The ball doesn't matter! (Formerly, the Ultimate Ball Test)

[Need2golfalot]

I can believe it, saw some other study where alchohol improved coordination though the first couple of drinks...then it started declining with more consumption. Yea the problem would be trying to maintain that 1 to 2 beer buzz. Then there's the problem of deyhdration...and too many houses/ not enough woods for bathroom breaks on some courses.

 

I remember a college course required a 'clinical' research project. We tried to study the effect of classical music enhancing test scores...it was silly, although our results and statistics did support our theory >5% it didn't prove jack. Found out another student simply handed out a survey and did a statistical analysis on behavior. Would have been so much easier.

 

Would be interesting to see survey results of handicap and type of ball played. Would give correlation...then have 2 groups...low and mid handicap...switch to opposite type golf ball....log results after a few rounds. Too many variables I know..

 

 

 

 

 

 

[propman]

I swear a couple of rum and cokes help my game. After 3, not so much.

[BillyZ2]

It probably allows a golfer to relax a bit and lets their skills come out uninhibited.

[Exactice808]

I agree that expressing opinion is a good thing, and I also wrote that the OP's attempted work was a good thing as well. What I was writing to had nothing to do with anyone's belief about golf balls. My concern was with the OP's insistence that his experiment was both proof positive of his opinion, and that it was generalizable in it applicability. When other people spoke of their opinions to the contrary the OP referrenced his experiment's results as proof that contrarian opinions were mute. Those two points were the only issues that I wrote to. I also agree with you that research is difficult work. Furthermore, I agree with you that we may not be able to construct such an encompassing experiment to begin with. However, what we do seem to be getting here is that some people are more or less affected by differences in balls than others, or they at least reason that this could be the case.

 

So to the point of a potential experiment:

 

Potential variables for consideration:

- Spin (Side, Back)

- Feel (Compression, Construction, Materials)

- Condtions (Course/Hole Layout, Fairway/Green Firmness, Penalty Constructs, Distance)

- Player (Shot Shape, Consistency, Typical Miss Shot Shape, Short Game Prowes)

 

Potential Questions:

A) What effects do side and back spin have on accuracy and distance?

B) What effects can/do conditions have upon the exaggeration of side and back spin?

C) Can combinations of side and back spin and course conditions impair different player's ability to adjust to balls that have more or less types of spin?

D) What constitutes a negative scoring impact?

E) How would standardization with a player's control ball be kept over time for possible scoring deviations between side spin and back spin category balls?

F) Does course familiarity impact a player's ability to adapt to the selected side spin and back spin balls, and if so to what degree does it impact scoring differentials?

G) Is there a difference in score between playing the different spin balls vs the player's standard ball on different holes within the round?

H) Will there be a difference in scoring for each ball when playing multiple balls (with random order) from each category per hole?

I) Are we measuring player adaptive capacity instead of ball differentiation characteristic impact?

 

Potential Experiment Parameters:

1) Differentiating Player types based upon degree of shot shape. This would require determining minimum and maximum values of typical deviation from target.

2) Determining ball type categories for minimum and maximum side spin values, and separately, for backspin values (yes balls may blend these two).

3) Creating Course Layout impacts on scoring per shot shape categories (which tracks more heavily penalize slice vs hooks).

4) Categorizing course layout impacts on both distance and green receptivity.

5) Determining environmental categorization constructs for weather, course, and time impacts (these are some of the external validity points that would exist).

6) Determining representative balls for each category of side spin and back spin.

7) Creating Std Deviation reference platforms of each player's standard ball in relationship to the side spin and back spin reference balls.

8) Drafting course rotation schedules (alternate between standard ball round at one course with high side spin ball at another, then the low side spin ball representative at another course, etc, etc, etc, until one round with each ball has been played in a scrambled way).

 

This above only represents a possible foundation for constructing a more generalizable experiment

 

I know what you meant, The point of bringing in a full scientific thesis to this topic, is just plane overboard.

 

By dissecting's OP post, we can find every flaw in the way a test was done including 99.99999% of all "said test on Golf WRX". But the point that the OP was expressing and I say "POINT" not scientifically, flux-capacitor, 121 jiggawatts test that was conducted. Was that at a mortal level at a normal round of golf, The ball does not really matter.

 

Yes yes, we can do all that test... feel free to do so and take the time out, but I personally feel, it wont matter.

 

 

a higher spinning ball, personally is that 1 benefit..... more spin, other than that......Again you have to have greens that are receptive to the increased spin and the actual skill to manipulate the spin on command.

 

If you have neither, then the shot consistency that will ALWAYS occur is a roll out and thus players should adapt to that roll out until, they either play greens that are impossible to hold and or they develop a skill to manipulate a golf ball.

[darnoldil]

I agree that expressing opinion is a good thing, and I also wrote that the OP's attempted work was a good thing as well. What I was writing to had nothing to do with anyone's belief about golf balls. My concern was with the OP's insistence that his experiment was both proof positive of his opinion, and that it was generalizable in it applicability. When other people spoke of their opinions to the contrary the OP referrenced his experiment's results as proof that contrarian opinions were mute. Those two points were the only issues that I wrote to. I also agree with you that research is difficult work. Furthermore, I agree with you that we may not be able to construct such an encompassing experiment to begin with. However, what we do seem to be getting here is that some people are more or less affected by differences in balls than others, or they at least reason that this could be the case.

 

So to the point of a potential experiment:

 

Potential variables for consideration:

- Spin (Side, Back)

- Feel (Compression, Construction, Materials)

- Condtions (Course/Hole Layout, Fairway/Green Firmness, Penalty Constructs, Distance)

- Player (Shot Shape, Consistency, Typical Miss Shot Shape, Short Game Prowes)

 

Potential Questions:

A) What effects do side and back spin have on accuracy and distance?

B) What effects can/do conditions have upon the exaggeration of side and back spin?

C) Can combinations of side and back spin and course conditions impair different player's ability to adjust to balls that have more or less types of spin?

D) What constitutes a negative scoring impact?

E) How would standardization with a player's control ball be kept over time for possible scoring deviations between side spin and back spin category balls?

F) Does course familiarity impact a player's ability to adapt to the selected side spin and back spin balls, and if so to what degree does it impact scoring differentials?

G) Is there a difference in score between playing the different spin balls vs the player's standard ball on different holes within the round?

H) Will there be a difference in scoring for each ball when playing multiple balls (with random order) from each category per hole?

I) Are we measuring player adaptive capacity instead of ball differentiation characteristic impact?

 

Potential Experiment Parameters:

1) Differentiating Player types based upon degree of shot shape. This would require determining minimum and maximum values of typical deviation from target.

2) Determining ball type categories for minimum and maximum side spin values, and separately, for backspin values (yes balls may blend these two).

3) Creating Course Layout impacts on scoring per shot shape categories (which tracks more heavily penalize slice vs hooks).

4) Categorizing course layout impacts on both distance and green receptivity.

5) Determining environmental categorization constructs for weather, course, and time impacts (these are some of the external validity points that would exist).

6) Determining representative balls for each category of side spin and back spin.

7) Creating Std Deviation reference platforms of each player's standard ball in relationship to the side spin and back spin reference balls.

8) Drafting course rotation schedules (alternate between standard ball round at one course with high side spin ball at another, then the low side spin ball representative at another course, etc, etc, etc, until one round with each ball has been played in a scrambled way).

 

This above only represents a possible foundation for constructing a more generalizable experiment

 

I know what you meant, The point of bringing in a full scientific thesis to this topic, is just plane overboard.

 

By dissecting's OP post, we can find every flaw in the way a test was done including 99.99999% of all "said test on Golf WRX". But the point that the OP was expressing and I say "POINT" not scientifically, flux-capacitor, 121 jiggawatts test that was conducted. Was that at a mortal level at a normal round of golf, The ball does not really matter.

 

Yes yes, we can do all that test... feel free to do so and take the time out, but I personally feel, it wont matter.

 

 

a higher spinning ball, personally is that 1 benefit..... more spin, other than that......Again you have to have greens that are receptive to the increased spin and the actual skill to manipulate the spin on command.

 

If you have neither, then the shot consistency that will ALWAYS occur is a roll out and thus players should adapt to that roll out until, they either play greens that are impossible to hold and or they develop a skill to manipulate a golf ball.

 

I appreciate your point, however you only site one variable which is backspin, and further, you only site one application of backspin which is in "holding greens". The reality is that backspin can affect distance, even for the average player as well. Also, side spin will affect deviation from the target line, and THAT can affect just how much "Army golf" a person is playing. It can also significantly impact a player's score depending upon course layout and OB. Remember, Bridgestone DOES market a ball that they tout as having less side spin in order to cut down on slices (what the majority of right hand golfer's do) and hooks, with the expressed point that it will help you to SCORE better. LOL

 

Regarding the "dissection" of the OP's experiment NOT needing to be done: my point was that it DID need some review for the claims that he was making regarding it's applicability to all but the super small minority of pro golfer's. There are a number of people who not only disagree with the OP's findings, but THEY have experienced for themselves, and or seen others experience that the ball CAN and DOES make a difference. The OP strongly inferred and basically wrote that HIS testing PROVES that they are wrong. Thus, since the OP wanted to have his experiment hold as proof that his hypothesis applies to just about everyone else it made it fair game to examine it from a scientific research methodology perspective.

 

Just take a moment to think about it please. When the OP did his "experiment" what balls did he use? How close were the characteristics of those balls to his own in both side spin and back spin? How did he "rotate" the balls; was it between holes or rounds? Did the OP ever question or realize how good HE may actually be, in the sense that he may not put any significant side spin on his shots unless he WANTS to? If that's the case then the OP effectively confined the test to more of a "distance" test, where he primarily only had to adjust for the roll out that you speak of. Taking that one step further, if he played on greens that were not very firm, or that had large amounts of run out area, and or that were not sloped, then the OP REALLY took even the green holding factor out of the test, thereby further narrowing it to a "distance" ADJUST ABILITY test. In fact, the whole test may have been measuring how well the OP could adjust to a ball's characteristics, instead of how much those characteristics, left unchecked, would have impacted his scores. Then the OP's conclusions ASSUME that everyone else could make the same adjustments, and thus charges them to be as adaptable as he may be. In other words, the OP may not, and probably did not, measure what he intended to measure, and that means the test wasn't internally valid; let alone generalize-able to the vast amount of golfers.

 

The point of the OP, and it seems based upon what you have just written, yourself included, is that the ball doesn't matter: primarily it seems, due to the ability of people to adjust to any differences in ball characteristics that may exits, or because the differences simply do not make enough of a difference to negatively impact anyone. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. What people aren't entitled to is to create an "experiment" that isn't well constructed according to even basic research methodology principles, and then say that their test "proves" that they were right and anyone else that thinks and or experiences anything differently is simply wrong. In my opinion, doing THAT is going overboard; using voodoo science and telling everyone that they simply must accept your conclusions because they are "scientific" when they aren't.

 

Look, there are very serious flaws on a basic level here with the construction of the OP's tests if he is going to generalize it to the overwhelming majority of golfers; it's not nitpicking. Trying to discount these flaws as being insignificant or overburdening as a way of ignoring that the OP's experiment ISN'T as applicable as he, and others may want it to be doesn't make sense. Why? Because we all have the right to use whatever ball we want to, and we all know what we do on the course and can/have tried things (including different balls) to help us with our own individual idiosyncrasies.

 

Furthermore, we all know that for SOME "X" % of golfers the ball doesn't matter. We can also hypothesize that for SOME "Y" % of golfers the ball will have less of an impact on their scores then the "Z" golfers. We can even Hypothesize that the "A" golfers, the very few that they are, maybe would experience a significant impact to their scores with different ball characteristics. However, to say that the ONLY group that would experience an impact in their scores based upon ball characteristics are the type "A" golfers, because those people are "good", and thus everyone else just needs to forget about it because the OP's tests proved they are all wrong and just deluding themselves??? Well, that simply doesn't work. Therefore the OP doesn't get a pass when he wants to tell everyone else that they are delusional because he and his experiment say so.

 

Now with that written, there really isn't anything else to be said; it's all been laid out by all of the posters on this thread. When you look at it all, we see that there ARE NON-low to + handicap players that DO believe/find that differences in ball characteristics can impact their scores. We also see that others believe/find that ball characteristics can not only impact their scores, but do so to an extent that they struggle to adapt well enough to the differences to negate them. And still others believe/find that they/golfer's in general, are able to adapt, or even find no disconcerting differences that would significantly impact their scores.

 

And THAT'S what I think we can all take away from this: The fact that a golf ball's characteristics May, or May Not impact YOU. Therefore you have to try it for yourself and see, instead of simply accepting someone's belief/logic that it will or it won't.

[BrianL99]

I'm not sure why I'm still amazed that most every long thread on WRX, eventually reverts to nonsense.

 

Mr. Darnoldil seems to know just enough about scientific testing to get himself into trouble, by completely ignoring the entire point of my "testing". It wasn't about "spin", "distance", "accuracy" on any such thing ... it was about scoring.

 

Even more importantly, he seems completely oblivious to the average amateur's inability to contact a golf ball with even a modicum of consistency.

 

The lack of consistency in amateur golf swings, makes any "scientific analysis" almost impossible, as there's no way to isolate the variable (golf ball).

 

Everyone should just use whatever golf ball they like or can afford ... just know that it's probably not going to make a significant impact on your average score. That conclusion really doesn't need any "testing" to prove, it's only common sense.

[Exactice808]

I appreciate your point, however you only site one variable which is backspin, and further, you only site one application of backspin which is in "holding greens". The reality is that backspin can affect distance, even for the average player as well. Also, side spin will affect deviation from the target line, and THAT can affect just how much "Army golf" a person is playing. It can also significantly impact a player's score depending upon course layout and OB. Remember, Bridgestone DOES market a ball that they tout as having less side spin in order to cut down on slices (what the majority of right hand golfer's do) and hooks, with the expressed point that it will help you to SCORE better. LOL. I personally feel back spin around the greens is what makes a premium spinning ball worth its weight. When speaking about back spin on distance and side spin. These are influenced by the GOLFER whom has control of these attributes. The golfer will apply a shot that can add or take of spin in addition to adding side spin. When you speak about army golf layout and OB, this has nothing to do with the ball influence but the Course management of the player and the swing faults that follow. A ball will NOT save you from errors, of course management nor a bad swing. if you know you have an out to in swing that causes slices, and say you play a less spinning ball OB is in the right, will this guarantee you not to go OB? NO a bad shot is a bad shot, if you had a premium ball and aimed more left....this is course/game management. Again the ball did nothing.

 

Regarding the "dissection" of the OP's experiment NOT needing to be done: my point was that it DID need some review for the claims that he was making regarding it's applicability to all but the super small minority of pro golfer's. There are a number of people who not only disagree with the OP's findings, but THEY have experienced for themselves, and or seen others experience that the ball CAN and DOES make a difference. The OP strongly inferred and basically wrote that HIS testing PROVES that they are wrong. Thus, since the OP wanted to have his experiment hold as proof that his hypothesis applies to just about everyone else it made it fair game to examine it from a scientific research methodology perspective. I cant disagree with you on this one, because you are right the test is not perfect, But I will say it never will be. To many variables. I personally agree though with the OP in his thoughts, Maybe not the test exactly, but does the ball matter? Nope

 

Just take a moment to think about it please. When the OP did his "experiment" what balls did he use? How close were the characteristics of those balls to his own in both side spin and back spin? How did he "rotate" the balls; was it between holes or rounds? Did the OP ever question or realize how good HE may actually be, in the sense that he may not put any significant side spin on his shots unless he WANTS to? If that's the case then the OP effectively confined the test to more of a "distance" test, where he primarily only had to adjust for the roll out that you speak of. Taking that one step further, if he played on greens that were not very firm, or that had large amounts of run out area, and or that were not sloped, then the OP REALLY took even the green holding factor out of the test, thereby further narrowing it to a "distance" ADJUST ABILITY test. In fact, the whole test may have been measuring how well the OP could adjust to a ball's characteristics, instead of how much those characteristics, left unchecked, would have impacted his scores. Then the OP's conclusions ASSUME that everyone else could make the same adjustments, and thus charges them to be as adaptable as he may be. In other words, the OP may not, and probably did not, measure what he intended to measure, and that means the test wasn't internally valid; let alone generalize-able to the vast amount of golfers. If you play one type of ball and understand the basic characteristics of it, you can manage your game to effectively play with X ball. What worries me is that premium balls offer a false sense of security, that not all players can take advantage of. Holding the greens, this means chips and second shots. A player must take into account their skill/ability and adapt to score the best they can.

 

The point of the OP, and it seems based upon what you have just written, yourself included, is that the ball doesn't matter: primarily it seems, due to the ability of people to adjust to any differences in ball characteristics that may exits, or because the differences simply do not make enough of a difference to negatively impact anyone. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. What people aren't entitled to is to create an "experiment" that isn't well constructed according to even basic research methodology principles, and then say that their test "proves" that they were right and anyone else that thinks and or experiences anything differently is simply wrong. In my opinion, doing THAT is going overboard; using voodoo science and telling everyone that they simply must accept your conclusions because they are "scientific" when they aren't. Actually, I am trying to incite the opposite, I feel that all balls have 1 consistency, It rolls forward. The only time it doesnt if a proper strike is put on the ball to spin it where it will stop or spin back. If not 100% of the time ANY golfer of any skill level can make the ball roll forward, but to make the ball stop or roll back only a percentage can do so....There is no adjustment and no need for any golfer to adjust. Here is an example

 

If a higher handicap player played a ProV1, has a second shot to a green, Hits a good shot, what happens the ball may "stop" if he hits bad shot, the ball will likely roll out. In this scenario the higher handicap will struggle with inconsistencies, not knowing if it will stop or not, not knowing if he will put a good shot on or not.....second guessing, loss of confidence will ensue.

 

If a higher handicap player played a Range ball, has a second shot to the green, hits a good shot, the ball will release, if he hits a bad shot, the ball will release but release more. In this case the higher handicap can play 1 consistent shot....a release

 

 

 

Look, there are very serious flaws on a basic level here with the construction of the OP's tests if he is going to generalize it to the overwhelming majority of golfers; it's not nitpicking. Trying to discount these flaws as being insignificant or overburdening as a way of ignoring that the OP's experiment ISN'T as applicable as he, and others may want it to be doesn't make sense. Why? Because we all have the right to use whatever ball we want to, and we all know what we do on the course and can/have tried things (including different balls) to help us with our own individual idiosyncrasies. Again, it isnt a perfect test.... But again I ask you this. While you dissect OPs test. PLEASE do a test to show that a ball DOES matter then.

 

Furthermore, we all know that for SOME "X" % of golfers the ball doesn't matter. We can also hypothesize that for SOME "Y" % of golfers the ball will have less of an impact on their scores then the "Z" golfers. We can even Hypothesize that the "A" golfers, the very few that they are, maybe would experience a significant impact to their scores with different ball characteristics. However, to say that the ONLY group that would experience an impact in their scores based upon ball characteristics are the type "A" golfers, because those people are "good", and thus everyone else just needs to forget about it because the OP's tests proved they are all wrong and just deluding themselves??? Well, that simply doesn't work. Therefore the OP doesn't get a pass when he wants to tell everyone else that they are delusional because he and his experiment say so. Tough one as I do think only 1 group can see a true potential in score improvement and that is a Strong player that has full control over the ball. But at this point they are good enough to play anything and hit a shot that can still work in their favor. A weak player as I detailed above, will have too many inconsistencies to take full advantage of a premium ball.

 

Now with that written, there really isn't anything else to be said; it's all been laid out by all of the posters on this thread. When you look at it all, we see that there ARE NON-low to + handicap players that DO believe/find that differences in ball characteristics can impact their scores. We also see that others believe/find that ball characteristics can not only impact their scores, but do so to an extent that they struggle to adapt well enough to the differences to negate them. And still others believe/find that they/golfer's in general, are able to adapt, or even find no disconcerting differences that would significantly impact their scores. I dont see one side or the other, I see a debate, that is why we are on page 9, if it was really 1 sided, this thread would have been buried a while ago.

 

And THAT'S what I think we can all take away from this: The fact that a golf ball's characteristics May, or May Not impact YOU. Therefore you have to try it for yourself and see, instead of simply accepting someone's belief/logic that it will or it won't. Respectable opinion, and nothing wrong with that. I again have personally detailed why I think it doesnt matter and that is my opinion. Another poster has read my post and accepted it and has felt they may change the way they view a premium ball. If that does not carry any validation than I dont know what else to say my friend.

 

 

My head hurts...I need a break the coffee needs to be warmed up.....

[Tanner25]

I'm not sure why I'm still amazed that most every long thread on WRX, eventually reverts to nonsense.

 

Mr. Darnoldil seems to know just enough about scientific testing to get himself into trouble, by completely ignoring the entire point of my "testing". It wasn't about "spin", "distance", "accuracy" on any such thing ... it was about scoring.

 

Even more importantly, he seems completely oblivious to the average amateur's inability to contact a golf ball with even a modicum of consistency.

 

The lack of consistency in amateur golf swings, makes any "scientific analysis" almost impossible, as there's no way to isolate the variable (golf ball).

 

Everyone should just use whatever golf ball they like or can afford ... just know that it's probably not going to make a significant impact on your average score. That conclusion really doesn't need any "testing" to prove, it's only common sense.

 

agreed the ball won't make a big difference in ones score, with that said, when it comes to feel, it does make a difference, correct? I find the 3 and 4 piece balls have a much better feel.

[rgk5]

I tried the Wilson Staff Duo Spin today and came away very impressed. I had no issues on full wedge, pitch and chip shots. Off the driver and full irons it performed admirably. Putting yielded a nice feel too.

[darnoldil]

I'm not sure why I'm still amazed that most every long thread on WRX, eventually reverts to nonsense.

 

Mr. Darnoldil seems to know just enough about scientific testing to get himself into trouble, by completely ignoring the entire point of my "testing". It wasn't about "spin", "distance", "accuracy" on any such thing ... it was about scoring.

 

Even more importantly, he seems completely oblivious to the average amateur's inability to contact a golf ball with even a modicum of consistency.

 

The lack of consistency in amateur golf swings, makes any "scientific analysis" almost impossible, as there's no way to isolate the variable (golf ball).

 

Everyone should just use whatever golf ball they like or can afford ... just know that it's probably not going to make a significant impact on your average score. That conclusion really doesn't need any "testing" to prove, it's only common sense.

 

Actually, I know quite a bit about scientific testing, and you know little about me. You keep making assumptions and then using them as factual premises in your logic algorithms. What is worse is that you then uphold yourself as being an expert in scientific research methodology that can determine what is or isn't appropriate, all while making fundamental gaffes.

 

I commended you for attempting the test. I even noted (honestly) that you MAY be on to something. What I have not agreed with is that your research methodology and experiment are capable of you applying your results to the general golfing populace. Your retorts based upon logic postulates can not hide this fact. Your cynical anecdotes do not offer cover for your unwillingness to allow for others' opinions that differ from your own to be valued. That is what this is really about Brian. You conducted an experiment to prove to everyone that your viewpoint was correct. Hmmm ok. However, you then used the results of your experiment to disprove anyone else that disagreed with your globalized conclusion. Hmmm, that is concerning. Unfortunately, you went another step further by inferring that only you seem to have the expertise to determine research methodology, and in essence became your own peer-review council. Hmm, that makes no sense. Thus a summarized basic level review of research methodology and why you should have been willing to let other people not assume that your conclusion(s) were the end of the discussion. Instead, a basic overview was chided as unnecessarily engrossing, inapplicable, and....pedantic (LOL), when your whole case rests upon the simple premise that your experiment is generalize-able to the vast majority of golfers and that it was a solid fact. No wonder most of those that questioned your findings, and your methodology, no longer visit this thread. It simply isn't worth it because you refuse to entertain the idea that other people that didn't agree with you may have also added something of worth to the discussion.

 

Honestly Brian, I have no problem with you or anyone else believing that the ball makes no difference. I did have a problem with you inferring that your opinion was closure on the matter due to your experiment. However, I no longer have a problem even with that because this doesn't seem to be about "adding to the body of knowledge". I tried to offer that simple conclusion by writing that everyone needs to do their own testing and come to their own individual conclusions on the matter in my last post, and even that wasn't good enough, as you could only respond with a personal attack. LOL. I have not attacked you personally, I have only reviewed and disagreed with the flaws in your experiment and said that you shouldn't get a pass on the flaws if you are going to hold your conclusion as being applicable to everyone based upon your experiment. In the end, I overlooked your initial personal zing, and here you are with yet another one which I find interesting....I also see that it simply doesn't matter. LOL.

[Exactice808]

LOL. LOL, LOL :taunt: :taunt: :taunt: Actually, I tend to be pretty reserved, but thanks for the Matt Damon reference, because reading through the thread certainly seemed to reveal that the other bloke was in here whacking

anyone who dared to question or found any problems with the work. :taunt: :taunt: :taunt: :taunt: :taunt:

It's all in good fun however.

 

Clubs, balls all that jazz is tough to make a perfect test, so saying his test is flawed is like saying the sky is blue. We know the honest real answer, its an impossible task, but the fact that OP tried something to validate his opinion is worth more than some people that come in here and just blast away without doing their own test and validate their own opinion.

 

Personally I appreciate other peoples opinion because sometimes...you learn something new..... who knew the world was round....for years it was flat....and the universe doesnt revolve around earth? I thought it did.... who would have though we revolve around a sun....

 

 

This is the discussion and opinions are what makes this discussion interesting.

 

I agree that expressing opinion is a good thing, and I also wrote that the OP's attempted work was a good thing as well. What I was writing to had nothing to do with anyone's belief about golf balls. My concern was with the OP's insistence that his experiment was both proof positive of his opinion, and that it was generalizable in it applicability. When other people spoke of their opinions to the contrary the OP referrenced his experiment's results as proof that contrarian opinions were mute. Those two points were the only issues that I wrote to. I also agree with you that research is difficult work. Furthermore, I agree with you that we may not be able to construct such an encompassing experiment to begin with. However, what we do seem to be getting here is that some people are more or less affected by differences in balls than others, or they at least reason that this could be the case.

 

So to the point of a potential experiment:

 

Potential variables for consideration:

- Spin (Side, Back) Around the green in essence should play the biggest role of spin. Off the Tee can be manipulated by proper swing. Moving left or right, intentionally or unintentionally is dependent on a couple of things.

- Feel (Compression, Construction, Materials. Feel is preference per player. Honestly though in your heart to heart, does feel quantify score? doesnt result quantify score?

- Condtions (Course/Hole Layout, Fairway/Green Firmness, Penalty Constructs, Distance) This is course management, yes you can use a ball to manipulate to help with conditions, but that also means you can take any ball and manipulate it.

- Player (Shot Shape, Consistency, Typical Miss Shot Shape, Short Game Prowes. Player is player, shot shape is all dependent on the player, typical miss shape and short game ability.... ALL ability and ball wont necessarily quantify a better score. Ability will

 

Potential Questions:

A) What effects do side and back spin have on accuracy and distance? Affects a lot, but that can also be corrected by swing. The ball is NOT the only factor to this. Off the tee if you are hitting 3000+rpms of spin, you may need to address your setup, attack angle, Shaft, secondary tilt. The ball will not correct swing faults, Same with side spin, slices and hooks with too in or too out swings.

B) What effects can/do conditions have upon the exaggeration of side and back spin. Conditions? This is all course management, if you have a slice, and the ball spins more to cause a worse slice, the wind is blowing left to right causing and even more slice, you have the COURSE Management option to AIM further left to compensate. The ball is not going to safe you just by changing it to a less spinning ball.

C) Can combinations of side and back spin and course conditions impair different player's ability to adjust to balls that have more or less types of spin? Yes, but this is up to player to choose a ball and manage their game to play effectively with X ball.

D) What constitutes a negative scoring impact? Inconsistencies of ball reaction with X struct shots, as I described, a Higher handicap player, hitting a good shot vs a bad shot, you will have 2 unknown results when playing with a high spinning ball. where is you have a low spinning ball you will have 2 similar shots, just one rolling out more than the other.

E) How would standardization with a player's control ball be kept over time for possible scoring deviations between side spin and back spin category balls? No way to set controls..... to many variables

F) Does course familiarity impact a player's ability to adapt to the selected side spin and back spin balls, and if so to what degree does it impact scoring differentials? Course familiarity is in favor of a complete game, I dont think JUST the ball will impact direct scoring.

G) Is there a difference in score between playing the different spin balls vs the player's standard ball on different holes within the round. I posted this in another post.... During a scramble round, I have done this where I hit a low spin ball of the tee and switch to a high spin ball for the approach or for a chip shot. Yes It can benefit, but during a legit round, you cant do that. So why even use this as a test, we cannot alternate a low spin ball from hole to hole can we in a legit round?

H) Will there be a difference in scoring for each ball when playing multiple balls (with random order) from each category per hole? Again not going to test something that I cannot do during a legit round.

I) Are we measuring player adaptive capacity instead of ball differentiation characteristic impact? We should not see an adaptability but a reservation of acceptance of skill. does the player have the ability to make use of the actually premium ball were they are able to effectively better their score.

 

Potential Experiment Parameters:

1) Differentiating Player types based upon degree of shot shape. This would require determining minimum and maximum values of typical deviation from target. This is actually interesting... The Proximity to hole at a PGA level is I think 30ft from 150 yards out. (Their PWs) 30ft is 10 yards. Many greens are no larger tan 30 Yards. That means PGA pro's hit no closer than 1/3 of the target. A premium ball vs a range ball for an amateur will better this? really????? HIGHLY Doubt this....

2) Determining ball type categories for minimum and maximum side spin values, and separately, for backspin values (yes balls may blend these two) Sid spin, has been brought up, I dont feel side spin is a ball issue, but the player hitting the ball applying more or less side spin.

3) Creating Course Layout impacts on scoring per shot shape categories (which tracks more heavily penalize slice vs hooks). Not going to touch this

4) Categorizing course layout impacts on both distance and green receptivity Same wont touch, no course is setup for 1 golfer perfectly

5) Determining environmental categorization constructs for weather, course, and time impacts (these are some of the external validity points that would exist). Course Management, not ball management

6) Determining representative balls for each category of side spin and back spin. ???

7) Creating Std Deviation reference platforms of each player's standard ball in relationship to the side spin and back spin reference balls. ????

8) Drafting course rotation schedules (alternate between standard ball round at one course with high side spin ball at another, then the low side spin ball representative at another course, etc, etc, etc, until one round with each ball has been played in a scrambled way). this makes sense..

 

This above only represents a possible foundation for constructing a more generalizable experiment

 

 

Actually had a chance to re-look at this, I do like this, I am throwing in my thoughts.

 

 

I noticed Side spin has come up a lot as a justifiable debate.

 

 

Side spin is applied just like back spin, But back spin is a product of the natural golf impact, Side spin is a manipulation of impact on a golf ball.

 

Natural Shot shape, Straight, Draw or Fade.

 

Too much side spin, is an ERROR by the player and in no way a reason to blame the ball. Especially... when you Miss and say "oh I wish I had a less spinning ball this time" Its not the balls fault you made a bad swing and applied to much side spin....

[MadGolfer76]

I'm not sure why I'm still amazed that most every long thread on WRX, eventually reverts to nonsense.

 

Mr. Darnoldil seems to know just enough about scientific testing to get himself into trouble, by completely ignoring the entire point of my "testing". It wasn't about "spin", "distance", "accuracy" on any such thing ... it was about scoring.

 

 

The lack of consistency in amateur golf swings, makes any "scientific analysis" almost impossible, as there's no way to isolate the variable (golf ball).

 

 

 

Oh dear, Brian...

 

To the first, it usually starts with a far-fetched premise, sprinkled in with some faulty reasoning.

 

To the second, those of us who are familiar with research methods would recognize that "spin," "distance," and "accuracy" are all *factors* of scoring and needed to be controlled for much better than you did. (It's kind of like walking onto the nearest PGA Tour range and suggesting that they keep their heads down better).

 

To the third, saying something like that undermines your OP, because if you can't control for the ball (which you can, actually, if you knew enough about proper methods) you can't prove that it does or doesn't make a difference.

 

I haven't looked back, but I think I tried to tell you this back when you originally posted, but it seems you are no less willing to listen now than then. Pity.

[BrianL99]

 

To the third, saying something like that undermines your OP, because if you can't control for the ball (which you can, actually, if you knew enough about proper methods) you can't prove that it does or doesn't make a difference.

 

 

The only way I can think of to isolate the ball, is to use a perfect mechanical device to hit the shots There is no such machine.. Even if there was, there would still be no way to control weather or other issues that can impact scoring.

 

The alternative approach, is for a large enough sampling to make the vagaries of an amateur's swing, weather, temperature, etc, nearly irrelevant. How many golfers would that take? 100,000 ?

[Exactice808]

I'm not sure why I'm still amazed that most every long thread on WRX, eventually reverts to nonsense.

 

Mr. Darnoldil seems to know just enough about scientific testing to get himself into trouble, by completely ignoring the entire point of my "testing". It wasn't about "spin", "distance", "accuracy" on any such thing ... it was about scoring.

 

 

The lack of consistency in amateur golf swings, makes any "scientific analysis" almost impossible, as there's no way to isolate the variable (golf ball).

 

 

 

Oh dear, Brian...

 

To the first, it usually starts with a far-fetched premise, sprinkled in with some faulty reasoning.

 

To the second, those of us who are familiar with research methods would recognize that "spin," "distance," and "accuracy" are all *factors* of scoring and needed to be controlled for much better than you did. (It's kind of like walking onto the nearest PGA Tour range and suggesting that they keep their heads down better).

 

To the third, saying something like that undermines your OP, because if you can't control for the ball (which you can, actually, if you knew enough about proper methods) you can't prove that it does or doesn't make a difference.

 

I haven't looked back, but I think I tried to tell you this back when you originally posted, but it seems you are no less willing to listen now than then. Pity.

 

Hey Mad also Mr. Darnoldil,

 

My apologies, I think I edited my first response like 5 times LOL! I didnt leave my,

 

"My apologies if I come across like a jerk, I enjoy these debates quite a bit, please do not take my post as attacks and again purely debate purposes!"

 

 

Ok with that out of the way, I posted something and deleted and want to post it again.

 

 

Im going to basically categorize 3 players

 

 

Bad Player

 

Ok player

 

Good Player

 

 

Bad Player - Has no spin control, has no distance control, does not have a repeatable swing. Does the ball matter to them? Yes or No? Can a Bad player benefit from playing a specific ball? Personally no, doesn't matter what ball they play... skulls, thins, fats, a good strike will stop or spin the ball a bad strike will launch the ball half way across the green, The golfer will never know whats coming next.

 

 

Ok Player - They are learning, have a better understanding of the game. Has a some what repeatable swing. Does a ball matter? Yes or No? Possibly, Player has the option, but again as eluded above, the player may not know when the good strike may show up, So they may get that 1 hop stopper, or get the check and release. Will a specific ball help this golfer? Again Possibly, but as i have eluded, why not play the most consistent shot... a roll out.

 

 

Good Player - The one that has the most control over the ball. They can and will manipulate the ball to their desires. But does X ball help them, most likely this could effect this category the best yet, if they are good enough to manipulate their shots, they could play any ball and "adjust" to the way it plays. This group has the greatest flexibility.

 

 

 

Now you guys talk about , Spin, Distance & accuracy.

 

 

Bad - this group has spin problems dont know when it will spin, distance is not dialed in and accuracy, well accuracy is needs to be worked on, A higher or lower spinning ball will make a difference for this group? I think lessons will.

 

Ok - the people are learning their distance, Spin tuning is a must but can be addressed not only by the ball but their Attack Angle, Shafts and club make up. this will then translate to better distance control. So back spin on ballooning can be dialed by both ball and swing. As for side spin, if we are talking about a miss... its a miss....a ball change does not guarantee a better miss. Like a forgiving iron like an SGI guarantees a better score...

 

Good - these guys have their distance down, they have they shot down and they have their accuracy at whatever level they have it at. Ball change for these guys are ULTIMATE tuning for precise numbers. BUT I feel these guys are good enough to also judge ball reaction for whatever ball they play. This level player MAY just like a release more often than a spinning ball. So really its up to them on game preference to allow them to shoot their best scores.

 

 

Again my apologies if I am coming of as a jerk, but I like this debate!

 

Good

[MadGolfer76]

To the third, saying something like that undermines your OP, because if you can't control for the ball (which you can, actually, if you knew enough about proper methods) you can't prove that it does or doesn't make a difference.

 

 

The only way I can think of to isolate the ball, is to use a perfect mechanical device to hit the shots There is no such machine.. Even if there was, there would still be no way to control weather or other issues that can impact scoring.

 

The alternative approach, is for a large enough sampling to make the vagaries of an amateur's swing, weather, temperature, etc, nearly irrelevant. How many golfers would that take? 100,000 ?

 

There are lots of things you can do to improve validity. You can establish a control group and identify a confidence interval, for starters. And no, I don't think a 100,000 golfer sample size is entirely necessary, although it would be telling. When you do research on something like "does the ball make a difference in scoring for amateurs" (or whatever the right wording would be) you don't use a robot. You test the group in question and control for the factors that might affect the outcome.

[MadGolfer76]

I'm not sure why I'm still amazed that most every long thread on WRX, eventually reverts to nonsense.

 

Mr. Darnoldil seems to know just enough about scientific testing to get himself into trouble, by completely ignoring the entire point of my "testing". It wasn't about "spin", "distance", "accuracy" on any such thing ... it was about scoring.

 

 

The lack of consistency in amateur golf swings, makes any "scientific analysis" almost impossible, as there's no way to isolate the variable (golf ball).

 

 

 

Oh dear, Brian...

 

To the first, it usually starts with a far-fetched premise, sprinkled in with some faulty reasoning.

 

To the second, those of us who are familiar with research methods would recognize that "spin," "distance," and "accuracy" are all *factors* of scoring and needed to be controlled for much better than you did. (It's kind of like walking onto the nearest PGA Tour range and suggesting that they keep their heads down better).

 

To the third, saying something like that undermines your OP, because if you can't control for the ball (which you can, actually, if you knew enough about proper methods) you can't prove that it does or doesn't make a difference.

 

I haven't looked back, but I think I tried to tell you this back when you originally posted, but it seems you are no less willing to listen now than then. Pity.

 

Hey Mad also Mr. Darnoldil,

 

My apologies, I think I edited my first response like 5 times LOL! I didnt leave my,

 

"My apologies if I come across like a jerk, I enjoy these debates quite a bit, please do not take my post as attacks and again purely debate purposes!"

 

 

Ok with that out of the way, I posted something and deleted and want to post it again.

 

 

Im going to basically categorize 3 players

 

 

Bad Player

 

Ok player

 

Good Player

 

 

Bad Player - Has no spin control, has no distance control, does not have a repeatable swing. Does the ball matter to them? Yes or No? Can a Bad player benefit from playing a specific ball? Personally no, doesn't matter what ball they play... skulls, thins, fats, a good strike will stop or spin the ball a bad strike will launch the ball half way across the green, The golfer will never know whats coming next.

 

 

Ok Player - They are learning, have a better understanding of the game. Has a some what repeatable swing. Does a ball matter? Yes or No? Possibly, Player has the option, but again as eluded above, the player may not know when the good strike may show up, So they may get that 1 hop stopper, or get the check and release. Will a specific ball help this golfer? Again Possibly, but as i have eluded, why not play the most consistent shot... a roll out.

 

 

Good Player - The one that has the most control over the ball. They can and will manipulate the ball to their desires. But does X ball help them, most likely this could effect this category the best yet, if they are good enough to manipulate their shots, they could play any ball and "adjust" to the way it plays. This group has the greatest flexibility.

 

 

 

Now you guys talk about , Spin, Distance & accuracy.

 

 

Bad - this group has spin problems dont know when it will spin, distance is not dialed in and accuracy, well accuracy is needs to be worked on, A higher or lower spinning ball will make a difference for this group? I think lessons will.

 

Ok - the people are learning their distance, Spin tuning is a must but can be addressed not only by the ball but their Attack Angle, Shafts and club make up. this will then translate to better distance control. So back spin on ballooning can be dialed by both ball and swing. As for side spin, if we are talking about a miss... its a miss....a ball change does not guarantee a better miss. Like a forgiving iron like an SGI guarantees a better score...

 

Good - these guys have their distance down, they have they shot down and they have their accuracy at whatever level they have it at. Ball change for these guys are ULTIMATE tuning for precise numbers. BUT I feel these guys are good enough to also judge ball reaction for whatever ball they play. This level player MAY just like a release more often than a spinning ball. So really its up to them on game preference to allow them to shoot their best scores.

 

 

Again my apologies if I am coming of as a jerk, but I like this debate!

 

Good

 

I'm not sure what your actual question is?

[Exactice808]

I'm not sure why I'm still amazed that most every long thread on WRX, eventually reverts to nonsense.

 

Mr. Darnoldil seems to know just enough about scientific testing to get himself into trouble, by completely ignoring the entire point of my "testing". It wasn't about "spin", "distance", "accuracy" on any such thing ... it was about scoring.

 

 

The lack of consistency in amateur golf swings, makes any "scientific analysis" almost impossible, as there's no way to isolate the variable (golf ball).

 

 

 

Oh dear, Brian...

 

To the first, it usually starts with a far-fetched premise, sprinkled in with some faulty reasoning.

 

To the second, those of us who are familiar with research methods would recognize that "spin," "distance," and "accuracy" are all *factors* of scoring and needed to be controlled for much better than you did. (It's kind of like walking onto the nearest PGA Tour range and suggesting that they keep their heads down better).

 

To the third, saying something like that undermines your OP, because if you can't control for the ball (which you can, actually, if you knew enough about proper methods) you can't prove that it does or doesn't make a difference.

 

I haven't looked back, but I think I tried to tell you this back when you originally posted, but it seems you are no less willing to listen now than then. Pity.

 

Hey Mad also Mr. Darnoldil,

 

My apologies, I think I edited my first response like 5 times LOL! I didnt leave my,

 

"My apologies if I come across like a jerk, I enjoy these debates quite a bit, please do not take my post as attacks and again purely debate purposes!"

 

 

Ok with that out of the way, I posted something and deleted and want to post it again.

 

 

Im going to basically categorize 3 players

 

 

Bad Player

 

Ok player

 

Good Player

 

 

Bad Player - Has no spin control, has no distance control, does not have a repeatable swing. Does the ball matter to them? Yes or No? Can a Bad player benefit from playing a specific ball? Personally no, doesn't matter what ball they play... skulls, thins, fats, a good strike will stop or spin the ball a bad strike will launch the ball half way across the green, The golfer will never know whats coming next.

 

 

Ok Player - They are learning, have a better understanding of the game. Has a some what repeatable swing. Does a ball matter? Yes or No? Possibly, Player has the option, but again as eluded above, the player may not know when the good strike may show up, So they may get that 1 hop stopper, or get the check and release. Will a specific ball help this golfer? Again Possibly, but as i have eluded, why not play the most consistent shot... a roll out.

 

 

Good Player - The one that has the most control over the ball. They can and will manipulate the ball to their desires. But does X ball help them, most likely this could effect this category the best yet, if they are good enough to manipulate their shots, they could play any ball and "adjust" to the way it plays. This group has the greatest flexibility.

 

 

 

Now you guys talk about , Spin, Distance & accuracy.

 

 

Bad - this group has spin problems dont know when it will spin, distance is not dialed in and accuracy, well accuracy is needs to be worked on, A higher or lower spinning ball will make a difference for this group? I think lessons will.

 

Ok - the people are learning their distance, Spin tuning is a must but can be addressed not only by the ball but their Attack Angle, Shafts and club make up. this will then translate to better distance control. So back spin on ballooning can be dialed by both ball and swing. As for side spin, if we are talking about a miss... its a miss....a ball change does not guarantee a better miss. Like a forgiving iron like an SGI guarantees a better score...

 

Good - these guys have their distance down, they have they shot down and they have their accuracy at whatever level they have it at. Ball change for these guys are ULTIMATE tuning for precise numbers. BUT I feel these guys are good enough to also judge ball reaction for whatever ball they play. This level player MAY just like a release more often than a spinning ball. So really its up to them on game preference to allow them to shoot their best scores.

 

 

Again my apologies if I am coming of as a jerk, but I like this debate!

 

Good

 

I'm not sure what your actual question is?

 

Sorry Mad not a direct question, but a response in my opinion about Spin, Accuracy and Distance in relation to ball being played by a certain ability level.

[Tanner25]

I tried the Wilson Staff Duo Spin today and came away very impressed. I had no issues on full wedge, pitch and chip shots. Off the driver and full irons it performed admirably. Putting yielded a nice feel too.

 

Yes, indeed. I had a similar experience Sunday with the Duo Spin. It was very long. The only let down of the day was hitting a Chrome Soft 16 on 18...wow, that ball has a great feel to it! But, for the price difference, Duo Spin - is a solid ball.

[BrianL99]

You test the group in question and control for the factors that might affect the outcome.

 

Agreed.

 

Let me know when you come up with a way to control weather, humidity, temperature, wind, grass conditions, pin placements, green speed, ground moisture and when you get that figured out, let's come up with a way to control/measure clubface contact point, swing speed, ball speed and if the player has a headache on a given day.

 

After that, we can work on the location of sprinkler heads, when the grass was mowed, if a flag is off-center in a cup and if ground under repair is properly marked.

 

Then we can make all the balls "blind", so a player's personal ball preference doesn't impact his state of mind when he swings or putts.

 

I'm sorry, but most posters are completely missing the point.

 

Ball characteristics and performance are easily and readily definable ... with de minimis variation between like balls.

 

If golfer's talents and abilities were constant, consistent and infallible, the same golfer would win every PGA Tournament. That doesn't happen.

 

The question is: does a given player have sufficient consistency (talent) to maximize a golf ball's "attributes" and nullify a golf ball's "deficiencies", to produce his optimal score over reasonable period.

[darnoldil]

I appreciate your point, however you only site one variable which is backspin, and further, you only site one application of backspin which is in "holding greens". The reality is that backspin can affect distance, even for the average player as well. Also, side spin will affect deviation from the target line, and THAT can affect just how much "Army golf" a person is playing. It can also significantly impact a player's score depending upon course layout and OB. Remember, Bridgestone DOES market a ball that they tout as having less side spin in order to cut down on slices (what the majority of right hand golfer's do) and hooks, with the expressed point that it will help you to SCORE better. LOL.

 

I personally feel back spin around the greens is what makes a premium spinning ball worth its weight. When speaking about back spin on distance and side spin. These are influenced by the GOLFER whom has control of these attributes.

Yes they are influenced by the golfer, but that does NOT mean that the golfer can "control" them well enough due to their own skill sets. Btw, excessive back spin can also be a byproduct of swing speed/ball speed, which is why faster speed players look to equipment adjustment and types to reduce this effect. -DA

 

The golfer will apply a shot that can add or take of spin in addition to adding side spin.

Or maybe they can't. This is an unsupported premise, one that actually goes against the idea that, in general, golfer's are not skilled enough to make use of any difference in ball characteristics for it to impact their scores. -DA

 

 

When you speak about army golf layout and OB, this has nothing to do with the ball influence but the Course management of the player and the swing faults that follow.

Army golf was intended, to reference that the ball is not hit where it was desired and or intended to go, thus leading to players going more sideways than forward as they traverse the course, LOL. Isn't it typically used as a stereotype for a poor golfer with a bad swing? Thus course management does not really come into play because such a golfer isn't good enough to predict where their ball will generally come to rest. The swing faults typically cause this lack of predictability and ability to get the ball to go in the direction it was intended wouldn't you agree? - DA

 

A ball will NOT save you from errors, of course management nor a bad swing.

We agree on this. However, wouldn't you agree that the severity of their shots may be able to be curtailed enough that it could make a stroke here and there difference by reducing how penal their poor swings may be? -DA

 

if you know you have an out to in swing that causes slices, and say you play a less spinning ball OB is in the right, will this guarantee you not to go OB? NO a bad shot is a bad shot, if you had a premium ball and aimed more left....this is course/game management. Again the ball did nothing.

No a less spinning ball does not guarantee that you will not go OB, but doesn't it give you a better chance at it? -DA Yes we agree that a bad shot is a bad shot, but wouldn't you also agree that Hogan was correct playable misses being important to scoring, thus highlighting that all bad shots are not equal in their impact upon ones score? -DA

 

Regarding the "dissection" of the OP's experiment NOT needing to be done: my point was that it DID need some review for the claims that he was making regarding it's applicability to all but the super small minority of pro golfer's. There are a number of people who not only disagree with the OP's findings, but THEY have experienced for themselves, and or seen others experience that the ball CAN and DOES make a difference. The OP strongly inferred and basically wrote that HIS testing PROVES that they are wrong. Thus, since the OP wanted to have his experiment hold as proof that his hypothesis applies to just about everyone else it made it fair game to examine it from a scientific research methodology perspective.

 

I cant disagree with you on this one, because you are right the test is not perfect, But I will say it never will be. To many variables. I personally agree though with the OP in his thoughts, Maybe not the test exactly, but does the ball matter? Nope

And I have no problem with your belief. I also agree with you that such a research project would be very difficult. At least you seem willing to accept that Brian's test isn't definitive proof, and you seem willing to hear other people's thoughts. That is the main point of informative sites to begin with, the sharing of ideas and experiences, right? -DA

 

Just take a moment to think about it please. When the OP did his "experiment" what balls did he use? How close were the characteristics of those balls to his own in both side spin and back spin? How did he "rotate" the balls; was it between holes or rounds? Did the OP ever question or realize how good HE may actually be, in the sense that he may not put any significant side spin on his shots unless he WANTS to? If that's the case then the OP effectively confined the test to more of a "distance" test, where he primarily only had to adjust for the roll out that you speak of. Taking that one step further, if he played on greens that were not very firm, or that had large amounts of run out area, and or that were not sloped, then the OP REALLY took even the green holding factor out of the test, thereby further narrowing it to a "distance" ADJUST ABILITY test. In fact, the whole test may have been measuring how well the OP could adjust to a ball's characteristics, instead of how much those characteristics, left unchecked, would have impacted his scores. Then the OP's conclusions ASSUME that everyone else could make the same adjustments, and thus charges them to be as adaptable as he may be. In other words, the OP may not, and probably did not, measure what he intended to measure, and that means the test wasn't internally valid; let alone generalize-able to the vast amount of golfers.

 

If you play one type of ball and understand the basic characteristics of it, you can manage your game to effectively play with X ball.

While this is definitely possible/probable with some amount of golfers, it also highlights that we are stressing the ability of a golfer to adapt to different characteristics. That is a different question from the question of whether or not differences in golf balls can impact a person's score who is not an elite golfer, right? -DA

 

What worries me is that premium balls offer a false sense of security, that not all players can take advantage of. Holding the greens, this means chips and second shots.

I concur that any equipment can become a placebo for limited skill, however wouldn't you also agree that ball differences can/have sometimes made a positive difference even for the less skilled player who is more prone to not be able to stop their ball from running off of the green, or running way past the hole than a more skilled player in that instance? -DA

 

A player must take into account their skill/ability and adapt to score the best they can.

But why must they adapt if there is equipment that makes it easier? Isn't the game hard enough? Is there some unwritten code that places golfer's into categories which negate their right to purchase and use whatever legal equipment that they want to because of their lack of skill for the level of equipment? -DA

 

The point of the OP, and it seems based upon what you have just written, yourself included, is that the ball doesn't matter: primarily it seems, due to the ability of people to adjust to any differences in ball characteristics that may exits, or because the differences simply do not make enough of a difference to negatively impact anyone. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. What people aren't entitled to is to create an "experiment" that isn't well constructed according to even basic research methodology principles, and then say that their test "proves" that they were right and anyone else that thinks and or experiences anything differently is simply wrong. In my opinion, doing THAT is going overboard; using voodoo science and telling everyone that they simply must accept your conclusions because they are "scientific" when they aren't.

 

Actually, I am trying to incite the opposite, I feel that all balls have 1 consistency, It rolls forward.

That, and the fact that they spin in some way, even when they "roll" forward. LOL -DA (just having some fun while highlighting that it's still "spinning", LOL).

 

The only time it doesnt if a proper strike is put on the ball to spin it where it will stop or spin back.

In the super vast amount of cases, where there is backspin there is also some amount of sidepsin. Both affect parameters other than just the ability to hold a green. Overlooking this physic's fact is the only way that differences in ball characteristics can be isolated to only the ability to hold a green. The basic postulate that is being presented works off of this fundamental premise (that the only difference is the ability to insight backspin to hold a green). The premise isn't true however. We know and measure side spin, and the affects upon distance and trajectory that backspin have from different types of balls. It exist no matter how much we want to discount it, we even "see" it in high speed video, so wouldn't you agree that we simply can't relegate the logic statement to just the one aspect of green holding? -DA

 

If not 100% of the time ANY golfer of any skill level can make the ball roll forward, but to make the ball stop or roll back only a percentage can do so....There is no adjustment and no need for any golfer to adjust. Here is an example

If a higher handicap player played a ProV1, has a second shot to a green, Hits a good shot, what happens the ball may "stop" if he hits bad shot, the ball will likely roll out. In this scenario the higher handicap will struggle with inconsistencies, not knowing if it will stop or not, not knowing if he will put a good shot on or not.....second guessing, loss of confidence will ensue.

If a higher handicap player played a Range ball, has a second shot to the green, hits a good shot, the ball will release, if he hits a bad shot, the ball will release but release more. In this case the higher handicap can play 1 consistent shot....a release

I agree that different balls can help golfer more than other balls. However, do you also realize that this logic/experience model you've presented just proved the point that many on this thread have stated, which is that balls can impact your score without you needing to be a top golfer? -DA

 

Look, there are very serious flaws on a basic level here with the construction of the OP's tests if he is going to generalize it to the overwhelming majority of golfers; it's not nitpicking. Trying to discount these flaws as being insignificant or overburdening as a way of ignoring that the OP's experiment ISN'T as applicable as he, and others may want it to be doesn't make sense. Why? Because we all have the right to use whatever ball we want to, and we all know what we do on the course and can/have tried things (including different balls) to help us with our own individual idiosyncrasies.

 

Again, it isnt a perfect test....

I agree, but no test is perfect. That is why we go through the rigor of research methodology to help construct tests that can pass peer review and add to the body of knowledge. I am not getting on Brian because his test has flaws, far from it. I am highlighting the flaws of the test to try and help Brian and possibly others to see that his conclusions do not have the universal application that he appears to attribute to them based upon his experiment. I'm not, nor have I, personally attacked Brian at all. I've actually commended him for doing the experiment. I just wanted him to realize the study's limitations and delimitation's so that others could freely add to the discussion without being instantly shot down because of his experiment's data and his conclusions from it. -DA

 

 

But again I ask you this. While you dissect OPs test. PLEASE do a test to show that a ball DOES matter then.

While I appreciate your passion for such an endeavor, of a truth, for me this topic is mute because I advocate people testing and finding out for themselves if differences in golf ball characteristics make a difference for them.

My desire to not engage in such an endeavor has nothing to do with technical prowess, which I do possess. It has to do with the simple facts that I neither have the time, resources, nor the inclination to try to investigate data that would in some generalize-able way serve as a seminal work towards the question's initial destination. This isn't about the false logic that you can only voice your opinoin if you participate in the event; I and my fellow veterans (of whom you and Brian may very well be a part of) paid that price already. My point, as has been written numerous times, was to highlight just how dubious such a study would be and how Brian's findings, while a start, were in no means conclusive as an applicable point for all but tour quality golfers. I would like to think that the effort that I put in to providing possible variables, questions, and parameters for further study would be helpful to anyone who would like to undergo such and endeavor. If you really have a passion for such a research project then shoot me a pm about how I can play a free consultative role in some of your initial setup parameters. -DA

 

 

Furthermore, we all know that for SOME "X" % of golfers the ball doesn't matter. We can also hypothesize that for SOME "Y" % of golfers the bal

l will have less of an impact on their scores then the "Z" golfers. We can even Hypothesize that the "A" golfers, the very few that they are, maybe would experience a significant impact to their scores with different ball characteristics. However, to say that the ONLY group that would experience an impact in their scores based upon ball characteristics are the type "A" golfers, because those people are "good", and thus everyone else just needs to forget about it because the OP's tests proved they are all wrong and just deluding themselves??? Well, that simply doesn't work. Therefore the OP doesn't get a pass when he wants to tell everyone else that they are delusional because he and his experiment say so.

 

Tough one as I do think only 1 group can see a true potential in score improvement and that is a Strong player that has full control over the ball.

Wold you also agree, based upon your earlier logic/example that there could be more categories of golfer's that could see some potential for either limiting damaging scores or improvement? -DA

 

But at this point they are good enough to play anything and hit a shot that can still work in their favor.

 

A weak player as I detailed above, will have too many inconsistencies to take full advantage of a premium ball.

This is a different question than whether or not diferrent golf ball characteristics can impact scoring. That is why the construction of the research question and definition of terms is so important. -DA

 

Now with that written, there really isn't anything else to be said; it's all been laid out by all of the posters on this thread. When you look at it all, we see that there ARE NON-low to + handicap players that DO believe/find that differences in ball characteristics can impact their scores. We also see that others believe/find that ball characteristics can not only impact their scores, but do so to an extent that they struggle to adapt well enough to the differences to negate them. And still others believe/find that they/golfer's in general, are able to adapt, or even find no disconcerting differences that would significantly impact their scores.

 

I dont see one side or the other, I see a debate, that is why we are on page 9, if it was really 1 sided, this thread would have been buried a while ago.

And I have genuinely appreciated your thoughtfulness and candor throughout this post. For me the debate isn't about if a golf balls characteristics can impact scoring, it was about whether or not Brian's work, while valuable and apprceiated, could be used as a definitive source to say one or the other. It has quickly moved away from it being definitive, which is good, to something much better; open discussion about what the logic algorithm should look like for even further study by anyone that would care to further Brian's work. That is a testimony to Brian that his work has merit and that he didn't waste his time. -DA

 

And THAT'S what I think we can all take away from this: The fact that a golf ball's characteristics May, or May Not impact YOU. Therefore you have to try it for yourself and see, instead of simply accepting someone's belief/logic that it will or it won't.

 

Respectable opinion, and nothing wrong with that. I again have personally detailed why I think it doesnt matter and that is my opinion. Another poster has read my post and accepted it and has felt they may change the way they view a premium ball. If that does not carry any validation than I dont know what else to say my friend.

Here, here. That was my point in all of this; that open discussion and difference of opinion should be valued, as it is what can lead to furthering the body of knowledge on this subject, and thereby help others. -DA

 

 

My head hurts...I need a break the coffee needs to be warmed up.....

I understand my friend. Research is tough. I appreciate your's and Brian's willingness to explore it on such a topic. -Sincerely, Dr. D. Arnold Ed.D

[MadGolfer76]

You test the group in question and control for the factors that might affect the outcome.

 

Agreed.

 

Let me know when you come up with a way to control weather, humidity, temperature, wind, grass conditions, pin placements, green speed, ground moisture and when you get that figured out, let's come up with a way to control/measure clubface contact point, swing speed, ball speed and if the player has a headache on a given day.

 

After that, we can work on the location of sprinkler heads, when the grass was mowed, if a flag is off-center in a cup and if ground under repair is properly marked.

 

Then we can make all the balls "blind", so a player's personal ball preference doesn't impact his state of mind when he swings or putts.

 

I'm sorry, but most posters are completely missing the point.

 

Ball characteristics and performance are easily and readily definable ... with de minimis variation between like balls.

 

If golfer's talents and abilities were constant, consistent and infallible, the same golfer would win every PGA Tournament. That doesn't happen.

 

The question is: does a given player have sufficient consistency (talent) to maximize a golf ball's "attributes" and nullify a golf ball's "deficiencies", to produce his optimal score over reasonable period.

 

I get it, but just to refresh, your posted outcome was more like...

 

"Just speculation, but it probably matters on the Pro Tour and likely in national caliber Amateur tournaments, but I don't think anyone at a lower level than that, has sufficient consistency that the ball will substantively effect his score."

 

You've said here that anyone who is essentially not a plus handicap won't see any benefit from a particular type of ball over another, which is a ridiculous thing to say, especially since the method you used included a sample size of...one. If you just shared an opinion that you didn't think it mattered so much, that would be understandable, but using your own game as a point of generalization for a broader population is either misinformed or arrogant.

[darnoldil]

Hi MadG. Thanks for visiting this all again. HI Brian. I haven't read through most of these new post as of yet. But it seems like more thoughts about how to further Brian's work may be going on, and that's a good thing for everyone.-DA

[darnoldil]

Hi Exactice. How was the coffee? Now you have me jonesing for some DD. lol. I saw something real quick about controlling the weather Brian; obviously we can't control it but we can explore ways to account for it's impacts upon future data collection. This can be done either through a comparative analysis of bad weather day scoring to good weather (that would add another RQ to the study along with its additional variables), or you could do something as simple as not test during days in which you have outlined in the study as being detrimental to the test. What you are endeavoring to do is create your own instrument, which is very difficult to do. Also, remember that before we start doing t-Tests to see the strength of relationship with different variables, we have to gather the most applicable variables to our RQ(s). That's usually done through some type of ANOVA, MANOVA, or Regression analysis. Ok, I'm officially starting to Geek. LOL

My point Brian is that continue the work and hear what people are saying about the setup of the study so that you can make it even better. MadG and others could really help if you don't take their criticism as a personal attack instead of the constructive feedback that it seems from so many's posts, it was meant to be.

-DA

[Exactice808]

Hi Exactice. How was the coffee? Now you have me jonesing for some DD. lol. I saw something real quick about controlling the weather Brian; obviously we can't control it but we can explore ways to account for it's impacts upon future data collection. This can be done either through a comparative analysis of bad weather day scoring to good weather (that would add another RQ to the study along with its additional variables), or you could do something as simple as not test during days in which you have outlined in the study as being detrimental to the test. What you are endeavoring to do is create your own instrument, which is very difficult to do. Also, remember that before we start doing t-Tests to see the strength of relationship with different variables, we have to gather the most applicable variables to our RQ(s). That's usually done through some type of ANOVA, MANOVA, or Regression analysis. Ok, I'm officially starting to Geek. LOL

My point Brian is that continue the work and hear what people are saying about the setup of the study so that you can make it even better. MadG and others could really help if you don't take their criticism as a personal attack instead of the constructive feedback that it seems from so many's posts, it was meant to be.

-DA

 

 

 

LOL! Coffee was good, just needed to warm it up, nothing beats a warm cup of joe.

 

Let me set some things straight.

 

1) I am a moron

2) You guys are way to over my head LOL

3) I am debating out of ignorance so again, dont take my post to seriously.

 

 

Ok got that out of the way

 

Instead of dragging it along, real quick

 

1) The Test will take a lot of work, I personally truly understand where you come from, but such a simple discussion about balls...."Aint no one got time for that !@#$" LOL seriously. would love to have the ability, but unfortunately, it seems like we all have day jobs......(I guess I am a little guilty... I do spend to much time here)

2) Regardless how flawed some test will be, my opinion and thats all it is, is an opinion and in no way a defiant stand of that it is what it is. Is just how I feel about the ball. If you aint making money for a living playing golf..... or you are not striving to make money playing golf ( see what I did there :taunt: ) Personally the ball doesnt really matter

3) Skill is way to subjective as conditions play to much of a role in the inconsistencies. Lets face it even pro's skull a couple out of the green side bunker... aint no way a 30, a 15, or a Scratch will do better then them

 

 

I truly still enjoy the topic of discussion but, unfortunately, I see the topic moving in the wrong direction. It might be best we start something new or deviate a little...... If you now what I mean :superman:

[BillyZ2]

Hi Exactice. How was the coffee? Now you have me jonesing for some DD. lol. I saw something real quick about controlling the weather Brian; obviously we can't control it but we can explore ways to account for it's impacts upon future data collection. This can be done either through a comparative analysis of bad weather day scoring to good weather (that would add another RQ to the study along with its additional variables), or you could do something as simple as not test during days in which you have outlined in the study as being detrimental to the test. What you are endeavoring to do is create your own instrument, which is very difficult to do. Also, remember that before we start doing t-Tests to see the strength of relationship with different variables, we have to gather the most applicable variables to our RQ(s). That's usually done through some type of ANOVA, MANOVA, or Regression analysis. Ok, I'm officially starting to Geek. LOL

My point Brian is that continue the work and hear what people are saying about the setup of the study so that you can make it even better. MadG and others could really help if you don't take their criticism as a personal attack instead of the constructive feedback that it seems from so many's posts, it was meant to be.

-DA

 

 

 

LOL! Coffee was good, just needed to warm it up, nothing beats a warm cup of joe.

 

Let me set some things straight.

 

1) I am a moron

2) You guys are way to over my head LOL

3) I am debating out of ignorance so again, dont take my post to seriously.

 

 

Ok got that out of the way

 

Instead of dragging it along, real quick

 

1) The Test will take a lot of work, I personally truly understand where you come from, but such a simple discussion about balls...."Aint no one got time for that !@#$" LOL seriously. would love to have the ability, but unfortunately, it seems like we all have day jobs......(I guess I am a little guilty... I do spend to much time here)

2) Regardless how flawed some test will be, my opinion and thats all it is, is an opinion and in no way a defiant stand of that it is what it is. Is just how I feel about the ball. If you aint making money for a living playing golf..... or you are not striving to make money playing golf ( see what I did there :taunt: ) Personally the ball doesnt really matter

3) Skill is way to subjective as conditions play to much of a role in the inconsistencies. Lets face it even pro's skull a couple out of the green side bunker... aint no way a 30, a 15, or a Scratch will do better then them

 

 

I truly still enjoy the topic of discussion but, unfortunately, I see the topic moving in the wrong direction. It might be best we start something new or deviate a little...... If you now what I mean :superman:

wow some of you guys have a lot of time on your hand or nothing better to do. Maybe you guys should try golfing has a hobby instead of debating. LOL

[BrianL99]

wow some of you guys have a lot of time on your hand or nothing better to do. Maybe you guys should try golfing has a hobby instead of debating. LOL

 

I'm still waiting for one of the detractors to play 5 rounds with a particular ball and 5 more with a different one ... forget about the fact that I played 40 rounds before coming to a conclusion.

 

9 pages of responses and not a single poster has said "I alternated balls every day for a week and shot significantly different scores".

 

The sum total of responses seems to be: "Let's spend $1,000,000 to conduct an experiment that may or may not produce valid data" or "I don't (do) think it matters".

 

[sdandrea]

How can you tell if the "found" balls are still any good? How many rounds (or shots) does it take before a ball's compression/spin starts to change? What about if it's come out of a lake?

 

 

I don't care if the balls are "still good", that's the whole point. I doubt my average score will be more than 1 stroke difference, no matter what ball I play.

 

I agree that a Scratch or better player is likely to be more consistent with a ball he's used to, but I doubt it would effect his score more than 1 or 2 shots per round.

 

I think the average golfer ... double digit or higher handicap, can score just as well playing 8 year old Top Flite as he would with a $4/ball Titleist Pro V1.

 

I am a 12 handicapper and can usually take that index to any course. I my 50 years of playing golf, my experience has been the ball doesn't matter. Balls feel different and fly different distances and spin more or less around the greens and come off the putter differently, but ultimately the difference in score comes down to how good or bad I am playing that day.

[darnoldil]

Hi Exactice. How was the coffee? Now you have me jonesing for some DD. lol. I saw something real quick about controlling the weather Brian; obviously we can't control it but we can explore ways to account for it's impacts upon future data collection. This can be done either through a comparative analysis of bad weather day scoring to good weather (that would add another RQ to the study along with its additional variables), or you could do something as simple as not test during days in which you have outlined in the study as being detrimental to the test. What you are endeavoring to do is create your own instrument, which is very difficult to do. Also, remember that before we start doing t-Tests to see the strength of relationship with different variables, we have to gather the most applicable variables to our RQ(s). That's usually done through some type of ANOVA, MANOVA, or Regression analysis. Ok, I'm officially starting to Geek. LOL

My point Brian is that continue the work and hear what people are saying about the setup of the study so that you can make it even better. MadG and others could really help if you don't take their criticism as a personal attack instead of the constructive feedback that it seems from so many's posts, it was meant to be.

-DA

 

 

 

LOL! Coffee was good, just needed to warm it up, nothing beats a warm cup of joe.

 

Let me set some things straight.

 

1) I am a moron

2) You guys are way to over my head LOL

3) I am debating out of ignorance so again, dont take my post to seriously.

 

 

Ok got that out of the way

 

Instead of dragging it along, real quick

 

1) The Test will take a lot of work, I personally truly understand where you come from, but such a simple discussion about balls...."Aint no one got time for that !@#$" LOL seriously. would love to have the ability, but unfortunately, it seems like we all have day jobs......(I guess I am a little guilty... I do spend to much time here)

2) Regardless how flawed some test will be, my opinion and thats all it is, is an opinion and in no way a defiant stand of that it is what it is. Is just how I feel about the ball. If you aint making money for a living playing golf..... or you are not striving to make money playing golf ( see what I did there :taunt: ) Personally the ball doesnt really matter

3) Skill is way to subjective as conditions play to much of a role in the inconsistencies. Lets face it even pro's skull a couple out of the green side bunker... aint no way a 30, a 15, or a Scratch will do better then them

 

 

I truly still enjoy the topic of discussion but, unfortunately, I see the topic moving in the wrong direction. It might be best we start something new or deviate a little...... If you now what I mean :superman:

 

No worries mate. You have brought a lot to the table, as so many have, including Brian. I've really appreciated it. Yeah, I'm about done with the discussion as well as I've always been fine with whatever people found works for them. Regarding too little time, which, as James Brown said "Living in America everybody's working...Overtime", I definitely feel you on that one. I try to keep my GolfWRX tab open in my browser so it may give the illusion that I'm around far more than I am actually. :taunt: :taunt: :taunt: :taunt: :taunt:

-DA

[darnoldil]

wow some of you guys have a lot of time on your hand or nothing better to do. Maybe you guys should try golfing has a hobby instead of debating. LOL

 

I'm still waiting for one of the detractors to play 5 rounds with a particular ball and 5 more with a different one ... forget about the fact that I played 40 rounds before coming to a conclusion.

 

9 pages of responses and not a single poster has said "I alternated balls every day for a week and shot significantly different scores".

 

The sum total of responses seems to be: "Let's spend $1,000,000 to conduct an experiment that may or may not produce valid data" or "I don't (do) think it matters".

 

 

:taunt: :taunt: :taunt: :taunt: :taunt: Brian, you have the data to support the conclusion that you believed, and it was certainly valid for you. You put in a lot of hard work and it has been valuable on many fronts. If someone wants to do their own test I'm sure they will, and they may do it differently than a t-Test, which would be great as well. In the end, it was all good. Thank you for your endeavor. Have a great summer and fall. :taunt: :taunt: :taunt: -DA

[FairwaysToHeaven]

after all these pages, my own opinion is just be consistent, at least through a round. if you're playing a urethane cover stick with that. don't go from a pro v on first 3 holes, lose it, and switch to Nike velocity, then to nxt, then to TM lethal. you'll never get a feel for what the ball will do inside 100. i agree with op, if you're consistent, playing a nxt tour when you had always played a pro v1 won't affect score because you'll adapt. you'll have times where ball release slightly more and it hurts you, and other times it will help. i do think that once you get to scratch or better the spin around greens will start saving you shots.