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

[Babydaddy]

I think this is a commentary about what shots affect one's score the most as much as anything.

The fact is, there are variables which can affect the outcome of a test like this which should be considered. For example, knowing you are "playing with house money" by playing a golf ball that you found and didn't pay for could affect how free-wheeling you are when you hit your tee-shot.
Secondly, many of the balls that are lost on a course tend to be of the "longer and straighter" variety which may have the result of giving you shorter clubs into greens, and more fairways because of less side-spin. So that's easy to see how that could happen.

Also, it is liberating to have that moment in golf where you submit to the fact that not having the latest, greatest thing doesn't have to ruin your scores- that has to be a factor too.

There is no doubt that expectation bias is a big deal in golf, but I can tell you that especially around the greens, there are differences in golf balls which can affect your score.

Someone who hits the ball consistently can test this easily at their local practice green

Also, some balls have less side spin and therefore go straighter. Some people don't swing fast enough to engage a 4-5 piece ball's straightening characteristics (reducing side spin)

So, to say patently that the ball "doesn't matter" isn't true- to say it didn't matter to my score in this sample size, may well be true.

In addition, the course you play and the receptivity of the greens and where the pins are located in conjunction with undulation plays a role in how you need a ball to perform.

If you are a good player, and you are playing Valhalla for example, you will lose options in your approach shots playing a rock-flite versus a PRO-V1- it's just physics.

Now- how that affects your score is debatable- maybe you would adjust and play a bump and run to a back pin over a ridge- but that wouldn't be your FIRST choice, and may not be the BEST choice for your game. You would be settling.

My home course, with all bermuda plays differently depending on the season. When the greens are soft, I can use a Bridgestone E6, and by enlarge the ball checks on the green. Playing a long iron into a par 5, with my Z-Star or Pro V1 the ball will be close to it's ball mark, with the E6, it will run out a bit- not a huge deal.

But the conditions and pin placements that the pros play pretty much demand options on approach that a 2 piece ball can't provide with the same consistency that a premium ball can- other wise, one would think that the pros would be playing 2 piece surlyn balls.

It's really how different shots impact your game. Hitting a Titleist soft ball, it goes higher for me than the PRO= V1- how will that impact my score? Well, I will hit it shorter off the tee by enlarge. I will play different clubs into greens- I will have to think about how to play certain wedge shots with some roll-out.
You can make those adjustments- that's true

But, in the conditions the pros play, and that many of us see from time to time, I think a premium ball provides advantages in scoring for pretty much anyone who hits the ball with any consistency.

But- when you factor in price, I concede that for a lot of amateurs, the balls are good enough these days as a whole to not sweat it that much

[PhilsFanDrew]

[quote name='vangator1' timestamp='1440556119' post='12209504']
The ball only matters if you want to score. There's a reason the pros don't play sirloin balls. My brother-in-law calls them sirloin. I don't have the heart )or balls) to correct him.
[/quote]

The pros also play on extremely fast and firm courses with tucked pin positions. They also have a repeatable swing and strike the ball crisply almost every time so they are able to take advantage of the spin to dial in their distance control. Most amateurs don't play on tour caliber courses and most do not strike the ball consistently enough to take advantage of the tour ball characteristics. If you want to score you need to hit fairways and greens in regulation and be a good putter. You don't need a urethane ball to accomplish that.

[Darth_Blader]

[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]


You OBVIOUSLY don't know with whom you are dealing with MG...L99 is a 1%'er...just ask him.[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1440290877' post='12191328']
Anyone who's paying to play golf, can play with any ball. It's painfully obvious.
[/quote]

Wow...anyone that puts TWO locations on his LOCATION, muy importante amigos...MUY

[physics&golf101]

I will put my 2 cents in.

1) Better players who are hitting to a specific target (who can control their shots) want the ball to produce predictable spin that they can control. For them ball selection is more critical.
2) Course layout and green speed also affect ball selection. Some courses with shag carpets for greens will hold just about any ball that is struck reasonably well. Tiny fast greens demand shots that sit when they hit the green. Large shaggy greens leave room for error. Course conditions matter. If I am playing a tight course with slow greens, I will use a ball with less spin.
3) Most average golfers cannot strike the ball well enough and consistently enough where they will see a difference in score when using different balls. They are wasting money trying to play a $40 per dozen golf ball. Certainly if a golfer is losing 4 or more balls per round and incurring penalty shots, the spin they are getting from premium balls is hurting rather than helping. Better players save shots around the green with spin control, it is not 10 strokes per round, more like 3-4 shots per round.
4) When I am playing well and finding greens, I pull out the urethane models. When I am not playing well, I play a budget ball with some spin, but perhaps not urethane. When I am playing a course with fast greens, I want the urethane ball which sits better on partial wedge shots.
5) Even when I want a urethane ball, I look for sale items. I never play full price.

To summarize: If the golfer is a typical hacker or weekend player playing the average public muny where the greens are medium to slow, the performance spin of a golf ball is far less critical. The opposite situation of a scratch player playing fast greens, places a premium on controlling the spin of the golf ball for shooting the best score. IMO a smart golfer assesses the situation and plays a ball to match the conditions, so he/she can save money and play more golf.

[propman]

[quote name='physics&golf101' timestamp='1441978911' post='12298736']
I will put my 2 cents in.

1) Better players who are hitting to a specific target (who can control their shots) want the ball to produce predictable spin that they can control. For them ball selection is more critical.
2) Course layout and green speed also affect ball selection. Some courses with shag carpets for greens will hold just about any ball that is struck reasonably well. Tiny fast greens demand shots that sit when they hit the green. Large shaggy greens leave room for error. Course conditions matter. If I am playing a tight course with slow greens, I will use a ball with less spin.
3) Most average golfers cannot strike the ball well enough and consistently enough where they will see a difference in score when using different balls. They are wasting money trying to play a $40 per dozen golf ball. Certainly if a golfer is losing 4 or more balls per round and incurring penalty shots, the spin they are getting from premium balls is hurting rather than helping. Better players save shots around the green with spin control, it is not 10 strokes per round, more like 3-4 shots per round.
4) When I am playing well and finding greens, I pull out the urethane models. When I am not playing well, I play a budget ball with some spin, but perhaps not urethane. When I am playing a course with fast greens, I want the urethane ball which sits better on partial wedge shots.
5) Even when I want a urethane ball, I look for sale items. I never play full price.

To summarize: If the golfer is a typical hacker or weekend player playing the average public muny where the greens are medium to slow, the performance spin of a golf ball is far less critical. The opposite situation of a scratch player playing fast greens, places a premium on controlling the spin of the golf ball for shooting the best score. IMO a smart golfer assesses the situation and plays a ball to match the conditions, so he/she can save money and play more golf.
[/quote]

Well put. +1

[MadGolfer76]

[quote name='td_proV_UNO' timestamp='1441923947' post='12295920']
[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]


You OBVIOUSLY don't know with whom you are dealing with MG...L99 is a 1%'er...just ask him.[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1440290877' post='12191328']
Anyone who's paying to play golf, can play with any ball. It's painfully obvious.
[/quote]

Wow...anyone that puts TWO locations on his LOCATION, muy importante amigos...MUY
[/quote]

The interesting point that no one has picked up on this entire time is that the golf ball type wouldn't matter to a complete beginner either, but there is no doubt it makes a difference to a pro. Let's then try to place OP's "results" along that spectrum of ability and see if we need to move the pencil very far along the line...

[chippa13]

I play the gamut of balls depending on how my game feels and all I know is the few times that I've flirted with 80 over the past couple of years are when I've been playing ProV1, ProV1x or ZStar SL.

[NV825]

I'm a 7 HC and I normally play cheap budget balls because I didn't think much into a ball making that much difference for my game. This last weekend I played the front nine of a round with a cheap ball and did fine, but in one particular approach shot I made great contact that should have produced a lot of spin from about 115 yards out and landed it on the front of a front-to-back sloping green and it ran right off still. At the turn I decided to put a Pro V1x I found some rounds ago into play and I did notice my entire game felt better. My approach shots either stuck or did a hop and stop, and my tee shots with driver were much straighter. I've played Pro V1's before but never felt anything amazing, but the V1x was noticeably better for my game. I have had a sip of the premium ball kool-aid, and now I'm hooked.

[Golf64]

Tried them all. Play better with a soft 2 piece ball?!

[coachemup]

I don't post much anymore even though I have been on the boards for over 20 years now. I will say this about the golfball- in the hands of a highly skilled player, the ball matters. For the other 99% of us, the ball isn't going to lower your scores.

I am going to add to this a little bit as well. All of this talk about what John Doe Pro would shoot at your home course is really dependent on the course conditions. These pros are able to carve up a golf course when the fairways are perfect and the greens are receptive. Most of us play at courses where the fairways are like the rough at a tour event and the greens are thick and hard to save the grass. Even a Pro would have a hard time putting up solid numbers every round on the courses we play and the answer is simple (and I know this from playing with a few touring pros and some of my fellow local golf professionals)- They cannot control the spin of the golf ball from the grass (fairway or rough). Their games are dependent on consistant spin. Without it, they will have some issues like the rest of us. Of course, they will sink more 10 foot putts than we do so their scores will not suffer like ours.

Sorry for the interruption, Carry on

[BillyZ2]

I got a hold of some Wilson Staff duos 4 great price and gave them a try today. This ball flies far and has a nice soft feel to it. It has a nice feel putting. at 10 plus handicap, this ball is great for my game.

[BrianL99]

[quote name='coachemup' timestamp='1442001036' post='12300704']

Their games are dependent on consistant spin.

[/quote]

You're 100% correct and that is the "secret" that 99% of the golfers in the world, don't understand. A Professional golf is hitting to a specific location and needs the ball to stop in exactly the spot he wants ... +/- a yard or 2.

The non-touring professionals can't hit an iron any more accurate than +/- 3-4 yards. The degree of spin he gets, isn't all that relevant. If we move up to the handicap players, they're +/- 4-10 yards on an iron shot. If you can't hit it any more accurately than that, what difference does it make, if the ball is "rolling" or "checking" ?

[NV825]

Here's a good article from WRX staff with data about cheap vs. premium ball spin with wedge shots.

[url="http://www.golfwrx.com/325044/is-it-possible-to-have-premium-wedge-game-if-you-use-a-budget-golf-ball/"]http://www.golfwrx.com/325044/is-it-possible-to-have-premium-wedge-game-if-you-use-a-budget-golf-ball/[/url]

[coachemup]

I cant get the link to open with my cell phone, but I am guessing the link provided is the one that tells me premium balls spin more than "cheap" balls (thats a real eye opener). That link is irrelevent to me at this point because I am talking about posting a # after 18 holes are played and the conditions in which they are played in.
From my perspective, I could post here that I shot 71 last Sunday with a Pro V and turned around on Monday and shot 69 with a Srixon Q Star (same course and playing conditions).
I am not here to debate if a Pro V is a better ball because it costs more and has a urethane cover, only to say that 99% of my fellow golfers wont see a lower handicap because of the ball they play.

Once again, sorry to interrupt. Please continue

[gopherguts]

[quote name='coachemup' timestamp='1442021817' post='12302168']
I cant get the link to open with my cell phone, but I am guessing the link provided is the one that tells me premium balls spin more than "cheap" balls (thats a real eye opener). That link is irrelevent to me at this point because I am talking about posting a # after 18 holes are played and the conditions in which they are played in.
From my perspective, I could post here that I shot 71 last Sunday with a Pro V and turned around on Monday and shot 69 with a Srixon Q Star (same course and playing conditions).
I am not here to debate if a Pro V is a better ball because it costs more and has a urethane cover, only to say that 99% of my fellow golfers wont see a lower handicap because of the ball they play.

Once again, sorry to interrupt. Please continue
[/quote]

So what ball DO you play ? And do you play the same ball "all" the time ?

The only thing I'd disagree with you and Brian about is the 99%. I would think that most single digit caps benefit more with a ball that spins more rather than less.

The ball with more spin is most useful in the 100 yard and in range, i.e. the "scoring" range. And that is where the better player can make the most use of a ball that spins more.

You can play pretty much ANY shot with a ball that spins a lot. You CAN'T do the same with a ball that doesn't spin "enough".

[coachemup]

I play the Bridgestone RXS. I dont have the same SS I did 15 years ago. Although it is a urethane ball, it doesnt spin near as much as the Pro V or Pro V X.
For 90% of my rounds I play the same ball. I feel that is more important to consistant scoring than which type of ball is played. I do play rounds with other golf balls and alot depends on who I play with.
As far as your last comment, I am by no means a "tournament level" golfer anymore, but I can still score well because I know where to miss. I can also play ANY shot with any ball as long as I know the balls characteristics. That comes from practice and playing with the same golf ball.
Lastly, more spin may actually be a detriment to alot of golfers. You may hit that great spinning wedge that sucks back 10 feet and tap in for your 10 right after you hit 3 balls out of bounds of the tee.
Golf is about getting your ball (whatever ball you chose) into the hole in the fewest strokes possible. If a $5 dollar ball does that for you then great. If a $1 ball does that for u then even better.

[thug the bunny]

[quote name='bigsting' timestamp='1438596955' post='12068302']
This is a crazy test. Short game spin differs massively between a 2 piece ionomer ball and a multilayer urethane ball. Especially on hard fast greens. And it's not just feel, it's fact.
[/quote]

On anything but the softest of greens, a surlyn cover ball will release and run much farther than a multilayer urethane ball. This is my consistent observation. As my stepdaughter got better at competitive golf, I watched her hit very nice 20, 40, 60, 80 yard shots and got tired of saying "nice shot!", only to watch it land and then roll to the back or off the back. She likes to play those pretty girls' balls (solaira, lady's precepts, etc). Finally for one tournament I gave her some Maxfli U6 balls. They are very sticky, you can actually feel it with your fingers. Every crisp short iron she hit stuck like a dart.

Keep in mind this may not have significant effect on scoring or stats if you know to land a surlyn ball where it will release. However, I prefer to count on limited release since I don't have to guess how much roll a releasing ball is going to have.

[coachemup]

So all you play is flop shots around the greens (limited roll)? Most pros will do the exact opposite and get the ball rolling because they can better judge how a ball will roll on the green than relying on whether it will catch its spin and stop near the hole.
This is just a scenario and not picking on anyone. I dont like that and would never do it. Just posted this way as an example of another way of thinking.

[coachemup]

I do want to mention this. I do not play bomb and gouge golf. I am not long enough to hit a bunch of 40, 60 or 80 yards shots into holes (whether it be rough or fairway). In fact, i may only play 1 shot with my 60 in an entire round. I know my golf balls characteristics because I play the same ball (as mentioned previously).

[thug the bunny]

[quote name='coachemup' timestamp='1442027243' post='12302584']
So all you play is flop shots around the greens (limited roll)? Most pros will do the exact opposite and get the ball rolling because they can better judge how a ball will roll on the green than relying on whether it will catch its spin and stop near the hole.
This is just a scenario and not picking on anyone. I dont like that and would never do it. Just posted this way as an example of another way of thinking.
[/quote]

No, for chip shots I almost always count on roll because you can't get enough clubhead speed to really spin the ball no matter what ball you use. I am a big advocate of using a less lofted club other than SW if you have enough green to work with - 9i, 8i, 7i, and rolling it up.

I am talking about everything from a 40yd wedge to a 160yd 7i. Even a 190yd 4i will not rocket off the back with a good urethane ball if you plop it down in the middle of a green.

[IHFN]

If you play on soft greens then you can get away with playing just about any golf ball. I'm a lower handicap and I've played Titleist Velocities on a course with soft bent greens. I did give up playing chips that check by doing this, but I never had to worry about the ball spinning back.

I pretty much choose a ball based on what type of greens I'm playing. I've found very specific characteristics of every ball and choose the ones I want for the type of conditions. On soft to med to firm greens I prefer the Snell My Tour Ball. For rock hard tournament greens, I prefer the Nike RZN Platinum.

I used to not be able to play a ball like the My Tour Ball on soft greens as I'd spin it too much, but I quit trying to hit my lob wedge 95 yards with a full all out swing. I found I hit a little punch 53 degree closer more consistently from that distance.

I pretty much do that for all my shorter irons now. It helps control my spin and i'm hitting many more greens and getting closer to the hole.

[CanaryKid]

I always use the same ball as I want to remove one variable from my game when comparing my performance from round to round. However, I can't see that it makes any meaningful difference to a high handicapper like me - there are far too many other variables at play in my game! I can understand how a low handicapper might see the benefit though ... and confidence in a given piece of equipment - be it a club or ball - can make a psychological difference too.

[AmazinBlue]

I think this is a great topic and there are many valid points made here. For me, aside from a few extremes, most balls react in a generally similar fashion from tee to green. I find the B'stone E6 to be the straightest ball off the tee in general. The Wilson Duo is a good ball from tee to green as are all of the premium balls.

 

I find the biggest difference between any two balls or any type of ball is around the green and putting. In putting it's mostly feel. Quiet balls feel softer and the Supersofts and Duos tend to roll farther having that "super ball" tendency.

 

Chipping and pitching is where the rubber meets the road. Low spin balls are very difficult to control chipping and pitching because the vast majority of the time, they don't check. I will hit a duo on colder days for the feel factor only, but I usually regret it when I short-side myself at the green. I am playing the 2016 B'stone RXS and it is all the ball I need. I won't pay $48/doz for balls. I'm not good enough to warrant the expense and don't see them changing my game that much.

 

Besides, I don't like 'clicky' golf balls and Titleists are clicky, i.e. the sound they make.

[thug the bunny]

I find that top shelf urethane balls make a 'whhup' sound, while other 2 piece midprice balls sound like 'click'. IMO, the softness of those 'soft compression' midrange balls is mitigated by the hardness of their cover and outer layer. I can feel it through my blades.

[BillyZ2]

I find that top shelf urethane balls make a 'whhup' sound, while other 2 piece midprice balls sound like 'click'. IMO, the softness of those 'soft compression' midrange balls is mitigated by the hardness of their cover and outer layer. I can feel it through my blades.

my desire to buy the top shelf urethane golf balls is mitigated by their price. I enjoyed the lower price range golf balls and their possible click sound they make is mitigated by their price and their great performance. I like the word mitigated it works well in this conversation!

[pitchinwedge]

In my group we have a shmuck golfer who uses $1/ball Wilson Duo overrun. Everyone else plays ProV1/V1x. We get strokes from the shmuck because he's been winning more than his fair share for as long as I can remember. I mean, we're in the middle of making swing changes, you know? Anyways, we need, and will take, every advantage we can get against that shmuck!

 

Only problem is... that shmuck playing the $1 ball never seems to lose his. Can't stand it when we duck hook our brand new ProV1 into the cr@p. Swing changes, you know? The bright-side is sometimes we get lucky and find someone else's ProV1. Winner!

 

Anyways, it takes us like 6 hours to finish a round because we spend a couple of hours searching for other people's ProV1s. It all works out in the end, right? Oh, did I mention it's a good thing we're using ProV1s? We're already losing all the time as it is, but imagine how much worse we'd lose to the shmuck if we weren't playing ProV1s.

 

- 'nuf said. go buy yourself some ProV1s.

[propman]

Sounds like the shmuck is pretty smart as well :taunt:

[BillyZ2]

Sounds like the shmuck is pretty smart as well :taunt:

Maybe the Wilson Duo guy isn't the smuck in this story, maybe it's someone else?

[BrianL99]

I haven't looked at this thread in ages, but there were some new posts and I stubbled back to it.

 

It's interesting that almost no one in the thread has mentioned "score", which is theoretically why we play golf.

 

Everyone talks about "balls stopping on the green" or "spinning on chips" ... that's not score.

 

People post about "softness" or "feel" ... that's not score.

 

Somewhere approaching 90% of the average amateur's approach shots, are short of pin. Why do you guys need a ball that stops quickly?

 

On a 30 yard chip, the typical amateur is perfectly happy if their ball stops within 10' of the pin ... that's a +/- "miss ratio" of 10%. A high spinning ball is as likely to hurt you as often as it helps you.

 

In the US, we learn to play "air golf" and it's "cool" to watch a ball check up on the green. Curiously enough, it's so cool for many golfers, they don't even care if the ball lands 10 yards short.

 

In areas of the world where the prevalent golf methodology is "along the ground", no one much cares about a ball checking up, they just want it to get to the flag.

 

I think if people were honest about their game, they'd admit that "more roll" and "less checking" would get them way closer to the pin. Call me crazy, but that's likely to improve your score.

[BillyZ2]

I haven't looked at this thread in ages, but there were some new posts and I stubbled back to it.

 

It's interesting that almost no one in the thread has mentioned "score", which is theoretically why we ball golf.

 

Everyone talks about "balls stopping on the green" or "spinning on chips" ... that's not score.

 

People post about "softness" or "feel" ... that's not score.

 

Somewhere approaching 90% of the average amateur's approach shots, are short of pin. Why do you guys need a ball that stops quickly?

 

On a 30 yard chip, the typical amateur is perfectly happy if their ball stops within 10' of the green ... that's a +/- "miss ratio" of 10%. A high spinning ball is as likely to hurt you as often as it helps you.

 

In the US, we learn to play "air golf" and it's "cool" to watch a ball check up on the green. Curiously enough, it's so cool for many golfers, they don't even care if the ball lands 10 yards short.

 

In areas of the world where the prevalent golf methodology is "along the ground", no one much cares about a ball checking up, they just want it to get to the flag.

 

I think if people were honest about their game, they'd admit that "more roll" and "less checking" would get them way closer to the pin. Call me crazy, but that's likely to improve your score.

Amen brother!!! You took the text right out of my mouth. I would imagine that many of these posters who are so concerned about checking the ball up or spinning backwards you should be more concerned about it hitting the green. The ego can be a dangerous thing.