Golf Galaxy Ball Fitting - questions

Now, maybe it's just me....but wouldn't you be better fitted for a ball in the short game than driver? I understand, hitting a high spin ball off the driver doesn't make sense, but I'd go backwards to be ball fitted

Just My opinion, in NO way to I make this a post in a negative way......

I'm curious...

How do they have do their ball fittings?

I would think you should hit 10-12 of each model to find out which is the best fit for you...

This actually really pisses me off and confirms to me that this ball fitting at GG is crap. I just did it last week as part of a driver fitting and my results are identical ball to ball compared to yours. However my swing stats are significantly different: Swing speed 113+, Ball speed 167+, Launch 15*, Spin 2700.

How the hell can our results be identical with two drastically different swings. When I say identical I mean exact for each category from 1-12. I think we both got ripped off, oh well.

By the way, Titleist did not participate in the ball fitting software so you will not see any Pro V's. The sales guy told me Titleist thinks their balls are by far superior and there was no need for them to submit data.

Did you buy any balls from GG after the fitting? If so, the ploy worked.

i also did this and got the same exact results

Anyone do this and get different results? That would be pretty bad if they were just giving everyone the same results.

When I was testing golf balls, I picked a bunch that I thought would be contenders: ProV1, ProV1x, B330, B330s, TM LDP Red, TM LDP Black, One Black, and One Platinum.

I then tested them around the greens to get a feel for how they were in the short game. They all performed pretty well around the greens and though I had some slight preferences, I was only able to eliminate the One Black.

Then I got all of them on the LM and got the numbers with my driver for each. The ProV1x works out the best for me by a hair, but I could very easily play any of the other balls without sacrificing much performance.

EDIT: And, as with all my testing, I make sure to verify results on the course. Thus I tested all of those balls on the course.

Geez, I would be happy being only 4 yards off center (worst case scenario) on my drives. You must have the most accurate swing in the history of golf. Its a wonder that they are able to forecast your performance with all balls after only using 12 test drives. Technology has sure come along way....

I'd take any fitting from Golf Galaxy with a grain of salt.

Now, maybe it's just me....but wouldn't you be better fitted for a ball in the short game than driver? I understand, hitting a high spin ball off the driver doesn't make sense, but I'd go backwards to be ball fitted

 

Just My opinion, in NO way to I make this a post in a negative way......

I agree and I would take it one step further. I would take the $30 or whatever they charge for a ball fitting and buy a sleeve of the 3 or 4 balls I was considering and take them out on the course late one day and hit wedges and putt with them, to find out how they all will react under real conditions and off your own wedges.

IMO, ball fittings for driver are not to helpful as ALMOST every quality ball produced today is low spin off the driver.

This actually really pisses me off and confirms to me that this ball fitting at GG is crap. I just did it last week as part of a driver fitting and my results are identical ball to ball compared to yours. However my swing stats are significantly different: Swing speed 113+, Ball speed 167+, Launch 15*, Spin 2700.

 

How the hell can our results be identical with two drastically different swings. When I say identical I mean exact for each category from 1-12. I think we both got ripped off, oh well.

 

By the way, Titleist did not participate in the ball fitting software so you will not see any Pro V's. The sales guy told me Titleist thinks their balls are by far superior and there was no need for them to submit data.

My buddy went an hour after me and ProV1 showed as #4 for him.....tell your sales guy to brush on his facts.

I was watching someone at GG going through this fitting process, and the Callaway ix was his top ball too. Strange. Wish I could have seen the others.

Hmmm, interesting results...have u tried the top 4/5 balls yet and do you agree with the results?

BTW, why did they say that the computer is 20yds short? It looks about right with those stats...was it a vector?

A few things to clarify here guys. The ball fitting software was made based off of the ballistic results of each ball tested. (basically, shot out of a cannon type of deal and measured for all stats) The Pro V1 was not showing up for the OP because the person doing it did not select the Pro V1 as the "ball of choice" and with Titleist being the only one opting to NOT participate in this, it will not come up on the testing without being selected. With the way the test was run, the Callaway IX, TP Red, or Nike One Platinum will come up as the #1 ball 99% of the time. The Pro V1/V1x is 2-5 depending on the players numbers. Dick's made Golf Galaxy switch from the Vector to the purelaunch which is less accurate on mainly distance and sidespin. The SS, BS, and all the other numbers are reasonably close. I've done the ball fitting for myself and in my case, the TP Red was the best, then the IX, the the V1X. I play the callaway because I feel I can control it better. Hope this clears some things up, PM me if anyone has anything else on it. Milo

A few things to clarify here guys. The ball fitting software was made based off of the ballistic results of each ball tested. (basically, shot out of a cannon type of deal and measured for all stats) The Pro V1 was not showing up for the OP because the person doing it did not select the Pro V1 as the "ball of choice" and with Titleist being the only one opting to NOT participate in this, it will not come up on the testing without being selected. With the way the test was run, the Callaway IX, TP Red, or Nike One Platinum will come up as the #1 ball 99% of the time. The Pro V1/V1x is 2-5 depending on the players numbers. Dick's made Golf Galaxy switch from the Vector to the purelaunch which is less accurate on mainly distance and sidespin. The SS, BS, and all the other numbers are reasonably close. I've done the ball fitting for myself and in my case, the TP Red was the best, then the IX, the the V1X. I play the callaway because I feel I can control it better. Hope this clears some things up, PM me if anyone has anything else on it. Milo

Wish I had known that - I was trying to see where the V1 and V1x fit into my game......i may go back there and see what they say.

Thank you Milo for making it clear that Titleist did not want to participate in the testing. At the GG I work at we have really tried to make the new PureLaunch as accurate as possible. The problem is that software was formatted for outside fitting. It makes it hard when it's only reading anywhere from 12-15ft. Thankfully we have it pretty close to where we can count on almost all of the numbers that we get. However, distance as stated before can be a little off. Also, on the readings being the same...it's not your distance on there its the distance measured by the cannon, at least that's what I believe...

I tried the ball test with GG in January. My specs were

club speed 100, ball speed 138, avg dist 240, spin 3408

The top 3 distance balls recommended were

Top Flite D2 Distance

Top Flite D2 Straight

Srixon Soft

Top 3 accuracy balls recommended were

Titleist/Pro V1X 07

Nike/One Platinum

Titleist/Pro V1 07

I did the GG ball test also... the Cally Tour i/x ball was my top ball of overall choice, but in my top four were:

1.Cally Tour ix

2.Slazenger Black

3.Cally HX Hot

4.Nike One Black.

The ball I'm currently using is Bridgestone E6+ was #5

Using Nike Sumo2 9.5 Degree Driver

Club SS = 91mph

Ball Speed = 128

Launch Angle = 17*

Ball Spin = 3206rpm

Holy Bat Phone!!!

I got the same dadgum results! That GG fitting seems a little suspect. My results came out Tour ix first. The guy said Titleist would not participate in their ball test because they use their own proprietary fitting system.

I went because I wanted to see how four of my drivers performed and I wanted to know if I would gain anything launch wise by using the v1x versus the v1 (which I had just bought a dozen there 2 days before at $36.99 a dozen.) I ended up quitting early with just the ball fitting. I quickly saw that there was some skullduggery a foot with this fitting. I know that some people like to overstate their distances on forums, but let me assure you that I have been humbled a little since I started tracking my shots with my skycaddie 2.5) BUT, having said that, I know my distances because I track them with GPS. The other day for example, I played a fairly short but challenging course and I used my 3 wood off most tees. I tracked every shot, and I play a little cut with that club. I had a couple I hit uphill into a slight breeze that marked about 228. I had several that were 240-247, which was the most prominent distance. I also had two that were 261 and 263. Funny enough, the skycaddie confirmed what I thought my average was which was about 242 with the 3 wood. Anyway, with my 10 degree ping TISI from 1999, my average club speed was a little over 105 with some 102's and a few 108 and 109's. One thing I knew not to do was swing really hard and try to puff my numbers. The one thing I question is the machine's ability to measure "smash factor" Since I have been a one planer, I have been getting much more out of all full shots as a rule because I am in the center of the clubface much more. Anyway, they had me with some total drives of a little over 271's with 109 swing speed, and I just question that a little. The carry with those was like 245! The guy did say don't get bent out of shape about the distances because it may be underestimating. I do think it was a tad, but I did learn that I needed a stiffer shaft than I have. I was wanting to check out the tour ix anyway, so I did buy a dozen!!! I returned the pro v's to get them!!

I will post a review ASAP;

Rock on

Noelsy

I had a ball fitting yesterday:

ball speed: 142 mph

launch angle :14.8

backspin: 2736 rpm

test club: hi bore xl

Top balls for overall performance:

Cally/Tour 1X

Nike One Black

Cally/Tour 1

Nike One Platinum

I asked for the Pro V1X results and it came up as #8 overall

In my opinion everyone SHOULD be suspect of this fitting process. Why? because the process is using extrapolations from pre-set data to determine what is going on instead of accurately measuring the actual different data points like swing speed, etc. For instance, smash factor is HUGE when we talk about ball speed, yet many measuring devices don't account for it because it is in itself typically extrapolated based upon measure swing speed to ball velocity.

Thus, when ball speed is used to determine swing speed (something that is normally done) an inaccurate correlation can easily be set. This inaccurate correlation can have a persons' swing speed inaccurately shown as being slower or faster than it actually is because the means for calculating this variable was based upon a predicted correlation between ball speed and swing speed. Since ball speed is impacted by other variables than just swing speed (such as smash factor, ball construction, measurement system, etc.) then the real data for swing speed might be off.

Ball spin is another data input that can produce erroneous results because it can affect direction and distance and thus it can make a player "look" like they need different equipment then they actually do. The fact is that different balls DO spin at different rates, and this is impacted by any number of variables. Some of these variables that affect ball spin are smash factor, angle of of impact (which may explain differences between golfers on feel), cover/mantle interaction, cover/mantle/core compressions and so forth.

Shaft and club face also affect ball speed and spin so when these "fittings" utilize ball speed and spin data inputs to determine swing speed, distance, and direction for a particular golfer these numbers not only may be inaccurate but they also become unstable predictors of what the golfer needs. If the individual data points of actual club head speed, shaft load/deflection, ball speed, ball spin, and actual distance traveled are not measured then an accurate fitting can not take place, instead you have a predictive "guess". Utilizing extrapolated variables to determine hard data is usually a quick way to get large error margins that become decreased accuracy measurements, and thus decreased usefulness.

Heck, even ball spin can be an extrapolated data point because often only the "initial" ball spin is being "measured". The spin rate could theoretically change due to how, and by how much the ball was compressed along with the construction of the ball so that spin rate could increase or decrease just after the measure point, thereby making the spin data inaccurate.

I personally have found the single camera Vector system that is used at my local Golf Smith to be THE most Unreliable and Inaccurate system out their as it consistently gave myself and a number of other golfers much lower distances than what we normally saw on the course. This mis-information is routinely used to "fit" people into club, shaft and ball selections.

For instance I have driven a number of 250-270 yrd short par 4 greens because that is what my average drive is (I get very little roll), but only get 190-200 yards average and ALWAYS a BIG slice on the Vector piece of junk. Heck, I have had my swing speed actually measured by three different radar systems that only measured club head speed and I was consistently between 102-112 (even the Speed Stik correlated with these readings) for good, solid swings but the Vector system consistently gave me down in the low 90's!

Just this past Sunday I went in to get shaft readings from the former owner of Pin Tracker, this is a guy who worked for Lamkin for 20 years and for Wilson for years before. He actually has equipment that measures shaft deflection and he knows and has various tour players' profiles in his data base. The measured data, via a special electronic sensor club, showed that my shaft deflection was 8+ inches and literally off of his chart (he says I swing at the ball like an animal even though I thought I was only swinging a little above medium for me).

My measured spec's showed that I loaded the shaft more that 18 out of the 20y tour profiles that he had with only Tommy Armour and one other PGA person having more shaft deflection. Even DL 3 had less shaft deflection, of course he hits it further due to better technique and a smoother, wider profile.

The point is that accurately measuring the actual data points is the only way to really know what is going on and the GG "fitting" program doesn't appear to do this. Instead it seems that GG's system uses correlated calculations based upon previous ball velocity test from a dissimilar firing mechanism (compared to a human golfer) to create a correlational data base for a kind of "profile matching" system. These profile matches are used to "predict" what the ball would most likely do and thus which ball "should" work best for the golfer based upon the hypothesized profile similarities. Obviously this system is not very accurate so you get one person with a 167mph ball speed hitting it the same distance and with the same ball spin and flight direction (deviation from target point) as a person with a 137mph ball speed!

Unfortunately, due to the fact that most people misconstrue correlation with causation it is entirely probable that when the system does accurately estimate the distance, ball spin and flight direction characteristics of some percentage of golfers tested that it will blind people to the actual inaccuracies of the system. It would be very interesting to do a study and verify that the "p" value actually shows significant accuracy throughout a well selected sample population, or at least know what the sample and test margin errors actually are.

My guess is that the GG fitting system being mentioned would prove to NOT be significantly accurate in a larger sample pool and the experiences of people here already point to that possibility.

I did this at GG back in January and my top ball was Top Flite D2 Spin or something like that, the guy told me he fully expected that ball to show up because it is "a great ball" and it fits a lot of people looking for a premium ball. Anybody actually used these balls?