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

2»

Comments

  • GolfrnutGolfrnut Members Posts: 7,151 ✭✭
    Well, they actually DON'T imply that, at all. Merely a statment on recommended storage. I posted the link, appears you didn't click on it...



    For two, if everyone relies on the chart posted just a few posts ago, there was a much longer test done in that **** article that tested COR with different compressions at different temps. I again, will not comment on error probabilities as unless you are using the same ball composition for the test, it's suseptable to errors in the data. I don't know that info as they do not give that into, but I will say that the higher COR favored the low compression ball at the lower temps, by very small amounts. Noticeable on course, no..but a measureable effect.
    TM Supertri V2 w/ Matrix Ozik Code 6.2
    Callaway 3Deep w/ 73 BB  
    Taylormade P790 2 UDI w/ DG 105R 
    Taylormade P790 3 iron w/ DG AMT White R300
    4-PW Nike VR Pro MBs w/ DG AMT White R300
    Callaway MD3 52* & 58* PM grind (both X100 8 iron SS)
    Odyssey MXM 1W
  • NJpatbeeNJpatbee Members Posts: 1,498 ✭✭
    This topic comes up occasionally and most "experts" like Snell are emphatic that compression is not an important factor in distance. I cannot argue with them as I am not qualified but as a 66 year old golfer with an 88 mph driver swing speed I get noticeably more distance (10+ yards carry and roll) than a ball like the Gamer or NXT Tour with a ball like the Softfli or SuperSoft. I am not certain why but it does happen. To further confuse the matter I am almost as long with a ProV1 as a low compression ball. I am certain it is my swing including angle of attack, etc. but I do know what works for me. I will leave the physics discussion for others,
  • North ButteNorth Butte Members Posts: 9,884 ✭✭
    NJpatbee wrote:


    This topic comes up occasionally and most "experts" like Snell are emphatic that compression is not an important factor in distance. I cannot argue with them as I am not qualified but as a 66 year old golfer with an 88 mph driver swing speed I get noticeably more distance (10+ yards carry and roll) than a ball like the Gamer or NXT Tour with a ball like the Softfli or SuperSoft. I am not certain why but it does happen. To further confuse the matter I am almost as long with a ProV1 as a low compression ball. I am certain it is my swing including angle of attack, etc. but I do know what works for me. I will leave the physics discussion for others,




    FWIW, I always found NXT Tour a bit disappointing w.r.t. distance (and NXT Tour S very much so). Maybe it and the Gamer just aren't very good balls from a distance perspective!
    “1lb beefstak, with
    1pt bitter beer
    every 6 hours.
    1 ten-mile walk every morning.
    1 bed at 11 sharp every night.
    And don't stuff your head with things you don't understand.” 
  • Z1ggy16Z1ggy16 Members Posts: 7,239 ✭✭
    edited Sep 19, 2018 #35
    NJpatbee wrote:


    This topic comes up occasionally and most "experts" like Snell are emphatic that compression is not an important factor in distance. I cannot argue with them as I am not qualified but as a 66 year old golfer with an 88 mph driver swing speed I get noticeably more distance (10+ yards carry and roll) than a ball like the Gamer or NXT Tour with a ball like the Softfli or SuperSoft. I am not certain why but it does happen. To further confuse the matter I am almost as long with a ProV1 as a low compression ball. I am certain it is my swing including angle of attack, etc. but I do know what works for me. I will leave the physics discussion for others,


    Compression rating and the spin characteristics are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore... on course testing is a really, really bad way to scientifically test out how a golf ball performs. Anecdote?? Ya all day long. Qualitative measures??? Heck yeah (soft vs hard, loud vs dull). But saying you get 10 yards of carry + roll purely because of ball when outside could be influenced by so many other factors, most importantly how you struck the ball on that exact shot which will have the #1 influence over anything else.



    Compression and spin should be treated as separate things IMO when it comes to a golf ball. One of those things doesn't have to influence or come to be because of the other.
    WITB
    Epic SZ HZRDUS Smoke 65 6.5
    LTD Kai'li 70X
    818H2 Tour Blue 85X
    P790 4i Modus 120X
    P770 5-PW KBS Tour 120 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
    TP Black Copper Juno w/ PX 7.0 Wedge
    TP5X
    Sun Mountain 4.5 Bag

  • North ButteNorth Butte Members Posts: 9,884 ✭✭
    It's certainly true that a really, seriously low compression and really seriously high spin are almost impossible to combine in one ball. The very lowest compression balls will always be ones that don't spin much. So you can't acquire a real-world ball to try to tease out a difference between very-low compression suiting you versus low spin suiting you!
    “1lb beefstak, with
    1pt bitter beer
    every 6 hours.
    1 ten-mile walk every morning.
    1 bed at 11 sharp every night.
    And don't stuff your head with things you don't understand.” 
  • NJpatbeeNJpatbee Members Posts: 1,498 ✭✭
    Z1ggy16 wrote:

    NJpatbee wrote:


    This topic comes up occasionally and most "experts" like Snell are emphatic that compression is not an important factor in distance. I cannot argue with them as I am not qualified but as a 66 year old golfer with an 88 mph driver swing speed I get noticeably more distance (10+ yards carry and roll) than a ball like the Gamer or NXT Tour with a ball like the Softfli or SuperSoft. I am not certain why but it does happen. To further confuse the matter I am almost as long with a ProV1 as a low compression ball. I am certain it is my swing including angle of attack, etc. but I do know what works for me. I will leave the physics discussion for others,


    Compression rating and the spin characteristics are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore... on course testing is a really, really bad way to scientifically test out how a golf ball performs. Anecdote?? Ya all day long. Qualitative measures??? Heck yeah (soft vs hard, loud vs dull). But saying you get 10 yards of carry + roll purely because of ball when outside could be influenced by so many other factors, most importantly how you struck the ball on that exact shot which will have the #1 influence over anything else.



    Compression and spin should be treated as separate things IMO when it comes to a golf ball. One of those things doesn't have to influence or come to be because of the other.




    I have never tried to perform a scientific test on my swing and the length of golf balls. It is also true that outside factors and the quality of the swing have an impact on distance. Not hitting certain balls as far as others as I described has held true over a number of years under a variety of conditions leading me to believe the ball is a factor. But I am not trying to prove it to anyone- it is just the results of my swing and different golf balls.
  • Z1ggy16Z1ggy16 Members Posts: 7,239 ✭✭
    edited Sep 19, 2018 #38
    NJpatbee wrote:

    Z1ggy16 wrote:

    NJpatbee wrote:


    This topic comes up occasionally and most "experts" like Snell are emphatic that compression is not an important factor in distance. I cannot argue with them as I am not qualified but as a 66 year old golfer with an 88 mph driver swing speed I get noticeably more distance (10+ yards carry and roll) than a ball like the Gamer or NXT Tour with a ball like the Softfli or SuperSoft. I am not certain why but it does happen. To further confuse the matter I am almost as long with a ProV1 as a low compression ball. I am certain it is my swing including angle of attack, etc. but I do know what works for me. I will leave the physics discussion for others,


    Compression rating and the spin characteristics are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore... on course testing is a really, really bad way to scientifically test out how a golf ball performs. Anecdote?? Ya all day long. Qualitative measures??? Heck yeah (soft vs hard, loud vs dull). But saying you get 10 yards of carry + roll purely because of ball when outside could be influenced by so many other factors, most importantly how you struck the ball on that exact shot which will have the #1 influence over anything else.



    Compression and spin should be treated as separate things IMO when it comes to a golf ball. One of those things doesn't have to influence or come to be because of the other.




    I have never tried to perform a scientific test on my swing and the length of golf balls. It is also true that outside factors and the quality of the swing have an impact on distance. Not hitting certain balls as far as others as I described has held true over a number of years under a variety of conditions leading me to believe the ball is a factor. But I am not trying to prove it to anyone- it is just the results of my swing and different golf balls.


    Lower spin going to give you more distance (not compression), especially with irons. Even more so into the breeze. Ball certainly is a factor.



    But that has nothing to do with the compression rating of the ball. Over the course of 100's of rounds, you can certainly say a ball is longer than another, but you really wouldn't have any measurable reason as to say why. Except in almost any case, it would be that balls like Supersoft, Get Sum, get launched higher and spin lower than ProV, TP5, etc.



    If I can find a higher rated low spin ball, I'd love to do a trackman test against a lower compression, low spin ball to see what the results would be. Something like a Pinnacle Gold vs a Supersoft.
    WITB
    Epic SZ HZRDUS Smoke 65 6.5
    LTD Kai'li 70X
    818H2 Tour Blue 85X
    P790 4i Modus 120X
    P770 5-PW KBS Tour 120 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
    TP Black Copper Juno w/ PX 7.0 Wedge
    TP5X
    Sun Mountain 4.5 Bag

  • 1badbadger1badbadger Members Posts: 140
    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.







    The information I provide isn't "this is what I think and I have no data to back it up". Where do you get your data/information? Mine comes from first-hand robotic and player testing during 10 years of working for one of the largest golf ball manufacturers in the world. Your chart shows COR at different clubhead speeds (I'm guessing this is a robotic test with on-center hits), but it doesn't show what happens on off-center hits, or the difference in launch angle or spin rates. Surely you'll agree that launch angle and spin rates can affect distance, right? And compression has an affect on launch angle and spin, so doesn't that mean compression does affect distance? Seems like your story left out a few chapters.
  • Spooky67Spooky67 Members Posts: 1,329 ✭✭
    Anecdotally I have found that I lose distance off the driver with low compression balls. I don't notice it off my irons. My driver SS is 110-112. Just putting this out there as I don't have the reference but I seem to remember something about low compression balls deforming too much with higher swing speeds..?
  • jjfcpajjfcpa Members Posts: 368 ✭✭
    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.







    What is "low compression" and "high compression" actually mean in terms of ball compression. Most ball vendors may quote core compression but the actually ball compression is entirely something else. Some vendors quote the ball compression so it's impossible to compare apples-to-apples when comparing balls. Even this graph doesn't explain what the ball compression was. I don't see how this explains anything.
  • CelerasCeleras Members Posts: 172 ✭✭
    1badbadger wrote:


    Surely you'll agree that launch angle and spin rates can affect distance, right? And compression has an affect on launch angle and spin, so doesn't that mean compression does affect distance? Seems like your story left out a few chapters.




    First of all, spin and launch angle are both completely independent of a golf balls compression. A low compression ball can be either lower spinning or higher spinning than a high compression ball. The compression is not the determining factor in either of those variables.



    Second of all, you can't be serious with this logic. If you were to take your normal swing in non-regulation spikes with your feet higher off the ground, your launch angle is going to be affected. By your argument ("Launch angle can affect distance, right?"), SHOES are now a factor of distance. That is not how any of this works.
    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
  • NoTalentLeftyNoTalentLefty Members Posts: 3,454 ✭✭
    lawsonman wrote:
    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.




    That was quite evident in the balata era.
    Livin' proof that Lefties are not naturally talented.

    Driver Titleist 913 D3 44 inches also a Cleveland Classic 310 43.5 inches
    3 and 5 Wood Ping G15
    3-5 Hybrids Cobra Baffler XL
    6-GW Titleist AP1s
    53 degree Wedge Titleist AP1
    58 degree SW Vokey SM6
    Putter White Hot V LINE Fang w/round Edel Grip
  • GolfrnutGolfrnut Members Posts: 7,151 ✭✭

    lawsonman wrote:
    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.




    That was quite evident in the balata era.




    Would have to disagree with the above. Spin is at the bottom of the list when it comes down to distance lost vs distance gained. It's not nearly as important as getting the launch and ball speed right. Spin is a byproduct of other things, many times, not striking the proper part of the face. People tend to look at spin and claim the 3000-3500 is costing them distance. In reality, it's costing them 5 yards, if that. It's the 3-4 MPH, or more, of ball speed they could be getting by hitting the driver in the right spot that's hurting them by 10-15 yards that's the problem. The whole "spin" delema is way overrated.
    TM Supertri V2 w/ Matrix Ozik Code 6.2
    Callaway 3Deep w/ 73 BB  
    Taylormade P790 2 UDI w/ DG 105R 
    Taylormade P790 3 iron w/ DG AMT White R300
    4-PW Nike VR Pro MBs w/ DG AMT White R300
    Callaway MD3 52* & 58* PM grind (both X100 8 iron SS)
    Odyssey MXM 1W
  • NoTalentLeftyNoTalentLefty Members Posts: 3,454 ✭✭
    Golfrnut wrote:

    lawsonman wrote:
    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.




    That was quite evident in the balata era.




    Would have to disagree with the above. Spin is at the bottom of the list when it comes down to distance lost vs distance gained. It's not nearly as important as getting the launch and ball speed right. Spin is a byproduct of other things, many times, not striking the proper part of the face. People tend to look at spin and claim the 3000-3500 is costing them distance. In reality, it's costing them 5 yards, if that. It's the 3-4 MPH, or more, of ball speed they could be getting by hitting the driver in the right spot that's hurting them by 10-15 yards that's the problem. The whole "spin" delema is way overrated.




    The balata ball spun so much that you could watch it ride up the wind. The old top flite would be effected but would hold the line better . Both balls were 90 compression.
    Livin' proof that Lefties are not naturally talented.

    Driver Titleist 913 D3 44 inches also a Cleveland Classic 310 43.5 inches
    3 and 5 Wood Ping G15
    3-5 Hybrids Cobra Baffler XL
    6-GW Titleist AP1s
    53 degree Wedge Titleist AP1
    58 degree SW Vokey SM6
    Putter White Hot V LINE Fang w/round Edel Grip
  • GolfrnutGolfrnut Members Posts: 7,151 ✭✭
    Golfrnut wrote:
    lawsonman wrote:
    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.
    That was quite evident in the balata era.
    Would have to disagree with the above. Spin is at the bottom of the list when it comes down to distance lost vs distance gained. It's not nearly as important as getting the launch and ball speed right. Spin is a byproduct of other things, many times, not striking the proper part of the face. People tend to look at spin and claim the 3000-3500 is costing them distance. In reality, it's costing them 5 yards, if that. It's the 3-4 MPH, or more, of ball speed they could be getting by hitting the driver in the right spot that's hurting them by 10-15 yards that's the problem. The whole "spin" delema is way overrated.
    The balata ball spun so much that you could watch it ride up the wind. The old top flite would be effected but would hold the line better . Both balls were 90 compression.




    My appologies, I should have clarified better that I disagreed with your quote, not your post directly. More speaking on present day than past.
    TM Supertri V2 w/ Matrix Ozik Code 6.2
    Callaway 3Deep w/ 73 BB  
    Taylormade P790 2 UDI w/ DG 105R 
    Taylormade P790 3 iron w/ DG AMT White R300
    4-PW Nike VR Pro MBs w/ DG AMT White R300
    Callaway MD3 52* & 58* PM grind (both X100 8 iron SS)
    Odyssey MXM 1W
  • 1badbadger1badbadger Members Posts: 140
    Celeras wrote:

    1badbadger wrote:


    Surely you'll agree that launch angle and spin rates can affect distance, right? And compression has an affect on launch angle and spin, so doesn't that mean compression does affect distance? Seems like your story left out a few chapters.




    First of all, spin and launch angle are both completely independent of a golf balls compression. A low compression ball can be either lower spinning or higher spinning than a high compression ball. The compression is not the determining factor in either of those variables.



    Second of all, you can't be serious with this logic. If you were to take your normal swing in non-regulation spikes with your feet higher off the ground, your launch angle is going to be affected. By your argument ("Launch angle can affect distance, right?"), SHOES are now a factor of distance. That is not how any of this works.




    Are you suggesting that launch angle and spin rates don't have an affect on distance? That a high launch/low spin condition is no better than a low launch/high spin combination? Why have ball manufacturers worked so hard to reduce driver spin if it doesn't make a difference?



    As far as launch angle is concerned, we both know there are more things that have an affect on this part of a player's launch condition than any other aspect. Tee height, ball position, angle of attack, loft of club, shaft, shoes image/bye.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':wave:' />, clubhead speed are just some of the things that affect the launch angle. What I'm talking about is all those things being equal, a ball like the B330-RX will launch higher than a ball like the B330 (for example) because it has a softer core. It will also spin less.



    Does the idea that compression only affects feel, and doesn't have any affect on a golf ball's performance make sense? Think about it...manufacturers are making changes like going from 330 dimples to 326, or making the cover softer by 2%. If those things make a difference, how can going from a 75 compression ball to a 35 compression ball not make a difference?
  • RayGormanRayGorman Members Posts: 137 ✭✭
    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.




    Is this data/list available in full someplace? a link?
  • CelerasCeleras Members Posts: 172 ✭✭
    1badbadger wrote:


    As far as launch angle is concerned, we both know there are more things that have an affect on this part of a player's launch condition than any other aspect. Tee height, ball position, angle of attack, loft of club, shaft, shoes image/bye.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':wave:' />, clubhead speed are just some of the things that affect the launch angle. What I'm talking about is all those things being equal, a ball like the B330-RX will launch higher than a ball like the B330 (for example) because it has a softer core. It will also spin less.




    Dude. Seriously. Are you reading what you are saying?


    1badbadger wrote:


    What I'm talking about is all those things being equal




    Yes, ok. So is everybody else.


    1badbadger wrote:


    a ball like the B330-RX will launch higher than a ball like the B330 (for example) because it has a softer core. It will also spin less.




    HELLO? That is not "all those things being equal". Low compression balls can be either low spinning or high spinning, low launch or high launch.



    The conversation is regarding COMPRESSION. That means you are comparing balls with the SAME launch angle and the SAME spin. COMPRESSION is the only variable being discussed. And when COMPRESSION is the only variable, DISTANCE is unchanged. Period. End of discussion.



    Yeah, if you manufacturer a ball with lower compression, AND higher spin, AND a higher launch angle.. distance is effected. Duh. Nobody is talking about that, except you.
    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
  • 1badbadger1badbadger Members Posts: 140
    Celeras wrote:

    1badbadger wrote:


    As far as launch angle is concerned, we both know there are more things that have an affect on this part of a player's launch condition than any other aspect. Tee height, ball position, angle of attack, loft of club, shaft, shoes image/bye.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':wave:' />, clubhead speed are just some of the things that affect the launch angle. What I'm talking about is all those things being equal, a ball like the B330-RX will launch higher than a ball like the B330 (for example) because it has a softer core. It will also spin less.




    Dude. Seriously. Are you reading what you are saying?


    1badbadger wrote:


    What I'm talking about is all those things being equal




    Yes, ok. So is everybody else.


    1badbadger wrote:


    a ball like the B330-RX will launch higher than a ball like the B330 (for example) because it has a softer core. It will also spin less.




    HELLO? That is not "all those things being equal". Low compression balls can be either low spinning or high spinning, low launch or high launch.



    The conversation is regarding COMPRESSION. That means you are comparing balls with the SAME launch angle and the SAME spin. COMPRESSION is the only variable being discussed. And when COMPRESSION is the only variable, DISTANCE is unchanged. Period. End of discussion.



    Yeah, if you manufacturer a ball with lower compression, AND higher spin, AND a higher launch angle.. distance is effected. Duh. Nobody is talking about that, except you.




    Quit saying "end of discussion" or "end of story". What makes you think you should have the last word on this, or any other discussion?



    The question was asked "Does a lower compression ball help with distance?" Simply stating a yes or no wouldn't be very helpful without some additional insight, but you seem to have a problem with me explaining my answer. Yes, you are correct that a low compression ball can be either lower spinning or higher spinning than a high compression ball, and that compression is not the determining factor of those variables, but compression does have an affect which is why manufacturers use it to achieve a certain performance. I think part of the issue is you are wanting to isolate each aspect of the ball separately, but because they all work together that's tough to do.



    You stated "The conversation is regarding COMPRESSION. That means you are comparing balls with the SAME launch angle and the SAME spin. COMPRESSION is the only variable being discussed." Let's say we start with two identical Pro V1 balls, then could magically lower the compression of one of them. The result would not be two balls identical in performance except for the compression. Lowering the compression will also affect the spin and the launch off the driver and longer clubs. Whenever an aspect of a ball is changed it will cause other parts of the ball to perform differently. But even if just for the sake of discussion the compression was lowered in one ball and the spin and launch stayed the same, I could still make the argument that the lower compression ball would help with distance on off-center hits. On miss-hits, the higher compression ball will lose more ball speed than the lower compression ball.



    Look, I get that not everyone has access to an Iron Byron, launch monitors and a state-of-the-art driving range to conduct their own testing, and have to get the information by reading about it on a forum or other source. There is more information available then ever before. Unfortunately as we both know, not all of it is accurate. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to do the testing and see the results first-hand. It can be confusing to people who see conflicting information to know what to believe. I know attacking or being condescending doesn't help. I try to help by answering questions or correcting false information and educating those who have questions. I certainly don't mind a healthy debate,but if I feel my contributions are not appreciated and I'm being talked down to by someone who won't explain how he got his information or what his credentials are, then I'm not going to bother. Anyway, my answer still stands.
  • CelerasCeleras Members Posts: 172 ✭✭
    1badbadger wrote:


    I certainly don't mind a healthy debate,but if I feel my contributions are not appreciated and I'm being talked down to by someone who won't explain how he got his information or what his credentials are, then I'm not going to bother. Anyway, my answer still stands.




    Don't you? Because thus far actual data has been posted from both **** and from Snell. And I'll add a third one, here is a comparison from TXG:



    1badbadger wrote:


    Let's say we start with two identical Pro V1 balls, then could magically lower the compression of one of them. The result would not be two balls identical in performance except for the compression.




    Clearly no need for magic. You have been provided data from multiple sources indicating this exact scenario, and the data supports the opposite of your own conclusion. The "data" you've provided to support your erroneous statement is "I've seen Iron Byron". I guess it'll be up to people reading this to make up their own minds, because like you I see no reason in continuing in this conversation further.
    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
  • ghoul31ghoul31 Members Posts: 461 ✭✭
    That's with 133mph ball speed





    The data I posted shows slow swing speeds benefit from low compression balls
  • CelerasCeleras Members Posts: 172 ✭✭
    The chart on the first page shows swing speeds of 85 through 120. The point of that one is to show literally identical launch and spin.
    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
  • Z1ggy16Z1ggy16 Members Posts: 7,239 ✭✭
    And in that same TXG video, Matt actually lost a touch ball speed using a very low compression ball.



    Either way, I think given the hard data here it's pretty obvious that picking a ball based on compression (regardless of your swing speed) with the goal of being able to gain distance is probably a large waste of time. If you lose sleep over 4-5 yards and you're not playing at the most elite levels of the game, then you are doing things a bit wrong I think.
    WITB
    Epic SZ HZRDUS Smoke 65 6.5
    LTD Kai'li 70X
    818H2 Tour Blue 85X
    P790 4i Modus 120X
    P770 5-PW KBS Tour 120 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
    TP Black Copper Juno w/ PX 7.0 Wedge
    TP5X
    Sun Mountain 4.5 Bag

  • Snowman9000Snowman9000 Members Posts: 1,090 ✭✭
    The screen shot in the TXG video is mislabeled. They didn't test the Duo Soft, 29 compression. They tested the Duo U(rethane), whatever compression it is.

    They used the descriptive labels Firm and Soft and it looks like Duo Soft.
    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
  • Snowman9000Snowman9000 Members Posts: 1,090 ✭✭
    edited Oct 10, 2018 #56
    I think it pays to have a healthy skepticism about claims from manufacturers.

    Titleist makes their money from some of the highest compression balls in the market. They say compression vs swing speed doesn't matter.

    Wilson makes their money from some of the lowest compression balls in the market. They say compression vs swing speed doesn't matter.



    Both have very vested interests in saying the same thing. They might be right! But at least consider they have something to gain from saying it, whether it's right or wrong.
    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
  • me05501me05501 Members Posts: 412
    I have a low/medium swing speed, and I don't play the sort of high-spin chips and pitches the pros play, so I get more or less the same performance from Pro-style balls and cheap marshmallows.



    I don't notice much difference in distance. The main difference is price.



    Lately I've been playing the Maxfli SOFTFLI and I love them because they're very cheap and feel great.



    I wouldn't want to play any ball that felt like a rock. That's the only place left for me to draw the line.
  • arbeckarbeck SeattleMembers Posts: 391 ✭✭
    The Duo Urethane has a compression of 55.



    But what the TXG test showed is that until you get to the highest swing speeds, you aren't going to lose any distance. I'd wager that the same is true on the slow end. Unless you are exceptionally slow, you probably won't pick up any distance by going to a lower compression ball.
    Ping Traverse
    King Cobra F7 10.5* w/ Mitsubishi Tensi CK Blue 60 set at 9.5*
    TEE E8 4W, 7W
    Mizuno JPX-900 Hot Metal 5-SW w/ Veylix Alpina 873
    TEE CB PROs 60*
    Scotty Cameron Squareback
  • BeerPerHoleBeerPerHole Members Posts: 1,127 ✭✭
    Interesting topic. My ss is 104 to 112ish on the radar. Yet, I love playing a ball that's specifically marketed for slow swing speeds - the Q Star Tour. Great ball for the money for me. Where I've come to realize I get in trouble is with an XV-type ball (very firm). It comes off the face fine and hot, but I'm less sure where it's going to go. I tend to spin the ball a lot. 3-piece, soft, urethane ball for me.
    Ping G400 Max, 8-degrees, tour stiff
    Mizuno JPX900 Forged irons
    Ping G400 5-wood
    Taylormade Spider blade
    Srixon Z Star
    IPA
  • lil'mikelil'mike Members Posts: 1,280 ✭✭
    I am not sure if there is much difference in golf balls to me, compression wise. My ss is about 90 and I started playing the 330 RX and liked it, then I tried the Z-Star XV and then Chrome Soft cause I like the Truvis pattern which made them easy to spot. Since there has been some super deals have been found on the Topflight Gamer and Maxfli Softfli's, I tried both of them and both are very good golf balls. All of these don't seem to be much different for me, although I can feel and see that the Softfli are a little firmer on iron shots and do tend to roll more but nothing that I cannot deal with.
  • CwebbCwebb Members Posts: 5,865 ✭✭
    Z1ggy16 wrote:


    And in that same TXG video, Matt actually lost a touch ball speed using a very low compression ball.



    Either way, I think given the hard data here it's pretty obvious that picking a ball based on compression (regardless of your swing speed) with the goal of being able to gain distance is probably a large waste of time. If you lose sleep over 4-5 yards and you're not playing at the most elite levels of the game, then you are doing things a bit wrong I think.




    I also found a little lose of ball speed off the driver, when testing low compression. Not huge, but it was there consistently
Sign In or Register to comment.