Great ball test!

Watched a video last night on youtube from Today's Golfer. They tested 21 golf balls on a robot at 3 different driver speeds, one 7 iron speed, and 1 wedge speed. Very informative and just proves the test done on the other site to be wrong. Basically completely proved the theory of soft being slow.

We all know that soft isn’t the end all be all

It doesn't really look like they disproved it. At the 85MPH driver speed the softer balls are on average slower than the harder balls. The Chromesoft, Bridgestone BRX, and Project(a) were the slowest. The Snell MTB-X, Srixon XV, and TP5x were the fastest. So the hard balls seem to be faster than the slow balls. At the 100MPH swing speed with the driver, the same thing occurred. The harder balls tend to be faster, and the difference is bigger. At 115MPH again, the slower balls were the softer balls but the difference was even bigger. It seems the three fastest balls were the three fastest balls at every swing speed.

That was the same conclusion as the other test. A fast ball is fast at every swing speed. A slow ball is slow at every swing speed. The softer a ball, the less ball speed it tends to retain. The differences are exaggerated the faster you swing.

Now their carry distance number is different and doesn't correlate to what the other test found. But I wouldn't expect it to. Carry distance depends on spin, launch angle, and ball speed. They were tweaking their delivery numbers with the robot to give different launch angles for each swing speed (17.5 for 85MPH, 14 for 100MPH, and 13.3 for 115MPH). These launch angles also are going to contribute to different spin lofts and spin numbers. This is why ball fitting is a thing. With my launch conditions, I might find a different ball gives me more distance with the driver than the ball that works for your launch conditions. Though it's pretty easy for a good fitter to tweak launch conditions to maximize any of these balls. What a fitter can't do it give you more ball speed from one ball to the next. This is also why you shouldn't be fitting based on the the driver. The short game is more important than everything else. The irons are next most important. And finally the driver should be tweaked to maximize the distance for the ball you are playing. If two balls are equal in every other way, take the one with more driver ball speed.

I think the biggest point that I took away from it was that ball speed is just one part of distance. And the important thing to me is that soft does not = short. Even at high speeds the differences are not that great. i think the total carry distance between the softer balls at harder balls even at the highest speeds was only 6yds. The test done at the other site showing an 18yd difference was obviously an anomaly. They used different loft drivers and shafts flexes at the different speeds so it was a fair test. Speed is not everything, just one of the things. That is a big point is that all balls regardless of construction perform pretty similar on faster swings. The major difference is always inside 100yds.

> @hammergolf said:

> I think the biggest point that I took away from it was that ball speed is just one part of distance. And the important thing to me is that soft does not = short. Even at high speeds the differences are not that great. The test done at the other site showing an 18yd difference was obviously an anomaly.

Hit enough balls enough times and eventually you'll find two that are 18 yards apart.

The trend in the MGS test was clear enough, lower compression tends to be associated with less ball speed. The magnitude of the trend was also clear, the differences in ball speed are not enough to be worth playing a ball that doesn't otherwise suit you.

> @hammergolf said:

> I think the biggest point that I took away from it was that ball speed is just one part of distance. And the important thing to me is that soft does not = short. Even at high speeds the differences are not that great. i think the total carry distance between the softer balls at harder balls even at the highest speeds was only 6yds. The test done at the other site showing an 18yd difference was obviously an anomaly. They used different loft drivers and shafts flexes at the different speeds so it was a fair test. Speed is not everything, just one of the things. That is a big point is that all balls regardless of construction perform pretty similar on faster swings. The major difference is always inside 100yds.

Distance is a combination of speed, launch, and spin (if we assume the aerodynamics are equal). A good club fitter and optimize launch and spin. That leaves speed.

Reference link in case anyone is interested:

https://www.todaysgolfer.co.uk/features/equipment-features/2019/september/robot-tested-which-golf-bal-suits-my-game/

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @hammergolf said:

> > I think the biggest point that I took away from it was that ball speed is just one part of distance. And the important thing to me is that soft does not = short. Even at high speeds the differences are not that great. The test done at the other site showing an 18yd difference was obviously an anomaly.

>

> Hit enough balls enough times and eventually you'll find two that are 18 yards apart.

>

> The trend in the **** test was clear enough, lower compression tends to be associated with less ball speed. The magnitude of the trend was also clear, the differences in ball speed are not enough to be worth playing a ball that doesn't otherwise suit you.

Whether people want to give credit or not Bridgestone confirmed this based on their testing and others told mgs the same thing. Callaway even said during their visit to mgs recently that yeah the cs May be a little slower but it’s still a good ball

The 2 sotfest ball, the ERC soft, and the wilson duo professional tied for 1st

So yes this test totally contradicts the other test

> @ghoul31 said:

> The 2 sotfest ball, the ERC soft, and the wilson duo professional tied for 1st

> So yes this test totally contradicts the other test

By "tied for 1st" you mean at some arbitrary combination of clubhead speed, loft and launch conditions they flew a bit farther. If they re-ran the test with a couple degrees more or less loft some other balls would top the distance list.

See friend arbeck's explanation for why that sort of "test" doesn't tell you anything about how the distance of the balls will compare under optimized launch conditions.

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @ghoul31 said:

> > The 2 sotfest ball, the ERC soft, and the wilson duo professional tied for 1st

> > So yes this test totally contradicts the other test

>

> By "tied for 1st" you mean at some arbitrary combination of clubhead speed, loft and launch conditions they flew a bit farther. If they re-ran the test with a couple degrees more or less loft some other balls would top the distance list.

>

> See friend arbeck's explanation for why that sort of "test" doesn't tell you anything about how the distance of the balls will compare under optimized launch conditions.

yes so its depends on launch conditions if a softer ball goes farther or not

The other test was trying to say that a softer ball will always go less far, which is clearly not true

I don't have a dog in this fight, but at the end of the video he says straight out - (paraphrasing) The only reason to choose a softer ball is if you put a high premium on feel, otherwise stick with the X balls as they perform better.

Edit: it's here at 32:10

[https://youtu.be/6CchRvPRfiQ](https://youtu.be/6CchRvPRfiQ "https://youtu.be/6CchRvPRfiQ")

> @ghoul31 said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > > @ghoul31 said:

> > > The 2 sotfest ball, the ERC soft, and the wilson duo professional tied for 1st

> > > So yes this test totally contradicts the other test

> >

> > By "tied for 1st" you mean at some arbitrary combination of clubhead speed, loft and launch conditions they flew a bit farther. If they re-ran the test with a couple degrees more or less loft some other balls would top the distance list.

> >

> > See friend arbeck's explanation for why that sort of "test" doesn't tell you anything about how the distance of the balls will compare under optimized launch conditions.

>

> yes so its depends on launch conditions if a softer ball goes farther or not

> The other test was trying to say that a softer ball will always go less far, which is clearly not true

>

>

No they didnt... the other testers clearly said softer is SLOWER...not shorter.

> @arbeck said:

> Distance is a combination of speed, launch, and spin (if we assume the aerodynamics are equal). A good club fitter and optimize launch and spin. That leaves speed.

I assume the aerodynamics are equal between the Srixon balls. In the **** test, the Q Star Tour was the softest and had the longest carry distances with each club at 100 mph. (In fact, it had some of the longest carry distances in the entire test among the 7 irons and Wedges. ) I presume this is due to lower spin rates and higher launch angles, as the other two Srixon balls had slightly faster ball speeds.

i was under the impression that the distance you gain was relative to the compression of the ball, as opposed to the outer material they're made from.

I personally don't like the sound and feel from "hard balls".

Between different types of soft balls, i'e also noticed a difference. For example the Callaway super soft matte ball is my favourite. The Truvis Chrome soft i found to be harder and didn't enjoy it as much.

I like the feeling of the soft balls and the control you can have over them in the green. I notice, however, they can often stop fairly dead and flat from a drive, but as someone mentioned, longer distances are less concerning than compared within 100yds / meters.

> @Andygolderson said:

> I like the feeling of the soft balls and the control you can have over them in the green.

I play the SuperSoft a lot, and like it for all parts of my game. However, I've always wondered if the sound/feel of this ball around the green makes it seem like you can do more with it (vs. what you actually can do / how it performs)? I mean it doesn't spin more than a ProV (which may be good or bad for total short game performance), and I'm guessing spin is what people usually associate with "control" (whether or not they can actually control the spin consistently). I do think these balls (SuperSoft or Soft Feel) grab a bit more than the pure two-piece distance balls like a Velocity if that's what your comparison is to.

> @agolf1 said:

> > @Andygolderson said:

> > I like the feeling of the soft balls and the control you can have over them in the green.

> I play the SuperSoft a lot, and like it for all parts of my game. However, I've always wondered if the sound/feel of this ball around the green makes it seem like you can do more with it (vs. what you actually can do / how it performs)? I mean it doesn't spin more than a ProV (which may be good or bad for total short game performance), and I'm guessing spin is what people usually associate with "control" (whether or not they can actually control the spin consistently). I do think these balls (SuperSoft or Soft Feel) grab a bit more than the pure two-piece distance balls like a Velocity if that's what your comparison is to.

Yes, spin is what people associate with control. But it's not necessarily high spin to stop a shot. It's consistent spin. Let's say you're playing a 40 yard pitch. It's early morning and there's dew on the ground. Some recent tests show the launch angle goes up and the spin can drop by 50% or more in those conditions. If your ball is normally spinning at 5000 in those conditions, you have more spin to give back than one that is spinning lower. That's going to mean better distance control.

Remember that spin and launch are two of the biggest factors in distance. So having a steady spin and launch number is going to be the best way to control distance around the greens. Many people are obsessed with spin and stopping, but I think the distance control is the one factor that most people really overlook and shouldn't.

AWESOME!!!

It's about time someone used robot testing again instead of "tour" numbers

My

> @Red4282 said:

> > @ghoul31 said:

> > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > > @ghoul31 said:

> > > > The 2 sotfest ball, the ERC soft, and the wilson duo professional tied for 1st

> > > > So yes this test totally contradicts the other test

> > >

> > > By "tied for 1st" you mean at some arbitrary combination of clubhead speed, loft and launch conditions they flew a bit farther. If they re-ran the test with a couple degrees more or less loft some other balls would top the distance list.

> > >

> > > See friend arbeck's explanation for why that sort of "test" doesn't tell you anything about how the distance of the balls will compare under optimized launch conditions.

> >

> > yes so its depends on launch conditions if a softer ball goes farther or not

> > The other test was trying to say that a softer ball will always go less far, which is clearly not true

> >

> >

> No they didnt... the other testers clearly said softer is SLOWER...not shorter.

>

MyGolfClowns stated ...."A soft ball is a slow ball; it’s that simple. If you are playing a “soft” golf ball, it’s probably costing you distance off the tee....."....and.... "Firmer balls are faster, generally longer...." .....and then they made a chart to explicitly say Pro V1x (high compression) is the longest ball for slower swing speeds.

That certainly sounds like they are saying soft=slow=short....no? They only use the words "probably", and "generally", because exceptions are evident for <85 mph swing speeds and a decent percentage of golfers are <85 mph.

Some observations about my personal favorite... Snell MTB X... especially considering my golf swing is probably in the 85mph range.

Driver Dispersion - 9.1 (only 3 worse, Chrome Soft, Duo Professional, and Pearl Pure Pro)

Wedge Disperson - Left-to-Right - 5.7 (only 1 worse, Pearl Pure Pro X)

Wedge Disperson - Front-to-Back - 3 (only 1 worse, Vice Pro +)

Are you seeing a pattern here or I'm reading too much into the dispersion information. Wonder why there was no dispersion calculated for the 7-iron?

I really like the Snell MTB-X and I've played a number of the other balls, but this dispersion thing has me worried because I've noticed some issues with this in the last few weeks. Keep trying to change my setup/alignment to correct, but doesn't seem to work.

> @jjfcpa said:

> Some observations about my personal favorite... Snell MTB X... especially considering my golf swing is probably in the 85mph range.

>

> Driver Dispersion - 9.1 (only 3 worse, Chrome Soft, Duo Professional, and Pearl Pure Pro)

> Wedge Disperson - Left-to-Right - 5.7 (only 1 worse, Pearl Pure Pro X)

> Wedge Disperson - Front-to-Back - 3 (only 1 worse, Vice Pro +)

>

> Are you seeing a pattern here or I'm reading too much into the dispersion information. Wonder why there was no dispersion calculated for the 7-iron?

>

> I really like the Snell MTB-X and I've played a number of the other balls, but this dispersion thing has me worried because I've noticed some issues with this in the last few weeks. Keep trying to change my setup/alignment to correct, but doesn't seem to work.

Have you tried any other balls recently to see if you notice what the robot showed? Interestingly enough, I stumbled upon the Bridgestone B XS a few months ago. In my mind it seemed I was hitting my irons 1/2 club longer AND stopping quicker than my normal gamer, and also noticed how much straighter the ball flight seemed off the driver. Then low and behold, this robotic test shows exactly the same results I saw.

> @rwbloom93 said:

> My

> > @Red4282 said:

> > > @ghoul31 said:

> > > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > > > @ghoul31 said:

> > > > > The 2 sotfest ball, the ERC soft, and the wilson duo professional tied for 1st

> > > > > So yes this test totally contradicts the other test

> > > >

> > > > By "tied for 1st" you mean at some arbitrary combination of clubhead speed, loft and launch conditions they flew a bit farther. If they re-ran the test with a couple degrees more or less loft some other balls would top the distance list.

> > > >

> > > > See friend arbeck's explanation for why that sort of "test" doesn't tell you anything about how the distance of the balls will compare under optimized launch conditions.

> > >

> > > yes so its depends on launch conditions if a softer ball goes farther or not

> > > The other test was trying to say that a softer ball will always go less far, which is clearly not true

> > >

> > >

> > No they didnt... the other testers clearly said softer is SLOWER...not shorter.

> >

>

> MyGolfClowns stated ...."A soft ball is a slow ball; it’s that simple. If you are playing a “soft” golf ball, it’s probably costing you distance off the tee....."....and.... "Firmer balls are faster, generally longer...." .....and then they made a chart to explicitly say Pro V1x (high compression) is the longest ball for slower swing speeds.

>

> That certainly sounds like they are saying soft=slow=short....no? They only use the words "probably", and "generally", because exceptions are evident for <85 mph swing speeds and a decent percentage of golfers are <85 mph.

>

>

Oh geeze. Yes they said generally, not always, but for arguments sake ill show you why. In this test the brx went farther than other balls even though it was slower. The main reason was spin rate. So lets take a brx with 1 mph less ball speed vs tp5x. Lets say the brx was spinning at 2800, and the tp5x was at 3100.

The difference in spin led to the slower ball being longer. NOW, heres where your failing to understand. A change in driver head (moving cg) or a different shaft, to lower the tp5xs spin... which 300 revs certainly is obtainable. The tp5x is now longer. You cant ALWAYS make an equipmemt change to get these results, and hence the term generally.

Now those guys at mygolfpie could have stated it better no doubt. But in the real world, getting fitted for your ideal launch and spin, to maximize distance, the ball that has the highest speed will always go further. Whether or not you can obtain those numbers with that ball is another story.

> @Red4282 said:

> > @rwbloom93 said:

> > My

> > > @Red4282 said:

> > > > @ghoul31 said:

> > > > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > > > > @ghoul31 said:

> > > > > > The 2 sotfest ball, the ERC soft, and the wilson duo professional tied for 1st

> > > > > > So yes this test totally contradicts the other test

> > > > >

> > > > > By "tied for 1st" you mean at some arbitrary combination of clubhead speed, loft and launch conditions they flew a bit farther. If they re-ran the test with a couple degrees more or less loft some other balls would top the distance list.

> > > > >

> > > > > See friend arbeck's explanation for why that sort of "test" doesn't tell you anything about how the distance of the balls will compare under optimized launch conditions.

> > > >

> > > > yes so its depends on launch conditions if a softer ball goes farther or not

> > > > The other test was trying to say that a softer ball will always go less far, which is clearly not true

> > > >

> > > >

> > > No they didnt... the other testers clearly said softer is SLOWER...not shorter.

> > >

> >

> > MyGolfClowns stated ...."A soft ball is a slow ball; it’s that simple. If you are playing a “soft” golf ball, it’s probably costing you distance off the tee....."....and.... "Firmer balls are faster, generally longer...." .....and then they made a chart to explicitly say Pro V1x (high compression) is the longest ball for slower swing speeds.

> >

> > That certainly sounds like they are saying soft=slow=short....no? They only use the words "probably", and "generally", because exceptions are evident for <85 mph swing speeds and a decent percentage of golfers are <85 mph.

> >

> >

>

> Oh geeze. Yes they said generally, not always, but for arguments sake ill show you why. In this test the brx went farther than other balls even though it was slower. The main reason was spin rate. So lets take a brx with 1 mph less ball speed vs tp5x. Lets say the brx was spinning at 2800, and the tp5x was at 3100.

>

> The difference in spin led to the slower ball being longer. NOW, heres where your failing to understand. A change in driver head (moving cg) or a different shaft, to lower the tp5xs spin... which 300 revs certainly is obtainable. The tp5x is now longer. You cant ALWAYS make an equipmemt change to get these results, and hence the term generally.

>

> Now those guys at mygolfpie could have stated it better no doubt. But in the real world, getting fitted for your ideal launch and spin, to maximize distance, the ball that has the highest speed will always go further. Whether or not you can obtain those numbers with that ball is another story.

I believe most on this forum understand ball distance is a function of speed, launch angle, spin, tilt axis, AOD, etc...I have made this a staple of most of my posts...not sure what you think I don't understand.

Anyway, the question is not what I or you understand but whether or not MyGolfSissies claim... Soft=Slow=Short. It's clear to me (and to many others) that they do, but you're convinced they don't. I disagree with you about why they use the words "probably" and "generally" but they leave no doubt in the "Carry and Offline" section when the state..... "The Snell MTB-X is notable for being several yards longer than the next closest ball, while the low compression set is appreciably shorter than the average."...Note: They do not say soft=slow here....they say SOFT = SHORT.

(To be clear, Soft=Short for their test and the way their Robot was setup.)

My argument has always been this information is applicable only to the robot and those humans whose swing closely replicates a robot with the robot's specific setup (which I claim is virtually nobody...thus...robot testing is not helpful for humans and their trillions of varying swings). Interesting! but ultimately not helpful in and of itself.

The Today's Golfer test shows that simply using a different club shuffles the ball performance order. What do you think will happened to ball performance data if they change A.O.A (-5 vs +5...or -2 vs +2)? What will happen if they change Clubface strike geometry (eg. face closing at impact or opening at impact)? What about swing path geometry (outside to in vs. inside to out)? What if they change all those at the same time?

The robot can be setup a million different ways and each different way will likely reshuffle the ball performance order.

Therefore, IMHO, robot testing is not transferable to the vast majority of Golfers. MyGolfLosers have sprained their arm patting themselves on the back but literally have only given us a few data points out of trillions and trillions. Today's Golfer test data is not any more helpful....but...it is useful in proving small changes in robot testing will produce somewhat different ball performance results.

Peace.

The problem with your position is this. If a carefully controlled and repeatable robot test is useless, then what is the level below useless for "testing" a ball with whatever random swing you or I happen to produce when we swing a club a few times?

Your argument boils down to nobody will ever know anything about how golf balls compare because all that matters is exactly how a given ball performs with one specific swing on one specific instance for one specific golfer.

> @"North Butte" said:

> The problem with your position is this. If a carefully controlled and repeatable robot test is useless, then what is the level below useless for "testing" a ball with whatever random swing you or I happen to produce when we swing a club a few times?

>

> Your argument boils down to nobody will ever know anything about how golf balls compare because all that matters is exactly how a given ball performs with one specific swing on one specific instance for one specific golfer

this. The only way to test balls and only balls is with a robot. If you just go by real golfers, there's an infinite amount of different swings, even with just one golfer.

> @"North Butte" said:

> The problem with your position is this. If a carefully controlled and repeatable robot test is useless, then what is the level below useless for "testing" a ball with whatever random swing you or I happen to produce when we swing a club a few times?

>

> Your argument boils down to nobody will ever know anything about how golf balls compare because all that matters is exactly how a given ball performs with one specific swing on one specific instance for one specific golfer.

I understand your objection (good point) so I guess I am trying to argue that individual golfers have swing "tendencies" within their random swings. I agree, on a micro level, I probably never produce the exact same swing but my tendency is flat, inside-out, club face open (but closing) at impact which producers a mid flight block/draw (70% FW rate thank you...but 205 yds...sigh). A robot could be set up to replicate this tendency and it would be useful to me but not to you or many others.

So absent Today's Golfer setting the machine up to approximate of my tendency the only options are a (1) ball fit or (2) lots or personal testing. The argument against ball fit is it's still a limited number of shots which could lead to a poor fit? The argument against personal testing, I believe you have said in the past, is you can't hit enough shots and/or can't properly evaluate due to randomness (human error). Both fair points, kudos.

Regardless, I still think ball fit and/or personal testing are far superior to data from a robot that doesn't produce the swing you have a tendency to produce. (Unless it does, then by all means...have at it!).

Your other point I answer this way....I am not saying balls can't be compared and evaluated (one against another) with the robot....but simply don't think that it is transferable to you and your game.

> @rwbloom93 said:

> > @Red4282 said:

> > > @rwbloom93 said:

> > > My

> > > > @Red4282 said:

> > > > > @ghoul31 said:

> > > > > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > > > > > @ghoul31 said:

> > > > > > > The 2 sotfest ball, the ERC soft, and the wilson duo professional tied for 1st

> > > > > > > So yes this test totally contradicts the other test

> > > > > >

> > > > > > By "tied for 1st" you mean at some arbitrary combination of clubhead speed, loft and launch conditions they flew a bit farther. If they re-ran the test with a couple degrees more or less loft some other balls would top the distance list.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > See friend arbeck's explanation for why that sort of "test" doesn't tell you anything about how the distance of the balls will compare under optimized launch conditions.

> > > > >

> > > > > yes so its depends on launch conditions if a softer ball goes farther or not

> > > > > The other test was trying to say that a softer ball will always go less far, which is clearly not true

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > No they didnt... the other testers clearly said softer is SLOWER...not shorter.

> > > >

> > >

> > > MyGolfClowns stated ...."A soft ball is a slow ball; it’s that simple. If you are playing a “soft” golf ball, it’s probably costing you distance off the tee....."....and.... "Firmer balls are faster, generally longer...." .....and then they made a chart to explicitly say Pro V1x (high compression) is the longest ball for slower swing speeds.

> > >

> > > That certainly sounds like they are saying soft=slow=short....no? They only use the words "probably", and "generally", because exceptions are evident for <85 mph swing speeds and a decent percentage of golfers are <85 mph.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Oh geeze. Yes they said generally, not always, but for arguments sake ill show you why. In this test the brx went farther than other balls even though it was slower. The main reason was spin rate. So lets take a brx with 1 mph less ball speed vs tp5x. Lets say the brx was spinning at 2800, and the tp5x was at 3100.

> >

> > The difference in spin led to the slower ball being longer. NOW, heres where your failing to understand. A change in driver head (moving cg) or a different shaft, to lower the tp5xs spin... which 300 revs certainly is obtainable. The tp5x is now longer. You cant ALWAYS make an equipmemt change to get these results, and hence the term generally.

> >

> > Now those guys at mygolfpie could have stated it better no doubt. But in the real world, getting fitted for your ideal launch and spin, to maximize distance, the ball that has the highest speed will always go further. Whether or not you can obtain those numbers with that ball is another story.

>

> I believe most on this forum understand ball distance is a function of speed, launch angle, spin, tilt axis, AOD, etc...I have made this a staple of most of my posts...not sure what you think I don't understand.

>

> Anyway, the question is not what I or you understand but whether or not MyGolfSissies claim... Soft=Slow=Short. It's clear to me (and to many others) that they do, but you're convinced they don't. I disagree with you about why they use the words "probably" and "generally" but they leave no doubt in the "Carry and Offline" section when the state..... "The Snell MTB-X is notable for being several yards longer than the next closest ball, while the low compression set is appreciably shorter than the average."...Note: They do not say soft=slow here....they say SOFT = SHORT.

>

> (To be clear, Soft=Short for their test and the way their Robot was setup.)

>

> My argument has always been this information is applicable only to the robot and those humans whose swing closely replicates a robot with the robot's specific setup (which I claim is virtually nobody...thus...robot testing is not helpful for humans and their trillions of varying swings). Interesting! but ultimately not helpful in and of itself.

>

> The Today's Golfer test shows that simply using a different club shuffles the ball performance order. What do you think will happened to ball performance data if they change A.O.A (-5 vs +5...or -2 vs +2)? What will happen if they change Clubface strike geometry (eg. face closing at impact or opening at impact)? What about swing path geometry (outside to in vs. inside to out)? What if they change all those at the same time?

>

> The robot can be setup a million different ways and each different way will likely reshuffle the ball performance order.

>

> Therefore, IMHO, robot testing is not transferable to the vast majority of Golfers. MyGolfLosers have sprained their arm patting themselves on the back but literally have only given us a few data points out of trillions and trillions. Today's Golfer test data is not any more helpful....but...it is useful in proving small changes in robot testing will produce somewhat different ball performance results.

>

> Peace.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

Haha, you are clearly triggered by myglfpies... for whatever reason. Maybe your favorite ball or club didnt rate well with them and you just cant fathom someone saying something else could be better. I dunno what your axe to grind with them is. I take them like i take crossfield, txg and any other “tester”. They all draw their own conclusions, But just ignore that and look at the data and what it really means.

You act like cause they said the mtbx was longer in their test and therefore its longer All the time for everyone. They didnt. Thats

you jumping to your own biased conclusion. Your argument about swing dynamics is a mute point, no matter how you deliver it, the Results will be similar, as far as ball speeds go. You are correct in all the variables in a golf swing and equipment, it is possible the softer compression ball for maximum distance COULD (anomaly) be the best choice, but highly unlikely .

Either way it doesn't matter, you are supposed to choose your ball on short game performance first. I just get triggered when people have biases towards things that lead to ignoring facts, data, and science.

By the way they did a video with titleist reps who admitted softer is slower, And callaway has admitted this too.

> @Red4282 said:

> > @rwbloom93 said:

> > > @Red4282 said:

> > > > @rwbloom93 said:

> > > > My

> > > > > @Red4282 said:

> > > > > > @ghoul31 said:

> > > > > > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > > > > > > @ghoul31 said:

> > > > > > > > The 2 sotfest ball, the ERC soft, and the wilson duo professional tied for 1st

> > > > > > > > So yes this test totally contradicts the other test

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > By "tied for 1st" you mean at some arbitrary combination of clubhead speed, loft and launch conditions they flew a bit farther. If they re-ran the test with a couple degrees more or less loft some other balls would top the distance list.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > See friend arbeck's explanation for why that sort of "test" doesn't tell you anything about how the distance of the balls will compare under optimized launch conditions.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > yes so its depends on launch conditions if a softer ball goes farther or not

> > > > > > The other test was trying to say that a softer ball will always go less far, which is clearly not true

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > No they didnt... the other testers clearly said softer is SLOWER...not shorter.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > MyGolfClowns stated ...."A soft ball is a slow ball; it’s that simple. If you are playing a “soft” golf ball, it’s probably costing you distance off the tee....."....and.... "Firmer balls are faster, generally longer...." .....and then they made a chart to explicitly say Pro V1x (high compression) is the longest ball for slower swing speeds.

> > > >

> > > > That certainly sounds like they are saying soft=slow=short....no? They only use the words "probably", and "generally", because exceptions are evident for <85 mph swing speeds and a decent percentage of golfers are <85 mph.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Oh geeze. Yes they said generally, not always, but for arguments sake ill show you why. In this test the brx went farther than other balls even though it was slower. The main reason was spin rate. So lets take a brx with 1 mph less ball speed vs tp5x. Lets say the brx was spinning at 2800, and the tp5x was at 3100.

> > >

> > > The difference in spin led to the slower ball being longer. NOW, heres where your failing to understand. A change in driver head (moving cg) or a different shaft, to lower the tp5xs spin... which 300 revs certainly is obtainable. The tp5x is now longer. You cant ALWAYS make an equipmemt change to get these results, and hence the term generally.

> > >

> > > Now those guys at mygolfpie could have stated it better no doubt. But in the real world, getting fitted for your ideal launch and spin, to maximize distance, the ball that has the highest speed will always go further. Whether or not you can obtain those numbers with that ball is another story.

> >

> > I believe most on this forum understand ball distance is a function of speed, launch angle, spin, tilt axis, AOD, etc...I have made this a staple of most of my posts...not sure what you think I don't understand.

> >

> > Anyway, the question is not what I or you understand but whether or not MyGolfSissies claim... Soft=Slow=Short. It's clear to me (and to many others) that they do, but you're convinced they don't. I disagree with you about why they use the words "probably" and "generally" but they leave no doubt in the "Carry and Offline" section when the state..... "The Snell MTB-X is notable for being several yards longer than the next closest ball, while the low compression set is appreciably shorter than the average."...Note: They do not say soft=slow here....they say SOFT = SHORT.

> >

> > (To be clear, Soft=Short for their test and the way their Robot was setup.)

> >

> > My argument has always been this information is applicable only to the robot and those humans whose swing closely replicates a robot with the robot's specific setup (which I claim is virtually nobody...thus...robot testing is not helpful for humans and their trillions of varying swings). Interesting! but ultimately not helpful in and of itself.

> >

> > The Today's Golfer test shows that simply using a different club shuffles the ball performance order. What do you think will happened to ball performance data if they change A.O.A (-5 vs +5...or -2 vs +2)? What will happen if they change Clubface strike geometry (eg. face closing at impact or opening at impact)? What about swing path geometry (outside to in vs. inside to out)? What if they change all those at the same time?

> >

> > The robot can be setup a million different ways and each different way will likely reshuffle the ball performance order.

> >

> > Therefore, IMHO, robot testing is not transferable to the vast majority of Golfers. MyGolfLosers have sprained their arm patting themselves on the back but literally have only given us a few data points out of trillions and trillions. Today's Golfer test data is not any more helpful....but...it is useful in proving small changes in robot testing will produce somewhat different ball performance results.

> >

> > Peace.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> Haha, you are clearly triggered by myglfpies... for whatever reason. Maybe your favorite ball or club didnt rate well with them and you just cant fathom someone saying something else could be better. I dunno what your axe to grind with them is. I take them like i take crossfield, txg and any other “tester”. They all draw their own conclusions, But just ignore that and look at the data and what it really means.

>

> You act like cause they said the mtbx was longer in their test and therefore its longer All the time for everyone. They didnt. Thats

> you jumping to your own biased conclusion. Your argument about swing dynamics is a mute point, no matter how you deliver it, the Results will be similar, as far as ball speeds go. You are correct in all the variables in a golf swing and equipment, it is possible the softer compression ball for maximum distance COULD (anomaly) be the best choice, but highly unlikely .

>

> Either way it doesn't matter, you are supposed to choose your ball on short game performance first. I just get triggered when people have biases towards things that lead to ignoring facts, data, and science.

>

> By the way they did a video with titleist reps who admitted softer is slower, And callaway has admitted this too.

Red, me and you just don't see eye to eye. That's fine. I will respond to you one last time in this thread and then just leave you alone.

1. If you read my posts (I don't blame you if you haven't) you would know I don't have a favorite ball.

2. MyGolfClowns conclusions from the data bother me not them personally (I think they are over reaching...Today's golfer helps confirm that).

3. I don't use their proper name because its not allowed, I insult them (the name) because I thought that was the requirement here (I'm fairly new) in order to use the site in a post.

4. I'm not jumping to conclusions, I quoted their exact words.

5. I never claimed soft isn't slow(er). I have only ever claimed mid is longer for me and my swing.

6. Choosing a ball based on short game is a solid strategy but I need distance more because the courses I play are slow.

7. I don't ignore facts, data or science at all, I simply question conclusions drawn from the data. I love science and testing...I'm an Engineer do it all the time!

Godspeed to you, perhaps we will see eye to eye in other thread or topic.

I need distance off the driver and irons. Within about 100 yards I like spin but anything further than that and I need distance. This is probably because I'm a senior golfer and mother nature is slowing me down. I've played the B RX and like the distance, but not within 100 yards. I've played the Vice Pro... same situation. I also like the Oncore Elixir, not tested, but same situation. I was playing the Snell Black it was better than the others I tried. Finally, tried the MTB X and wow... that's the one that worked for distance and within 100 yards.

> @jjfcpa said:

> I need distance off the driver and irons. Within about 100 yards I like spin but anything further than that and I need distance. This is probably because I'm a senior golfer and mother nature is slowing me down. I've played the B RX and like the distance, but not within 100 yards. I've played the Vice Pro... same situation. I also like the Oncore Elixir, not tested, but same situation. I was playing the Snell Black it was better than the others I tried. Finally, tried the MTB X and wow... that's the one that worked for distance and within 100 yards.

I have never tested a Snell ball (simply don't have any). I have dozens and dozens of all models of the big 5 (Titleist, Bridgestone, TaylorMade, Srixon, and Callaway). I re-tested the V1x and B X in an open field after the late April ball publication suggested they were longest for 85 mph swings. I hit them with driver (over and over...week after week) and they are short for me. Mid compression solidly longer off driver. Soft compression solidly longer with long irons. Tour B RX is a happy medium ball but I find it similar to Project (a), Srixon Q-Star Tour, and Tilteist Tour Soft. If I get my hands on a few Snells (MTB-X) I'll play them and let you know if I have a dispersion problem the test suggests (and you suggest you may have).