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

[BrianL99]

[quote name='Gauchograd99' timestamp='1438745976' post='12081008']
Mad - Out of curiosity (and off-topic, so I apologize), what do you do for a living? Some of your terminology isn't connecting with my (limited) statistical knowledge (chemist here, and not a research chemist), so I am not sure if you are coming from a business background or a technical field.

The data, as flawed as it is (we cannot isolate variables with a golf swing repeatability, course and pin conditions, or weather/temperature), isn't showing a great enough variation from Ball A to Ball B to prove one is better than the other. As a 4 'cap, the range of scores and variability over 20 rounds is much more than 3 strokes...

Long story short, I'm not sure we could get enough data to prove one way or the other... but it is a good effort for a small scale test.
[/quote]

Thanks for the support.

As is typical on forums of this sort, people formulate opinions or become mired in "traditional wisdom" and seldom want to hear anything that contradicts their long held "truisms". The same old nonsense is regurgitated ad infinatum.

When someone tries to quantify or present evidence to the contrary, the typical reaction is an attempt to obfuscate or bluster their way through an attack on the data, the protocol or resort to a personal attack on the tester ... or all 3.

In this case, common sense suggests that almost no one who plays to a handicap above scratch, is consistent enough to realize significant scoring benefits from the various ball characteristics available.

My little test, while surely not a candidate for publication in next month's Scientific Journal, provides some modicum of evidence that dependence on a specific ball may not reward the player with lower scores.

[just plain bill]

...and, here I am, reading this thread at 4:21am, awake since 3something...lol...
I'm gonna take only pinn golds to the course today...that oughta force me to stop playing 2 or 3 different balls a round, trying to figure out which plays best for me...

[MadGolfer76]

[quote name='Gauchograd99' timestamp='1438745976' post='12081008']
Mad - Out of curiosity (and off-topic, so I apologize), what do you do for a living? Some of your terminology isn't connecting with my (limited) statistical knowledge (chemist here, and not a research chemist), so I am not sure if you are coming from a business background or a technical field.

The data, as flawed as it is (we cannot isolate variables with a golf swing repeatability, course and pin conditions, or weather/temperature), isn't showing a great enough variation from Ball A to Ball B to prove one is better than the other. As a 4 'cap, the range of scores and variability over 20 rounds is much more than 3 strokes... especially if you are as hot/cold a golfer as I am. Also, in order to gain enough data for a "golfer" (i.e. group of golfers in the same handicap range) to make a definitive answer would require a sample size of somewhere near 10,000 scores (minimum 20 rounds each ball per person) in a very short time frame to minimize the variables caused by swing changes. The balls would have to be blanked out as best as possible, some testers would have to be a "placebo" group that never changed ball one way or the other, and the data miners would have to use a t-test to remove out of confidence values. No clue what confidence you would prefer, but 90% is probably asking too much given how many variables there are. Long story short, [b]I'm not sure we could get enough data to prove one way or the other... [/b]but it is a good effort for a small scale test.
[/quote]

My employment is my business, but my field is academic. And quite honestly, I don't appreciate a veiled jab at my credibility (whether you realize you have done it or not) and a patronizing recount of process. I'm fully aware of the range of this "test." Asking that a level of confidence be established is precisely begs the point - that there is not enough reliability for the OP to be drawing *any* conclusions as to whether the ball matters or not, and yet here he is (again) trying to sell a point based on a limited study:

[i]"The Ultimate Ball Test is over. The results are so overwhelming and obvious, there's no reason to continue."[/i]

If you are fine with this, then that is your choice. I prefer to pour the snakeoil down the gutter where it belongs.

[MadGolfer76]

[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1438766441' post='12081648']
[quote name='Gauchograd99' timestamp='1438745976' post='12081008']
Mad - Out of curiosity (and off-topic, so I apologize), what do you do for a living? Some of your terminology isn't connecting with my (limited) statistical knowledge (chemist here, and not a research chemist), so I am not sure if you are coming from a business background or a technical field.

The data, as flawed as it is (we cannot isolate variables with a golf swing repeatability, course and pin conditions, or weather/temperature), isn't showing a great enough variation from Ball A to Ball B to prove one is better than the other. As a 4 'cap, the range of scores and variability over 20 rounds is much more than 3 strokes...

Long story short, I'm not sure we could get enough data to prove one way or the other... but it is a good effort for a small scale test.
[/quote]

Thanks for the support.

As is typical on forums of this sort, people formulate opinions or become mired in "traditional wisdom" and seldom want to hear anything that contradicts their long held "truisms". The same old nonsense is regurgitated ad infinatum.

When someone tries to quantify or present evidence to the contrary, the typical reaction is an attempt to obfuscate or bluster their way through an attack on the data, the protocol or resort to a personal attack on the tester ... or all 3.

In this case, common sense suggests that almost no one who plays to a handicap above scratch, is consistent enough to realize significant scoring benefits from the various ball characteristics available.

My little test, while surely not a candidate for publication in next month's Scientific Journal, provides some modicum of evidence that dependence on a specific ball may not reward the player with lower scores.
[/quote]

There is no evidence that you have presented that supports your claims. If all you had done is posted your limited information and asked for comments, then that would be one thing. But making bold claims and drawing conclusions based on what little you have is going to draw criticism because it doesn't adhere to the standard of establishing real knowledge and definitive results. You have a really good conversation piece, but that is all it is.

[just plain bill]

can't we just let the guy have some fun? lol
the internet! i love it! it turns me, a normal thinking person, into a knucklehead sometimes...

[Gauchograd99]

[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1438779129' post='12082136']
[quote name='Gauchograd99' timestamp='1438745976' post='12081008']
Mad - Out of curiosity (and off-topic, so I apologize), what do you do for a living? Some of your terminology isn't connecting with my (limited) statistical knowledge (chemist here, and not a research chemist), so I am not sure if you are coming from a business background or a technical field.

The data, as flawed as it is (we cannot isolate variables with a golf swing repeatability, course and pin conditions, or weather/temperature), isn't showing a great enough variation from Ball A to Ball B to prove one is better than the other. As a 4 'cap, the range of scores and variability over 20 rounds is much more than 3 strokes... especially if you are as hot/cold a golfer as I am. Also, in order to gain enough data for a "golfer" (i.e. group of golfers in the same handicap range) to make a definitive answer would require a sample size of somewhere near 10,000 scores (minimum 20 rounds each ball per person) in a very short time frame to minimize the variables caused by swing changes. The balls would have to be blanked out as best as possible, some testers would have to be a "placebo" group that never changed ball one way or the other, and the data miners would have to use a t-test to remove out of confidence values. No clue what confidence you would prefer, but 90% is probably asking too much given how many variables there are. Long story short, [b]I'm not sure we could get enough data to prove one way or the other... [/b]but it is a good effort for a small scale test.
[/quote]

My employment is my business, but my field is academic. And quite honestly, I don't appreciate a veiled jab at my credibility (whether you realize you have done it or not) and a patronizing recount of process. I'm fully aware of the range of this "test." Asking that a level of confidence be established is precisely begs the point - that there is not enough reliability for the OP to be drawing *any* conclusions as to whether the ball matters or not, and yet here he is (again) trying to sell a point based on a limited study:

[i]"The Ultimate Ball Test is over. The results are so overwhelming and obvious, there's no reason to continue."[/i]

If you are fine with this, then that is your choice. I prefer to pour the snakeoil down the gutter where it belongs.
[/quote]

Not attacking, simply asking the angle as different fields tend to use different terminology for the same thing. If this is a sore spot, then I apologize. As for the process, not everyone in here is as educated in the process requirements that would lead to "valid" results. I am pretty sure the golf course employees of the world, the aspiring pros, and the guy at the local garage wouldn't know a t-test from a tee test. I am simply adding value for those who are of a different background.

People jump to conclusions on the web just like companies do in their advertising:
"The number one ball in golf"
"The ultimate driving machine"
"America's favorite hot dog"
"The number one school of business in the land"
Really? So, just because a bunch of pros tee a ball up (that they get paid to tee up) it is the #1 ball in golf? Just because you claim a car to be the ultimate, it must be true? How did they qualify that title? What makes an ultimate driving machine for some might not be the same qualities for all. Who in America stated that this company is the favorite hot dog... besides the fact they are the ONLY hot dog fast food option in many areas. How do you qualify the number one business school seeing as there are many areas of expertise, and I am pretty sure they are not #1 in all, but maybe highly rated in more than most.

It is a limited study done for the heck of it ... he's not publishing this in a trade magazine ... I wouldn't stress over it too much. It isn't like the big boys have immediately stopped production of all tour level balls based on this "study." If you think there is an ulterior motive for the test, I am not seeing it. I'm pretty sure there aren't shares of "Cheaper Golf Ball" being pushed, and I have yet to see the grass roots movement "Occupy Urethane" come in with brightly colored Surlyn masks and attack posters who prefer Urethane golf balls.

[kiw1982]

For long game, it is OK maybe.

But, for the short game and putt? There are huge gaps among balls.


And, there is no good reasons to use random ball for the consistency.

[Hat Trick]

[quote name='Gauchograd99' timestamp='1438795712' post='12083844']
[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1438779129' post='12082136']
[quote name='Gauchograd99' timestamp='1438745976' post='12081008']
Mad - Out of curiosity (and off-topic, so I apologize), what do you do for a living? Some of your terminology isn't connecting with my (limited) statistical knowledge (chemist here, and not a research chemist), so I am not sure if you are coming from a business background or a technical field.

The data, as flawed as it is (we cannot isolate variables with a golf swing repeatability, course and pin conditions, or weather/temperature), isn't showing a great enough variation from Ball A to Ball B to prove one is better than the other. As a 4 'cap, the range of scores and variability over 20 rounds is much more than 3 strokes... especially if you are as hot/cold a golfer as I am. Also, in order to gain enough data for a "golfer" (i.e. group of golfers in the same handicap range) to make a definitive answer would require a sample size of somewhere near 10,000 scores (minimum 20 rounds each ball per person) in a very short time frame to minimize the variables caused by swing changes. The balls would have to be blanked out as best as possible, some testers would have to be a "placebo" group that never changed ball one way or the other, and the data miners would have to use a t-test to remove out of confidence values. No clue what confidence you would prefer, but 90% is probably asking too much given how many variables there are. Long story short, [b]I'm not sure we could get enough data to prove one way or the other... [/b]but it is a good effort for a small scale test.
[/quote]

My employment is my business, but my field is academic. And quite honestly, I don't appreciate a veiled jab at my credibility (whether you realize you have done it or not) and a patronizing recount of process. I'm fully aware of the range of this "test." Asking that a level of confidence be established is precisely begs the point - that there is not enough reliability for the OP to be drawing *any* conclusions as to whether the ball matters or not, and yet here he is (again) trying to sell a point based on a limited study:

[i]"The Ultimate Ball Test is over. The results are so overwhelming and obvious, there's no reason to continue."[/i]

If you are fine with this, then that is your choice. I prefer to pour the snakeoil down the gutter where it belongs.
[/quote]

Not attacking, simply asking the angle as different fields tend to use different terminology for the same thing. If this is a sore spot, then I apologize. As for the process, not everyone in here is as educated in the process requirements that would lead to "valid" results. I am pretty sure the golf course employees of the world, the aspiring pros, and the guy at the local garage wouldn't know a t-test from a tee test. I am simply adding value for those who are of a different background.

People jump to conclusions on the web just like companies do in their advertising:
"The number one ball in golf"
"The ultimate driving machine"
"America's favorite hot dog"
"The number one school of business in the land"
Really? So, just because a bunch of pros tee a ball up (that they get paid to tee up) it is the #1 ball in golf? Just because you claim a car to be the ultimate, it must be true? How did they qualify that title? What makes an ultimate driving machine for some might not be the same qualities for all. Who in America stated that this company is the favorite hot dog... besides the fact they are the ONLY hot dog fast food option in many areas. How do you qualify the number one business school seeing as there are many areas of expertise, and I am pretty sure they are not #1 in all, but maybe highly rated in more than most.

It is a limited study done for the heck of it ... he's not publishing this in a trade magazine ... I wouldn't stress over it too much. It isn't like the big boys have immediately stopped production of all tour level balls based on this "study." If you think there is an ulterior motive for the test, I am not seeing it. I'm pretty sure there aren't shares of "Cheaper Golf Ball" being pushed, and I have yet to see the grass roots movement "Occupy Urethane" come in with brightly colored Surlyn masks and attack posters who prefer Urethane golf balls.
[/quote]Wow - we're not curing cancer here... we're just talking about golf balls. When all is said and done, I suspect most of us play the ball(s) we like.

[pitchinwedge]

Rule #1 - don't play with another man's balls.

[Gauchograd99]

[quote name='Hat Trick' timestamp='1438799690' post='12084222']
[quote name='Gauchograd99' timestamp='1438795712' post='12083844']
[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1438779129' post='12082136']
[quote name='Gauchograd99' timestamp='1438745976' post='12081008']
Mad - Out of curiosity (and off-topic, so I apologize), what do you do for a living? Some of your terminology isn't connecting with my (limited) statistical knowledge (chemist here, and not a research chemist), so I am not sure if you are coming from a business background or a technical field.

The data, as flawed as it is (we cannot isolate variables with a golf swing repeatability, course and pin conditions, or weather/temperature), isn't showing a great enough variation from Ball A to Ball B to prove one is better than the other. As a 4 'cap, the range of scores and variability over 20 rounds is much more than 3 strokes... especially if you are as hot/cold a golfer as I am. Also, in order to gain enough data for a "golfer" (i.e. group of golfers in the same handicap range) to make a definitive answer would require a sample size of somewhere near 10,000 scores (minimum 20 rounds each ball per person) in a very short time frame to minimize the variables caused by swing changes. The balls would have to be blanked out as best as possible, some testers would have to be a "placebo" group that never changed ball one way or the other, and the data miners would have to use a t-test to remove out of confidence values. No clue what confidence you would prefer, but 90% is probably asking too much given how many variables there are. Long story short, [b]I'm not sure we could get enough data to prove one way or the other... [/b]but it is a good effort for a small scale test.
[/quote]

My employment is my business, but my field is academic. And quite honestly, I don't appreciate a veiled jab at my credibility (whether you realize you have done it or not) and a patronizing recount of process. I'm fully aware of the range of this "test." Asking that a level of confidence be established is precisely begs the point - that there is not enough reliability for the OP to be drawing *any* conclusions as to whether the ball matters or not, and yet here he is (again) trying to sell a point based on a limited study:

[i]"The Ultimate Ball Test is over. The results are so overwhelming and obvious, there's no reason to continue."[/i]

If you are fine with this, then that is your choice. I prefer to pour the snakeoil down the gutter where it belongs.
[/quote]

Not attacking, simply asking the angle as different fields tend to use different terminology for the same thing. If this is a sore spot, then I apologize. As for the process, not everyone in here is as educated in the process requirements that would lead to "valid" results. I am pretty sure the golf course employees of the world, the aspiring pros, and the guy at the local garage wouldn't know a t-test from a tee test. I am simply adding value for those who are of a different background.

People jump to conclusions on the web just like companies do in their advertising:
"The number one ball in golf"
"The ultimate driving machine"
"America's favorite hot dog"
"The number one school of business in the land"
Really? So, just because a bunch of pros tee a ball up (that they get paid to tee up) it is the #1 ball in golf? Just because you claim a car to be the ultimate, it must be true? How did they qualify that title? What makes an ultimate driving machine for some might not be the same qualities for all. Who in America stated that this company is the favorite hot dog... besides the fact they are the ONLY hot dog fast food option in many areas. How do you qualify the number one business school seeing as there are many areas of expertise, and I am pretty sure they are not #1 in all, but maybe highly rated in more than most.

It is a limited study done for the heck of it ... he's not publishing this in a trade magazine ... I wouldn't stress over it too much. It isn't like the big boys have immediately stopped production of all tour level balls based on this "study." If you think there is an ulterior motive for the test, I am not seeing it. I'm pretty sure there aren't shares of "Cheaper Golf Ball" being pushed, and I have yet to see the grass roots movement "Occupy Urethane" come in with brightly colored Surlyn masks and attack posters who prefer Urethane golf balls.
[/quote]Wow - we're not curing cancer here... we're just talking about golf balls. When all is said and done, I suspect most of us play the ball(s) we like.
[/quote]

I agree. I play what best fits my game (ChromeSoft or SR2 when absurdly hard/fast conditions apply), Mad plays whatever he plays (Z-star XV), and Brian's playing "52 pickup" balls.

In the end it's a golf ball... and I actually have a theory that "top level" balls are not the best fit for everyone based on the course and style of play. If you play a course with very little rough, relatively flat greens, and prefer to bump and run all day, I don't see the need for a ball that will check hard on you. That hard check could leave you with long putts all day long if you really clip one and apply a lot of spin. If, however, you play courses with all fast greens elevated (RTJ style) where you have a ton of slope to deal with and really need the ball to stop fast (flop shots from thick rough and tight pin positions with very little room for error), then I would suggest looking to a ball with more spin.

I would be curious to see how much/little effect a Urethane cover makes on true links courses on the other side of the pond. If the pros are bouncing it all over the place, I would think there is very little gained from a softer cover unless you get softer conditions like this year's Open. That has to be the first time I have seen balls check back during the Open with anything more than a wedge.

Curing cancer... used to work on drug products to do just that (oncolytic products). They are much less fun than golf, but both are absurdly frustrating when things go south.

[HackerD]

Since the big difference among balls is spin, the questions in my mind are:[list]
[*]How skilled do you have to be to take advantage of a high-spin ball? OP claims pro + high-level ams.
[list]
[*]I kinda disagree, my cap > 10 but have some short game shots that depend on spin that I can pull off pretty repeatably. (But I needed to practice them a lot and when I didn't keep up with practicing, I was not so repeatable.)
[*]OP's study didn't really test this hypothesis at all.
[/list][*]Even if you could take advantage of spin, can you get the ball in the hole in the same number of shots without the spin? OP says yes, and this hypothesis was tested in his study.
[list]
[*]I kinda agree, I probably would have the same index playing Pinnacle Golds or ProV1x's. I think overall I play a more consistent game if I don't rely on lots of spin for any shots.
[/list]
[/list]

[BrianL99]

Anyone who's paying to play golf, can play with any ball. It's painfully obvious.

[Jamboy72]

[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1440290877' post='12191328']
Anyone who's paying to play golf, can play with any ball. It's painfully obvious.
[/quote]

It's painfully obvious that a stroke here or there doesn't matter a bunch to you - but that's not the case with every golfer. So to make such blanket statements about what is or isn't important based on your "test" which is more for discussion than drawing conclusions, is misleading.

[drn92]

[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1440290877' post='12191328']
Anyone who's paying to play golf, can play with any ball. It's painfully obvious.
[/quote]

Interesting thread ... and interesting results. I typically fluctuate between different types of "pro" level balls, and my favorite was the Callaway HEX Pro from Costco. I ran out last year and have tried several different balls since then. Over 10 years of keeping track of my score, with essentially no consistency in the brand of ball I played (just the type), my score has been right around 81. Most recently I've been playing the Callaway Chrome Soft Tru-Vis ... and have had to refrain from yelling "goooaaallll" whenever I hole a long putt. I will say that this ball feels "heavy" off the driver and does not spin as much around the greens, but does putt great.

I just picked up a box of two dozen HEX Control from Costco that I plan to play the rest of the season. One reason is that my son is playing a lot more, and loses a few each round. Another is to see if there really is a difference in scores between "pro" level balls and other balls.

While not as scientific as your test, I will be keeping track of scores as well. Thanks for starting and continuing the thread.

drn92

[bpeezer]

[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1438534957' post='12064462']
So does the ball matter? Not a whit, at the level of golf I play.[/quote]

Thanks for the data. I'm not sure how you drew your conclusions, because the data you provided shows the opposite. It seems especially interesting that your average putts per round is near identical. To me, this suggests that the primary difference is in ball flight.

[MJisGOAT]

I'm gonna agree with myself on this one.

[BrianL99]

[quote name='bpeezer' timestamp='1440297687' post='12191878']
[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1438534957' post='12064462']
So does the ball matter? Not a whit, at the level of golf I play.[/quote]

Thanks for the data. I'm not sure how you drew your conclusions, because the data you provided shows the opposite. It seems especially interesting that your average putts per round is near identical. To me, this suggests that the primary difference is in ball flight.
[/quote]

The data only shows trends. 10 rounds by one person, in varying weather conditions and other variables, doesn't "prove" anything.

The overall data shows that every measured parameter is well within the margin of error I'd expect for such a test.

The data show that for all practical purposes, the "ball" is not a significant contributing factor to scoring for the average player who averages 80. As a player's consistency drops (i.e., higher handicap), it's likely the ball will be even less significant to scoring (if that's possible). Although arguably, a high spin (less accurate) ball could negatively impact a higher handicapper, but I doubt it.

[bpeezer]

[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1440301738' post='12192148']
[quote name='bpeezer' timestamp='1440297687' post='12191878']
[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1438534957' post='12064462']
So does the ball matter? Not a whit, at the level of golf I play.[/quote]

Thanks for the data. I'm not sure how you drew your conclusions, because the data you provided shows the opposite. It seems especially interesting that your average putts per round is near identical. To me, this suggests that the primary difference is in ball flight.
[/quote]

The data only shows trends. 10 rounds by one person, in varying weather conditions and other variables, doesn't "prove" anything.

The overall data shows that every measured parameter is well within the margin of error I'd expect for such a test.

The data show that for all practical purposes, the "ball" is not a significant contributing factor to scoring for the average player who averages 80. As a player's consistency drops (i.e., higher handicap), it's likely the ball will be even less significant to scoring (if that's possible). Although arguably, a high spin (less accurate) ball could negatively impact a higher handicapper, but I doubt it.
[/quote]

You have much more data than you're giving yourself credit for! Look at total strokes rather than round averages. Even better, we can break apart putting strokes and all other strokes. Let's take a look at all other strokes in relation to strokes assumed for par. Across 6 rounds on a par 72, we would look for 216 strokes. You had 293. For 7 rounds, par suggests 252 and you shot 321. I took the liberty of plugging these values into a statistical significance calculator. 293 vs. 216 compared to 321 vs. 252 shows a difference of 6%, with a confidence level of 92%. I never said it "proves" anything, but to me it most certainly does suggest a difference.

[MJisGOAT]

[quote name='bpeezer' timestamp='1440335451' post='12193074']
[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1440301738' post='12192148']
[quote name='bpeezer' timestamp='1440297687' post='12191878']
[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1438534957' post='12064462']
So does the ball matter? Not a whit, at the level of golf I play.[/quote]

Thanks for the data. I'm not sure how you drew your conclusions, because the data you provided shows the opposite. It seems especially interesting that your average putts per round is near identical. To me, this suggests that the primary difference is in ball flight.
[/quote]

The data only shows trends. 10 rounds by one person, in varying weather conditions and other variables, doesn't "prove" anything.

The overall data shows that every measured parameter is well within the margin of error I'd expect for such a test.

The data show that for all practical purposes, the "ball" is not a significant contributing factor to scoring for the average player who averages 80. As a player's consistency drops (i.e., higher handicap), it's likely the ball will be even less significant to scoring (if that's possible). Although arguably, a high spin (less accurate) ball could negatively impact a higher handicapper, but I doubt it.
[/quote]

You have much more data than you're giving yourself credit for! Look at total strokes rather than round averages. Even better, we can break apart putting strokes and all other strokes. Let's take a look at all other strokes in relation to strokes assumed for par. Across 6 rounds on a par 72, we would look for 216 strokes. You had 293. For 7 rounds, par suggests 252 and you shot 321. I took the liberty of plugging these values into a statistical significance calculator. 293 vs. 216 compared to 321 vs. 252 shows a difference of 6%, with a confidence level of 92%. I never said it "proves" anything, but to me it most certainly does suggest a difference.
[/quote]And exactly how is this suppose to correspond with the topic.

[bpeezer]

[quote name='MJisGOAT' timestamp='1440337166' post='12193158']
And exactly how is this suppose to correspond with the topic.
[/quote]

While "suggesting" a difference, those numbers really show that no true conclusion can be drawn here. These numbers more importantly state that we can [b]NOT [/b]draw the conclusion that "The ball doesn't matter!", as suggested by the name of the topic.

[BrianL99]

[quote name='bpeezer' timestamp='1440335451' post='12193074']


You have much more data than you're giving yourself credit for! Look at total strokes rather than round averages. Even better, we can break apart putting strokes and all other strokes. Let's take a look at all other strokes in relation to strokes assumed for par. Across 6 rounds on a par 72, we would look for 216 strokes. You had 293. For 7 rounds, par suggests 252 and you shot 321. I took the liberty of plugging these values into a statistical significance calculator. 293 vs. 216 compared to 321 vs. 252 shows a difference of 6%, with a confidence level of 92%. I never said it "proves" anything, but to me it most certainly does suggest a difference.
[/quote]

If there were 20-30 rounds per category and I had adjusted for weather conditions, slope, course rating, etc., I'd agree with you. Given the # of variables, I'd be reluctant to draw any conclusions, other than the "ball" is not a determining factor in scoring, for a typical player.

[BrianL99]

[quote name='bpeezer' timestamp='1440338900' post='12193304']
[quote name='MJisGOAT' timestamp='1440337166' post='12193158']
And exactly how is this suppose to correspond with the topic.
[/quote]

While "suggesting" a difference, those numbers really show that no true conclusion can be drawn here. These numbers more importantly state that we can [b]NOT [/b]draw the conclusion that "The ball doesn't matter!", as suggested by the name of the topic.
[/quote]

50 rounds, with no discernible difference in any major statistical area, doesn't warrant a reasonable conclusion?

Can you show me someone who has more data and came to a different conclusion.

[bpeezer]

[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1440339101' post='12193320']
[quote name='bpeezer' timestamp='1440338900' post='12193304']
[quote name='MJisGOAT' timestamp='1440337166' post='12193158']
And exactly how is this suppose to correspond with the topic.
[/quote]

While "suggesting" a difference, those numbers really show that no true conclusion can be drawn here. These numbers more importantly state that we can [b]NOT [/b]draw the conclusion that "The ball doesn't matter!", as suggested by the name of the topic.
[/quote]

50 rounds, with no discernible difference in any major statistical area, doesn't warrant a reasonable conclusion?

Can you show me someone who has more data and came to a different conclusion.
[/quote]

How about GIR? 10 rounds with Srixon at 7.3 GIR/round vs. 8 rounds with random at 9 GIR/round. That's 73 out of 180 holes vs. 72 out of 144 holes. Difference of 23% with confidence level of 96%, which [b]IS [/b]statistically significant. As I mentioned earlier, putting looks very close so you should look at stats that compare other strokes (like GIR).

[Jamboy72]

[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1440338934' post='12193308']
[quote name='bpeezer' timestamp='1440335451' post='12193074']
You have much more data than you're giving yourself credit for! Look at total strokes rather than round averages. Even better, we can break apart putting strokes and all other strokes. Let's take a look at all other strokes in relation to strokes assumed for par. Across 6 rounds on a par 72, we would look for 216 strokes. You had 293. For 7 rounds, par suggests 252 and you shot 321. I took the liberty of plugging these values into a statistical significance calculator. 293 vs. 216 compared to 321 vs. 252 shows a difference of 6%, with a confidence level of 92%. I never said it "proves" anything, but to me it most certainly does suggest a difference.
[/quote]

If there were 20-30 rounds per category and I had adjusted for weather conditions, slope, course rating, etc., I'd agree with you. Given the # of variables, I'd be reluctant to draw any conclusions, other than the "ball" is not a determining factor in scoring, for a typical player.
[/quote]

Even so, all you could ever create with your own experience is some type of study based on your own statistics and information - which isn't enough to make any type of general statement about the relationship between ball and score on a macro statistical level - Again, it's a nice conversation starter, but not much more.

[BrianL99]

[quote name='bpeezer' timestamp='1440339991' post='12193354']
How about GIR? 10 rounds with Srixon at 7.3 GIR/round vs. 8 rounds with random at 9 GIR/round. That's 73 out of 180 holes vs. 72 out of 144 holes. Difference of 23% with confidence level of 96%, which [b]IS [/b]statistically significant. As I mentioned earlier, putting looks very close so you should look at stats that compare other strokes (like GIR).

[/quote]

Apparently you either haven't read my posts or unwilling to concede that golf is an imperfect game. That data was not adjusted for weather, course difficulty, my state of mind on the day I played or any other significant variable other than the ball.

Like most everything else in golf, it's all in your head. If you want to pretend the right ball will significantly change your scores, you're welcome to believe it.

[Fade to Black]

[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1440290877' post='12191328']
Anyone who's paying to play golf, can play with any ball. It's painfully obvious.
[/quote]
Dang. You need to be playing random balls more often!

[Jamboy72]

[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1440360527' post='12194670']
[quote name='bpeezer' timestamp='1440339991' post='12193354']
How about GIR? 10 rounds with Srixon at 7.3 GIR/round vs. 8 rounds with random at 9 GIR/round. That's 73 out of 180 holes vs. 72 out of 144 holes. Difference of 23% with confidence level of 96%, which [b]IS [/b]statistically significant. As I mentioned earlier, putting looks very close so you should look at stats that compare other strokes (like GIR).

[/quote]

Apparently either haven't read my posts or don't understand much about golf. That data was not adjusted for weather, course difficulty, my state of mind on the day I played or any other significant variable other than the ball.

Like most everything else in golf, it's all in your head. If you want to pretend the right ball will significantly change your scores, you're welcome to believe it.
[/quote]

So you chastise people for not understanding much about golf and then claim that pretty much everything in golf is in your head. That's a head turner.

For some people, the right ball might make some significant difference to them. For some on this board, 1-2 shots/round is significant. For you, apparently not. Again, interesting conversation, but there's no reason your conclusion applies to anyone other than yourself.

[bpeezer]

[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1440360527' post='12194670']
[quote name='bpeezer' timestamp='1440339991' post='12193354']
How about GIR? 10 rounds with Srixon at 7.3 GIR/round vs. 8 rounds with random at 9 GIR/round. That's 73 out of 180 holes vs. 72 out of 144 holes. Difference of 23% with confidence level of 96%, which [b]IS [/b]statistically significant. As I mentioned earlier, putting looks very close so you should look at stats that compare other strokes (like GIR).

[/quote]

Apparently either haven't read my posts or don't understand much about golf. That data was not adjusted for weather, course difficulty, my state of mind on the day I played or any other significant variable other than the ball.

Like most everything else in golf, it's all in your head. If you want to pretend the right ball will significantly change your scores, you're welcome to believe it.
[/quote]

Apparently you don't understand much about statistics. While it's easy to manipulate your data to create the appearance of a definite difference, that's not the point I'm trying to make. What I'm saying is that your conclusion, that the ball doesn't matter, is not backed up by the data you provided. The only thing that can be said with absolute certainty is that you have not provided enough data from which to draw a worthwhile conclusion.

[playa]

My $0.02. I recently tried the any old ball path and I had 3 months of very bad scoring. What I noticed was that although my ball striking didn't change at all, my up and down stats were horrible. I will qualify by saying my home course has small greens so you get a lot of chips and pitches, and my cheap ball experiment coincided with our greens becoming as hard and fast as I can remember, but since changing back to a tour ball, I can't recall missing many up and downs I expected to make, and my scores have improved dramatically. I played a course with bigger softer greens I don't think I would see a huge difference, but imho for me on my home course the ball makes a difference to scoring.

[BrianL99]

[quote name='bpeezer' timestamp='1440362552' post='12194860']
[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1440360527' post='12194670']
[quote name='bpeezer' timestamp='1440339991' post='12193354']
How about GIR? 10 rounds with Srixon at 7.3 GIR/round vs. 8 rounds with random at 9 GIR/round. That's 73 out of 180 holes vs. 72 out of 144 holes. Difference of 23% with confidence level of 96%, which [b]IS [/b]statistically significant. As I mentioned earlier, putting looks very close so you should look at stats that compare other strokes (like GIR).

[/quote]

Apparently either haven't read my posts or don't understand much about golf. That data was not adjusted for weather, course difficulty, my state of mind on the day I played or any other significant variable other than the ball.

Like most everything else in golf, it's all in your head. If you want to pretend the right ball will significantly change your scores, you're welcome to believe it.
[/quote]

Apparently you don't understand much about statistics. While it's easy to manipulate your data to create the appearance of a definite difference, that's not the point I'm trying to make. What I'm saying is that your conclusion, that the ball doesn't matter, is not backed up by the data you provided. The only thing that can be said with absolute certainty is that you have not provided enough data from which to draw a worthwhile conclusion.
[/quote]

We can just agree to disagree, about who knows what about statistics.

But if it makes you feel better, I'll re-state my conclusion:

[u][b]Over 50 tracked rounds on various golf courses, my scores were consistent with my handicap and usual scores, despite playing random balls.[/b][/u]