Titliest Ball Fitting - Do You Believe

So i rolled to up to a Titliest Ball Fitting where i work, i was actually expecting some kind of simulator type analysis but it was simply a guy with a deskfull of balls who talked to you about your game.

i'm a moderate swinger with my driver swing speed being 96 mph so i was expecting him to steer me towards the SOLO with the standard 'you cant compress a premium ball' line. However afer discussing my requirements (higher launch, more distance, consistant short game spin) he recommended the PRO V1X.

This was a suprise so i raised the compression issue, he said this is a huge myth, he said even a granny swinging at 55mph could sufficiently compress a PRO V1x.

I checked the titliest website and they make a big issue of this very point.

I couldnt help but notice he was recommending the PROV1 or PROV1x to 90% of people, thier most expensive balls.

It seems other manufacturers take a contrary view, with bridgestone for example having two 330 balls one aimed at 'amatuer' sub 105mph swing speeds and a 'pro' version aimed at 105mph+ swing speeds.

Does any one actually know the truth of this??

My driver SS is 98-103 and the ProV1x is my favorite ball by far. I play the NXT Tour and DT Solo because they both work really well with my swing and there much more affordable.

The average swing speed on the LPGA tour is right around 92-96 mph and the ProV1 and ProV1X are used at an equal ratio to each other.

Swing speed is not the proper way to fit a golfer for a ball because every company makes their golf ball up to the limit of the rules when it comes to speed off of the driver. A golf ball that offers short game control and that feels better to the user will ultimately result in lower scores.

I think Titleist is doing their ball fitting right

I like the way Titleist does their fitting. They work around the green to see how you like the check and spin of different balls, then they work back from there. Fitting for compression and blasting the crap out of it is only a small part of what the golf ball is designed to do.

Well i have been working to get my strength back from quad bypass, plus other problems and being 65 yrs old, I checked out the RX balls and i soon realized that there is no real benifit, to hit the Rx balls over the prov 1 or X, Saturday i was hitting the Brigestone and comparing it to higher compression, and there is Zero Distance advantage, in fact i was testing even lower compression balls plus higher, and i find its more hype to sell balls then any practical benifit. I like my proV1 and X. In fact i have my wife playing the proV1 because of having some good spin for the short game and iron shots.

I agree with Titleist's fitting approach here. With all golf balls today I find it hard to believe that you'll find much more than variance of + or - 5 yards in total driver distance between any two given balls. You make your score inside 100 yards and that's where it matters to have a urethane covered ball.

FACT: More Golf Ball Compression = Lower Spin & Higher Launch = More Distance (generally, unless too low and the ball falls out of the sky too quick)


The Titleist guy you talked to was an idiot if he says "granny" compresses the ball the same amount as Gary Woodland (or any PGA player for that matter). He is right in that granny does compress the ball, but she doesn't compress it as much.

The goal is to find a ball that you can fully compress off the tee to get the high launch, low spin characteristic to maximize distance, but yet still has a soft, urethane cover to get you the spin, feel, and check you need around the greens. Harder compression equals more spin, generally, including Side Spin. For a 20+ hdcp, my guess is they would be better served with a ball that keeps it in play (ie. reduces driver side spin). For a better player, my guess is they would best be served by finding a ball that maximizes their driver distance, but still gives them the short game spin they need. A lot of people forget that 10 yds extra off the tee is going to give you one less club into the green, which automatically means more spin - hence, you could play a ball with a little more distance to hit it further and wouldn't be losing out on any approach spin because you would be hitting a club into the green that spins more anyways...

Granny with the 55mph swing isn't going to compress any ball very much. Compression is a red herring in all these discussions. When most people say "compression" they mean the reading on an antique measuring apparatus designed to categorize golf balls with rubber-band windings under a rubber cover.

Titleist's contention (self-serving though it might be) is that whatever ones clubhead speed, the ProV1 or ProV1x will offer certain benefits as compared to lower-performance golf balls. It doesn't matter how Granny compares to Gary Woodland, what matters is how a ProV1 will work for Granny versus how a NXT Tour will work for Granny. They claim that if Granny wants the type of ball that has good greenside spin and whatever other advantages they claim for the ProV1 family then the ProV1 is the right ball for her.

Clubhead speed matters, it just dosn't matter when it comes to choosing a golf ball. Or so says Titleist. You may disagree but be sure you're disagreeing with their actual claim and not a strawman argument. Compression, so-called, is at best a weak indicator of golf ball performance. I wish the whole industry would get over the obsession with "compression".

Compression is indeed an overrated myth. It just roughly translates to how a ball will feel. Here's the Titliest ball fitting resource - check for yourself:
http://www.titleist.co.uk/golf-ball-fitting/

Yes - the ProV1 and ProV1x get recommended a lot - because they are good balls. Everybody will have their own take on what makes an ideal ball for an individual and OEM's are probably no different. Who is going to claim any one of their balls has a performance deficiency compared to another? For the record, I tried the NXT Tour S for the last two rounds and I was quite impressed, even though it ranks a lowly fourth position on Titleists spin rates comparison. Big deal - I just like the way it feels.

[quote name='Fourmyle of Ceres' timestamp='1337018172' post='4912440']
Compression, so-called, is at best a weak indicator of golf ball performance. I wish the whole industry would get over the obsession with "compression".
[/quote]


Incorrect. Overall Total Golf Ball Compression has a very strong relationship to ball velocity, driver spin, and many players would say "feel".

Harder compression = more ball velocity, more spin

Soft compression = less ball velocity, less spin

I've put in a year or so with the (older version) NXT Tour and another year or so with the DT Solo. Recently I put Titleist's claim to the test and played about 12-15 rounds with the current edition ProV1x. What I found was that none of the balls stood out as hugely different in distance or trajectory than the others. And yes, as they say the current ProV1x (unlike what I found with the first generation ones a decade-plus ago) stays in the air just fine and exhibits no evidence of "lack of compression" whatever one might suppose that means with my anemic clubhead speed.

So in the end it came down to the ProV1x by far offered the most variety of shots around the green and was much more controllable on partial swings, chips and putts than the two Surlyn covered balls. Exactly as advertised.

That said, I found that my short game is so basic and one-dimensional that most of those creative shots were more theoretical than practical in their application to my game. And the harder covered balls will run out a bit more when the fairways are firm (helpful given my lack of distance) they will often take an extra hop or two forward and onto the green on slightly mishit approach shots (rather than checking up like the ProV1x) and although a really bad hook or slice swing goes equally far into trouble with any of the balls, those borderline driver swings--the high push-fades and low cutters---will curve an extra 5 yards or so with the urethane Tour ball.

So my best rounds I think were helped by the ProV1x. When I'm making solid contact off the tee and my short game is "on" enough to attempt some spin shots the ProV1x will let me consistently get it closer to the hole. But on my mediocre to poor rounds I fall back on playing safe, running short-game shots and I benefit from a bounce here, a roll there or maybe a "cut" tee shot staying inside the tree line with a firmer cover ball. So now I'm using a Wilson ZIP, go figure!

But I now totally agree with Titleist that compression has nothing much to do with anything. The DT Solo (low compression) does [u]feel[/u] nicer off the irons than the NXT Tour but performs exactly like it. I will say the Solo is quite affordable though.

[size="3"]Here we go again jaskanski, but I'll again refer to reference: [/size][url="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jst.1/pdf"][size="3"]http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jst.1/pdf[/size][/url]

[size="3"]Page 4 of the pdf has a chart entitled "Effect of Core". It compares Golf Ball Core Compression to Spin. The relationship is almost perfect with very slight deviation. Softer Compression = Less Driver Spin. Firmer Compression= More Driver Spin.

Reading the article provides this line regarding ball velocity and compression: [/size][size="3"]"we were able to decrease thecompression 0.1mm (harder) in order to increase the ballspeed. This change resulted in an approximately 0.3 m/s increasedball speed at professional swing speeds". Harder Compression = Higher Ball Speed. Softer Compression = Slower Ball Speed.

Facts are all there. Titleist knows the truth, but what are they going to say? ProV1 is the number one selling ball in the world. Do you honestly think they would tell people the truth, that playing a lower compression ball might actually help a weaker players game, kill some side spin, keeping it straighter and hitting it further, and kill their cash cow??? Get real, why would they tell anyone to quit playing the $50 dz ProV and start playing the $20 dz DT Solo. They would be idiots to do that, hence the compression makes no difference story. I am all for fitting from the green backwards for a good player, but Joe Schmo that hits it all over the planet would be better served by a softer compression ball that he can keep in play, than a high spin ProV that slices/hooks into the woods in my opinion. [/size]

What are the real facts?
Do we hit every shot in a round with equal force with the same club? No
Does every shot need to go the same distance? No
When hit with the desired effect, does compression have an iota of input to the direction and distance of the ball? No
Do any of the top ball OEM's identify any of their balls by compression? No
Is the ProV1 the top selling ball at golf courses around the world for amateurs? No
Do Titleist give the user an informed choice so they can make their own mind up? Yes

He's correct - anyone can play ProV or ProV1x. My 75yr old FIL plays ProV, but what he doesn't do is benefit from the balls capabilities. Difference will be noticeable by those users with strong SS's. They will really compress the ball, getting the core to react, drawing out the ball true capabilities. I suspect there are people that don't like being challenged by technology questions and how ball technology changes from user to user.

Recently I've notice first hand how performance balls react differently moving from irons to driver. My chosen ball is Callaway's new Hex Tour. It spins more then i(z) off irons, and is longer with my irons. But Hex Tour is not as long as i(z) is off my driver, because of Hex Tour spin.

You're making a valid case that Joe Schmo will benefit from a lower spinning ball. Still no convincing argument that a lower reading on one of those ball-squeezer gauges benefits anyone.

The meaningful question is "How much does this ball spin on full swings?". For you example Joe Schmo the best answer is "Not too much". For a strong player the answer might be "As much as it needs to for me to get the short-game spin I require". Neither of those is best answered by reference to a compression-tester reading.

"[b]What are the real facts?"
[/b]
My only point is that there IS a relationship between golf ball compression, ball velocity, and ball spin. Nothing more, nothing less. Compression DOES matter in a golf balls performance. I am talking robot here, not human hits. When the ball is hit virtually the same exact way with a robot, a softer compression ball will have less spin and less ball velocity than a firmer compression ball. That is a REAL FACT. 100%, without a doubt. Set a golf robot up to any condition that you like with a driver. I will bet you any amount of money you want to wager that a Precept Lady iQ (softest ball that I know of on the market) has less spin and less ball velocity than a Nike 20XI (hardest ball that I know of on the market). This goes for any two balls with a discernable difference in their overall compression ratings and not just the extremes either. Softer compression ball will have less spin and less ball velocity than firmer ball. (DT Solo to ProV1x; Hex Chrome to Hex Black, Z-Star SL to Z-Star; etc)


[b]"Do any of the top ball OEM's identify any of their balls by compression? No"
[/b]
No argument here. Not saying any OEM identifies compression, but I can guarantee you that every OEM R&D department performs compression tests and collects compression data on every ball they manufacture.


[b]"Is the ProV1 the top selling ball at golf courses around the world for amateurs? No"
[/b]
Disagree, and I would beg to differ this. The ProV1 is the number one selling ball in golf around the world. The majority of professionals do not pay for their golf balls. So who do you think is buying the number one sold ball in golf around the world? Professionals??? Amateurs are the only ones who buy golf balls. ProV1 is the number one selling golf ball in the world. So how can ProV1 not be the "top selling ball at golf courses around the world for amateurs"???

w[quote name='jman2407' timestamp='1337017145' post='4912292']
FACT: More Golf Ball Compression = Lower Spin & Higher Launch = More Distance (generally, unless too low and the ball falls out of the sky too quick)


The Titleist guy you talked to was an idiot if he says "granny" compresses the ball the same amount as Gary Woodland (or any PGA player for that matter). He is right in that granny does compress the ball, but she doesn't compress it as much.

The goal is to find a ball that you can fully compress off the tee to get the high launch, low spin characteristic to maximize distance, but yet still has a soft, urethane cover to get you the spin, feel, and check you need around the greens. Harder compression equals more spin, generally, including Side Spin. For a 20+ hdcp, my guess is they would be better served with a ball that keeps it in play (ie. reduces driver side spin). For a better player, my guess is they would best be served by finding a ball that maximizes their driver distance, but still gives them the short game spin they need. A lot of people forget that 10 yds extra off the tee is going to give you one less club into the green, which automatically means more spin - hence, you could play a ball with a little more distance to hit it further and wouldn't be losing out on any approach spin because you would be hitting a club into the green that spins more anyways...


[/quote]

You do know that four years ago, the compression of the Pro V1 was right around 74. How does this support your high compression is better for the accomplished player theory?

There's a relationship between the "compression" measurement and spin. OK, there's also a relationship between the cover hardness as measured by one of those surface hardness gauges. Why not say Joe Schmo ought to choose a ball based on cover hardness?

There's a relationship between price and spin. $50/dozen Tour balls spin a heck of a lot more than $10/dozen Top Flite distance balls. Why not tell Joe Schmo he needs to play a cheap ball?

Or here's a novel thought. [b]Tell Joe Schmo he needs to play a ball that don't spin much. As measured by, you know, SPIN[/b]. That's all I'm saying. If you mean "low spin" say "low spin" don't say "low something-or-other-that-sort-of-goes-along-with-low-spin".

P.S. And just to be clear, the reason to say what you mean and mean what you say is that people will actually think you mean "compression" when you say "compression". So they'll ask on GolfWRX "What is a low compression ball that spins a lot because I want plenty of spin but my clubhead speed is slow". If you preach "low compression" when you really mean "low spin" you totally confuse the two characteristics and lead to that type of thinking.

P.P.S. If you call a tail a "leg" how many legs does a dog have? Four legs, plus a tail that's called a "leg".

It is NOT a theory. It is a fact, when hit by a ROBOT. Is it always true? No, not saying that at all. Example of ProV1 and ProV1x. V1x is firmer compression, but spins less off the driver than V1. The point is there is a STRONG relationship if you were to graph all balls out in an xy chart comparing overall compression to driver spin. Same goes for ball velocity. STRONG relationship if you were to graph ball velocity and overall compression on an xy chart. And I am talking DRIVER SPIN, not Greenside/Wedge/Chip spin. Compression is related to Driver Spin. Cover is what mainly effects wedge spin.

From what I can gather, ProV compression is around 80-85.

Please answer the question. What reason is there for not saying "low spin" if you mean "low spin"?

[quote name='rgk5' timestamp='1337024794' post='4913442']
You do know that four years ago, the compression of the Pro V1 was right around 74. How does this support your high compression is better for the accomplished player theory?
[/quote]



You do know that there are lots of balls with compression measurments much softer than 74 right?

The point was a bad player than cannot hit any shot consistently (drive, irons, chip) would most likely benefit more from a ball that reduces side spin, than a ball that gives him crazy spin around the green. I myself am a 6 hdcp and I personally find it VERY, VERY difficult to discern any difference in short chip shot spin (5-40 yd chip shots) between any of the urethane covered balls. Therefore, I take all of those balls, hit them on a launch monitor, and play the one that gives me the best driver condition to maximize my distance. That, in my opinion, is how it should be done.

[quote name='jman2407' timestamp='1337025415' post='4913544']
It is NOT a theory. It is a fact, when hit by a ROBOT. Is it always true? No, not saying that at all. Example of ProV1 and ProV1x. V1x is firmer compression, but spins less off the driver than V1. The point is there is a STRONG relationship if you were to graph all balls out in an xy chart comparing overall compression to driver spin. Same goes for ball velocity. STRONG relationship if you were to graph ball velocity and overall compression on an xy chart. And I am talking DRIVER SPIN, not Greenside/Wedge/Chip spin. Compression is related to Driver Spin. Cover is what mainly effects wedge spin.

From what I can gather, [b]ProV compression is around 80-85.[/b]
[/quote]

Can we get some units in here? My SS is 161.33

I take a ball and putt with it. That, in my opinion is how it should be done.

[quote name='jman2407' timestamp='1337026107' post='4913622']
[quote name='rgk5' timestamp='1337024794' post='4913442']
You do know that four years ago, the compression of the Pro V1 was right around 74. How does this support your high compression is better for the accomplished player theory?
[/quote]



You do know that there are lots of balls with compression measurments much softer than 74 right?

The point was a bad player than cannot hit any shot consistently (drive, irons, chip) would most likely benefit more from a ball that reduces side spin, than a ball that gives him crazy spin around the green. I myself am a 6 hdcp and I personally find it VERY, VERY difficult to discern any difference in short chip shot spin (5-40 yd chip shots) between any of the urethane covered balls. Therefore, I take all of those balls, hit them on a launch monitor, and play the one that gives me the best driver condition to maximize my distance. That, in my opinion, is how it should be done.
[/quote]

Interesting in that I judge a ball's usefulness in exactly the same way, after I rank them 1,2,3, based on greenside spin. I too am a six.

[quote name='Fourmyle of Ceres' timestamp='1337025875' post='4913602']
Please answer the question. What reason is there for not saying "low spin" if you mean "low spin"?
[/quote]

No reason. Joe Schmo would be better off playing a low spin ball.

The point of the conversation is you stated compression has no affect on performance. That is incorrect. Measured compression has a strong relationship to measured ball velocity and measured spin, when hit by a Robot. I simply stated low compression instead of low spin for Joe Schmo because of this strong relationship. 9 times out of 10, a low spin ball will be a softer compression ball.

When your clubhead speed is really, really low (like 84-85mph) and you seldom square up the driver clubface (typically 2 to 4 degrees open at impact) optimizing your ball choice for driver launch conditions is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The most I'm ever going to buy in terms of driver carry distance by choosing the "right" ball is maybe what 3,4,5 yards? If that.

pu_golf88,

Ball compression is measure in various arbitrary-scale units depending on what tester you're using. But I suspect you were asking a rhetorical question and already knew that...

[quote name='Fourmyle of Ceres' timestamp='1337026596' post='4913688']
When your clubhead speed is really, really low (like 84-85mph) and you seldom square up the driver clubface (typically 2 to 4 degrees open at impact) optimizing your ball choice for driver launch conditions is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The most I'm ever going to buy in terms of driver carry distance by choosing the "right" ball is maybe what 3,4,5 yards? If that.

pu_golf88,

Ball compression is measure in various arbitrary-scale units depending on what tester you're using. But I suspect you were asking a rhetorical question and already knew that...
[/quote]


Depends how bad one's initial launch conditions are. If they are terrible (Example: Over 16 degs launch, Under 8 degrees launch. Over 4000 rpms of spin, Less than 1800 rpms of spin) then I would easily expect a driver distance gain of over 10+ yards if one was to get on a launch monitor and optimize his condition. This, of course, requires the 85 mph swing speed player to be consistent in his strike however.

If he/she's condition is not that bad to begin with, then I agree, distance gains will be limited regardless of ball played at that lower swing speed.

Compression: [url="http://books.google.com/books?id=bmVk8BkOLH4C&pg=PA319&lpg=PA319&dq=atti+compression&source=bl&ots=U1zKmW1fyo&sig=tGRHOob4fwvYxjratGJNSDLK-cM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vG6xT_btOoyc8gTNquzXCA&ved=0CFcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=atti%20compression&f=false"]http://books.google.com/books?id=bmVk8BkOLH4C&pg=PA319&lpg=PA319&dq=atti+compression&source=bl&ots=U1zKmW1fyo&sig=tGRHOob4fwvYxjratGJNSDLK-cM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vG6xT_btOoyc8gTNquzXCA&ved=0CFcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=atti%20compression&f=false[/url]

So how many times does the ROBOT hit the ball for you on the course?

[quote name='Watkins4x' timestamp='1337093425' post='4918018']
So how many times does the ROBOT hit the ball for you on the course?
[/quote]

You trying to get your post count up?

I was simply discussing the science of golf and providing some information on the physics of golf to those who know nothing about it. You know, trying to be a nice guy. Something that is obviously WAYYYY over your head. In most cases, a player that needs less side spin and driver spin, should play a softer compression ball. Not sure why anyone would grill me over this? I guess there is one in every bunch...


And by the way, the same relationship is true for any golfer that can make a consistent strike. I simply used ROBOT to provide the image of a very consistent hitter. The same would hold true for PGA players, LPGA players, or anyone that hits the ball with a consistent strike. Hard compression = more spin, more velocity. Soft compression = less spin, less velocity.

In other words, even you would see less spin and less velocity from a softer compression ball than a harder compression ball and vice versa, if you could make the same swing (or even nearly the same swing in most instances) twice. The ball does not know who is hitting it, it simply reacts to the forces applied to it.