Jump to content


Advanced Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by arbeck

  1. If you can spot the difference in trajectory between those two balls, you are a human trackman. They preform about as close as two balls can (save wind performance which is nearly impossible for mortals to test).
  2. Unless the ball you were playing was a horrible fit, there's very little on course testing is going to tell you. You're going to be talking about a few yards of distance, a few feet of height, and a few hundred RPMs of spin. For an non elite ball striker, you'd need to hit a lot of shots before those small of differences actually appear in the noise generated by the inconsistency of your strike. If you are a high spin player playing a high spin ball and you do an on course test versus a low spin ball, you can probably spot the difference. The opposite is also true. But if you are playing a ball that's decently suited to you, good luck spotting the difference on the course. You really aren't going to be able to find the difference without a launch monitor. And if the primary difference between what you are playing and what it recommends is wind performance, you will actually need wind, a trackman, and the ability to hit lots of premium balls downrange.
  3. This isn't false, but it doesn't tell the whole story. If I hit my driver a little bit high toe side with a closed face I'll get things that spin 1800. I hit a little below the center with the face slightly open, I'll get shots that spin around 3000. The difference in spin between balls with a driver is more like 400RPM. So my ability dwarfs the difference between the balls. That doesn't mean the difference isn't there. A low spin ball off that driver might dip below 1600 RPM and fall out of the sky, while a higher spin ball stays at 1900 and ends up with a playable ball flight. If I'm playing really well and flushing everything, I could play with anything. The same could be said for almost everything in golf though. If I'm flushing things I could play with an MB. My strike overrides a lot of the help that the club can give me. That doesn't mean the ball or the club can't help me sometimes. And I'll take any help I can get.
  4. I don't think there's any argument that the CSX isn't a higher spin ball than the MTB-X. Every test has shown that. They say the CSX is a better wind ball than the MTB-X. I can't really verify this because I don't have the equipment to do so.
  5. I'm not sure judging a ball for the wind by it's spin is really the right way to do it. The Ping ball selector tool tells me that the Chromesoft X is a better ball for me in the wind than the Snell MTB-X. The MTB-X is a lower spin ball off the driver and irons. So why is that? Most likely the dimple pattern on the Chromesoft is slightly better at cutting through the wind than the one of the Snell. That's something that's going to be really hard for normal humans to test. We don't have wind tunnels. And most of us don't have an outdoor trackman setup where we can hit hundreds of shots with premium balls into the wind.
  6. I think the wind has more to do with dimple pattern than anything else. We tend to think spinny balls are bad in the wind, but in reality the dimple pattern has much more to do with the wind than anything else. And the big ball guys have a lot more ability to do wind tunnel testing and the like on their balls than DTC brands.
  7. It will be more interesting if you happen to be an outlier type of player. I'm in the middle of the bell curve. My driver is 5* up AoA, 14* launch, 2500RPM of spin, 140MPH ball speed. With a 7i (31* of loft) I'm 17* launch, 117MPH ball speed, 5* down AoA, and 6000RPM of spin. I don't need a ball that spins a lot more and I don't need to kill spin either. Because I don't need anything special, fitting myself wasn't really a hard task given the data.
  8. Well, they have a lot of data. And they probably had tons of players rate the feel of the ball. They do say specifically in the questions that a high compression ball can feel softer than a low compression ball. This is true. If you put a hard cover and/or hard mantle over a lower compression core, it will feel harder than a soft cover and softer mantle over a high compression core. Most of what we "feel" on shots is the cover or mantle and not the core. For premium "tour" balls, the feel for me is all pretty much the same on full shots with mid irons on down. The differences are with chips, pitches, putts, and wedge shots. A range ball and a Pro V1x have the same compression, but one "feels" much softer than the other. Most of what we think of as feel is actually sound, and it wouldn't shock me if Ping made sound measurements for the balls as well and is using them.
  9. The selector does have an option for you to make feel more important. Though I'd argue that feel is the least important part. You get used to the feel of a ball pretty quickly.
  10. It's the same price as a dozen balls. Better than buying 4 sleeves of balls and trying to fit yourself.
  11. So Ping has just launched a ball fitting tool. Seems like they have similar data to the other large ball test, but probably more of it. The kicker though is that it can take your delivery numbers (trackman if you have them, distances and swing speed if you don't) and recommend a ball for you. It's not free, but it costs less than a dozen balls from most manufacturers, so it's probably money well spent. I went ahead and did it, and it turns out I did a pretty good job of fitting myself from the other test numbers. It recommended me the Chromesoft X or the Srixon Z-Star XV. They were a 92.3% and 92.1% match to me. My current ball is the Snell MTB-X, which is "only" a 91.7% match. My ball seems to get knocked a little for it's driver performance into the wind, and it's fligher prevention (I guess they calculate this through spin consistency?). Based on the numbers I can't say it would be worth it to spend more on a Chromesoft X, but maybe if I was going to play in really windy conditions it would be.
  12. This might deserve it's own thread, but Ping has just launched a ball fitting tool: Ballnamic It's not free. But I went ahead and paid the $39 for it. I just happened to have my trackman numbers from Saturday, so I input them. Versus my current ball (the Snell MTB-X) it recommended me the Chromesoft X. It would gain me about 4 yards with the driver, but lose some a little with irons. It's slightly better into the wind with a driver. The height difference and trajectory difference is within feet of each other. I'd probably have to play 1000 rounds before I would hit enough shots to see a real difference.
  13. Humans are exceptionally bad at spotting patterns like this. It could be that one ball is longer. It also could be that you were swinging slightly faster than normal, your strike was perfectly optimal for your delivery, atmospheric conditions helped you eek out some extra carry, and/or you got a really good bounce. The amount of shots you'd need to hit a confidence level of 95% is quite large. About the only on course test I'd feel confident recommending with a ball is a short game test. And that's less an on course test that a practice area test. The short game test is much easier to hit a large number of shots. And most importantly, you can generally observe the entire flight of the ball. You can see it land, and check. Even then, I'd be wanting to spend a few hours hitting probably hundreds of shots. For full swing stuff though, this is really hard. On the PGA tour, for a 150 yard shot, the dispersion is going to average about 30'. If we say you are really good and your average dispersion is going to be 40', it's still going to be really hard to separate the noise generated by your ability from the ball characteristics. Keep in mind that that's the average dispersion, you will have many shots more than 40' away. Considering that for a mid swing speed the total difference in distance between the longest and shortest ball with an 8i was less than 24', the dispersion circles are going to have a ton of overlap. After about 20 shots with each ball on a launch monitor, I'd probably feel confident making a conclusion. But on the course, that's really hard. Hitting two balls on one green, two balls to the next, and so on, introduces so much noise that you can't really be confident in any conclusion you make. And as the clubs get longer, your natural dispersion increases, so it becomes even harder to make conclusions. For this test they were hitting the each ball model quite a few times, with a robot, and it's still a struggle to find the differences. The Pro V1 carried about 5 yards less than the -V1x for a high swing speed driver. There's almost no way you'd ever be able to figure that out testing it yourself on the course. Even on an extreme example (B RXS vs -V1x) we're only talking 10 yards of carry. What's your average back to front dispersion with a driver on the course? I know mine is way more than 10 yards.
  14. Unless you are testing two outlier balls (say the Kirkland vs Taylormade Tour Response), you're very unlikely to get an accurate picture this way. If you look at a club reviewer with a very repeatable golf swing (someone like Crossfield), you'll easily see 300-400 RPM of spin as a standard deviation between 10+ shots. The difference in spin with a robot between the V1x and the -V1x is 400RPM off an 8i at the 100MPH swing speed. The difference between the Kirkland and the AVX is 400RPM. Unless you are a pristine ball striker, it's going to be very hard to draw many conclusions from an on course test. If you are on the meaty end of the bell curve, I'm not sure it makes a ton of difference which ball you play as long as it's one of the ones that's also in the meaty end of the bell curve. Two balls on the opposite end of meaty part of the bell curve are going to be the Chromesoft X and -V1x. For a mid speed player, you're still talking spin differences that would be well within the standard deviation of your shots with the same ball. The same thing for driver distance or 8i spin. Maybe for the guy who just can't stop spinning the ball the -V1x will be a little better. And maybe for the guy who needs all the spin he can get the Chromesoft X would be better. But for most of us, either would generally work.
  15. I know they normalized their shots to a certain extent (the temp and everything changed over the course of their test), but I don't think they normalized anything to sea level or 70 degrees. Hitting balls in Scotsdale (1300 feet of elevation) in 100 degree temperatures are going to go further than most of us are used to.
  16. The 50 yard pitch is important because that's a speed where you aren't interacting with anything but the cover and the first layer of the ball. On longer shots, you start interacting with the core or second mantle. They wanted to test the covers of the balls and that's a good distance to do that. For a test you actually want to go with the highest speed that only tests the cover. Why? Because speed equals spin. If there is a 5% difference between the balls and you are doing a 10 yard chip where they spin at 3000 the differences will be harder to find in the noise than they will be at a 50 yard shot with the spin around 7000.
  17. Robots have to hit off tees
  18. As has been said in the thread, they aren't hitting balls to greens. They are launching them down a driving range, in Arizona, in the summer. Things are going to roll out a ton there and you should ignore the total roll out and just compare the roll out from ball to ball.
  19. When they're trying to show the data for drivers, irons, and wedges in one table, you are going to run into issues like that.
  20. They aren't hitting their irons to a green. They're landing them on the range. I wouldn't read much into roll out at all. They've given you the information you need spin/descent angle to figure out how the balls are going to stop. Unless you are hitting 8 irons off the tee into the fairway, how much it rolls out in that situation is pretty irrelevant.
  21. The Aero of the cover is mostly about lift and drag. Take the Pro V1 and AVX as an example. Spin, launch, and ball speed are all pretty close. But the Pro V1 peaks 7 feet lower. What causes this? the AVX has more lift from the dimples. You can see how much drag the ball has by looking at two balls with similar launch characteristics and looking at their carry distance. For example the Z-Star XV and MTB-X are about as equal as two balls can be off the driver launch wise. They're within half a yard in distance as well. So you can say that their dimple pattern probably causes the same amount of drag. I'm actually not seeing much that shows anyone is really standing out in dimple pattern. If I had to say someone was the best, it's going to be Titleist because they use a different pattern on each ball, whereas most everyone else is using the same pattern across their balls. If there are gains to be made with dimples Titleist is probably doing it, but those gains have to be minute.
  22. That confuses me a lot, and I really want some more information on it. Off the driver at the slow swing speed the B X and the B XS are basically the same. Everything is within decimal places of being identical. At high speed, they're really freaking close. But at the mid speed, they are quite divergent. The B XS spins less, peaks 6 feet lower in height, hits it's peak much earlier, and descends shallower. That's what leads to the extra roll out. I'm not sure how that's possible but it is weird.
  23. I found a very big difference between the 2020 B XS and the earlier one. My biggest takeaway is that the differences in the big manufacturers main balls is pretty small. I could play the Pro V1, V1x, either Snell, the Tour B X or XS, or either Z Star and not notice all that much difference. I'd have to hit 1000's of shots before the differences stood out in my normal dispersion. If I needed the absolute best ball the B XS would probably be it. But the MTB-X is really close and doesn't have any outlier characteristics, so at that price, I'm sticking with it.
  24. The robot data is all that matters really. You just need to translate how the ball reacts to the robot to how you swing. You simply can't replicate all the swings, with all the equipment setups that are out there. But you don't need to. If two balls have 200RPM of spin difference and 1MPH of ball speed different and 10ft of peak high difference for one swing at 85MPH it will have the same difference for any other swing and equipment at 85MPH. One ball might go further than the other for each person, but the differences in spin ball, speed, and trajectory between the balls will be constant. Using the numbers they published you can go hit any ball in the test on a launch monitor, record what you see, and use the data to find a ball that would go the furthest for you. What you need to keep in mind is that the ball characteristics don't change based on the swing or equipment hitting it.
  25. You can optimize the delivery of an 85MPH swing to make just about any ball the longest ball. If you are using a low spin driver, with a positive angle of attack and not delivering a lot of loft, the higher spin ball will go further than the lower spin ball (which is what the TP5x and V1x are). There simply is not enough time in the world to re-optimize the robot's delivery to maximize the distance for each individual ball. The total distance was probably the least useful metric they were testing, so if you base your decision on that, you're doing it wrong. Ball speed was the most important metric, then trajectory/aerodynamic, then spin. The differences in spin aren't great off the driver, but they do matter. However, just switching a weight or the loft of your driver can make one ball go slightly further than the other. If you spin the ball too much, a lower spin ball will go further for you even if it has slightly less ball speed. If you don't spin the ball enough and you see drives fall out of the air, the opposite is true. But all that data was in the test, you just needed to read it. What you can't do is say "I swing 85MPH what ball will be longest for me"
  • Create New...