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

Bridgestone Ball B330 Equivalences

OrlokOrlok ArgentinaMembers Posts: 34 ✭✭
edited Sep 9, 2019 11:08am in Golf Balls #1

(1)
I am a HUGE fan of Bridgestone B330 balls. So far, I have tried all the B330 series and I would like to understand the equivalences with current balls.
B330 Series: 330 / 330S / 330RX / 330RXS
Current balls: BX / BXS / BRX / BRXS
My understanding is:
330 = BX
330S = BXS
330RX = BRX
330RXS = BRXS
Is this correct?

(2)
Regarding B330 series, according to Bridgestone if swing speed > 105 mph I should use 330 or 330S and if swing speed is < 105 mph I should use 330RX and 330RXS. So far, my swing speed is > 105 mph, but I feel that the 330RX is way better in terms of both fly and distance than the base 330. Am I missing something or losing some extra distance with this pick?

Driver - Ping G410 Plus 10.0° - Project X EvenFlow Black 75
3 Wood - Ping G410 Plus 14.5° - Project X EvenFlow Black 85
2 Iron - Titleist T-MB 718 17° - True Temper AMT Tour White S300
4-PW - Titleist AP2 718 - True Temper AMT Tour White S300
Wedges - TaylorMade Hi-Toe 52°/56°/60°
Putter - Oddysey White Ice
Ball - Bridgestone B330 RX

Comments

  • MahamiltoMahamilto NYCMembers Posts: 1,957 ✭✭✭✭✭✭

    Correct on the comparisons model to model.

    I have been playing the Tour BX all season, but demoed the RX against it head to head this weekend. Played most shots with each ball from same spots. 115 driver swing speed as reference. Mid-high launch, mid-high spin.

    I found the BX to be superior in every single aspect. It was 15 yards longer on average, due to visibly less spin and higher ball speed. The RX ballooned several times, and had less rollout. Both balls were equally “straight”. I found zero difficulty controlling the X, and the RX wasn’t any less sidespin on a poor drive.

    The iron distances were spot on with the BX, with plenty of spin to hold fast greens I played. This was a huge difference vs the RX, which 2 times flew a green for no apparent reason (probably came out with way too little spin). The RX also didn’t hold on a 7-iron up a hill, when the BX stopped within 10 feet on similar struck shot.

    From 50-70 yards, balls were actually closer in performance, but the X clearly spun more and came out lower. I preferred the X here, but the difference was minimal.

    Greenside (under 20 yards) the differences again became ENORMOUS. The X had every shot. I could hit it with spin and hop and stop dead. I could control the rollout. Ball was on a string. The RX spun ok, but I could not get it to stop dead for the life of me. It just didn’t have that extra gear of spin that the X had on command.

    Feel was nice for both. Maybe the RX was softer, but the difference was less than you think. The X is actually very soft considering it’s compression. It’s significantly less clicky than a ProV1x.

    The X was the clear winner. I actually didn’t even like the RX. To compare, I played the AVX in the past, and the AVX was hands down better than the RX. The RX and AVX are similar with low spin on irons (which I don’t love), but the AVX is much lower launching and longer off driver than the RX, with more greenside spin.

    The BX is just a different class of golfball IMO

    Titleist TS3 - 9.75* - HZRDUS Smoke Black 6.5 (C1 Setting, STD Fade)
    Titleist U510 1-iron - HZRDUS Smoke Black 6.5
    Titleist 716 T-MB 3 and 4-iron - KBS C-Taper 130x
    Titleist 716 T-MB 5-9-iron - DG AMT x100
    Titleist 718 AP2 PW, 50* - DG AMT x100
    Titleist SM7 55* S-Grind - DG AMT x100
    Titleist SM3 60.07 - DG Tour Issue x100
    Evnroll ER6-B
    Bridgestone Tour B X
    Titleist Staff Stand Bag
  • MahamiltoMahamilto NYCMembers Posts: 1,957 ✭✭✭✭✭✭

    Beyond the above review, a recent “study” by mygolfespionage (change espionage to a three letter word with S) showed that the higher compression X was longer than the RX EVEN in the low swing speed groups. Just a heads up.

    Yes they used robot testing, but I doubt you would find less distance with the X unless the lower driver spin made it fall from the sky. If you need a bump in driver spin, try the XS (not RXS) too. I just have found the X and XS to be hands down better performers off irons and around the green.

    Titleist TS3 - 9.75* - HZRDUS Smoke Black 6.5 (C1 Setting, STD Fade)
    Titleist U510 1-iron - HZRDUS Smoke Black 6.5
    Titleist 716 T-MB 3 and 4-iron - KBS C-Taper 130x
    Titleist 716 T-MB 5-9-iron - DG AMT x100
    Titleist 718 AP2 PW, 50* - DG AMT x100
    Titleist SM7 55* S-Grind - DG AMT x100
    Titleist SM3 60.07 - DG Tour Issue x100
    Evnroll ER6-B
    Bridgestone Tour B X
    Titleist Staff Stand Bag
  • OrlokOrlok ArgentinaMembers Posts: 34 ✭✭

    @Mahamilto said:
    Correct on the comparisons model to model.

    I have been playing the Tour BX all season, but demoed the RX against it head to head this weekend. Played most shots with each ball from same spots. 115 driver swing speed as reference. Mid-high launch, mid-high spin.

    I found the BX to be superior in every single aspect. It was 15 yards longer on average, due to visibly less spin and higher ball speed. The RX ballooned several times, and had less rollout. Both balls were equally “straight”. I found zero difficulty controlling the X, and the RX wasn’t any less sidespin on a poor drive.

    The iron distances were spot on with the BX, with plenty of spin to hold fast greens I played. This was a huge difference vs the RX, which 2 times flew a green for no apparent reason (probably came out with way too little spin). The RX also didn’t hold on a 7-iron up a hill, when the BX stopped within 10 feet on similar struck shot.

    From 50-70 yards, balls were actually closer in performance, but the X clearly spun more and came out lower. I preferred the X here, but the difference was minimal.

    Greenside (under 20 yards) the differences again became ENORMOUS. The X had every shot. I could hit it with spin and hop and stop dead. I could control the rollout. Ball was on a string. The RX spun ok, but I could not get it to stop dead for the life of me. It just didn’t have that extra gear of spin that the X had on command.

    Feel was nice for both. Maybe the RX was softer, but the difference was less than you think. The X is actually very soft considering it’s compression. It’s significantly less clicky than a ProV1x.

    The X was the clear winner. I actually didn’t even like the RX. To compare, I played the AVX in the past, and the AVX was hands down better than the RX. The RX and AVX are similar with low spin on irons (which I don’t love), but the AVX is much lower launching and longer off driver than the RX, with more greenside spin.

    The BX is just a different class of golfball IMO

    @Mahamilto said:
    Beyond the above review, a recent “study” by mygolfespionage (change espionage to a three letter word with S) showed that the higher compression X was longer than the RX EVEN in the low swing speed groups. Just a heads up.

    Yes they used robot testing, but I doubt you would find less distance with the X unless the lower driver spin made it fall from the sky. If you need a bump in driver spin, try the XS (not RXS) too. I just have found the X and XS to be hands down better performers off irons and around the green.

    Thank you very much for your clear explanation! Extremely helpful! I will definetely try the BX! I wonder if the plain B330 performs similar to the BX. I do not know if the 330 to B series evolution was just marketing or there was a massive engineering improvement! Thx again!

    Driver - Ping G410 Plus 10.0° - Project X EvenFlow Black 75
    3 Wood - Ping G410 Plus 14.5° - Project X EvenFlow Black 85
    2 Iron - Titleist T-MB 718 17° - True Temper AMT Tour White S300
    4-PW - Titleist AP2 718 - True Temper AMT Tour White S300
    Wedges - TaylorMade Hi-Toe 52°/56°/60°
    Putter - Oddysey White Ice
    Ball - Bridgestone B330 RX

  • MahamiltoMahamilto NYCMembers Posts: 1,957 ✭✭✭✭✭✭

    Maybe I can help there too... I briefly played the B330 when it was out. To me the BX is a better ball for several reasons.

    1) The B330 was outstanding off driver for me. Great flight window, very low spin, very controllable. The BX is the exact same ball, and feels a tad softer, which I prefer. That said, I never hit them side by side, so I can't be sure its softer, I just remember the B330 feeling firm. Advantage: Push, maybe BX.

    2) The B330 was decent on irons, but honestly I would have wanted a tad more spin in the middle of my bag. The BX has that spin in the 5-7i that I felt the BX lacked. Again, I remember the B330 being firm off irons, where somehow the BX feels like butter for an "X" ball. Advantage: BX for sure.

    3) Wedges and green side is the biggest difference between the two. The B330 was pretty good, but the BX has another gear from inside 50. I can hit shots that make me look like a tour star with the BX; Low trajectory, hit, bounce forward, and then like a bean back just sits. My playing partners regularly comment on it. I can do this with a ProV1, or ProV1x, but as I said in the first review, I don't have this bean bag drop spin with the RX, and I don't recall having it with the B330 either. The BX really is special here.

    Basically, it just comes down to "spin separation" that makes the BX so good. It is just so unbelievably low spinning off my driver and driving iron, but crazy high spinning off my wedges. The spin just slopes up perfectly as it goes thru the bag. This is where it clearly beats a ball like the ProV1x for me, which spins too much off driver. Its also longer than the ProV1 for me, and a bit more controllable. I feel the ProV1 can get really get some extra curvature on driver when I am not on my game, the BX helps cover my miss up a bit. How they did this? I really don't know. The BX likes to go straight.

    Titleist TS3 - 9.75* - HZRDUS Smoke Black 6.5 (C1 Setting, STD Fade)
    Titleist U510 1-iron - HZRDUS Smoke Black 6.5
    Titleist 716 T-MB 3 and 4-iron - KBS C-Taper 130x
    Titleist 716 T-MB 5-9-iron - DG AMT x100
    Titleist 718 AP2 PW, 50* - DG AMT x100
    Titleist SM7 55* S-Grind - DG AMT x100
    Titleist SM3 60.07 - DG Tour Issue x100
    Evnroll ER6-B
    Bridgestone Tour B X
    Titleist Staff Stand Bag
  • OrlokOrlok ArgentinaMembers Posts: 34 ✭✭

    @Mahamilto said:
    Maybe I can help there too... I briefly played the B330 when it was out. To me the BX is a better ball for several reasons.

    1) The B330 was outstanding off driver for me. Great flight window, very low spin, very controllable. The BX is the exact same ball, and feels a tad softer, which I prefer. That said, I never hit them side by side, so I can't be sure its softer, I just remember the B330 feeling firm. Advantage: Push, maybe BX.

    2) The B330 was decent on irons, but honestly I would have wanted a tad more spin in the middle of my bag. The BX has that spin in the 5-7i that I felt the BX lacked. Again, I remember the B330 being firm off irons, where somehow the BX feels like butter for an "X" ball. Advantage: BX for sure.

    3) Wedges and green side is the biggest difference between the two. The B330 was pretty good, but the BX has another gear from inside 50. I can hit shots that make me look like a tour star with the BX; Low trajectory, hit, bounce forward, and then like a bean back just sits. My playing partners regularly comment on it. I can do this with a ProV1, or ProV1x, but as I said in the first review, I don't have this bean bag drop spin with the RX, and I don't recall having it with the B330 either. The BX really is special here.

    Basically, it just comes down to "spin separation" that makes the BX so good. It is just so unbelievably low spinning off my driver and driving iron, but crazy high spinning off my wedges. The spin just slopes up perfectly as it goes thru the bag. This is where it clearly beats a ball like the ProV1x for me, which spins too much off driver. Its also longer than the ProV1 for me, and a bit more controllable. I feel the ProV1 can get really get some extra curvature on driver when I am not on my game, the BX helps cover my miss up a bit. How they did this? I really don't know. The BX likes to go straight.

    Amazing feedback again! I will definitely try the BX. The idea of having a long & straigth ball off the tee and a great spin with mid-long irons is great! That's the kind of combination I couldn't find on any other golf ball (totally agree with you that the V1X spins too much off driver).

    Driver - Ping G410 Plus 10.0° - Project X EvenFlow Black 75
    3 Wood - Ping G410 Plus 14.5° - Project X EvenFlow Black 85
    2 Iron - Titleist T-MB 718 17° - True Temper AMT Tour White S300
    4-PW - Titleist AP2 718 - True Temper AMT Tour White S300
    Wedges - TaylorMade Hi-Toe 52°/56°/60°
    Putter - Oddysey White Ice
    Ball - Bridgestone B330 RX

  • MBBGMBBG South of ChicagolandMembers Posts: 1,558 ✭✭✭✭✭✭

    I loved the 2016 B330RX. Played it for the most part for 3 seasons. But after playing a dozen of the new B RX, it seems like a big step backwards for me. Moved on to TP5 and TP5X.

    Liked the B XS, haven’t played the B X. The old B330 was always a little firmer than I preferred.

    S Yard T.388 Kuro Kage Dual Core TiNi 
    TaylorMade Original One 13.5* HZRDUS Green
    Titleist TS2 16.5* Kuro Kage XM
    Mizuno MP-20 HMB 3-6 MP-20 Blade 7-P DG AMT
    Mizuno T20 50 and 55 S400 TI 
    Callaway PM Grind 60
    PXG Operator LTD Edition “Darkness”
  • rwbloom93rwbloom93 Members Posts: 25 ✭✭

    @Mahamilto said:
    Beyond the above review, a recent “study” by mygolfespionage (change espionage to a three letter word with S) showed that the higher compression X was longer than the RX EVEN in the low swing speed groups. Just a heads up.

    Yes they used robot testing, but I doubt you would find less distance with the X unless the lower driver spin made it fall from the sky. If you need a bump in driver spin, try the XS (not RXS) too. I just have found the X and XS to be hands down better performers off irons and around the green.

    Robot testing isn't applicable for my swing. I play the Tour BXS, RX, and RXS with similar results. The Tour BX is super short off the driver for me and all clubs in the bag. It's the only Bridgestone ball I don't get good results with including the e12 and e6 (extra soft).

  • monks66monks66 Members Posts: 727 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I started playing the BRX, really like it from tee to green...want to try the BX cuz of low spin off driver and long irons, for thos who have played both, is it a lot harder then the BRX? BRX is at the line of firmness for me

  • arbeckarbeck SeattleMembers Posts: 490 ✭✭✭✭

    @rwbloom93 said:

    @Mahamilto said:
    Beyond the above review, a recent “study” by mygolfespionage (change espionage to a three letter word with S) showed that the higher compression X was longer than the RX EVEN in the low swing speed groups. Just a heads up.

    Yes they used robot testing, but I doubt you would find less distance with the X unless the lower driver spin made it fall from the sky. If you need a bump in driver spin, try the XS (not RXS) too. I just have found the X and XS to be hands down better performers off irons and around the green.

    Robot testing isn't applicable for my swing. I play the Tour BXS, RX, and RXS with similar results. The Tour BX is super short off the driver for me and all clubs in the bag. It's the only Bridgestone ball I don't get good results with including the e12 and e6 (extra soft).

    Robot testing is applicable for any swing when it comes to a ball. If a ball has more ball speed for a robot, it will have more ball speed for you. If it launches higher for a robot it will launch higher for you. If it spins more for a robot, it will spin more for you. Anecdotal human testing is almost worthless, a single human can almost never hit enough balls to weed out noise. These balls are all going to fly within a handful of yards of each other, with variance of strike, landing conditions, atmospheric conditions, and everything else you're never going to say one ball is significantly longer. You're going to have to hit 100's of balls on a launch monitor to make a definitive statement.

    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
  • arbeckarbeck SeattleMembers Posts: 490 ✭✭✭✭

    @monks66 said:
    I started playing the BRX, really like it from tee to green...want to try the BX cuz of low spin off driver and long irons, for thos who have played both, is it a lot harder then the BRX? BRX is at the line of firmness for me

    The BX is a lot harder than the BRX. It also is going to spin quite a bit more off irons and wedges. Depending on your swing speed, you're also going to pick up ball speed with it.

    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
  • MahamiltoMahamilto NYCMembers Posts: 1,957 ✭✭✭✭✭✭

    On a compression scale, the X is significantly harder than the RX. No doubts or arguments. But to me, the RX is marginally softer than the X when played side by side. Maybe I just compress the X well? I can't tell you, but the RX was by no means chrome soft type feeling, and I played the chrome soft for 2 years previously.

    The BX definitively spins more off irons and wedges, and yes, you should get more ball speed off long clubs (at least).

    I don't know how they managed it, but the BX clearly spun less than the RX (again, for me) off driver. Amazing difference actually. I hit a few with the RX that even ballooned; something that NEVER happened with the X even straight into the wind.

    To the person saying the BX was short for them, you may just be a very low spin player with the driver and its not spinning enough to stay airborne. The BX is notoriously low spinning with driver, and if you are dropping ur spin number too low, and your launch isn't very high, it will certainly fall out of the sky and lose yards.

    @arbeck said:

    @monks66 said:
    I started playing the BRX, really like it from tee to green...want to try the BX cuz of low spin off driver and long irons, for thos who have played both, is it a lot harder then the BRX? BRX is at the line of firmness for me

    The BX is a lot harder than the BRX. It also is going to spin quite a bit more off irons and wedges. Depending on your swing speed, you're also going to pick up ball speed with it.

    Titleist TS3 - 9.75* - HZRDUS Smoke Black 6.5 (C1 Setting, STD Fade)
    Titleist U510 1-iron - HZRDUS Smoke Black 6.5
    Titleist 716 T-MB 3 and 4-iron - KBS C-Taper 130x
    Titleist 716 T-MB 5-9-iron - DG AMT x100
    Titleist 718 AP2 PW, 50* - DG AMT x100
    Titleist SM7 55* S-Grind - DG AMT x100
    Titleist SM3 60.07 - DG Tour Issue x100
    Evnroll ER6-B
    Bridgestone Tour B X
    Titleist Staff Stand Bag
  • MahamiltoMahamilto NYCMembers Posts: 1,957 ✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @MBBG said:
    I loved the 2016 B330RX. Played it for the most part for 3 seasons. But after playing a dozen of the new B RX, it seems like a big step backwards for me. Moved on to TP5 and TP5X.

    Liked the B XS, haven’t played the B X. The old B330 was always a little firmer than I preferred.

    The RX was a dud for me to be completely honest. The BX feels softer than the old B330... give it a shot!

    Titleist TS3 - 9.75* - HZRDUS Smoke Black 6.5 (C1 Setting, STD Fade)
    Titleist U510 1-iron - HZRDUS Smoke Black 6.5
    Titleist 716 T-MB 3 and 4-iron - KBS C-Taper 130x
    Titleist 716 T-MB 5-9-iron - DG AMT x100
    Titleist 718 AP2 PW, 50* - DG AMT x100
    Titleist SM7 55* S-Grind - DG AMT x100
    Titleist SM3 60.07 - DG Tour Issue x100
    Evnroll ER6-B
    Bridgestone Tour B X
    Titleist Staff Stand Bag
  • rwbloom93rwbloom93 Members Posts: 25 ✭✭

    @Mahamilto said:

    To the person saying the BX was short for them, you may just be a very low spin player with the driver and its not spinning enough to stay airborne. The BX is notoriously low spinning with driver, and if you are dropping ur spin number too low, and your launch isn't very high, it will certainly fall out of the sky and lose yards.

    I play a block/draw (85 mph) off the driver (ball closer to center of stance, negative AOA) which produces a medium ball flight and I control it well...I hit a lot of fairways but have long second shots..... I assumed the negative AOA created spin so I set my JPX900 to the lowest spin setting. When I hit the high compression balls (TourB X, V1x, Z-Star VX, etc...) the carry distance is a disappointment (compared to mr. robot). I generally max my distance with the "mid" compression balls (TourSoft, Project (a), RX. RXS, Q-star Tour) and actually was hitting some long drives with a Titleist DT Trusoft. Next time I hit with the B X or V1x I will change the club loft angle and spin setting and see what happens. Thx

  • monks66monks66 Members Posts: 727 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @arbeck said:

    @monks66 said:
    I started playing the BRX, really like it from tee to green...want to try the BX cuz of low spin off driver and long irons, for thos who have played both, is it a lot harder then the BRX? BRX is at the line of firmness for me

    The BX is a lot harder than the BRX. It also is going to spin quite a bit more off irons and wedges. Depending on your swing speed, you're also going to pick up ball speed with it.

    i just dont have the swing speed to make the X not feel so firm. I will stick to BRX, and will be happy

  • rwbloom93rwbloom93 Members Posts: 25 ✭✭

    @arbeck said:

    @rwbloom93 said:

    @Mahamilto said:
    Beyond the above review, a recent “study” by mygolfespionage (change espionage to a three letter word with S) showed that the higher compression X was longer than the RX EVEN in the low swing speed groups. Just a heads up.

    Yes they used robot testing, but I doubt you would find less distance with the X unless the lower driver spin made it fall from the sky. If you need a bump in driver spin, try the XS (not RXS) too. I just have found the X and XS to be hands down better performers off irons and around the green.

    Robot testing isn't applicable for my swing. I play the Tour BXS, RX, and RXS with similar results. The Tour BX is super short off the driver for me and all clubs in the bag. It's the only Bridgestone ball I don't get good results with including the e12 and e6 (extra soft).

    Robot testing is applicable for any swing when it comes to a ball. If a ball has more ball speed for a robot, it will have more ball speed for you. If it launches higher for a robot it will launch higher for you. If it spins more for a robot, it will spin more for you. Anecdotal human testing is almost worthless, a single human can almost never hit enough balls to weed out noise. These balls are all going to fly within a handful of yards of each other, with variance of strike, landing conditions, atmospheric conditions, and everything else you're never going to say one ball is significantly longer. You're going to have to hit 100's of balls on a launch monitor to make a definitive statement.

    The robot test I assume is set up like the following for the driver:
    1) Square clubface hit (for whatever given speed)
    2) Positive AOA
    Based on that setup each ball will record data for speed, launch angle, spin, rotation axis, AOD, etc...which is used to reveal a carry distance....and let's say Ball "A" carries further than Ball "B" thru "Z".

    But, what if the robot is set up for the driver this way:
    1) Inside-out swing, with slightly closing clubface at impact, and toe center strike...(or outside-in, club opening at impact, heal-center strike)
    2) Negative AOA
    Based on this setup some of the Balls "B" thru "Z" may in fact carry further than Ball "A".

    My theory is golf ball results produced by a robot (and the way the robot was setup to strike the ball) are not applicable to the average golfer, because:
    1) the "average golfer" has a mostly a slice or fade....(or whatever, but not a pure square hit like the bot)
    2) the "average golfer" has a negative AOA for the driver (not a positive number like the bot)

    These two known facts make it easy to conclude robot testing is likely useless (although it is an interesting read, I rather enjoyed it.... but ultimately, its useless). The only thing that matters is your OWN human testing. **** However******, if you have data from robots that report ball results based on the most common golfer swing problems/errors I would love to see it!

  • MahamiltoMahamilto NYCMembers Posts: 1,957 ✭✭✭✭✭✭

    You are 100% right when it comes to carry/distance for the test. A certain ball may give very different carry distances due to the factors you just mentioned. I can tell you that I hit the AVX a tad longer with MY AVERAGE DRIVER than every single ball I have tested, including the Tour BX (my gamer), the TP5x, and both ProV1 models. With ~115ss, this shouldn't be the case given the data, but like many, my average swing isn't dead centered, has a neutral AOA, and produces a shot that is higher in both launch and spin than ideal. Therefore, the AVX does actually get me more distance.

    HOWEVER. The test is a great bench mark for ballspeed, launch, and spin. If a ball spins more with the robot, rest assured it will spin more for you. If a ball has a higher launch, its going to launch higher for you. This is where the test was a nice publication; for people who understand how the various characteristics of ball apply to their game.

    My ideal ball doesn't exist. I would love the launch and spin of the AVX, with a boost in ball speed, while having ProV1 spin around the green.

    What I found is the Bridgestone BX is as close as it comes to that... and that is why I play it.

    Titleist TS3 - 9.75* - HZRDUS Smoke Black 6.5 (C1 Setting, STD Fade)
    Titleist U510 1-iron - HZRDUS Smoke Black 6.5
    Titleist 716 T-MB 3 and 4-iron - KBS C-Taper 130x
    Titleist 716 T-MB 5-9-iron - DG AMT x100
    Titleist 718 AP2 PW, 50* - DG AMT x100
    Titleist SM7 55* S-Grind - DG AMT x100
    Titleist SM3 60.07 - DG Tour Issue x100
    Evnroll ER6-B
    Bridgestone Tour B X
    Titleist Staff Stand Bag
  • OrlokOrlok ArgentinaMembers Posts: 34 ✭✭
    edited Sep 11, 2019 2:15pm #18

    Something I would like to add is that average golfers tend to change the ball several times in shorts periods of time, even on on the same round. This sometimes affects the way a person judges the results of a specifc balls, since basically average golfers tend to also adapt their swing/chip/putt to their type of ball. This is where I believe robots provide a good direction to start analyzing your own stats, but the first step should be to just play one ball for long enough to really understand what's happening.

    Post edited by Orlok on

    Driver - Ping G410 Plus 10.0° - Project X EvenFlow Black 75
    3 Wood - Ping G410 Plus 14.5° - Project X EvenFlow Black 85
    2 Iron - Titleist T-MB 718 17° - True Temper AMT Tour White S300
    4-PW - Titleist AP2 718 - True Temper AMT Tour White S300
    Wedges - TaylorMade Hi-Toe 52°/56°/60°
    Putter - Oddysey White Ice
    Ball - Bridgestone B330 RX

  • arbeckarbeck SeattleMembers Posts: 490 ✭✭✭✭
    edited Sep 11, 2019 1:58pm #19

    @rwbloom93 said:
    The robot test I assume is set up like the following for the driver:
    1) Square clubface hit (for whatever given speed)
    2) Positive AOA
    Based on that setup each ball will record data for speed, launch angle, spin, rotation axis, AOD, etc...which is used to reveal a carry distance....and let's say Ball "A" carries further than Ball "B" thru "Z".

    But, what if the robot is set up for the driver this way:
    1) Inside-out swing, with slightly closing clubface at impact, and toe center strike...(or outside-in, club opening at impact, heal-center strike)
    2) Negative AOA
    Based on this setup some of the Balls "B" thru "Z" may in fact carry further than Ball "A".

    My theory is golf ball results produced by a robot (and the way the robot was setup to strike the ball) are not applicable to the average golfer, because:
    1) the "average golfer" has a mostly a slice or fade....(or whatever, but not a pure square hit like the bot)
    2) the "average golfer" has a negative AOA for the driver (not a positive number like the bot)

    These two known facts make it easy to conclude robot testing is likely useless (although it is an interesting read, I rather enjoyed it.... but ultimately, its useless). The only thing that matters is your OWN human testing. **** However******, if you have data from robots that report ball results based on the most common golfer swing problems/errors I would love to see it!

    Those factors are meaningless in regards to the numbers generated by the test. If ball A spins more for a positive angle of attack than ball B, it will also spin more with a negative angle of attack. You can't design a ball that magically spins less for the person with the negative AoA. You can't design a ball that somehow improves your launch conditions on a toe strike. You can't design a ball that works to stop a fade. (Maybe you could do these things if the USGA wasn't around, but you definitely can't within the current rules).

    Your swing is going to create certain launch conditions (ball speed, total spin, and spin axis). The robot testing tells you how those balls affect those three variables in a neutral setting. If you have a negative AoA you're probably going to be generating a ton of excess spin. You should be looking at one of the balls in the test with the lowest driver spin. The lowest spin ball in the test will also remove the most spin for you.

    If you happen to miss most often high toe, you most likely need a little extra spin protection, so you should be looking at some of the more higher spinning balls. Again, the highest spinning ball in the test will be the highest spinning ball for you no matter what your launch conditions.

    If you have a big slice, there's not a thing a ball can do to save you. Maybe you want something like the AVX that will launch lower and spin less to get it out of the sky and on the ground faster. But once again, just picking the lowest launch ball with the lowest spin is all you can do.

    There seems to be a misconception that balls react differently to different swings, and that's just not possible within the rules and the laws of physics. You can't make a ball that gains less spin as the spin loft of your driver increases. The lowest spinning ball for a high spin loft will be the lowest spinning ball for a low spin loft.

    In summary, the ball your player with the outside-in, open club face, negative angle attack swing needs is different that the ball that goes furthest for the robot. But if you were reading the ball test based on distance, you were already doing it wrong. That player should be looking for a ball that lowers launch and lowers spin, picking from the group of those balls that do that. Whereas I with my in-out swing, postive AoA, closed face, and propensity to miss on the toe need a ball with more driver spin to give me a buffer for when I get the low spin toe hook.

    The test gives you enough information to pick 4 or 5 balls that will suit your swing, you don't need a robot to be setup to swing like you to pick them. After that, it's mainly going to be feel, iron spin, and green side spin that matter. Your hypothetical amateur probably needs as much iron spin as possible. So they should be picking the highest spinning iron ball of that group. Since we know ball speed is related to firmness almost 1:1, they should then pick the firmest of those balls they can stand to play.

    Given a players swing, the test gives you all the information you'd need to pretty well fit them for a ball. It's always going to be better to get fit for a ball by hitting them. But that isn't something you can do by going to hit balls on the course. For a normal mid handicap player, they'd probably need an hour or more of just hitting shots on a launch monitor with two different balls to choose the best one. Maybe more if they were using an older Trackman indoors (and the number of amateurs who have access to an outdoor Trackman to hit different brands of balls is minuscule). Since most aren't going to get a real ball fit, being able to choose from 4-5 balls that will fit you pretty well is a huge advantage that we didn't have before this test.

    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
  • arbeckarbeck SeattleMembers Posts: 490 ✭✭✭✭

    @Mahamilto said:
    You are 100% right when it comes to carry/distance for the test. A certain ball may give very different carry distances due to the factors you just mentioned. I can tell you that I hit the AVX a tad longer with MY AVERAGE DRIVER than every single ball I have tested, including the Tour BX (my gamer), the TP5x, and both ProV1 models. With ~115ss, this shouldn't be the case given the data, but like many, my average swing isn't dead centered, has a neutral AOA, and produces a shot that is higher in both launch and spin than ideal. Therefore, the AVX does actually get me more distance.

    HOWEVER. The test is a great bench mark for ballspeed, launch, and spin. If a ball spins more with the robot, rest assured it will spin more for you. If a ball has a higher launch, its going to launch higher for you. This is where the test was a nice publication; for people who understand how the various characteristics of ball apply to their game.

    My ideal ball doesn't exist. I would love the launch and spin of the AVX, with a boost in ball speed, while having ProV1 spin around the green.

    What I found is the Bridgestone BX is as close as it comes to that... and that is why I play it.

    You sound like you might be the rare kind of person that the new V1x left dash fits.

    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
  • MahamiltoMahamilto NYCMembers Posts: 1,957 ✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @arbeck said:
    You sound like you might be the rare kind of person that the new V1x left dash fits.

    I kinda wondered the same thing, but really wonder about 2 aspects of that ball.
    1) How high is the launch going to be? One of the things I like about the AVX is I keep it much lower on driver than the V1x. I hit the Bridgestone Tour BX somewhere between these two, about the same trajectory as the standard ProV1, but with less spin and longer.

    2) Is the "left dash" going to maintain its greenside spin by being a higher compression ball with the same exact cover thickness/composition as the standard V1/V1x? Or will it act more like the AVX around the greens (where I much prefer the Bridgestone BX).

    But, knowing me, I will answer these someday when I inevitably try the left dash.

    Titleist TS3 - 9.75* - HZRDUS Smoke Black 6.5 (C1 Setting, STD Fade)
    Titleist U510 1-iron - HZRDUS Smoke Black 6.5
    Titleist 716 T-MB 3 and 4-iron - KBS C-Taper 130x
    Titleist 716 T-MB 5-9-iron - DG AMT x100
    Titleist 718 AP2 PW, 50* - DG AMT x100
    Titleist SM7 55* S-Grind - DG AMT x100
    Titleist SM3 60.07 - DG Tour Issue x100
    Evnroll ER6-B
    Bridgestone Tour B X
    Titleist Staff Stand Bag
  • arbeckarbeck SeattleMembers Posts: 490 ✭✭✭✭

    @Mahamilto said:

    @arbeck said:
    You sound like you might be the rare kind of person that the new V1x left dash fits.

    I kinda wondered the same thing, but really wonder about 2 aspects of that ball.
    1) How high is the launch going to be? One of the things I like about the AVX is I keep it much lower on driver than the V1x. I hit the Bridgestone Tour BX somewhere between these two, about the same trajectory as the standard ProV1, but with less spin and longer.

    2) Is the "left dash" going to maintain its greenside spin by being a higher compression ball with the same exact cover thickness/composition as the standard V1/V1x? Or will it act more like the AVX around the greens (where I much prefer the Bridgestone BX).

    But, knowing me, I will answer these someday when I inevitably try the left dash.

    My understanding is that it's going to have the same cover and firmness as the V1x and it's just going to lower driver and iron spin. The trajectory and spin will probably be slightly higher than the AVX. I can't imagine any tour pro giving up the green side spin and ball speed (and this was mainly a tour pro ball). From what I can see this ball is closer to the TP5x and BX than the current V1x.

    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
  • NRJyzrNRJyzr Allez Allez Allez Minnesota, USAMembers Posts: 6,607 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Sep 11, 2019 3:10pm #23

    @arbeck said:

    @rwbloom93 said:

    @Mahamilto said:
    Beyond the above review, a recent “study” by mygolfespionage (change espionage to a three letter word with S) showed that the higher compression X was longer than the RX EVEN in the low swing speed groups. Just a heads up.

    Yes they used robot testing, but I doubt you would find less distance with the X unless the lower driver spin made it fall from the sky. If you need a bump in driver spin, try the XS (not RXS) too. I just have found the X and XS to be hands down better performers off irons and around the green.

    Robot testing isn't applicable for my swing. I play the Tour BXS, RX, and RXS with similar results. The Tour BX is super short off the driver for me and all clubs in the bag. It's the only Bridgestone ball I don't get good results with including the e12 and e6 (extra soft).

    Robot testing is applicable for any swing when it comes to a ball. If a ball has more ball speed for a robot, it will have more ball speed for you. If it launches higher for a robot it will launch higher for you. If it spins more for a robot, it will spin more for you. Anecdotal human testing is almost worthless, a single human can almost never hit enough balls to weed out noise. These balls are all going to fly within a handful of yards of each other, with variance of strike, landing conditions, atmospheric conditions, and everything else you're never going to say one ball is significantly longer. You're going to have to hit 100's of balls on a launch monitor to make a definitive statement.

    There's only one caveat to what you say above, which is, the ballspeed/swingspeed relationship appears to not be linear when looking at compression. In the famous test data, there's a decent ballspeed gap at 115mph, but that gap diminishes when looking at the 7i swingspeed of a 115 DSS player. It narrows with the 85 driver swingspeed, puts them in the middle of the pack with the 85 DSS 7 iron speed, and that gap looks to reverse itself when you get to the 85 yard wedge shot, the softer balls showing faster ballspeeds than the firmer balls.

    This falls in line with some of the anecdotal comments over the years. Back in the Precept Lady/Laddie days, higher speed players (well north of 110mph) would report losing distance with these balls. Many in the 100-110 range, and of course lower than that, would not see that performance drop.

    It's an aspect of the test that doesn't seem to get a lot of notice, possibly due to being buried in the details.

    The Ever Changing Bag!

    Driver: Adams Fast 12 LS 9.5* set to 10.5*, Xcaliber T6+, TS, 44.25", D6
    3w:  Bridgestone J's Professional Weapon 14*, stock stiff, 42.5", D5
    1i:  Golden Ram Vibration Matched, DGS400
    3-PW:  Mizuno MP-37, DGS300
    GW:  Mizuno Pro 52*, DGS300
    SW:  Scratch 8620 58*, DGS400
    Putter: Cleveland Huntington Beach #1 35"
    Balls: in no particular order... Wilson Staff FG Tour, Duo Urethane/Professional, or 50 Elite, Srixon ZStar/ZStar XV, Snell MTB Black... will trot out Maxfli HT-100 or Elite 90 from time to time

    I've proven once again that anything over 44.5" or even 44.25" is a horrible fit for my tee game
  • arbeckarbeck SeattleMembers Posts: 490 ✭✭✭✭

    @NRJyzr said:

    There's only one caveat to what you say above, which is, the ballspeed/swingspeed relationship appears to not be linear when looking at compression. In the famous test data, there's a decent ballspeed gap at 115mph, but that gap diminishes when looking at the 7i swingspeed of a 115 DSS player. It narrows with the 85 driver swingspeed, puts them in the middle of the pack with the 85 DSS 7 iron speed, and that gap looks to reverse itself when you get to the 85 yard wedge shot, the softer balls showing faster ballspeeds than the firmer balls.

    This falls in line with some of the anecdotal comments over the years. Back in the Precept Lady/Laddie days, higher speed players (well north of 110mph) would report losing distance with these balls. Many in the 100-110 range, and of course lower than that, would not see that performance drop.

    It's an aspect of the test that doesn't seem to get a lot of notice, possibly due to being buried in the details.

    This is true, however I don't believe that you are truly seeing a reversal at the wedge shots, at least not one that would apply to irons and drivers at slow swing speeds. The high compression balls spin more and have a touch less ball speed (on average). The reason being is that spin is caused by friction on the club face. It's the soft cover being pinched against the firm mantle and sticking to the club face. That friction converts more of the energy of collision into spin instead of ball speed. The cover of the ball probably has more to do with the loss of ball speed here than anything else.

    The slower your swing speed, the less distance you'll give up off the driver by playing a softer ball. At some point 85MPH or below, any ball made will be firm enough for you to maximize ball speed. The inverse is not true (and everything I've heard from engineers who design balls backs this up). A harder ball (at least up to the hardness of any quality ball being made today) will not take away ball speed from anyone. At that point it's all about feel and every blind test done shows the majority of golfers like the way the softer ball feels. So I'd say to guys below 85MPH play any urethane covered ball you like the feel of. For most of us mortals in the 85-100MPH range, you should probably be playing balls in the 100 compression range. And when you start approaching PGA tour swing speed, start thinking about only playing the firmest balls.

    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
  • NRJyzrNRJyzr Allez Allez Allez Minnesota, USAMembers Posts: 6,607 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @arbeck said:

    @NRJyzr said:

    There's only one caveat to what you say above, which is, the ballspeed/swingspeed relationship appears to not be linear when looking at compression. In the famous test data, there's a decent ballspeed gap at 115mph, but that gap diminishes when looking at the 7i swingspeed of a 115 DSS player. It narrows with the 85 driver swingspeed, puts them in the middle of the pack with the 85 DSS 7 iron speed, and that gap looks to reverse itself when you get to the 85 yard wedge shot, the softer balls showing faster ballspeeds than the firmer balls.

    This falls in line with some of the anecdotal comments over the years. Back in the Precept Lady/Laddie days, higher speed players (well north of 110mph) would report losing distance with these balls. Many in the 100-110 range, and of course lower than that, would not see that performance drop.

    It's an aspect of the test that doesn't seem to get a lot of notice, possibly due to being buried in the details.

    This is true, however I don't believe that you are truly seeing a reversal at the wedge shots, at least not one that would apply to irons and drivers at slow swing speeds. The high compression balls spin more and have a touch less ball speed (on average). The reason being is that spin is caused by friction on the club face. It's the soft cover being pinched against the firm mantle and sticking to the club face. That friction converts more of the energy of collision into spin instead of ball speed. The cover of the ball probably has more to do with the loss of ball speed here than anything else.

    The slower your swing speed, the less distance you'll give up off the driver by playing a softer ball. At some point 85MPH or below, any ball made will be firm enough for you to maximize ball speed. The inverse is not true (and everything I've heard from engineers who design balls backs this up). A harder ball (at least up to the hardness of any quality ball being made today) will not take away ball speed from anyone. At that point it's all about feel and every blind test done shows the majority of golfers like the way the softer ball feels. So I'd say to guys below 85MPH play any urethane covered ball you like the feel of. For most of us mortals in the 85-100MPH range, you should probably be playing balls in the 100 compression range. And when you start approaching PGA tour swing speed, start thinking about only playing the firmest balls.

    I think you might have to get to 115 driver level before it starts to spread out. Again, personal theory based on a bit of extrapolation.
    TXG compared the ZStar XV to the Duo Urethane using Matt's swing. Admittedly, we're introducing human error, but I still find it interesting. Virtually no difference at Matt's speed with a 6 iron, and a total of 2mph and 5 yds with the driver. As opposed to the 3.5 mph difference between the two (or between the XV and the Duo Pro) in the famous Ball Test. Could be noise, of course. :)


    The Ever Changing Bag!

    Driver: Adams Fast 12 LS 9.5* set to 10.5*, Xcaliber T6+, TS, 44.25", D6
    3w:  Bridgestone J's Professional Weapon 14*, stock stiff, 42.5", D5
    1i:  Golden Ram Vibration Matched, DGS400
    3-PW:  Mizuno MP-37, DGS300
    GW:  Mizuno Pro 52*, DGS300
    SW:  Scratch 8620 58*, DGS400
    Putter: Cleveland Huntington Beach #1 35"
    Balls: in no particular order... Wilson Staff FG Tour, Duo Urethane/Professional, or 50 Elite, Srixon ZStar/ZStar XV, Snell MTB Black... will trot out Maxfli HT-100 or Elite 90 from time to time

    I've proven once again that anything over 44.5" or even 44.25" is a horrible fit for my tee game
  • arbeckarbeck SeattleMembers Posts: 490 ✭✭✭✭

    You do need to get about 115 plus before it becomes super apparent. TXG found 2MPH and the ball test found 3.5MPH. I'd wager if TXG had hit more shots they probably would have gotten slightly closer to the ball test numbers. There also might be a small difference in how GC Quad measures ball speed versus Trackman, but I don't know the answer to that. It wouldn't shock me if Trackman measures the ball speed slightly later and a ball with slightly more drag might end up showing slightly lower initial ball speed. I know there are differences in how Trackman reports AoA and swing speed, so I'm not sure if you can compare ball speed numbers apples to apples (especially on outdoor Trackman).

    I probably will never notice the 1-2MPH my 100ish swing gets on great strikes using an Bridgestone BXS versus the Q Star Tour or Wilson Duo Urethane (the two balls I was using last year). It's only going to be a few yards at most, and it's unlikely to make much difference. But why not take it if I can get it? The bigger issue is iron spin and short game spin. Those ball spin less off the irons and less around the green. And as an amateur I feel like I need to do everything in my power to keep spin in those two areas. All things being equal, a firmer ball spins more than a soft one.

    The final consideration is quality. I don't know that the Q Star Tour or Wilson Duo Urethane are made to a lesser standard than something like the Z Star or FG Tour. But there isn't anything about their construction that should make them cheaper (they're all 3 or more piece urethane covered balls). So how do they sell them at a lower price (I've found it interesting that Bridgestone sells all the Urethane balls for the same price)? I would expect one way to do it would be to widen the acceptable tolerances when manufacturing them. I could be completely off base, but the cost and feel difference isn't enough for me to not think about it.

    I still think the mantra of playing the firmest ball you can stand the feel of holds true. You aren't losing anything by playing a firmer ball, but you are possibly gaining something. That's how I ended up with what I have. I can't really stomach the feel of anything harder than the the Snell MTB Black. Playing the Srixon XV or Pro V1x just isn't enjoyable. I even found the KSig 3 to feel much more hard. I might gain another mile an hour with the XV or V1x, but I still play golf for enjoyment and at some point chasing an extra MPH isn't worth it. The MTB Black, Z Star and BXS are fairly equivalent in numbers. I could play any of them and they're all about the same price. They all have almost identical wedge spin. About the only thing that separates them is spin off the irons and the BXS has the most. As long as I can get it in the $35/dozen range I'm happy. If it gets much more than that I'd swap to the Srixon.

    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
  • NRJyzrNRJyzr Allez Allez Allez Minnesota, USAMembers Posts: 6,607 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Sep 11, 2019 7:46pm #27

    Saving the nested quote action... :)

    Valid points, but it still has personal preference involved. In the case of you and I, I'm prioritizing feel a bit higher than you are. For the moment, anyway, LOL. Some of that is due to my playing preferences, having formerly played the Maxfli quasi-wound balls, and even the true wound balls.

    Also a factor for me.... When talking about distance, I'm not especially distance starved as a not-quite-110 player, primarily playing at my home course, where I'm either playing from 6100 or 6500 yards, par 71. The course also has a moderately tight back nine that requires few driver tee shots. Leaves me not worrying about squeezing an extra couple yards off the tee.

    It's all down to priorities. No real reason for me to go into this detail other than to outline variables in play. And, because I can't help myself. LOL

    The Ever Changing Bag!

    Driver: Adams Fast 12 LS 9.5* set to 10.5*, Xcaliber T6+, TS, 44.25", D6
    3w:  Bridgestone J's Professional Weapon 14*, stock stiff, 42.5", D5
    1i:  Golden Ram Vibration Matched, DGS400
    3-PW:  Mizuno MP-37, DGS300
    GW:  Mizuno Pro 52*, DGS300
    SW:  Scratch 8620 58*, DGS400
    Putter: Cleveland Huntington Beach #1 35"
    Balls: in no particular order... Wilson Staff FG Tour, Duo Urethane/Professional, or 50 Elite, Srixon ZStar/ZStar XV, Snell MTB Black... will trot out Maxfli HT-100 or Elite 90 from time to time

    I've proven once again that anything over 44.5" or even 44.25" is a horrible fit for my tee game

Leave a Comment

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