Titliest Ball Fitting - Do You Believe

[Flyers99]

I am going to take the Switzerland view here......I think the best fitting would be to combine the Titleist and the Bridgestone fittings. I think the Titleist view is ok but too much emphasis is on the short game.

I have gone to 3 seperate fittings and was recommended the Pro V1 each time. Suprise as they always offer their premium balls. I love the Pro V1 around the greens and the feel off the putter. However, they have too much spin (V1X too) for me off the driver. My weakness is accuracy off the tee and they kill me there. They have good short game control and putter feel is great but if it is causing me to lose accuaracy off the tee how much am I gaining?

There are plenty of other balls out there that can get me results in the short game close to the Pro V1 with the feel but provide superior results off the tee. To me it is a huge advantage to be in play off the tee and adjust my short game shots than too be less accurate off the tee.

If I play a B330S, Zstar or the such I can play for an extra foot or two of roll out which is easily done. However, it is difficult to adjust for the decreased accuracy off the tee for me with the Pro v1. I would argue the short game gaps/control between the Pro V series and other premium balls for me is small and is easy to adjust to. Is there really that much difference hitting a 70 yard pitch and your ball landing 2 feet further with something other than the Pro V1? Unless you are a pro I think not so much.

However, there is a huge gap of the tee between the balls for me. Every tee ball I hit just on the fairway would be off, every ball in the rough near a tree line may now be obstructed with the Pro V1. In my mind give me a ball I can get in play off the tee and give similar short game control.

As you can see....I have not mentioned anything about distance just my thoughts on what is best for me and my game. Not saying this is how it is for everyone or how everyone should do it but this has been the best approach for me.

[jman2407]

Great post above. Totally agree.

Find balls that perform around the green, then take them to the tee with launch monitor and maximize your distance and launch condition. This is how it should be done. This is how every Professional does it, of course staying within their contracted brand. Why do you think Luke Donald still plays the 2005 ProV? My guess is because it has a much better driver launch condition than the new ProV. This is why there are tons of prototype golf balls on the conforming list. [url="http://www.usga.org/ConformingGolfBall/conforming_golf_ball.asp"]http://www.usga.org/ConformingGolfBall/conforming_golf_ball.asp[/url] If everyone just chose a ball based on green spin, there would only need to be one high spinnning ball of each brand for the pros.

[LOVE4LPGA]

[size="2"]Titleist asserts that overall compression is a factor that can be ignored.

Yet, they call their low compression ball SoLo and push its distance abilities.

OTOH, their competition is considering overall compression to be important.

I don't think it should be ignored.

But it is apparent that they want to treat a "fitting" as a marketing pitch and unusually high % of PV rec'ds.

I guess it is just a joke to them.



[/size]

[LOVE4LPGA]

[quote name='jman2407' timestamp='1337019464' post='4912650']
[quote name='Fourmyle of Ceres' timestamp='1337018172' post='4912440']
Compression, so-called, is at best a weak indicator of golf ball performance. I wish the whole industry would get over the obsession with "compression".
[/quote]


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

Harder compression = more ball velocity, more spin

Soft compression = less ball velocity, less spin
[/quote]

Expect defenses of Titleist claims on this discussion board.

[Fourmyle of Ceres]

The fact that Titleist "fits" every player in the world into one or the other of their most expensive balls is obviously self-serving marketing nonsense. That fact does not mean the rest of the industries pushing of the word "compression" is anything other than marketing nonsense as well.

If a player needs a ball with less spin, they need a ball with less spin. Not a "lower compression" ball. If they need a ball with the best ball velocity among those balls with the proper amount of spin then they need to choose based on ball velocity for their swing. Not based on "compression".

A generalized "all else being equal" relationship in which two things tend to move in the same direction (i.e. lower "compression" and lower spin) does not mean the two things are identical. It is a mystery why so many people seize on "compression" as though it is the only thing that matters about fitting golf balls to players. I've tried balls that differed by a factor of two times or more in "compression" numbers that work equally well for my game. And I've tried balls with almost identical "compression" numbers and found one to work better than the other. It's obvious to me "compression" is just an arbitrarily chosen measurement that is weakly associated with the things that matter to golf ball performance.

[JerryMB1]

[quote name='Flyersby99' timestamp='1337102892' post='4919096']
I am going to take the Switzerland view here......I think the best fitting would be to combine the Titleist and the Bridgestone fittings. I think the Titleist view is ok but too much emphasis is on the short game.

I have gone to 3 seperate fittings and was recommended the Pro V1 each time. Suprise as they always offer their premium balls. I love the Pro V1 around the greens and the feel off the putter. However, they have too much spin (V1X too) for me off the driver. My weakness is accuracy off the tee and they kill me there. They have good short game control and putter feel is great but if it is causing me to lose accuaracy off the tee how much am I gaining?

There are plenty of other balls out there that can get me results in the short game close to the Pro V1 with the feel but provide superior results off the tee. To me it is a huge advantage to be in play off the tee and adjust my short game shots than too be less accurate off the tee.

If I play a B330S, Zstar or the such I can play for an extra foot or two of roll out which is easily done. However, it is difficult to adjust for the decreased accuracy off the tee for me with the Pro v1. I would argue the short game gaps/control between the Pro V series and other premium balls for me is small and is easy to adjust to. Is there really that much difference hitting a 70 yard pitch and your ball landing 2 feet further with something other than the Pro V1? Unless you are a pro I think not so much.

However, there is a huge gap of the tee between the balls for me. Every tee ball I hit just on the fairway would be off, every ball in the rough near a tree line may now be obstructed with the Pro V1. In my mind give me a ball I can get in play off the tee and give similar short game control.

As you can see....I have not mentioned anything about distance just my thoughts on what is best for me and my game. Not saying this is how it is for everyone or how everyone should do it but this has been the best approach for me.
[/quote]
well, from the sound of it, you need to work on your driving, dont switch balls to hide your problems. learn to hit your driver right and your game will improve, dont switch and your game wont improve.

[JerryMB1]

[quote name='Fourmyle of Ceres' timestamp='1337196607' post='4926416']
The fact that Titleist "fits" every player in the world into one or the other of their most expensive balls is obviously self-serving marketing nonsense. That fact does not mean the rest of the industries pushing of the word "compression" is anything other than marketing nonsense as well.

If a player needs a ball with less spin, they need a ball with less spin. Not a "lower compression" ball. If they need a ball with the best ball velocity among those balls with the proper amount of spin then they need to choose based on ball velocity for their swing. Not based on "compression".

A generalized "all else being equal" relationship in which two things tend to move in the same direction (i.e. lower "compression" and lower spin) does not mean the two things are identical. It is a mystery why so many people seize on "compression" as though it is the only thing that matters about fitting golf balls to players. I've tried balls that differed by a factor of two times or more in "compression" numbers that work equally well for my game. And I've tried balls with almost identical "compression" numbers and found one to work better than the other. It's obvious to me "compression" is just an arbitrarily chosen measurement that is weakly associated with the things that matter to golf ball performance.
[/quote]
Its easy to market, the compression angle, i have tried The RX and the RXS, and found zero benifits gained compared to my prov1 on the course, I am testing my equipment and balls all the time. THE lady iQ for example would be a good test against the RX, or one of the wilsons, or the prov1X the RX and i find not much difference at all for distance.

[Watkins4x]

[quote name='jman2407' timestamp='1337102724' post='4919074']
[quote name='Watkins4x' timestamp='1337093425' post='4918018']
So how many times does the ROBOT hit the ball for you on the course?
[/quote]

You trying to get your post count up?

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


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

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

Don't act like you know me. I just asked a question. Anyways thanks for all your help! And no I don't try to get my post count up, I have been a member here for awhile and rarely post. I just usually gather information.

[jman2407]

Just to make sure there is no confusion - I am NOT saying at all that lower compression equals more distance, it does however usually mean lower spin.


Lower spin is not always a good thing with driver. Too low of a spinrate can make the ball fall out of the sky sooner than optimal, sacrificing distance. You have to find the right combination of launch angle and spin based on your ball velocity.

[Flyers99]

Well I did not realize that every person out there hit the ball perfectly and has no weakness in their game. I guess if you have no flaws in your game then more power to you. Use whatever ball you like. Even tour pros find they can do some things with certain balls they cannot do as well with another. I guess they should fix their games as well before making the switch.

Why would I hit a ball that is less accurate off the tee and offers little more in the short game when I can hit a Zstar, B330S or similar and be in the fairway and get the spin I need.

Not sure why I would not want a staighter ball for me off the tee for me? Maybe you did not get what I said in my post? I did not say driving was a problem per se (other than with the Pro V's)...I can be in play fine (maybe not dead center fairway every time) with other balls other then the Pro V1's. So, if that means I have a driver problem because most other premium balls for me are fine but the almighty Titleist is not then I guess you are right.

I do not think I am the only person out there that finds one premium ball straigher off the tee than another.



[quote name='JerryMB1' timestamp='1337261236' post='4930648']
[quote name='Flyersby99' timestamp='1337102892' post='4919096']
I am going to take the Switzerland view here......I think the best fitting would be to combine the Titleist and the Bridgestone fittings. I think the Titleist view is ok but too much emphasis is on the short game.

I have gone to 3 seperate fittings and was recommended the Pro V1 each time. Suprise as they always offer their premium balls. I love the Pro V1 around the greens and the feel off the putter. However, they have too much spin (V1X too) for me off the driver. My weakness is accuracy off the tee and they kill me there. They have good short game control and putter feel is great but if it is causing me to lose accuaracy off the tee how much am I gaining?

There are plenty of other balls out there that can get me results in the short game close to the Pro V1 with the feel but provide superior results off the tee. To me it is a huge advantage to be in play off the tee and adjust my short game shots than too be less accurate off the tee.

If I play a B330S, Zstar or the such I can play for an extra foot or two of roll out which is easily done. However, it is difficult to adjust for the decreased accuracy off the tee for me with the Pro v1. I would argue the short game gaps/control between the Pro V series and other premium balls for me is small and is easy to adjust to. Is there really that much difference hitting a 70 yard pitch and your ball landing 2 feet further with something other than the Pro V1? Unless you are a pro I think not so much.

However, there is a huge gap of the tee between the balls for me. Every tee ball I hit just on the fairway would be off, every ball in the rough near a tree line may now be obstructed with the Pro V1. In my mind give me a ball I can get in play off the tee and give similar short game control.

As you can see....I have not mentioned anything about distance just my thoughts on what is best for me and my game. Not saying this is how it is for everyone or how everyone should do it but this has been the best approach for me.
[/quote]
well, from the sound of it, you need to work on your driving, dont switch balls to hide your problems. learn to hit your driver right and your game will improve, dont switch and your game wont improve.
[/quote]

[spaceboy]

Compression and swing speed is a myth.

[marte]

[quote name='rgk5' timestamp='1337024794' post='4913442']
w[quote name='jman2407' timestamp='1337017145' post='4912292']
FACT: More Golf Ball Compression = Lower Spin & Higher Launch = More Distance (generally, unless too low and the ball falls out of the sky too quick)


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

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


[/quote]

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

Overall compression...ProV1--06-97, 07-93, 09-95, 11-99.....ProV1x--06-110, 07-103, 09-104, 11-107. Very high compression. Cover hardness over these years ranged from 76-79 so the covers were pretty soft. Stats from Golfballtest.org. My driver SS is around 90mph and these and other companies high compression "tour" balls feel like rocks to me...don't care how soft the cover is.

[Pepperturbo]

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

Compression is important, even if ball companies say or imply otherwise. They have revenue to protect. I compress the ball well. A couple of years back I was in the desert, and ran out of my tour i(z) balls. My buddy threw me a new ProV. I teed it up and proceeded to compress it so much I lost 15yds or so, and it wasn't that hot out. Accomplished players with SS and impact angle can access characteristics of a premium ball. Reason I play Callaway Hex Tour. My club champion buddy is an accomplished player, but his swing speed is not strong enough to compress ProV1x, so he plays the softer ProV.

[Fourmyle of Ceres]

All you really know is that you play better with a ProV1x than a ProV1 and your buddy plays better with a ProV1 than a ProV1x. The rest is just speculation about "compressing" and "accessing" this and that. Which is my entire bone of contention on this topic. You guys are perfectly happy to jump from something that's clearly obvious (i.e. which ball works better than another for you) to this one, isolated, definted-by-the-gadget-that-measures-it "compression" thing and assert that it's a causal relationship. It might be or it might not, who knows.

[Pepperturbo]

[quote name='Fourmyle of Ceres' timestamp='1337632300' post='4952716']
All you really know is that you play better with a ProV1x than a ProV1 and your buddy plays better with a ProV1 than a ProV1x. The rest is just speculation about "compressing" and "accessing" this and that. Which is my entire bone of contention on this topic. You guys are perfectly happy to jump from something that's clearly obvious (i.e. which ball works better than another for you) to this one, isolated, definted-by-the-gadget-that-measures-it "compression" thing and assert that it's a causal relationship. It might be or it might not, who knows.
[/quote]

That could be construed as an insult to someone's intelligence and reasoning skills. We know that intelligence quotient's vary from person to person. What most don't know is where they are on the scale. Sound's like you're unable to determine ball difference, and opt for like or dislike, and assume everyone else is the same. If you didn't take that tack, you'd feel inferior; so understandable.

[spaceboy]

[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1337636851' post='4953224']
[quote name='Fourmyle of Ceres' timestamp='1337632300' post='4952716']
All you really know is that you play better with a ProV1x than a ProV1 and your buddy plays better with a ProV1 than a ProV1x. The rest is just speculation about "compressing" and "accessing" this and that. Which is my entire bone of contention on this topic. You guys are perfectly happy to jump from something that's clearly obvious (i.e. which ball works better than another for you) to this one, isolated, definted-by-the-gadget-that-measures-it "compression" thing and assert that it's a causal relationship. It might be or it might not, who knows.
[/quote]

That could be construed as an insult to someone's intelligence and reasoning skills. We know that intelligence quotient's vary from person to person. What most don't know is where they are on the scale. Sound's like you're unable to determine ball difference, and opt for like or dislike, and assume everyone else is the same. If you didn't take that tack, you'd feel inferior; so understandable.
[/quote]


No, what he is saying is you are jumping to conclusions. You do not actually know that it is the ball's compression which is affecting your play, you are assuming it is, probably because you have been told that compression is important, when in fact it may actually not be. When I read your post I just thought to myself "yeah yeah yeah", because there is no science in your argument. You [i]claim[/i] you hit one ball 15m shorter, so what? Doesnt mean it's compression. You've been conditioned into thinking it is compression. You dont actually know because you havent analysed it properly in a scientific way. And then you have the cheek to type those last two sentences...

[Pepperturbo]

[quote name='spaceboy' timestamp='1337638042' post='4953354']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1337636851' post='4953224']
[quote name='Fourmyle of Ceres' timestamp='1337632300' post='4952716']
All you really know is that you play better with a ProV1x than a ProV1 and your buddy plays better with a ProV1 than a ProV1x. The rest is just speculation about "compressing" and "accessing" this and that. Which is my entire bone of contention on this topic. You guys are perfectly happy to jump from something that's clearly obvious (i.e. which ball works better than another for you) to this one, isolated, definted-by-the-gadget-that-measures-it "compression" thing and assert that it's a causal relationship. It might be or it might not, who knows.
[/quote]

That could be construed as an insult to someone's intelligence and reasoning skills. We know that intelligence quotient's vary from person to person. What most don't know is where they are on the scale. Sound's like you're unable to determine ball difference, and opt for like or dislike, and assume everyone else is the same. If you didn't take that tack, you'd feel inferior; so understandable.
[/quote]


No, what he is saying is you are jumping to conclusions. You do not actually know that it is the ball's compression which is affecting your play, you are assuming it is, probably because you have been told that compression is important, when in fact it may actually not be. When I read your post I just thought to myself "yeah yeah yeah", because there is no science in your argument. You [i]claim[/i] you hit one ball 15m shorter, so what? Doesnt mean it's compression. You've been conditioned into thinking it is compression. You dont actually know because you havent analysed it properly in a scientific way. And then you have the cheek to type those last two sentences...
[/quote]

Again, your assuming. Science does NOT need to be present in every aspect of life or action for some people to do what others can't. Only linear minds think life is built around scientific proof. I know many Mensa friends that would support that line of reasoning too. So, instead of insulting each others intelligence, let's agree to disagree. Yep - I got cheek, and a spade is a spade.

[Fourmyle of Ceres]

I stipulated in my previous message that I have no doubt you're observing a major difference in those balls. For my game, I think there might be a slight difference in the ProV1 and ProV1x but not enough to say for sure.

Even when a difference is indisputable (and nobody is disputing your perception) it does not follow that the difference is caused by any old thing you might care to name. And you're either just repeating the "compression" thing because you've heard it asserted so many time or you simply chose to believe it because you happen to believe it on your own. There is still no logical reason to connect the two.

As I've mentioned before, there can be two balls that read virtually the same on a compression tester yet behave very differently in a given person's golf game. And there can be two balls that seem similar in performance yet measure totally different numbers on that silly gauge. Performance and higher or lower compression have some sort of loose, vague, general all-else-being-equal correspondence but so do a lot of other things in life. A general correspondence is not causality.

P.S. And while I value civility, try to maintain a sense of proportion and extend friendly toleration whenever possible, I still can't agree as to your notion of causality. For me the whole "compression" thing is as obviously a canard as it is obviously true in your own belief system. Sorry I feel the need to point it out every so often.

[spaceboy]

[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1337638712' post='4953434']


Again, your assuming. Science does NOT need to be present in every aspect of life or action for some people to do what others can't.
[/quote]

And what are you doing that others cant? Making a leap of faith and not feeling like you've made an assumption? Well done, that takes....stupidity?

[glfpunk]

[color=#1C2837][size=2][quote]Compression is important, even if ball companies say or imply otherwise. They have revenue to protect. I compress the ball well. A couple of years back I was in the desert, and ran out of my tour i(z) balls. My buddy threw me a new ProV. I teed it up and proceeded to compress it so much I lost 15yds or so, and it wasn't that hot out. Accomplished players with SS and impact angle can access characteristics of a premium ball. Reason I play Callaway Hex Tour. My club champion buddy is an accomplished player, but his swing speed is not strong enough to compress ProV1x, so he plays the softer ProV. [/quote][/size][/color]
[color=#1C2837][size=2]
[/size][/color]
[color=#1C2837][size=2]There are tour pro's that play the ProV1 over the ProV1x. I'd think that you lost the distance due to spin and not overcompression. Unless your SS is like 200mph. The two balls are completely different with different spin characteristics and they produce different ballflights as well. [/size][/color]

[Fourmyle of Ceres]

[quote name='glfpunk' timestamp='1337645318' post='4954140'][color="#1C2837"][size="2"]The two balls are completely different with different spin characteristics and they produce different ballflights as well. [/size][/color]
[/quote]

And my point being...they have different spin profiles [u]because Titleist designed them to spin very differently[/u]. The "compression" thing you measure with a tester is just a side effect. Titleist's designers didn't set out to make the ProV1x "eight compression points higher than the ProV1" and then get a ball that happened to spin differently. They drew up a spec for each ball saying exactly what spin they wanted, they built a ball to meet the spec and then somebody came along after all the work was done and squeezed 'em in an ancient wound-ball tester to see what numbers came up.

It's like me saying I like the Stones "It's All Over Now" better than the Beatles "Yesterday" and concluding I need to listen to songs in the key of G instead of songs in F because G songs suit my ears better. That's just the key they happened to sing the songs in, it's not causal.

[Pepperturbo]

[quote name='spaceboy' timestamp='1337643659' post='4953938']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1337638712' post='4953434']
Again, your assuming. Science does NOT need to be present in every aspect of life or action for some people to do what others can't.
[/quote]

And what are you doing that others cant? Making a leap of faith and not feeling like you've made an assumption? Well done, that takes....stupidity?
[/quote]

Only on the internet... do we encounter such communication skills...