Iron byron golf ball tests

[woldon]

Surely there is a neutral party out there who owns an iron byron, and is prepared to do some golf ball testing with say driver, 6 iron and PW for three or four different swing speeds, to produce straight forward "comparable" results, that allow the reader for himself/herself to judge which golf ball they might try next. Any links to existing iron byron ball test data are welcome here. So far I have only encountered "apples with oranges and bananas" type comparisons.

[Jay ZG]

Does golf digest still do their spin test? I haven't seen that in a few years but always found it very useful.

[TheGriftKings]

Would love to see this especially if they compare new model year vs. prior release.

[Shockandawe]

Surely there is a neutral party out there who owns an iron byron, and is prepared to do some golf ball testing with say driver, 6 iron and PW for three or four different swing speeds, to produce straight forward "comparable" results, that allow the reader for himself/herself to judge which golf ball they might try next. Any links to existing iron byron ball test data are welcome here. So far I have only encountered "apples with oranges and bananas" type comparisons.

Im waiting for exactly this as well! This should be done so we can cut through the marketing hype and really determine which balls are best for each of us! There is a site out there called golfballtest or something that claims to do this, but it appears to be a pay site. Anybody have a membership that can tell us whether its worth it?

[Steveleeifc]

Not a huge difference - all premium balls are similar...

[Uhit]

Not a huge difference - all premium balls are similar...

 

Good for you...

 

...however, in my opinion they are not similar enough, to dismiss the perceivable differences between them.

 

Anyway, the latest robot ball test, where I have seen the data, is from 2015...

...I hope, that we can see more of them in future.

 

The most recent test results were published by Srixon:

 

http://www.srixoneur...star-balls.html

 

P.S.:

 

Meanwhile I have seen, that golftime.de has published a ball robotest in 6-2016...

...curious to see the 2017 test...

[Shockandawe]

Not a huge difference - all premium balls are similar...

 

This is becoming more and more incorrect as the technology available increases. Lots of different characteristics available to fit different player/swing characteristics and preferences, even at different price points now.

[Shilgy]

I would rather test myself if I become dissatisfied with my ball. Iron Byron at different speeds? How about different angles of attack? Different home course conditions? Just one guys opinion.

[Uhit]

I would rather test myself if I become dissatisfied with my ball. Iron Byron at different speeds? How about different angles of attack? Different home course conditions? Just one guys opinion.

 

Then, just do it!

 

The charm of a robot is not, that it tries to mimic all possible variables, but to minimize the variables, to get a objective comparison.

 

After you know, how the balls compare to each other, you can choose the one, that fits to your different home course conditions etc...

 

...first compare, then decide - simple as that!

[augustgolf]

Here's something that I just don't seem to get:

 

Everyone wants independent "robot testing" of golf balls, to find out what is the right ball for them.

 

Just because an Iron Byron can make a repeatable swing, time after time, hundreds, thousands of times....exactly how does this translate to the "average" golfer????

 

Everybody has a different ball position, angle of attack, etc...and, simply changing your own ball position affects spin, AofA, launch angle, and all the other multitude of factors in the flight of the ball.

 

Why don't you just go get a number of different balls....practice with them....play with them....and judge for yourself???

 

Since "everyone" wants exactly what is on the tour (tour issued equipment....seen that phrase around here???)....this is what the pros do....they get various incarnations of the balls their equipment/ball sponsor makes - - they practice with them, to find out how they feel, how they react, and whether or not they think that they will provide better performance for them.

 

What is surprising, to me at least, is how the tour pros have their equipment tweaked, the balls provided based on their particular needs...and, they still go out and have bad rounds.

 

Maybe a lesson to be learned for the rest of us????

 

 

[Uhit]

Here's something that I just don't seem to get:

 

Everyone wants independent "robot testing" of golf balls, to find out what is the right ball for them.

 

Just because an Iron Byron can make a repeatable swing, time after time, hundreds, thousands of times....exactly how does this translate to the "average" golfer????

 

Everybody has a different ball position, angle of attack, etc...and, simply changing your own ball position affects spin, AofA, launch angle, and all the other multitude of factors in the flight of the ball.

 

Why don't you just go get a number of different balls....practice with them....play with them....and judge for yourself???

 

Since "everyone" wants exactly what is on the tour (tour issued equipment....seen that phrase around here???)....this is what the pros do....they get various incarnations of the balls their equipment/ball sponsor makes - - they practice with them, to find out how they feel, how they react, and whether or not they think that they will provide better performance for them.

 

What is surprising, to me at least, is how the tour pros have their equipment tweaked, the balls provided based on their particular needs...and, they still go out and have bad rounds.

 

Maybe a lesson to be learned for the rest of us????

 

There is nothing wrong to use both methods...

 

...because the Iron Byron delivers no data in regard of sound and feel...

...and no data in regard of performance in the wind.

 

However, you have to hit several dozen balls on your own, to get an idea, whether one ball could have more, or less spin, than the other...

...and read several pages of tests - done by human - and still have contradicting results...

 

...the Iron Byron solves this problem, and can save you a lot of time and money.

[Shockandawe]

I would rather test myself if I become dissatisfied with my ball. Iron Byron at different speeds? How about different angles of attack? Different home course conditions? Just one guys opinion.

 

Then, just do it!

 

The charm of a robot is not, that it tries to mimic all possible variables, but to minimize the variables, to get a objective comparison.

 

After you know, how the balls compare to each other, you can choose the one, that fits to your different home course conditions etc...

 

...first compare, then decide - simple as that!

This ^

The robot data is needed to give us all an objective comparison of where the balls fall on issues like driver sidespin, greenside backspin, compression, and distance. That allows us to narrow down the options to a few, so we can then purchase those few to try out for our own specific swing characteristics and preferred ball characteristics, and then choose the best one for us from there.

 

Plus, having objective robot testing data will finally show many fools who insist on playing/overpaying for proV1s that they are wasting their money on balls that are not superior to their less expensive competitors, and spin way too much for average golfers, haha. That is, ironically, why I think we do NOT have this important objective robot data available. Pressure from companies like Titleist who do NOT want consumers to see this data: it will mean tons of lost sales for the market share leader (Titleist) and will undercut all the millions Titleist spends on feeding us the marketing hype that consumers need to play proV1s because some pros do. My guess is thats the reason why golfdigest stopped doing the ball hot list spin chart that was so popular a couple of years ago. That chart basically put callaway balls on the map when the chrome+ balls basically outperformed the proV1s at $15 less per box... unless anyone else has another theory...

[smokedturkey]

I would rather test myself if I become dissatisfied with my ball. Iron Byron at different speeds? How about different angles of attack? Different home course conditions? Just one guys opinion.

 

Then, just do it!

 

The charm of a robot is not, that it tries to mimic all possible variables, but to minimize the variables, to get a objective comparison.

 

After you know, how the balls compare to each other, you can choose the one, that fits to your different home course conditions etc...

 

...first compare, then decide - simple as that!

This ^

The robot data is needed to give us all an objective comparison of where the balls fall on issues like driver sidespin, greenside backspin, compression, and distance. That allows us to narrow down the options to a few, so we can then purchase those few to try out for our own specific swing characteristics and preferred ball characteristics, and then choose the best one for us from there.

 

Plus, having objective robot testing data will finally show many fools who insist on playing/overpaying for proV1s that they are wasting their money on balls that are not superior to their less expensive competitors, and spin way too much for average golfers, haha. That is, ironically, why I think we do NOT have this important objective robot data available. Pressure from companies like Titleist who do NOT want consumers to see this data: it will mean tons of lost sales for the market share leader (Titleist) and will undercut all the millions Titleist spends on feeding us the marketing hype that consumers need to play proV1s because some pros do. My guess is thats the reason why golfdigest stopped doing the ball hot list spin chart that was so popular a couple of years ago. That chart basically put callaway balls on the map when the chrome+ balls basically outperformed the proV1s at $15 less per box... unless anyone else has another theory...

 

 

I wouldn't say that Titleist controls the golfing world just like the pharmaceutical company's have the cure for cancer locked up somewhere just to keep it a secret to keep making money.

 

There are different player swing and ball striking characteristics that have to be experimented with personally to get your own outcome that a robot can not perform. Actually when I hear a players review say that a ball went too high of flight for them as a negative that only gets me interested in that ball since I need all the height I can get with my 4 iron and 5 wood to stay in the air longer than it does. So I went and bought a dozen of the TP5X for that reason. Titleist tour players are split between playing the ProV1's two different options because of their playing characteristics and subjective feel and desire.

 

I see your point of robot testing and it would be interesting but probably not as effective as just hitting a few different balls for your own evaluation. I still have the B330RXS & 330S, Srixon zstar and xv, ProV1x and the new TP5x to figure out my gamer this year.

[jwb10]

I'm an independent and available to do testing. Send me all of your new golf balls, dozens only, and I will test for you. I'll post my results and the YOU can choose what i like best. Make sense, right ? :telephone: :stop:

[Uhit]

I would rather test myself if I become dissatisfied with my ball. Iron Byron at different speeds? How about different angles of attack? Different home course conditions? Just one guys opinion.

 

Then, just do it!

 

The charm of a robot is not, that it tries to mimic all possible variables, but to minimize the variables, to get a objective comparison.

 

After you know, how the balls compare to each other, you can choose the one, that fits to your different home course conditions etc...

 

...first compare, then decide - simple as that!

This ^

The robot data is needed to give us all an objective comparison of where the balls fall on issues like driver sidespin, greenside backspin, compression, and distance. That allows us to narrow down the options to a few, so we can then purchase those few to try out for our own specific swing characteristics and preferred ball characteristics, and then choose the best one for us from there.

 

Plus, having objective robot testing data will finally show many fools who insist on playing/overpaying for proV1s that they are wasting their money on balls that are not superior to their less expensive competitors, and spin way too much for average golfers, haha. That is, ironically, why I think we do NOT have this important objective robot data available. Pressure from companies like Titleist who do NOT want consumers to see this data: it will mean tons of lost sales for the market share leader (Titleist) and will undercut all the millions Titleist spends on feeding us the marketing hype that consumers need to play proV1s because some pros do. My guess is thats the reason why golfdigest stopped doing the ball hot list spin chart that was so popular a couple of years ago. That chart basically put callaway balls on the map when the chrome+ balls basically outperformed the proV1s at $15 less per box... unless anyone else has another theory...

 

 

I wouldn't say that Titleist controls the golfing world just like the pharmaceutical company's have the cure for cancer locked up somewhere just to keep it a secret to keep making money.

 

There are different player swing and ball striking characteristics that have to be experimented with personally to get your own outcome that a robot can not perform. Actually when I hear a players review say that a ball went too high of flight for them as a negative that only gets me interested in that ball since I need all the height I can get with my 4 iron and 5 wood to stay in the air longer than it does. So I went and bought a dozen of the TP5X for that reason. Titleist tour players are split between playing the ProV1's two different options because of their playing characteristics and subjective feel and desire.

 

I see your point of robot testing and it would be interesting but probably not as effective as just hitting a few different balls for your own evaluation. I still have the B330RXS & 330S, Srixon zstar and xv, ProV1x and the new TP5x to figure out my gamer this year.

 

A robot test helps to narrow down the number of different balls, you have to buy and test for yourself...

...which saves a lot of time and money...

 

...don´t you think, that a robot test could have given you the same information according the ball flight of the TP5X, but more accurate and with higher reliability?

 

There are enough player reviews, which contradict each other, and sometimes even themselves...

...and you need much more time to read them AND to evaluate them.

 

...just to find out, that they probably had no reliable, and for sure, not your swing!

 

-

 

Player reviews are mostly more entertaining, than informative...

...more, or less, self marketing.

[BForrester]

Does golf digest still do their spin test? I haven't seen that in a few years but always found it very useful.

 

I think the Golf print publications stopped doing any form of objective testing in fear of angering their advertisers.

[MattyTeaks]

I would rather test myself if I become dissatisfied with my ball. Iron Byron at different speeds? How about different angles of attack? Different home course conditions? Just one guys opinion.

 

Then, just do it!

 

The charm of a robot is not, that it tries to mimic all possible variables, but to minimize the variables, to get a objective comparison.

 

After you know, how the balls compare to each other, you can choose the one, that fits to your different home course conditions etc...

 

...first compare, then decide - simple as that!

This ^

The robot data is needed to give us all an objective comparison of where the balls fall on issues like driver sidespin, greenside backspin, compression, and distance. That allows us to narrow down the options to a few, so we can then purchase those few to try out for our own specific swing characteristics and preferred ball characteristics, and then choose the best one for us from there.

 

Plus, having objective robot testing data will finally show many fools who insist on playing/overpaying for proV1s that they are wasting their money on balls that are not superior to their less expensive competitors, and spin way too much for average golfers, haha. That is, ironically, why I think we do NOT have this important objective robot data available. Pressure from companies like Titleist who do NOT want consumers to see this data: it will mean tons of lost sales for the market share leader (Titleist) and will undercut all the millions Titleist spends on feeding us the marketing hype that consumers need to play proV1s because some pros do. My guess is thats the reason why golfdigest stopped doing the ball hot list spin chart that was so popular a couple of years ago. That chart basically put callaway balls on the map when the chrome+ balls basically outperformed the proV1s at $15 less per box... unless anyone else has another theory...

 

 

I wouldn't say that Titleist controls the golfing world just like the pharmaceutical company's have the cure for cancer locked up somewhere just to keep it a secret to keep making money.

 

There are different player swing and ball striking characteristics that have to be experimented with personally to get your own outcome that a robot can not perform. Actually when I hear a players review say that a ball went too high of flight for them as a negative that only gets me interested in that ball since I need all the height I can get with my 4 iron and 5 wood to stay in the air longer than it does. So I went and bought a dozen of the TP5X for that reason. Titleist tour players are split between playing the ProV1's two different options because of their playing characteristics and subjective feel and desire.

 

I see your point of robot testing and it would be interesting but probably not as effective as just hitting a few different balls for your own evaluation. I still have the B330RXS & 330S, Srixon zstar and xv, ProV1x and the new TP5x to figure out my gamer this year.

 

A robot test helps to narrow down the number of different balls, you have to buy and test for yourself...

...which saves a lot of time and money...

 

...don´t you think, that a robot test could have given you the same information according the ball flight of the TP5X, but more accurate and with higher reliability?

 

There are enough player reviews, which contradict each other, and sometimes even themselves...

...and you need much more time to read them AND to evaluate them.

 

...just to find out, that they probably had no reliable, and for sure, not your swing!

 

-

 

Player reviews are mostly more entertaining, than informative...

...more, or less, self marketing.

 

Did you really have to use up our daily allotment of ellipses, though?

[Uhit]

Then, just do it!

 

The charm of a robot is not, that it tries to mimic all possible variables, but to minimize the variables, to get a objective comparison.

 

After you know, how the balls compare to each other, you can choose the one, that fits to your different home course conditions etc...

 

...first compare, then decide - simple as that!

This ^

The robot data is needed to give us all an objective comparison of where the balls fall on issues like driver sidespin, greenside backspin, compression, and distance. That allows us to narrow down the options to a few, so we can then purchase those few to try out for our own specific swing characteristics and preferred ball characteristics, and then choose the best one for us from there.

 

Plus, having objective robot testing data will finally show many fools who insist on playing/overpaying for proV1s that they are wasting their money on balls that are not superior to their less expensive competitors, and spin way too much for average golfers, haha. That is, ironically, why I think we do NOT have this important objective robot data available. Pressure from companies like Titleist who do NOT want consumers to see this data: it will mean tons of lost sales for the market share leader (Titleist) and will undercut all the millions Titleist spends on feeding us the marketing hype that consumers need to play proV1s because some pros do. My guess is thats the reason why golfdigest stopped doing the ball hot list spin chart that was so popular a couple of years ago. That chart basically put callaway balls on the map when the chrome+ balls basically outperformed the proV1s at $15 less per box... unless anyone else has another theory...

 

 

I wouldn't say that Titleist controls the golfing world just like the pharmaceutical company's have the cure for cancer locked up somewhere just to keep it a secret to keep making money.

 

There are different player swing and ball striking characteristics that have to be experimented with personally to get your own outcome that a robot can not perform. Actually when I hear a players review say that a ball went too high of flight for them as a negative that only gets me interested in that ball since I need all the height I can get with my 4 iron and 5 wood to stay in the air longer than it does. So I went and bought a dozen of the TP5X for that reason. Titleist tour players are split between playing the ProV1's two different options because of their playing characteristics and subjective feel and desire.

 

I see your point of robot testing and it would be interesting but probably not as effective as just hitting a few different balls for your own evaluation. I still have the B330RXS & 330S, Srixon zstar and xv, ProV1x and the new TP5x to figure out my gamer this year.

 

A robot test helps to narrow down the number of different balls, you have to buy and test for yourself...

...which saves a lot of time and money...

 

...don´t you think, that a robot test could have given you the same information according the ball flight of the TP5X, but more accurate and with higher reliability?

 

There are enough player reviews, which contradict each other, and sometimes even themselves...

...and you need much more time to read them AND to evaluate them.

 

...just to find out, that they probably had no reliable, and for sure, not your swing!

 

-

 

Player reviews are mostly more entertaining, than informative...

...more, or less, self marketing.

 

Did you really have to use up our daily allotment of ellipses, though?

 

I am glad that this is your only concern...

[Shockandawe]

I'm an independent and available to do testing. Send me all of your new golf balls, dozens only, and I will test for you. I'll post my results and the YOU can choose what i like best. Make sense, right ? :telephone: :stop:

 

Which launch monitor do you have? And do you also have access to an iron byron or would you be doing the striking? And if so, what is your driver swing speed/ball flight? Id consider this with singles, but not with dozens.

[Shockandawe]

So what you're really saying is "Can I find someone with a hitting robot to prove that Titleist suck?".

 

I love it when someone says they want "independent" and "unbiased" testing so they can use it to back up their own childish grievances.

 

I already know that the premium Titleist offerings (v1/v1x) suck for me, so I am more interested in unbiased/objective/controlled variables/robot testing of the Srixon ZStar/Zstar XV v. TM TP5/TP5x v. Callaway CS/CSX.

 

If anyone is making equipment choices based on "childish grievances," they are worse than childish; they are stupid. With all of the technology baked into the 2017 ball offerings, people can really experience performance gains if they select the right ball for their swing and playing style and then dial it in even further. A good starting point to obtain data so people can select balls to being with is objective spin and launch data - thats what this post is all about. I just wish this data was more accessible. It really should be. I nominate jwb10 to make it happen!

[sfiggins]

Not current, but good info nonetheless.

 

 

http://www.livestrong.com/article/349260-golf-ball-performance-results/

[Mtngolfer1]

I personally do not believe that there are huge differences in any Tour level Golf Balls performance. In reviewing a Srixon test result that was posted here the charts make it look like these balls are miles apart, however looking closer its obvious the performance across the board is very close. I assumed this was robotic testing, so the numbers assumingly should be very accurate. Based on the charted results one would have to believe that performance is equal based simply on the margin of differences in the test results. Also using the charted results based on the compression one would have to conclude preference in feel would be more apparent than performance. Its often argued that feel is personal and I believe this as well ,however it can be used as a deciding factor based on preference.

 

Example:The Srixon ball speed chart has the 2017 Srixon 105 compression as the high speed ball at just over 160.5 MPH, the Titleist 2015 104 Compression ProV1x at just under 160.5 MPH and the 2016 Bridgestone B330 101 compression at just over 160.0 MPH Taking the results from the chart the difference in ball speed from high to low is less than 1 MPH, however the difference in compression between the high compression to the low compression ball is 4 compression. I don't believe that many of us if any would notice the difference in performance from 160.0 MPH to 160.5 MPH, but I believe that most if not all of us would have a clear preference in feel between the 101 Compression ball and the 105 compression ball. The preferences may differ for those selecting a softer lower compression ball or a firmer higher compression ball, but the preference in feel would be more prevalent than the preference in performance. I am starting to sound like a broken record, but again its just my opinion but I believe from my experience feel is a bigger factor in choice between these three balls than the performance. The difference in performance based on the charts data is negligible, but just taking in account the compression difference between the Low Compression Ball 101 Compression Bridgestone B330 and the High Compression Ball 105 Compression Srixon Z Star XV5. Less than 1 degree separate these two balls in launch angle and less than 200 RPMs in Driver spin. The Pro-V1x is in the middle of the two balls, but again not many of us would discriminate between the test results margins, but most if not all would notice a clear preference in feel.

 

The Iron Byron or robotic testing has demonstrated how closely the performance is of these three balls, but personal testing experiencing feel is going to play a much bigger part in the decision in my opinion. Other factors will also play a part, like name brand recognition, reputation, familiarity and economics , but I believe the test data will factor the least amount in the decision of what ball a individual plays.

 

One ball on the list is head and shoulders above the other two in sales. Again assuming the test data is accurate arguably performance should have little to do with that. but taking account a strong advertising program, brand recognition, familiarity and possibly feel it can be concluded that these are strong factors in a decision on ball choice.

[Geaux Gators]

 

 

I wouldn't say that Titleist controls the golfing world just like the pharmaceutical company's have the cure for cancer locked up somewhere just to keep it a secret to keep making money.

 

 

I think if there was a cure for cancer, Steve Jobs had enough money to pay for it and beat it... and he be dead. I do think the money rules the world, but if it came down to it, there are plenty of people that have enough money.... you think that

 

Titleist controls the advertising dollar for the golf ball.... They don't run very many ads for their newest irons in comparison to the 73638959736485 ads for the ProV1 and ProV1x that they run during any given tournament.

 

Conversely, Srixon, I never see a damn Srixon commercial. And they have one of the best pitch men in golf on staff.. Peter Jacobson is a great brand ambassador...

 

I know I am bias, I play Srixons, and he is a member of my fraternaty (Kappa Sigma) but I always have thought that he was funny as hell and very likable.

[Shockandawe]

I personally do not believe that there are huge differences in any Tour level Golf Balls performance. In reviewing a Srixon test result that was posted here the charts make it look like these balls are miles apart,...

 

Example:The Srixon ball speed chart has the 2017 Srixon 105 compression as the high speed ball at just over 160.5 MPH, the Titleist 2015 104 Compression ProV1x at just under 160.5 MPH and the 2016 Bridgestone B330 101 compression at just over 160.0 MPH Taking the results from the chart the difference in ball speed from high to low is less than 1 MPH,

 

Dude, if you think this is about ball speed you are lost before youve even started. And using a test that is intended to convey how similar the balls are to each other makes your point before you made it. This is about spin - how much of it, when it happens, and on what shots/what clubs - there are massive differences between balls that completely change performance for each player. The point you, and apparently others, are missing, is that with the technology manufacturers are able to use today, they can make balls that are SIGNIFICANTLY different than each other, and then ever before. Each company makes balls that spin a ton, and ones that spin very little, or ones that spin only on certain shots, and some that spin on wedges, or some that spin on all. These are things the robot testing would show us, and precisely how different they are. Also, even amongst the "tour" balls with urethane covers, there are sometimes over 1000 RPM spin differences on certain types of shots between titleist and some of the other better lower spinning balls, for example.

 

I feel like the people against robot testing are the "ignorance is bliss" types, but what you guys dont realize is that if you took the time to educate yourselves on the precise spin characteristics of each ball to find and then fine tune the right one for you, you would probably experience performance benefits on the course and play better.

[Mtngolfer1]

I personally do not believe that there are huge differences in any Tour level Golf Balls performance. In reviewing a Srixon test result that was posted here the charts make it look like these balls are miles apart,...

 

Example:The Srixon ball speed chart has the 2017 Srixon 105 compression as the high speed ball at just over 160.5 MPH, the Titleist 2015 104 Compression ProV1x at just under 160.5 MPH and the 2016 Bridgestone B330 101 compression at just over 160.0 MPH Taking the results from the chart the difference in ball speed from high to low is less than 1 MPH,

 

Dude, if you think this is about ball speed you are lost before youve even started. And using a test that is intended to convey how similar the balls are to each other makes your point before you made it. This is about spin - how much of it, when it happens, and on what shots/what clubs - there are massive differences between balls that completely change performance for each player. The point you, and apparently others, are missing, is that with the technology manufacturers are able to use today, they can make balls that are SIGNIFICANTLY different than each other, and then ever before. Each company makes balls that spin a ton, and ones that spin very little, or ones that spin only on certain shots, and some that spin on wedges, or some that spin on all. These are things the robot testing would show us, and precisely how different they are. Also, even amongst the "tour" balls with urethane covers, there are sometimes over 1000 RPM spin differences on certain types of shots between titleist and some of the other better lower spinning balls, for example.

 

I feel like the people against robot testing are the "ignorance is bliss" types, but what you guys dont realize is that if you took the time to educate yourselves on the precise spin characteristics of each ball to find and then fine tune the right one for you, you would probably experience performance benefits on the course and play better.

 

Let's be clear I don't think it is all about ball speed. Pulling one sentence does not mean that is what my opinion is based on or that this single factor was my focus. It was simply one piece of information provided in the test that contributed to the point I was trying to make. My point was if you look at the way Srixon presented the data you would think that the performance was miles apart on these balls and the fact was they all performed very closely to one another. Even with the spin test taking the Srixon and the Bridgestone again 134 RPMs separated these two balls, and again most armature golfers are not going to differentiate the spin performance between these two balls with margins that narrow, but feel will be a noticeable difference. I am not saying robotic testing is a bad thing, it definitely provides the baseline and can help narrow the field, however when it comes down to choosing a ball I would prefer to put it in play and see what kind of results I see from it. Tour Level ball performance gaps are very narrow, some balls are designed to enhance certain performance characteristics spin, launch, as well as feel being one of them. This is demonstrated by manufactures with two offerings in the same category to cater to a broader group of players, Titleist ProV1 vs ProV1X , Taylormade TP5 vs. TP5x, Bridgestone B330 vs B330X. Knowing baseline performance characteristics helps narrow the field again, however feel will often be a determining factor because it is easily noticeable /subjective for so many players. My other point was the Pro-V1 is not the most popular ball because it has the highest performance across the board, it is the most popular because of factors other than performance.

[Shockandawe]

I personally do not believe that there are huge differences in any Tour level Golf Balls performance. In reviewing a Srixon test result that was posted here the charts make it look like these balls are miles apart,...

 

Example:The Srixon ball speed chart has the 2017 Srixon 105 compression as the high speed ball at just over 160.5 MPH, the Titleist 2015 104 Compression ProV1x at just under 160.5 MPH and the 2016 Bridgestone B330 101 compression at just over 160.0 MPH Taking the results from the chart the difference in ball speed from high to low is less than 1 MPH,

 

I feel like the people against robot testing are the "ignorance is bliss" types, but what you guys dont realize is that if you took the time to educate yourselves on the precise spin characteristics of each ball to find and then fine tune the right one for you, you would probably experience performance benefits on the course and play better.

 

Let's be clear I don't think it is all about ball speed. Pulling one sentence does not mean that is what my opinion is based on or that this single factor was my focus. It was simply one piece of information provided in the test that contributed to the point I was trying to make. My point was if you look at the way Srixon presented the data you would think that the performance was miles apart on these balls and the fact was they all performed very closely to one another. Even with the spin test taking the Srixon and the Bridgestone again 134 RPMs separated these two balls . . . Tour Level ball performance gaps are very narrow, some balls are designed to enhance certain performance characteristics spin, launch, as well as feel being one of them. This is demonstrated by manufactures with two offerings in the same category to cater to a broader group of players, Titleist ProV1 vs ProV1X , Taylormade TP5 vs. TP5x, Bridgestone B330 vs B330X. Knowing baseline performance characteristics helps narrow the field again, however feel will often be a determining factor because it is easily noticeable /subjective for so many players. My other point was the Pro-V1 is not the most popular ball because it has the highest performance across the board, it is the most popular because of factors other than performance.

 

I only pulled one sentence out to save space, and make the point that you are getting suckered in by a good job by Srixon of presenting you with SOME of ITS data, not ALL of the OBJECTIVE ROBOT data, that we need, to make our own decisions. Notice that Srixon hand-picked what balls to test/report? Notice Srixon used the 15 version of the proV, and not the proV1x in some of the tests? notice that The TP5/TP5X is NOT EVEN shown on the chart?? There are reasons for this - there was data not favorable to Srixon that it CHOSE to EXCLUDE. This data was likely signficant spin differences. Just like the ones we used to see in the golf digest spin charts back when they were published that have been talked about ad nauseum here and all over the internet, such as this one, for example: http://www.golfdigest.com/story/hotlist2010_golfballs_spinchart - google it, there are plenty more, and more recent ones..

 

So, the differences are more than you are being led to believe, because the data you have been shown was SUBJECTIVE, not OBJECTIVE. I do agree with you on your point that Titleist is the market leader for reasons other than superior performance, and that again proves my point: we need more objective data so we can determine whats best based on performance; not marketing hype, pro endorsements, laziness, illogical assumptions that because a ball is the best-selling that makes it the best, etc., etc.

 

Without objective data, people will continue making poor ball-purchasing decisions based on the ^ stupid reasons.

[Mtngolfer1]

I personally do not believe that there are huge differences in any Tour level Golf Balls performance. In reviewing a Srixon test result that was posted here the charts make it look like these balls are miles apart,...

 

Example:The Srixon ball speed chart has the 2017 Srixon 105 compression as the high speed ball at just over 160.5 MPH, the Titleist 2015 104 Compression ProV1x at just under 160.5 MPH and the 2016 Bridgestone B330 101 compression at just over 160.0 MPH Taking the results from the chart the difference in ball speed from high to low is less than 1 MPH,

 

I feel like the people against robot testing are the "ignorance is bliss" types, but what you guys dont realize is that if you took the time to educate yourselves on the precise spin characteristics of each ball to find and then fine tune the right one for you, you would probably experience performance benefits on the course and play better.

 

Let's be clear I don't think it is all about ball speed. Pulling one sentence does not mean that is what my opinion is based on or that this single factor was my focus. It was simply one piece of information provided in the test that contributed to the point I was trying to make. My point was if you look at the way Srixon presented the data you would think that the performance was miles apart on these balls and the fact was they all performed very closely to one another. Even with the spin test taking the Srixon and the Bridgestone again 134 RPMs separated these two balls . . . Tour Level ball performance gaps are very narrow, some balls are designed to enhance certain performance characteristics spin, launch, as well as feel being one of them. This is demonstrated by manufactures with two offerings in the same category to cater to a broader group of players, Titleist ProV1 vs ProV1X , Taylormade TP5 vs. TP5x, Bridgestone B330 vs B330X. Knowing baseline performance characteristics helps narrow the field again, however feel will often be a determining factor because it is easily noticeable /subjective for so many players. My other point was the Pro-V1 is not the most popular ball because it has the highest performance across the board, it is the most popular because of factors other than performance.

 

I only pulled one sentence out to save space, and make the point that you are getting suckered in by a good job by Srixon of presenting you with SOME of ITS data, not ALL of the OBJECTIVE ROBOT data, that we need, to make our own decisions. Notice that Srixon hand-picked what balls to test/report? Notice Srixon used the 15 version of the proV, and not the proV1x in some of the tests? notice that The TP5/TP5X is NOT EVEN shown on the chart?? There are reasons for this - there was data not favorable to Srixon that it CHOSE to EXCLUDE. This data was likely signficant spin differences. Just like the ones we used to see in the golf digest spin charts back when they were published that have been talked about ad nauseum here and all over the internet, such as this one, for example: http://www.golfdiges...balls_spinchart - google it, there are plenty more, and more recent ones..

 

So, the differences are more than you are being led to believe, because the data you have been shown was SUBJECTIVE, not OBJECTIVE. I do agree with you on your point that Titleist is the market leader for reasons other than superior performance, and that again proves my point: we need more objective data so we can determine whats best based on performance; not marketing hype, pro endorsements, laziness, illogical assumptions that because a ball is the best-selling that makes it the best, etc., etc.

 

Without objective data, people will continue making poor ball-purchasing decisions based on the ^ stupid reasons.

I agree a player needs to cut through all the marketing hype and manufacture's BS and make a informed decision. I think we are going to the same place on this, we're just taking different routes to get there.

[cristphoto]

Here's what I've learned from playing golf for over 50 years. Different balls act differently for various golfers. For example a prov1x may be longer than a prov1 and spin more too at a given swing speed. At a lower (or possibly higher) swing speed the numbers may reverse. Thus there is no "longest" ball or "spiniest" ball but simply the optimum ball under a given set of circumstances. One thing for sure the tour balls today are excellent in their total performance.

[storm319]

Even though this thread is a couple of months old and it should probably be left to die, I felt compelled to post in response to the people that imply how easy this should be.

 

First,There are literally thousands of combinations of club head speed, angle of attack, face angle, etc not to mention certain things that the Iron Byron cannot simulate like wrist release as well as intangibles such as feel preference. Ultimately, the Iron Byron is limited in how it can simulate the human swing so extensive results still would fall short. To be thorough you would want to also test environmental conditions (wind performance, clean vs impeded lies, wet vs dry, etc) which would add thousands to the total number of combinations. Then you also have equipment variables to take into account which may bring the total number of combinations into the millions. Basically, performing a thorough test is simply not feasible.

 

Next consideration is cost. Cost of the Iron Byron, an accurate launch monitor (Trackman or Flightscope), facility (driving range) or land to actually test on. you are talking at least $100k just to get started. Then you have to take into account continual testing of new models. That will be ongoing costs of purchasing balls because the OEMs have little incentive to participant directly and labor to perform the testing. Not to mention, the equipment needs to be maintained with frequent use.

 

Lets say you go the Golf Digest route and contract one of the few testing companies that already has this setup. I imagine that GD contracted testing for the yearly Hot List is expensive even though the basic testing only uses a single set of swing variables and what do we see from the results year after year...the same principle that similarly constructed balls have a negligible difference in performance. Ultimately, I would not be surprised if GD drops this portion of the Hot List as I doubt they can justify the expense (think about it, is it really helping to sell more magazines or bring more people to their website?).

 

Now we come to justification of cost. In order to justify the expense of this testing there needs to be some kind of financial return. OEMs are not going to collaborate on something like this as there is little chance it would increase sales since the average golfer simply doesn't care (not to mention there is risk in losing sales to a competitor). It would be far cheaper and more effective to simply give out free sleeves on a new model for people to try out on their own not to mention you also introduce the theory of reciprocity by giving something for free.

 

The few independent testing facilities that would be equipped to do accomplish this wouldn't go through the expense on their own as they have nothing to sell other than the data and ultimately there is not a big enough market that would be interested in purchasing the results. Even if they did decide to do something like this, what would you be willing to pay for the results? (I'd imagine not much considering that the primary goal was to reduce costs of buying balls to test). Ultimately the average consumer is not very analytical nor wants to spend time researching. They simply want someone to make the decision for them which is why the OEMs current marketing strategies are more effective than providing hard data to backup their claims.

 

To sum all of this up, high cost low return = bad investment.