callaway X Prototype MBs 4-PW w/ Steelfiber AMI 99s
    Callaway MD3 52* & 58* PM grind (both X100 8 iron SS)
    Odyssey MXM 1W
  • North ButteNorth Butte Members Posts: 9,763 ✭✭
    edited Sep 19, 2018 #29
    Golfrnut wrote:


    Golfrnut wrote:


    I agree with the above, so hopefully this doesn't get misinterpreted.



    There are some studies (not smart enough to challenge accuracy/potential errors in data collection) that suggest that compression vs temp will create some distance differences as we go cold/hot. From the data I have seen, hotter temps seem to effect the ball more than the colder temps do, which is contrary to what most would tend to think.




    But hot or cold does not affect high-compression or low-compression balls differently. I believe it was Frank Simonuetti who also published graphs showing how the distance-vs-temperature relationship is the same regardless of "compression".



    If you normally play a high compression ball it will not go as far when the ball and the atmosphere get cold. But you can't regain any of that distance loss by switching to a lower compression ball. Low compression balls are equally affected by the cold temps.




    Maybe I should have worded that differently, and not targeted compression directly as the defining factor. Different ball compositions are most likely going to react differently to temperature, so perhaps a better representation would be to attribute it to that than the compression numbers?




    It simply can't be done. There aren't good cold-weather balls and good hot-weather balls.



    Now maybe like friend Z1ggy16 you're looking for a different type of ball performance during the winter and summer. But when he switches to a lower spin ball in the winter it's not that the ball's spin is lower due to the cold.



    No matter how a ball is constructed, the effect of temperature is very much the same. Note that I'm not talking about rubber-band wound balls with with natural rubber covers but about various types of modern construction balls.



    P.S. If it were physically possible to make a golf ball that has superior cold-weather performance, you'd better believe someone would be making and selling it!
    Everything has its drawbacks, as the man said when his mother-in-law died, and they came down upon him for the funeral expenses.
  • GolfrnutGolfrnut Members Posts: 7,104 ✭✭

    Golfrnut wrote:


    Golfrnut wrote:


    I agree with the above, so hopefully this doesn't get misinterpreted.



    There are some studies (not smart enough to challenge accuracy/potential errors in data collection) that suggest that compression vs temp will create some distance differences as we go cold/hot. From the data I have seen, hotter temps seem to effect the ball more than the colder temps do, which is contrary to what most would tend to think.




    But hot or cold does not affect high-compression or low-compression balls differently. I believe it was Frank Simonuetti who also published graphs showing how the distance-vs-temperature relationship is the same regardless of "compression".



    If you normally play a high compression ball it will not go as far when the ball and the atmosphere get cold. But you can't regain any of that distance loss by switching to a lower compression ball. Low compression balls are equally affected by the cold temps.




    Maybe I should have worded that differently, and not targeted compression directly as the defining factor. Different ball compositions are most likely going to react differently to temperature, so perhaps a better representation would be to attribute it to that than the compression numbers?




    It simply can't be done. There aren't good cold-weather balls and good hot-weather balls.



    Now maybe like friend Z1ggy16 you're looking for a different type of ball performance during the winter and summer. But when he switches to a lower spin ball in the winter it's not that the ball's spin is lower due to the cold.



    No matter how a ball is constructed, the effect of temperature is very much the same. Note that I'm not talking about rubber-band wound balls with with natural rubber covers but about various types of modern construction balls.



    P.S. If it were physically possible to make a golf ball that has superior cold-weather performance, you'd better believe someone would be making and selling it!




    I'm not all that sure I agree with that. Not terribly long ago, I saw at least one study out there that differed from that conclusion as well. I will have to search around to try and find it again. There are people like the makers of Vice that have information posted on their site that don't necassarily agree with that as well. There is good reason why ball manufacturers have suggested temps for storage and when you can expect peak vs degraded performance.



    https://www.vicegolf.com/vice-golf-stories/blog/2016/12/06/vice-labs-golf-ball-storage-myths/



    I'll look around again for the paper that was done on it.
    TM Supertri V2 w/ AD DI (Testing a new one that's on probation)
    Callaway 3Deep w/ 73 BB or Stage 2 3W w/ 73 BB
    Stage 2 3H w/ i80 Steelfiber
    Callaway Apex UT 21* w/ i80 Steelfiber
    Callaway X Prototype MBs 4-PW w/ Steelfiber AMI 99s
    Callaway MD3 52* & 58* PM grind (both X100 8 iron SS)
    Odyssey MXM 1W
  • North ButteNorth Butte Members Posts: 9,763 ✭✭
    edited Sep 19, 2018 #31
    Keep in mind that nobody working for Vice has ever designed or manufactured a golf ball in their life. It's entirely a marketing company pitching white-label balls from Asian factories.



    I wouldn't put it past some direct-to-consumer output to claim or imply that their ball is better in cold weather, no matter the fact it is not physically possible for it to actually be so.
    Everything has its drawbacks, as the man said when his mother-in-law died, and they came down upon him for the funeral expenses.
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.