Best Driver of 2019 | Full Article _HERE_ | Discussion Thread _HERE_

**** Ball Test - General Discussion

1202122232426»

Comments

  • Carolina Golfer 2Carolina Golfer 2 Members Posts: 9,204 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @GoGoErky said:

    @rwbloom93 said:

    @mmack067 said:
    Imagine ignoring all of their report because you hit a bunch of balls in a field with no real way to measure anything

    ...or how about this..... A golfer ignoring real life results from their own personal tests in favor of what an article says is the best ball for you (distance) based on a robot swing.

    Or how about they and many have said play what you want and what works for you. And they are putting out information to help people make decisions on what to try.

    Nobody cares what someone else plays or why. You have your methods and that works for your decision making progress. They worked with industry experts to develop a study, used an independent facility and posted the raw data.

    You don’t like the data or don’t believe it fine. At the end of the day no one is hurt by not accepting the data and choosing their own method. But at the same time saying one testing is better than the other is a little silly when one is based purely on on a persons swing and the numerous variabl associated with that swing compared to one that had less variables

    And not to mention. One of the key takeaways from that study that not many people are mentioning, pick a ball you like and play it exclusively. That more than anything will help you get better results.

    Titleist TS1 10.5 Fubuki 45g Sr Flex
    PING G410 FW SFT 3, 7 and  G410 9 
    PING G410 Hybrid 5 
    PING G700 6-W KBS Alta CB R
    Vokey  50.10, 54.10 58..12
    Scotty Cameron Phantom 5.5 

  • GoGoErkyGoGoErky Members Posts: 1,652 ✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @Carolina Golfer 2 said:

    @GoGoErky said:

    @rwbloom93 said:

    @mmack067 said:
    Imagine ignoring all of their report because you hit a bunch of balls in a field with no real way to measure anything

    ...or how about this..... A golfer ignoring real life results from their own personal tests in favor of what an article says is the best ball for you (distance) based on a robot swing.

    Or how about they and many have said play what you want and what works for you. And they are putting out information to help people make decisions on what to try.

    Nobody cares what someone else plays or why. You have your methods and that works for your decision making progress. They worked with industry experts to develop a study, used an independent facility and posted the raw data.

    You don’t like the data or don’t believe it fine. At the end of the day no one is hurt by not accepting the data and choosing their own method. But at the same time saying one testing is better than the other is a little silly when one is based purely on on a persons swing and the numerous variabl associated with that swing compared to one that had less variables

    And not to mention. One of the key takeaways from that study that not many people are mentioning, pick a ball you like and play it exclusively. That more than anything will help you get better results.

    Exactly. No need to justify why one plays what they play. Enjoy the game and as long as you aren’t hurting anyone or slowing down the course play what makes you happy

  • nsxguynsxguy Just anudder user FloridaMembers Posts: 5,983 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @Red4282 said:

    @nsxguy said:

    @Red4282 said:

    @nsxguy said:

    @Red4282 said:

    @nsxguy said:

    @Red4282 said:

    @nsxguy said:

    @Red4282 said:

    @rwbloom93 said:

    I think you need to look at this way: potential distance. Ball A was longer than ball B on a robot, but not for you. Ball A will always be longer than ball B given both are given optimum launch and spin.
    Golfers may not be able to acheive optimum stats whether its due to swing or equipment. But A will always have a higher ceiling.

    I do look at it that way, we agree....and since 99.99% (hyperbole) of golfers can't achieve optimum the majority of the time, it's important to find balls that maximize each individuals flawed tendencies....robot testing can't do that.... so the info only helps 0.001% of golfers. How is that valuable?

    My human testing has identified mid compression balls are my best chance to maximize performance. If I had a better (and faster) swing I would play the higher compression V1x or B X....but those balls suck for me off the driver even though the robot says they should be best (for distance).

    Where do you get 99.99% of golfers cant achieve optimum numbers? That is a crazy assumption that is not based in facts. Id say anyone under a 20 handicap is easily capable of reaching near optimal numbers with a proper club and ball fitting (By optimal #s we are talking 10–14 deg launch with 2000-2600 rpms with a driver). These numbers would definitely see the benefits of extra ball speed. Not sure how much of a % of the golfing population that is, but id bet its not .001 %.

    "the majority of the time"

    C'mon Red. If you're gonna argue with the guy's best guess which, IMO, is exactly right (as stated), at least argue with his entire point.

    Im not even sure what you are talking about.... i was arguing his entire point. The only way his statement of 99% could be remotely accurate is if you include people like my wife in your stats- who picks up a golf club once every 3 years. In that case you can play a 40 year old ball and it wont mean diddly. If you can swing 85+ miles an hour and have SOMEWHAT decent mechanics- you would see the benefits from added ball speed provided you are fit right for your equipment.

    HE said "and since 99.99% (hyperbole) of golfers can't achieve optimum numbers the majority of the time"

    YOU said "Where do you get 99.99% of golfers cant achieve optimum numbers"

    So,,,,,,,,,,, he said they (99.99%) can't get optimum numbers the MAJORITY of the time. Optimum, as in "BEST". Not even the PROS hit the BEST/"PERFECT" numbers the majority of the time. And amateurs certainly don't. Every now and then, sure, but the "majority of the time" ? No chance.

    Well by no means did i say they can reach the most optimum number possible. I clearly gave a window- which is obtainable. It doesnt matter either way as the benefits of the faster ball speed dont need an absolute perfect optimum number- just needs to be reasonable and within that window.

    I didn't say anyone needs absolute perfection. I simply pointed out the guy was right although a tiny bit low (LOL).

    We can argue all day what the optimum numbers are for a driver, 5 iron, PW, taking into account the type of shot the player is hitting, as in high driver dead downwind or lower punch type shot into a wind, as each would have their own "optimum numbers", but as you yourself alluded to, they're NOT going to GET "optimum numbers", especially not the majority of the time.

    You said yourself, and I quote, "Golfers may not be able to acheive optimum stats whether its due to swing or equipment."
    You're right. They can't. And that was the point.

    Comn man, you are reaching here... and they CAN reach them, but if they dont get fit then they wont. Its not a matter of can... but that doesn't disprove what im saying. If a player is launching his driver at 16 deg with 3500 rpms, he is losing distance to a driver that hits it 13 degrees at 2200 rpm. The slower ball speed ball may maximize your ill fitted driver... but end of the day its way worse overall than having the correct fitting with a faster ball. I guess if you just wanna be lazy and just play what ya got then ok. But everything about the MYgolfpies test is spot on. You can nuance your way around it if you like, more power to ya.

    Forget it. You my friend are the one being lazy,,,,,, as in you either just don't get it or just don't want to get it.
    I don't give a rats behind about that article/website.

    I'll try to type more slowly.

    The POINT is the guy said 99.99% of golfers don't generate OPTIMUM/BEST launch condition the majority of the time. YOU objected to that number.
    Point is, NOBODY generates the OPTIMUM launch/spin rates the majority of the time.
    THAT is my only point. Period. I don't care about the other site's articles or soft balls vs. hard ones.
    Can you hear me now ? (Don't bother answering - it's a rhetorical question)

    Ha. Ok you got me. Nobody produces EXACTLY on the number the absolute best optimum number possible the majority of the time. In a certain window yes...Happy? Ok great point made. It was a pointless point i must say, as it doesn't even matter in the greater conversation we were having... but ok. Congrats. Some dudes just wanna argue to argue i guess.

    I'm not UNhappy. But I wasn't trying to "get you".

    It appeared as though you were trying to "get" the guy you quoted when you said "Where do you get 99.99% of golfers cant achieve optimum numbers? That is a crazy assumption that is not based in facts. Id say anyone under a 20 handicap is easily capable of reaching near optimal numbers with a proper club and ball fitting"

    "the majority of the time" was quite a significant oversight.

    Had you not ignored "majority of the time", I wouldn't have even bothered. I'd also suggest your "windows" for best performance (BOLDED ABOVE) are a fair bit too narrow, especially for lower swing speeds. You didn't mention the player's swing speed which, of course, affects what his/her optimum numbers would be.

    Enjoy your day.

    Callaway Epic 10.5 Project X Hzrdus Yellow 63 gr, 6.0
    Adams A12 Pro hybrids, 16*, Aldila VS Proto Stiff
    Ping G400 19* hybrid Stiff 70 Stock shaft

    Ping G20, 5-PW, DGS300
    Ping Glide Forged 48*, 52* 56*, 60* DGS300
    Taylormade Tour Spider Black (Today - always subject to change LOL)
    Titleist AVX
  • grm24grm24 Western PAMembers Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Sep 4, 2019 6:00am #755

    Hmm. Not a fan of M G S but it appears Callaway is going to be spending a ton of money ($50 million) to fix issues with their golf ball manufacturing and issues with non centered cores. Will be interesting to follow.

    https://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2019/9/3/callaway-investing-50-million-into-its-ball-plant-after-****-exposes-issues

    Youtube Video on the subject.

  • GoGoErkyGoGoErky Members Posts: 1,652 ✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @grm24 said:
    Hmm. Not a fan of M G S but it appears Callaway is going to be spending a ton of money ($50 million) to fix issues with their golf ball manufacturing and issues with non centered cores. Will be interesting to follow.

    https://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2019/9/3/callaway-investing-50-million-into-its-ball-plant-after-****-exposes-issues

    Youtube Video on the subject.

    So much for the Callaway statement “we are going to produce the results of our own testing and show that your data is wrong”

  • MyherobobhopeMyherobobhope hey there, blimpy boy. Flying through the sky so fancy free. Members Posts: 2,368 ✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @GoGoErky said:

    @Carolina Golfer 2 said:

    @GoGoErky said:

    @rwbloom93 said:

    @mmack067 said:
    Imagine ignoring all of their report because you hit a bunch of balls in a field with no real way to measure anything

    ...or how about this..... A golfer ignoring real life results from their own personal tests in favor of what an article says is the best ball for you (distance) based on a robot swing.

    Or how about they and many have said play what you want and what works for you. And they are putting out information to help people make decisions on what to try.

    Nobody cares what someone else plays or why. You have your methods and that works for your decision making progress. They worked with industry experts to develop a study, used an independent facility and posted the raw data.

    You don’t like the data or don’t believe it fine. At the end of the day no one is hurt by not accepting the data and choosing their own method. But at the same time saying one testing is better than the other is a little silly when one is based purely on on a persons swing and the numerous variabl associated with that swing compared to one that had less variables

    And not to mention. One of the key takeaways from that study that not many people are mentioning, pick a ball you like and play it exclusively. That more than anything will help you get better results.

    Exactly. No need to justify why one plays what they play. Enjoy the game and as long as you aren’t hurting anyone or slowing down the course play what makes you happy

    I’m committed to playing one ball... I like to think it’s helped my game.

    Current Bag (Rebuilding as of 5/6/19)
    Driver: Adams Fast 12 LS with Matrix Black Tie (to be replaced)
    3W: Adams Fast 12 with Excalibur (to be replaced)
    Hybrid: Bridgestone j40 with Excalibur (to be replaced)
    4-9: Taylor Made Oversize (to be replaced)
    PW: Mizuon HMP with DG120 Stiff (5/6)
    50 degree Vokey with DG120 Stiff (5/6)
    56 and 60 degree Cleveland Wedges (to be replaced)
    Odyssey Tank #7 (only club I'm keeping this season)

  • MKPAPAMKPAPA Long Beach, CaliforniaClubWRX Posts: 498 ClubWRX

    RZN still can't be beat why why why

    i'm playing nike everything till i'm not

  • rwbloom93rwbloom93 Members Posts: 20 ✭✭

    @GoGoErky said:

    Youtube Video on the subject.

    So much for the Callaway statement “we are going to produce the results of our own testing and show that your data is wrong”

    I didn't watch the 20 minute video so my comments may be off base but I think there are two different issues....(1) ball performance in general (engineering) and (2) quality control (manufacturing).

    I don't think Callaway has agreed their ball (Chrome soft x) is inferior from the engineering standpoint (...and will supposedly show at some future date) but have obviously acknowledged a manufacturing issue (Thus the 50 million dollar investment).

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file