My Golf Spy Ball Test - General Discussion

[North Butte]

> @soregongolfer said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > All I know is this. If a fairly well controlled, carefully conducted test using a hitting robot says Ball A is a couple yards longer than Ball B and a guy hitting a few balls with no way to measure distance tells me Ball A is 15-20 yards shorter than Ball B,

> > I know which one of these is more likely to be true than the other.

> >

> >** I remember at the height of the K-Sig craze some guy posted that he hit one driver shot with the original K-Sig and it was 15 yards farther than any other ball on the market. He said that one swing proved it as far as he's concerned. Must be nice to go through life with such sublime certainty about everything. **

>

> Wow. I remember you writing post after post about how bad the KSig was and you still hadn't hit it up to that point. You need not cast stones on that particular subject.

>

>

 

I never once said the original Ksig was anything other than a good golf ball at a very good price. I have no idea what you are on about.

 

 

[cristphoto]

The one thing that struck me from the testing was their statement that basically said “forget about feel”. I rank feel first, then spin, distance, price.

[rwbloom93]

> @"North Butte" said:

> All I know is this. If a fairly well controlled, carefully conducted test using a hitting robot says Ball A is a couple yards longer than Ball B and a guy hitting a few balls with no way to measure distance tells me Ball A is 15-20 yards shorter than Ball B,

> I know which one of these is more likely to be true than the other.

>

I think there is a misunderstanding, I never claimed Ball B is longer than Ball A for anyone other than me. I have no idea which ball is longer for you nor do I care. Ball A is longer than Ball B for the Robot...we can agree on that, yes?

 

The reason for my (long winded) post is two-fold. One is to re-state the obvious.... golf ball performance will vary based on how the ball is struck by the human participant (swing speed, AOA, swing plane, grip tension, ball position....etc). Using Robot testing data and attempting translate that into similar human performance is limited at best. Very valuable to the robot!

 

Secondly, and based on reason #1, I take issue with MGS's declarative statements that are made from their raw data....."most impactful test"....their golf ball test, by implication, "changes today"...how golfers view balls...."we get to what's real and true". ...LOL...and they call out marketing by golf ball companies? That's some top notch marketing BS from them and their site....but whatever.

 

P.S....hitting 80-100 balls several times a week for a year is not "a few" shots....and... its easy to measure relative distance. The field is downhill about 15 yards (for the first 170 yds) and then is uphill about 20 yards for the last 130 yards. I can follow the flight of the ball, watch it hit, bounce once on the up-slope, and stop (no roll..grass is several inches high). Mid compression balls are consistently further up the hill than low and high compression balls (all seasons, all winds)...that's how I know. Plus, I do play golf courses...results match.

 

Godspeed to all you golfers!

 

 

[mmack067]

Please elaborate how balls react differently to varying swing planes or grip pressure?

 

 

[North Butte]

> @rwbloom93 said:

> Secondly, and based on reason #1, I take issue with ****'s declarative statements that are made from their raw data....."most impactful test"....their golf ball test, by implication, "changes today"...how golfers view balls...."we get to what's real and true". ...LOL...and they call out marketing by golf ball companies? That's some top notch marketing BS from them and their site....but whatever.

 

I appreciate MGS taking the time to gather that much data. But it doesn't change the fact they are a in general a clickbait and hype factory. That one robot test is the only thing of value I'm aware of them ever doing. All their chest-thumping stuff is just abysmal.

[Titleist_PT23]

> @rwbloom93 said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > All I know is this. If a fairly well controlled, carefully conducted test using a hitting robot says Ball A is a couple yards longer than Ball B and a guy hitting a few balls with no way to measure distance tells me Ball A is 15-20 yards shorter than Ball B,

> > I know which one of these is more likely to be true than the other.

> >

> I think there is a misunderstanding, I never claimed Ball B is longer than Ball A for anyone other than me. I have no idea which ball is longer for you nor do I care. Ball A is longer than Ball B for the Robot...we can agree on that, yes?

>

> The reason for my (long winded) post is two-fold. One is to re-state the obvious.... golf ball performance will vary based on how the ball is struck by the human participant (swing speed, AOA, swing plane, grip tension, ball position....etc). Using Robot testing data and attempting translate that into similar human performance is limited at best. Very valuable to the robot!

>

> Secondly, and based on reason #1, I take issue with ****'s declarative statements that are made from their raw data....."most impactful test"....their golf ball test, by implication, "changes today"...how golfers view balls...."we get to what's real and true". ...LOL...and they call out marketing by golf ball companies? That's some top notch marketing BS from them and their site....but whatever.

>

> P.S....hitting 80-100 balls several times a week for a year is not "a few" shots....and... its easy to measure relative distance. The field is downhill about 15 yards (for the first 170 yds) and then is uphill about 20 yards for the last 130 yards. I can follow the flight of the ball, watch it hit, bounce once on the up-slope, and stop (no roll..grass is several inches high). Mid compression balls are consistently further up the hill than low and high compression balls (all seasons, all winds)...that's how I know. Plus, I do play golf courses...results match.

>

> Godspeed to all you golfers!

I think what you did is fine. Personally, 10-15 yards seems a bit high but who knows. For me, I feel like the soft compression balls fly marginally farther of the irons (maybe 1/2 club). Off the driver, I think the strike variation and exact course conditions are never the same, so I have not reached a conclusion as to whether one is longer or not. In similar winds, I know where my best few drives have been on every hole and I struggle to find a distinct relationship on what type of ball got me there.

 

One question I have is whether the softer balls fly any higher for you? And if so, is the landing spot below where you are teeing off? It seems like the balls are hitting into an up-slope but I don't know if this is below you (up to 45 feet based on what you've said). Any trajectory differences could be changing the carry you are seeing here a bit.

 

But don't worry about the criticism. There are a lot of posters that quote data when it matches what they believe. When it doesn't, they will tell you what happened to them on the course, and refute any logical links to the data.

[Titleist_PT23]

> @Red4282 said:

> > @rwbloom93 said:

> > > @Red4282 said:

> > > > @NoTalentLefty said:

> > > > I tested a Titleist ProV 1, a Titleist DT TruSoft, and the Taylormade Project(a). I didn’t lose or gain anything from the ProV 1 and the Project (a) other than little more backspin from the Titleist DT TruSoft. No distance was lost on any ball. TruSoft was for me . Don’t think the mygolfpie got it right.

> > >

> > > Yep they just made up data... ?

> >

> > The data has little to no value unless you're the robot (with its perfect swing plane and strike)....

> > I tested balls a few times a week (in an open field 100 x 300 yds) for almost a year. I wrote a long message on that website with my findings and they deleted it. I was careful to say my data only applies to me and my swing ....but my results didn't match their results or interpretations so my comment was not allowed to stand.

> >

> > For the record, I have a flat swing plane with driver (85 mph), ball close to middle of stance, "descending blow", weak grip, limited wrist action, and my "miss" is toe side and high on club face. My ball flight is a draw/hook or more commonly a block/draw (which finds the FW a good percentage of the time). If I try to "cut" the ball its normally just a straight pull, if I move the ball more to the front (left foot) I tend to "top or thin" it.

> >

> > Based on the above...I have best results (distance) with mid compression balls (65 to 75 core compression). I have never, ever, ever hit a Prov1x or Tour B X further than than mid compressions as the robot suggests...I mean never! My best distance results are with the 2017 Bridgestone e6 (especially toe center), 2018 Titleist TourSoft and Velocity, 2018 TaylorMade Project (a).....Very close behind is the Bridgestone Tour B RX, XS, and RXS....(The Titleist ProV1x and Tour B X go no where for me...10-15 yards shorter.)....BTW I don't hit the soft balls very far either with the driver (Duo/Callaway Supersoft/Softfli ...very short like the high compression balls)

> >

> > With long irons I hit the Wilson Staff Duo Spin longer than any other ball. The "soft" core balls are better than the mid and high for 5,4, and 3 irons (for me).

> >

> > For short irons, the only ball I have ever backed up on a green is the Chrome Soft (Tevis)....however....the Chrome soft is just average for me on drives and long irons (so I don't play it....I use the Chrome soft only in scrambles for inside 100 yds shots (pin in front).

> >

> > Some will say it's all in head....LOL....No, it's based on a year of testing (fall, winter, spring, summer.....wind, rain, etc...). I have no allegiance to any ball or manufacturer....I only want best results.

> >

> > So yes, Mygolfpie got it wrong (very badly) for me and my swing. ...If I was the robot, I would be very interested in the column.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> See this is where people take data the wrong way. The test didnt say a harder compresson ball is longer than a softer compression ball. It said that they offer more BALL SPEED. Which all that means is potentially longer given other data points are met (proper fit for player). Raw data is raw data, bottom line. Distance is a formula. Ball speed is only part of that formula.

They did say generally shorter, which many people have taken as definitely shorter when posting on various threads here. Again, people need to understand all of the inputs to distance, but the test itself seems to have changed what people believe (or what they write).

[NoTalentLefty]

The guy who said we are not robots got it right. Not enough variables that we humans have, including bad swings. Testing was not, what I would say, thorough enough for recommendations on what golf ball slower speeds should play.

[rwbloom93]

> @mmack067 said:

> Please elaborate how balls react differently to varying swing planes or grip pressure?

>

>

 

Flat swing planes (for weekend golfers) can lead to the club face shutting just before impact with the ball which delofts the club face angle. Balls designed to fly low (mostly dimple construction) will under perform balls designed to fly higher with their respective dimple construction. Upright swings can be just the opposite....Also, depending on how much spin the ball generates from mantle layer (if it exists) and Core, distance will be affected by the amount of hook or slice produced from the closing or opening face.

 

Grip pressure relates to impact accuracy on the club face (but also swing speed). I mentioned grip pressure more for the impact accuracy part because I find lower compression balls fly further on off center hits. Maybe others don't experience the same (idk, I can't be the only one).... I wish the robot would have hit some off center shots and varying AOA's......Now that would be data worth looking at (IMHO).

 

[Red4282]

> @agolf1 said:

> > @Red4282 said:

> > > @rwbloom93 said:

> > > > @Red4282 said:

> > > > > @NoTalentLefty said:

> > > > > I tested a Titleist ProV 1, a Titleist DT TruSoft, and the Taylormade Project(a). I didn’t lose or gain anything from the ProV 1 and the Project (a) other than little more backspin from the Titleist DT TruSoft. No distance was lost on any ball. TruSoft was for me . Don’t think the mygolfpie got it right.

> > > >

> > > > Yep they just made up data... ?

> > >

> > > The data has little to no value unless you're the robot (with its perfect swing plane and strike)....

> > > I tested balls a few times a week (in an open field 100 x 300 yds) for almost a year. I wrote a long message on that website with my findings and they deleted it. I was careful to say my data only applies to me and my swing ....but my results didn't match their results or interpretations so my comment was not allowed to stand.

> > >

> > > For the record, I have a flat swing plane with driver (85 mph), ball close to middle of stance, "descending blow", weak grip, limited wrist action, and my "miss" is toe side and high on club face. My ball flight is a draw/hook or more commonly a block/draw (which finds the FW a good percentage of the time). If I try to "cut" the ball its normally just a straight pull, if I move the ball more to the front (left foot) I tend to "top or thin" it.

> > >

> > > Based on the above...I have best results (distance) with mid compression balls (65 to 75 core compression). I have never, ever, ever hit a Prov1x or Tour B X further than than mid compressions as the robot suggests...I mean never! My best distance results are with the 2017 Bridgestone e6 (especially toe center), 2018 Titleist TourSoft and Velocity, 2018 TaylorMade Project (a).....Very close behind is the Bridgestone Tour B RX, XS, and RXS....(The Titleist ProV1x and Tour B X go no where for me...10-15 yards shorter.)....BTW I don't hit the soft balls very far either with the driver (Duo/Callaway Supersoft/Softfli ...very short like the high compression balls)

> > >

> > > With long irons I hit the Wilson Staff Duo Spin longer than any other ball. The "soft" core balls are better than the mid and high for 5,4, and 3 irons (for me).

> > >

> > > For short irons, the only ball I have ever backed up on a green is the Chrome Soft (Tevis)....however....the Chrome soft is just average for me on drives and long irons (so I don't play it....I use the Chrome soft only in scrambles for inside 100 yds shots (pin in front).

> > >

> > > Some will say it's all in head....LOL....No, it's based on a year of testing (fall, winter, spring, summer.....wind, rain, etc...). I have no allegiance to any ball or manufacturer....I only want best results.

> > >

> > > So yes, Mygolfpie got it wrong (very badly) for me and my swing. ...If I was the robot, I would be very interested in the column.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > See this is where people take data the wrong way. The test didnt say a harder compresson ball is longer than a softer compression ball. It said that they offer more BALL SPEED. Which all that means is potentially longer given other data points are met (proper fit for player). Raw data is raw data, bottom line. Distance is a formula. Ball speed is only part of that formula.

> They did say generally shorter, which many people have taken as definitely shorter when posting on various threads here. Again, people need to understand all of the inputs to distance, but the test itself seems to have changed what people believe (or what they write).

 

Well your mad at mygolfpie because people dont quite understand how to interpret data and what it means? Not sure how that is their fault. This is golf, people believe all kinds of falsehoods. Im not necessarily defending said tester because their most recent test for fairway woods didnt include the st190. But i wont have an emotional reaction and claim all their stuff is junk. I will take the data they get at face value. Kind of reminds me of the maltby mpf. Their conclusions on what clubs easier to play than others is flat out wrong imo. However all those data points are so valuable.

 

[Red4282]

> @rwbloom93 said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > All I know is this. If a fairly well controlled, carefully conducted test using a hitting robot says Ball A is a couple yards longer than Ball B and a guy hitting a few balls with no way to measure distance tells me Ball A is 15-20 yards shorter than Ball B,

> > I know which one of these is more likely to be true than the other.

> >

> I think there is a misunderstanding, I never claimed Ball B is longer than Ball A for anyone other than me. I have no idea which ball is longer for you nor do I care. Ball A is longer than Ball B for the Robot...we can agree on that, yes?

>

> The reason for my (long winded) post is two-fold. One is to re-state the obvious.... golf ball performance will vary based on how the ball is struck by the human participant (swing speed, AOA, swing plane, grip tension, ball position....etc). Using Robot testing data and attempting translate that into similar human performance is limited at best. Very valuable to the robot!

>

> Secondly, and based on reason #1, I take issue with ****'s declarative statements that are made from their raw data....."most impactful test"....their golf ball test, by implication, "changes today"...how golfers view balls...."we get to what's real and true". ...LOL...and they call out marketing by golf ball companies? That's some top notch marketing BS from them and their site....but whatever.

>

> P.S....hitting 80-100 balls several times a week for a year is not "a few" shots....and... its easy to measure relative distance. The field is downhill about 15 yards (for the first 170 yds) and then is uphill about 20 yards for the last 130 yards. I can follow the flight of the ball, watch it hit, bounce once on the up-slope, and stop (no roll..grass is several inches high). Mid compression balls are consistently further up the hill than low and high compression balls (all seasons, all winds)...that's how I know. Plus, I do play golf courses...results match.

>

> Godspeed to all you golfers!

>

>

I think you need to look at this way: potential distance. Ball A was longer than ball B on a robot, but not for you. Ball A will always be longer than ball B given both are given optimum launch and spin.

Golfers may not be able to acheive optimum stats whether its due to swing or equipment. But A will always have a higher ceiling.

[rwbloom93]

 

> I think you need to look at this way: potential distance. Ball A was longer than ball B on a robot, but not for you. Ball A will always be longer than ball B given both are given optimum launch and spin.

> Golfers may not be able to acheive optimum stats whether its due to swing or equipment. But A will always have a higher ceiling.

 

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

 

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

[Titleist_PT23]

> @Red4282 said:

> > @agolf1 said:

> > > @Red4282 said:

> > > > @rwbloom93 said:

> > > > > @Red4282 said:

> > > > > > @NoTalentLefty said:

> > > > > > I tested a Titleist ProV 1, a Titleist DT TruSoft, and the Taylormade Project(a). I didn’t lose or gain anything from the ProV 1 and the Project (a) other than little more backspin from the Titleist DT TruSoft. No distance was lost on any ball. TruSoft was for me . Don’t think the mygolfpie got it right.

> > > > >

> > > > > Yep they just made up data... ?

> > > >

> > > > The data has little to no value unless you're the robot (with its perfect swing plane and strike)....

> > > > I tested balls a few times a week (in an open field 100 x 300 yds) for almost a year. I wrote a long message on that website with my findings and they deleted it. I was careful to say my data only applies to me and my swing ....but my results didn't match their results or interpretations so my comment was not allowed to stand.

> > > >

> > > > For the record, I have a flat swing plane with driver (85 mph), ball close to middle of stance, "descending blow", weak grip, limited wrist action, and my "miss" is toe side and high on club face. My ball flight is a draw/hook or more commonly a block/draw (which finds the FW a good percentage of the time). If I try to "cut" the ball its normally just a straight pull, if I move the ball more to the front (left foot) I tend to "top or thin" it.

> > > >

> > > > Based on the above...I have best results (distance) with mid compression balls (65 to 75 core compression). I have never, ever, ever hit a Prov1x or Tour B X further than than mid compressions as the robot suggests...I mean never! My best distance results are with the 2017 Bridgestone e6 (especially toe center), 2018 Titleist TourSoft and Velocity, 2018 TaylorMade Project (a).....Very close behind is the Bridgestone Tour B RX, XS, and RXS....(The Titleist ProV1x and Tour B X go no where for me...10-15 yards shorter.)....BTW I don't hit the soft balls very far either with the driver (Duo/Callaway Supersoft/Softfli ...very short like the high compression balls)

> > > >

> > > > With long irons I hit the Wilson Staff Duo Spin longer than any other ball. The "soft" core balls are better than the mid and high for 5,4, and 3 irons (for me).

> > > >

> > > > For short irons, the only ball I have ever backed up on a green is the Chrome Soft (Tevis)....however....the Chrome soft is just average for me on drives and long irons (so I don't play it....I use the Chrome soft only in scrambles for inside 100 yds shots (pin in front).

> > > >

> > > > Some will say it's all in head....LOL....No, it's based on a year of testing (fall, winter, spring, summer.....wind, rain, etc...). I have no allegiance to any ball or manufacturer....I only want best results.

> > > >

> > > > So yes, Mygolfpie got it wrong (very badly) for me and my swing. ...If I was the robot, I would be very interested in the column.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > See this is where people take data the wrong way. The test didnt say a harder compresson ball is longer than a softer compression ball. It said that they offer more BALL SPEED. Which all that means is potentially longer given other data points are met (proper fit for player). Raw data is raw data, bottom line. Distance is a formula. Ball speed is only part of that formula.

> > They did say generally shorter, which many people have taken as definitely shorter when posting on various threads here. Again, people need to understand all of the inputs to distance, but the test itself seems to have changed what people believe (or what they write).

>

> Well your mad at mygolfpie because people dont quite understand how to interpret data and what it means? Not sure how that is their fault. This is golf, people believe all kinds of falsehoods. Im not necessarily defending said tester because their most recent test for fairway woods didnt include the st190. But i wont have an emotional reaction and claim all their stuff is junk. I will take the data they get at face value. Kind of reminds me of the maltby mpf. Their conclusions on what clubs easier to play than others is flat out wrong imo. However all those data points are so valuable.

I'm not mad at anything. And I think people are wrong with the conclusion they draw from the test. But the test also said generally longer, it didn't mention only speed as your post seemed to say about the test itself (I fully acknowledge you then say potential longer but I took this as your conclusion, which is obviously correct).

[Red4282]

> @agolf1 said:

> > @Red4282 said:

> > > @agolf1 said:

> > > > @Red4282 said:

> > > > > @rwbloom93 said:

> > > > > > @Red4282 said:

> > > > > > > @NoTalentLefty said:

> > > > > > > I tested a Titleist ProV 1, a Titleist DT TruSoft, and the Taylormade Project(a). I didn’t lose or gain anything from the ProV 1 and the Project (a) other than little more backspin from the Titleist DT TruSoft. No distance was lost on any ball. TruSoft was for me . Don’t think the mygolfpie got it right.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Yep they just made up data... ?

> > > > >

> > > > > The data has little to no value unless you're the robot (with its perfect swing plane and strike)....

> > > > > I tested balls a few times a week (in an open field 100 x 300 yds) for almost a year. I wrote a long message on that website with my findings and they deleted it. I was careful to say my data only applies to me and my swing ....but my results didn't match their results or interpretations so my comment was not allowed to stand.

> > > > >

> > > > > For the record, I have a flat swing plane with driver (85 mph), ball close to middle of stance, "descending blow", weak grip, limited wrist action, and my "miss" is toe side and high on club face. My ball flight is a draw/hook or more commonly a block/draw (which finds the FW a good percentage of the time). If I try to "cut" the ball its normally just a straight pull, if I move the ball more to the front (left foot) I tend to "top or thin" it.

> > > > >

> > > > > Based on the above...I have best results (distance) with mid compression balls (65 to 75 core compression). I have never, ever, ever hit a Prov1x or Tour B X further than than mid compressions as the robot suggests...I mean never! My best distance results are with the 2017 Bridgestone e6 (especially toe center), 2018 Titleist TourSoft and Velocity, 2018 TaylorMade Project (a).....Very close behind is the Bridgestone Tour B RX, XS, and RXS....(The Titleist ProV1x and Tour B X go no where for me...10-15 yards shorter.)....BTW I don't hit the soft balls very far either with the driver (Duo/Callaway Supersoft/Softfli ...very short like the high compression balls)

> > > > >

> > > > > With long irons I hit the Wilson Staff Duo Spin longer than any other ball. The "soft" core balls are better than the mid and high for 5,4, and 3 irons (for me).

> > > > >

> > > > > For short irons, the only ball I have ever backed up on a green is the Chrome Soft (Tevis)....however....the Chrome soft is just average for me on drives and long irons (so I don't play it....I use the Chrome soft only in scrambles for inside 100 yds shots (pin in front).

> > > > >

> > > > > Some will say it's all in head....LOL....No, it's based on a year of testing (fall, winter, spring, summer.....wind, rain, etc...). I have no allegiance to any ball or manufacturer....I only want best results.

> > > > >

> > > > > So yes, Mygolfpie got it wrong (very badly) for me and my swing. ...If I was the robot, I would be very interested in the column.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > See this is where people take data the wrong way. The test didnt say a harder compresson ball is longer than a softer compression ball. It said that they offer more BALL SPEED. Which all that means is potentially longer given other data points are met (proper fit for player). Raw data is raw data, bottom line. Distance is a formula. Ball speed is only part of that formula.

> > > They did say generally shorter, which many people have taken as definitely shorter when posting on various threads here. Again, people need to understand all of the inputs to distance, but the test itself seems to have changed what people believe (or what they write).

> >

> > Well your mad at mygolfpie because people dont quite understand how to interpret data and what it means? Not sure how that is their fault. This is golf, people believe all kinds of falsehoods. Im not necessarily defending said tester because their most recent test for fairway woods didnt include the st190. But i wont have an emotional reaction and claim all their stuff is junk. I will take the data they get at face value. Kind of reminds me of the maltby mpf. Their conclusions on what clubs easier to play than others is flat out wrong imo. However all those data points are so valuable.

> I'm not mad at anything. And I think people are wrong with the conclusion they draw from the test. But the test also said generally longer, it didn't mention only speed as your post seemed to say about the test itself (I fully acknowledge you then say potential longer but I took this as your conclusion, which is obviously correct).

 

Directly from the test:

3. A SOFT GOLF BALL IS A SLOW GOLF BALL

A soft ball is a slow ball; it’s that simple. If you are playing a “soft” golf ball, it’s probably costing you distance off the tee (unless you swing under 85 MPH) and spin around the green.

 

A growing segment within the market, the soft (or low compression) segment of the market includes familiar balls like Callaway Chrome Soft, Wilson DUO, Bridgestone Tour B RXS, and Titleist AVX.

Firmer balls are faster, generally longer, and as an added benefit to many golfers, they spin more around the green.

 

We get that some of you love soft feel, but the reality is that the only golfers likely to see real performance benefits from low compression balls are high speed, high spin players. That’s probably not you.

 

I see “probably costing you distance” and “generally longer”- both are verbiage to allow for outliers. Outliers will always exist, like in your case but terms like generally and probably are fine if it applies to a significant majority.

[Titleist_PT23]

> @Red4282 said:

> > @agolf1 said:

> > > @Red4282 said:

> > > > @agolf1 said:

> > > > > @Red4282 said:

> > > > > > @rwbloom93 said:

> > > > > > > @Red4282 said:

> > > > > > > > @NoTalentLefty said:

> > > > > > > > I tested a Titleist ProV 1, a Titleist DT TruSoft, and the Taylormade Project(a). I didn’t lose or gain anything from the ProV 1 and the Project (a) other than little more backspin from the Titleist DT TruSoft. No distance was lost on any ball. TruSoft was for me . Don’t think the mygolfpie got it right.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Yep they just made up data... ?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The data has little to no value unless you're the robot (with its perfect swing plane and strike)....

> > > > > > I tested balls a few times a week (in an open field 100 x 300 yds) for almost a year. I wrote a long message on that website with my findings and they deleted it. I was careful to say my data only applies to me and my swing ....but my results didn't match their results or interpretations so my comment was not allowed to stand.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > For the record, I have a flat swing plane with driver (85 mph), ball close to middle of stance, "descending blow", weak grip, limited wrist action, and my "miss" is toe side and high on club face. My ball flight is a draw/hook or more commonly a block/draw (which finds the FW a good percentage of the time). If I try to "cut" the ball its normally just a straight pull, if I move the ball more to the front (left foot) I tend to "top or thin" it.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Based on the above...I have best results (distance) with mid compression balls (65 to 75 core compression). I have never, ever, ever hit a Prov1x or Tour B X further than than mid compressions as the robot suggests...I mean never! My best distance results are with the 2017 Bridgestone e6 (especially toe center), 2018 Titleist TourSoft and Velocity, 2018 TaylorMade Project (a).....Very close behind is the Bridgestone Tour B RX, XS, and RXS....(The Titleist ProV1x and Tour B X go no where for me...10-15 yards shorter.)....BTW I don't hit the soft balls very far either with the driver (Duo/Callaway Supersoft/Softfli ...very short like the high compression balls)

> > > > > >

> > > > > > With long irons I hit the Wilson Staff Duo Spin longer than any other ball. The "soft" core balls are better than the mid and high for 5,4, and 3 irons (for me).

> > > > > >

> > > > > > For short irons, the only ball I have ever backed up on a green is the Chrome Soft (Tevis)....however....the Chrome soft is just average for me on drives and long irons (so I don't play it....I use the Chrome soft only in scrambles for inside 100 yds shots (pin in front).

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Some will say it's all in head....LOL....No, it's based on a year of testing (fall, winter, spring, summer.....wind, rain, etc...). I have no allegiance to any ball or manufacturer....I only want best results.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So yes, Mygolfpie got it wrong (very badly) for me and my swing. ...If I was the robot, I would be very interested in the column.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > See this is where people take data the wrong way. The test didnt say a harder compresson ball is longer than a softer compression ball. It said that they offer more BALL SPEED. Which all that means is potentially longer given other data points are met (proper fit for player). Raw data is raw data, bottom line. Distance is a formula. Ball speed is only part of that formula.

> > > > They did say generally shorter, which many people have taken as definitely shorter when posting on various threads here. Again, people need to understand all of the inputs to distance, but the test itself seems to have changed what people believe (or what they write).

> > >

> > > Well your mad at mygolfpie because people dont quite understand how to interpret data and what it means? Not sure how that is their fault. This is golf, people believe all kinds of falsehoods. Im not necessarily defending said tester because their most recent test for fairway woods didnt include the st190. But i wont have an emotional reaction and claim all their stuff is junk. I will take the data they get at face value. Kind of reminds me of the maltby mpf. Their conclusions on what clubs easier to play than others is flat out wrong imo. However all those data points are so valuable.

> > I'm not mad at anything. And I think people are wrong with the conclusion they draw from the test. But the test also said generally longer, it didn't mention only speed as your post seemed to say about the test itself (I fully acknowledge you then say potential longer but I took this as your conclusion, which is obviously correct).

>

> Directly from the test:

> 3. A SOFT GOLF BALL IS A SLOW GOLF BALL

> A soft ball is a slow ball; it’s that simple. If you are playing a “soft” golf ball, it’s probably costing you distance off the tee (unless you swing under 85 MPH) and spin around the green.

>

> A growing segment within the market, the soft (or low compression) segment of the market includes familiar balls like Callaway Chrome Soft, Wilson DUO, Bridgestone Tour B RXS, and Titleist AVX.

> Firmer balls are faster, generally longer, and as an added benefit to many golfers, they spin more around the green.

>

> We get that some of you love soft feel, but the reality is that the only golfers likely to see real performance benefits from low compression balls are high speed, high spin players. That’s probably not you.

>

> I see “probably costing you distance” and “generally longer”- both are verbiage to allow for outliers. Outliers will always exist, like in your case but terms like generally and probably are fine if it applies to a significant majority.

I just think what you wrote in #732 is a much better way to say it than what they wrote. Of course, we can all probably understand why they did what they did but it has lead to some misunderstandings of what the data actually means (even if it is not the test's "fault"). Their "probably" and "generally" work in the context of 51/49 outcomes. I don't know for sure, but I think it may be a lot closer to this (51/49) than "outliers" in the context of a 98th percentile observation.

[deepred]

MGS has a new podcast relating to Callaway meeting with them and telling them, yes they are making very inconsistent balls, but they are investing $50,000,000 in new machinery to improve the quality of their products. Specifically the centering of the core and the thickness of the mantle. The Callaway people also reiterated their belief that soft may give up a few yards off the tee but makes for a better ball overall.

 

[GoGoErky]

> @deepred said:

> **** has a new podcast relating to Callaway meeting with them and telling them, yes they are making very inconsistent balls, but they are investing $50,000,000 in new machinery to improve the quality of their products. Specifically the centering of the core and the thickness of the mantle. The Callaway people also reiterated their belief that soft may give up a few yards off the tee but makes for a better ball overall.

>

 

Of course they will say the last part...it would destroy their marketing of the ball that changed the ball. They already have a reputation hit, they can’t poopoo on their years of marketing the CS

[Stanks]

They lost all credit when they freaked out on the gram and everyone noticed.

We all want extra distance in a ball but not at the sacrifice of rolling through a green on shorter irons and the feel of hitting the equivalent of a glass marble of the club. Not to mention, nothing they say is taken to heart by many people. Interesting things are tested and stated but, anyone and their mother can tell that there are faults and people aren't robots. In short, Screw them.

[deepred]

Probably so, but soft does appear to be the trend. They went to all the trouble of ripping off Wilson it wouldn’t do to give it up now.

[GoGoErky]

> @deepred said:

> Probably so, but soft does appear to be the trend. They went to all the trouble of ripping off Wilson it wouldn’t do to give it up now.

 

They have been all about speed and distance...epic flash is faster than humanly possible yet giving up a few yards for soft makes a good ball. Smh

[Red4282]

> @rwbloom93 said:

>

> > I think you need to look at this way: potential distance. Ball A was longer than ball B on a robot, but not for you. Ball A will always be longer than ball B given both are given optimum launch and spin.

> > Golfers may not be able to acheive optimum stats whether its due to swing or equipment. But A will always have a higher ceiling.

>

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

>

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

 

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

[nsxguy]

> @Red4282 said:

> > @rwbloom93 said:

> >

> > > I think you need to look at this way: potential distance. Ball A was longer than ball B on a robot, but not for you. Ball A will always be longer than ball B given both are given optimum launch and spin.

> > > Golfers may not be able to acheive optimum stats whether its due to swing or equipment. But A will always have a higher ceiling.

> >

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

> >

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

>

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

 

"the majority of the time"

 

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

[Red4282]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @Red4282 said:

> > > @rwbloom93 said:

> > >

> > > > I think you need to look at this way: potential distance. Ball A was longer than ball B on a robot, but not for you. Ball A will always be longer than ball B given both are given optimum launch and spin.

> > > > Golfers may not be able to acheive optimum stats whether its due to swing or equipment. But A will always have a higher ceiling.

> > >

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

> > >

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

> >

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

>

> "the majority of the time"

>

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

 

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

[nsxguy]

> @Red4282 said:

> > @nsxguy said:

> > > @Red4282 said:

> > > > @rwbloom93 said:

> > > >

> > > > > I think you need to look at this way: potential distance. Ball A was longer than ball B on a robot, but not for you. Ball A will always be longer than ball B given both are given optimum launch and spin.

> > > > > Golfers may not be able to acheive optimum stats whether its due to swing or equipment. But A will always have a higher ceiling.

> > > >

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

> > > >

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

> > >

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

> >

> > "the majority of the time"

> >

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

>

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Red4282]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @Red4282 said:

> > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > @Red4282 said:

> > > > > @rwbloom93 said:

> > > > >

> > > > > > I think you need to look at this way: potential distance. Ball A was longer than ball B on a robot, but not for you. Ball A will always be longer than ball B given both are given optimum launch and spin.

> > > > > > Golfers may not be able to acheive optimum stats whether its due to swing or equipment. But A will always have a higher ceiling.

> > > > >

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

> > > > >

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

> > > >

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

> > >

> > > "the majority of the time"

> > >

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

> >

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

 

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

[nsxguy]

> @Red4282 said:

> > @nsxguy said:

> > > @Red4282 said:

> > > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > > @Red4282 said:

> > > > > > @rwbloom93 said:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > I think you need to look at this way: potential distance. Ball A was longer than ball B on a robot, but not for you. Ball A will always be longer than ball B given both are given optimum launch and spin.

> > > > > > > Golfers may not be able to acheive optimum stats whether its due to swing or equipment. But A will always have a higher ceiling.

> > > > > >

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

> > > > > >

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

> > > > >

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

> > > >

> > > > "the majority of the time"

> > > >

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

> > >

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

> >

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

> >

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

> >

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

>

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

 

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

 

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

 

You said yourself, and I quote, "**_Golfers may not be able to acheive optimum stats whether its due to swing or equipment._**"

You're right. They can't. And that was the point.

[Red4282]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @Red4282 said:

> > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > @Red4282 said:

> > > > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > > > @Red4282 said:

> > > > > > > @rwbloom93 said:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I think you need to look at this way: potential distance. Ball A was longer than ball B on a robot, but not for you. Ball A will always be longer than ball B given both are given optimum launch and spin.

> > > > > > > > Golfers may not be able to acheive optimum stats whether its due to swing or equipment. But A will always have a higher ceiling.

> > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > >

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

> > > > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > > "the majority of the time"

> > > > >

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

> > > >

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

> > >

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

> > >

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

> > >

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

> >

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

>

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

>

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

>

> You said yourself, and I quote, "**_Golfers may not be able to acheive optimum stats whether its due to swing or equipment._**"

> You're right. They can't. And that was the point.

 

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

[rwbloom93]

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

 

I don't think you understood my assumption. I was comparing Robots vs. Humans for setup and ball striking. I wasn't saying 99.99% of golfers can't hit some quality (or optimum) shots during a round but that there is mostly "less than optimum ball striking (the majority of the time)" by 99.99% the typical amateur golfers. Robots are near 100% optimum for ball striking, right?

 

Remember, my whole argument is that Robot testing has limited to no value for the average golfer because all golfers have setup or swing flaws (robots don't). I would like to see a robot hit balls with a toe center mishit and have data for which ball is best, or heel center mishit, or high on the club face or low on the clubface, or an inside out swing, or outside in, or a swing where the club is inside out but the face is starting to shut....etc.....You know, all the common errors amateurs make for the majority of their shots.

 

Some argue that the balls that perform best in robot testing will also be the best performing balls for all the flaws of a human golfer. All I can say is it is not true for me and my flawed 85 mph swing. My year of testing says I hit the driver best (distance) with "mid" compression balls, long irons best (distance) with "soft" compression balls, and chipping best with any urethane ball. I have all those types of balls with me for scrambles...else I simply play the Tour B RX, Project (a), Titleiest Tour soft, or Srixon Q-star Tour. I like them all.

 

P.S....I tried to listen to the youtube commentary about "The Test" months ago but shut it off when I heard one of the testing "staffers" say they played a Callaway, and played pretty well with the ball, but now they guess not because the robot says Callaway is bad...smh..Maybe Callaway is inferior, IDK, but if I played well with a particular ball A, and didn't with ball B, no robot test is going to make me switch to ball B because it hits ball B best.

 

Peace.

[nsxguy]

> @Red4282 said:

> > @nsxguy said:

> > > @Red4282 said:

> > > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > > @Red4282 said:

> > > > > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > > > > @Red4282 said:

> > > > > > > > @rwbloom93 said:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I think you need to look at this way: potential distance. Ball A was longer than ball B on a robot, but not for you. Ball A will always be longer than ball B given both are given optimum launch and spin.

> > > > > > > > > Golfers may not be able to acheive optimum stats whether its due to swing or equipment. But A will always have a higher ceiling.

> > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > >

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

> > > > > >

> > > > > > "the majority of the time"

> > > > > >

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

> > > > >

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

> > > >

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

> > > >

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

> > > >

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

> > >

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

> >

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

> >

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

> >

> > You said yourself, and I quote, "**_Golfers may not be able to acheive optimum stats whether its due to swing or equipment._**"

> > You're right. They can't. And that was the point.

>

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

 

Forget it. You my friend are the one being lazy,,,,,, as in you either just don't get it or just don't want to get it.

I don't give a rats behind about that article/website.

 

I'll try to type more slowly.

 

The POINT is the guy said 99.99% of golfers don't generate OPTIMUM/BEST launch condition the majority of the time. YOU objected to that number.

Point is, NOBODY generates the OPTIMUM launch/spin rates the majority of the time.

THAT is my only point. Period. I don't care about the other site's articles or soft balls vs. hard ones.

Can you hear me now ? (Don't bother answering - it's a rhetorical question)

[Red4282]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @Red4282 said:

> > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > @Red4282 said:

> > > > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > > > @Red4282 said:

> > > > > > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > > > > > @Red4282 said:

> > > > > > > > > @rwbloom93 said:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I think you need to look at this way: potential distance. Ball A was longer than ball B on a robot, but not for you. Ball A will always be longer than ball B given both are given optimum launch and spin.

> > > > > > > > > > Golfers may not be able to acheive optimum stats whether its due to swing or equipment. But A will always have a higher ceiling.

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > "the majority of the time"

> > > > > > >

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

> > > > > >

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

> > > > >

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

> > > > >

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

> > > > >

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

> > > >

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

> > >

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

> > >

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

> > >

> > > You said yourself, and I quote, "**_Golfers may not be able to acheive optimum stats whether its due to swing or equipment._**"

> > > You're right. They can't. And that was the point.

> >

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

>

> Forget it. You my friend are the one being lazy,,,,,, as in you either just don't get it or just don't want to get it.

> I don't give a rats behind about that article/website.

>

> I'll try to type more slowly.

>

> The POINT is the guy said 99.99% of golfers don't generate OPTIMUM/BEST launch condition the majority of the time. YOU objected to that number.

> Point is, NOBODY generates the OPTIMUM launch/spin rates the majority of the time.

> THAT is my only point. Period. I don't care about the other site's articles or soft balls vs. hard ones.

> Can you hear me now ? (Don't bother answering - it's a rhetorical question)

 

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