When Equipment Has Gone Too Far

[TsarBomba]

I can’t think of a ball sport where technology has had such an impact on the performance of the ball as golf...

 

Tennis.

 

I didn’t like to mention tennis as all the Major tournaments use their own ‘sponsored’ balls each with their own foibles.

 

I didn’t know that men and women used different balls though. Apparently, Andy Rodrick was serving the women’s ball for the US Open at 175mph!!

 

Only on the biggest stage of the most popular sport in the world, but... whatever.

 

Physicists Say New World Cup Soccer Ball Design Has Big Impact

 

https://news.nationa...abulani-sports/

____

 

"What's most relevant in a ball's movement is drag, a force that makes it dip and curve in unexpected ways. The smoother the ball, the greater the drag at higher speeds—and with fewer panels that are glued rather than stitched together, the World Cup balls have been getting increasingly smoother.

 

Which is why this year the Brazuca ball is covered in little nubs—an attempt to cut down on the so-called knuckling effect, which causes the ball to move unpredictably through the air like a knuckleball in baseball.

 

In the wind tunnel, Hong found, the direction in which the ball is pointed, and thereby the direction in which the panels are oriented, changes the drag. This was a problem for the 8-panel Jabulani ball and the 14-panel Teamgeist ball, each of which traveled more unpredictably than a regular soccer ball, curving more or less depending on which way it was oriented."

 

This is apples and oranges. The only similarity is that they are both a ball. When the ball moves in unexpected ways in soccer, it immediately impacts another player on an opposing team. In golf, hitting the ball further affects the player who hit the shot. It doesn't mean that other players can't do the same if they are physically able.

 

 

Please, guys who keep bringing up other sports to compare - read this post twice..ball used by both teams vs ball used by one. HUGE difference.

[rawdog]

 

Please, guys who keep bringing up other sports to compare - read this post twice..ball used by both teams vs ball used by one. HUGE difference.

 

I don't think there is much comparison either. My post was mainly directed at mahonie's statement regarding ball technology. Design of balls has impacted other sports.

 

It was a tangent to the thread. FWIW, I am not a proponent of rolling anything back.

[Uhit]

...as if a long hitter would have to think less, wouldn't need to be a shot maker, "just" (dumb) bomb and gauge.

 

The farther the ball travels, the more skill you need - in EVERY regard - including shot shaping, course management etc...

 

If I play a course as intended, I don't have to think how I could play the course with my set of skills.

 

Very, very well said. So many in this thread want the "classic courses played as they were intended" like golf is paint-by-number. What a load of nonsense.

 

And I have no idea how anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of geometry could call someone who hits the fairway 60% of the time at 280 "more accurate" than someone who hits it 50% of the time at 310. The 310 player is WAY more accurate.

 

Yes, I am also surprised, how many stresses personal preferences without looking at the whole picture.

 

If I try to look at the whole picture, I see much more disadvantages and real danger for the game golf, caused by a roll back, than real benefits.

 

If someone wants to protect the perceived past, one should buy the corresponding books, and create his own memory collection,

but leave the reality and others, that want to play now and in future golf, alone.

 

-

 

...and I don't think, that it makes sense for the majority to subdue to the wishes of people, which are driven by envy. :stop:

[Bye]

...as if a long hitter would have to think less, wouldn't need to be a shot maker, "just" (dumb) bomb and gauge.

 

The farther the ball travels, the more skill you need - in EVERY regard - including shot shaping, course management etc...

 

If I play a course as intended, I don't have to think how I could play the course with my set of skills.

 

Very, very well said. So many in this thread want the "classic courses played as they were intended" like golf is paint-by-number. What a load of nonsense.

 

And I have no idea how anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of geometry could call someone who hits the fairway 60% of the time at 280 "more accurate" than someone who hits it 50% of the time at 310. The 310 player is WAY more accurate.

 

Yes, I am also surprised, how many stresses personal preferences without looking at the whole picture.

 

If I try to look at the whole picture, I see much more disadvantages and real danger for the game golf, caused by a roll back, than real benefits.

 

If someone wants to protect the perceived past, one should buy the corresponding books, and create his own memory collection,

but leave the reality and others, that want to play now and in future golf, alone.

 

-

 

...and I don't think, that it makes sense for the majority to subdue to the wishes of people, which are driven by envy. :stop:

 

I'm not sure where the reference to longer hitters are less accurate came from, but those who know the game know who the great drivers of the ball are or were. Jack, Greg Norman, Nick Price, Rory, Tiger (early 2000's) and many more. All were long and could work the ball both ways. Guys like Fred Funk and Tim Clarke wouldn't be classed as "great drivers" even though they have probably hit more fairways than most during their careers.

 

Well I'm looking at what's coming, the kids that have been shown the correct technique, how to train. At the moment there are 60 odd guys averaging over 300, if nothing changes then it will soon be a lot higher. Is it more interesting everyone smashing it? Well maybe for some.

 

My intentions may be selfish, but I am not envious, and the game us bigger than anyone person or group. People who love the game will always play it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bye]

Of the last 100 rounds I've played about half were with 3 piece wound and the rest Pro V. Anybody who really wants to understand the nuances and the differences can do the same.The distance is NOT the issue. I'll leave it at that.

 

This is why I said earlier in the thread that the Pro v1 was a masterstoroke. Get the masses to buy the ball that the pros use. The game boxed itself in to corner with this one.

 

If the R&A and USGA were talking about rolling back the balata the masses wouldn't care. Too late now.

 

 

[Sean2]

Of the last 100 rounds I've played about half were with 3 piece wound and the rest Pro V. Anybody who really wants to understand the nuances and the differences can do the same.The distance is NOT the issue. I'll leave it at that.

 

This is why I said earlier in the thread that the Pro v1 was a masterstoroke. Get the masses to buy the ball that the pros use. The game boxed itself in to corner with this one.

 

If the R&A and USGA were talking about rolling back the balata the masses wouldn't care. Too late now.

 

Sometimes after a round I will want a bit more exercise so I will go look for golf balls. I am amazed at how many ProV's I find, not that I am complaining. For example, I currently have 43 dozen ProV1x's and 19 dozen ProV1's...all in very good condition, and none fished out of the water. The less than stellar ones I put in my shag bag.

[Bye]

Of the last 100 rounds I've played about half were with 3 piece wound and the rest Pro V. Anybody who really wants to understand the nuances and the differences can do the same.The distance is NOT the issue. I'll leave it at that.

 

This is why I said earlier in the thread that the Pro v1 was a masterstoroke. Get the masses to buy the ball that the pros use. The game boxed itself in to corner with this one.

 

If the R&A and USGA were talking about rolling back the balata the masses wouldn't care. Too late now.

 

Sometimes after a round I will want a bit more exercise so I will go look for golf balls. I am amazed at how many ProV's I find, not that I am complaining. For example, I currently have 43 dozen ProV1x's and 19 dozen ProV1's...all in very good condition, and none fished out of the water. The less than stellar ones I put in my shag bag.

 

You are well stocked then. You sound very savvy with this and your 8 club bag

 

My friends dad walks his dog on the course he plays on. The dog finds golf balls, my friend has an endless supply of hit once Pro v's, and TPX5's.

 

I remember when the Callaway had sleeves of 5 balls because they had somehow worked out that at the time the average golfer was loosing 4.3 balls per round.

[John L.]

5 piece iron heads?

 

Really?

[storm319]

Of the last 100 rounds I've played about half were with 3 piece wound and the rest Pro V. Anybody who really wants to understand the nuances and the differences can do the same.The distance is NOT the issue. I'll leave it at that.

 

Unless those 15-20+ year old wound balls were stored in a hyperbaric chamber, that is not a fair apples to apple comparison. The inner windings start to breakdown and lose elasticity after 2-3 years (tends to happen faster with balata covers since they are softer and porous). Liquid center cores start to dissolve the rubber casing and balata starts to dry out and crack even under normal environmental conditions. Bottom line, the majority of your perceived distance loss with a wound ball today will be due to its age.

[pinestreetgolf]

I'm not sure where the reference to longer hitters are less accurate came from, but those who know the game know who the great drivers of the ball are or were.

 

You don't need to "know the game". We have shot link. You can go look up who the great drivers of the ball are. Its like basketball now, the statistics are real and make sense. We don't have to "rely on people who know the game" or whatever.

 

A whole, whole lot of people who "know the game" still think a slice is caused by an open club face and that putting is half the game. They're wrong. Most of what people thought about golf before the advent of proper measuring technology was completely ridiculous. We know that in hindsight. Most (all except Homer Kelly, probably) of the "gurus" (including the players) were clueless.

 

Is it more interesting everyone smashing it?

 

Yes.

 

Why does the Champions Tour do an eighth of the ratings of the PGA Tour? If your theory is correct, the Champions Tour should be winning not getting absolutely crushed.

 

The game boxed itself in to corner with this one.

 

Total Tour Prize Purse, 1996 - $101 million

Total Tour Prize Purse, 2017 - about $385 million

 

Golfers over $7 million career earnings, 1996 - 8

Golfers over $7 million career earnings, 2017 - 416

 

Total number of golfers, 1996 - Somewhat hazy, but around 19.5 million

Total number of golfers, 2017 - 25.26 million

 

Equipment Sales, 1996 - 2.1 billion

Equipment Sales, 2016 - Just over 3 billion

 

Yeah, they definitely put themselves in a box with the proV.

[Bye]

I'm not sure where the reference to longer hitters are less accurate came from, but those who know the game know who the great drivers of the ball are or were.

 

You don't need to "know the game". We have shot link. You can go look up who the great drivers of the ball are. Its like basketball now, the statistics are real and make sense. We don't have to "rely on people who know the game" or whatever.

 

A whole, whole lot of people who "know the game" still think a slice is caused by an open club face and that putting is half the game. They're wrong. Most of what people thought about golf before the advent of proper measuring technology was completely ridiculous. We know that in hindsight. Most (all except Homer Kelly, probably) of the "gurus" (including the players) were clueless.

 

Is it more interesting everyone smashing it?

 

Yes.

 

Why does the Champions Tour do an eighth of the ratings of the PGA Tour? If your theory is correct, the Champions Tour should be winning not getting absolutely crushed.

 

The game boxed itself in to corner with this one.

 

Total Tour Prize Purse, 1996 - $101 million

Total Tour Prize Purse, 2017 - about $385 million

 

Golfers over $7 million career earnings, 1996 - 8

Golfers over $7 million career earnings, 2017 - 416

 

Total number of golfers, 1996 - Somewhat hazy, but around 19.5 million

Total number of golfers, 2017 - 25.26 million

 

Equipment Sales, 1996 - 2.1 billion

Equipment Sales, 2016 - Just over 3 billion

 

Yeah, they definitely put themselves in a box with the proV.

 

Well the Champions Tour is not the main event. We only get to see the Majors over here.

 

I seriously doubt more people are playing the game because if the Pro V1, but if that is the case then it's going to be hard to measure and who is to say that wouldn't have happened anyway.

 

My math skills are not the best but 2.1 to 3 Billion in 20 years, isn't that around inflation?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nard_S]

Look, I'll be clearer here......they are Maxfli HT, last generation,1999, w/ 3 piece wound w/ durable skin.......can but them on eBay, NIB.

 

There is little to no distance loss compared to a new Pro V.

 

That is not where the performance difference is. In fact downwind, the HT is longer. Half the rounds I've played in last 3 years were with them, the rest the Pro Vx. Much of my opinion on this is based on that.

[Bye]

Look, I'll be clearer here......they are Maxfli HT, last generation,1999, w/ 3 piece wound w/ durable skin.......can but them on eBay, NIB.

 

There is little to no distance loss compared to a new Pro V.

 

That is not where the performance difference is. In fact downwind, the HT is longer. Half the rounds I've played in last 3 years were with them, the rest the Pro Vx. Much of my opinion on this is based on that.

 

You are probably right, I was a massive fan of the older Maxfli HT, but I didn't like the 1999 model and by this point most of the players like Norman, Faldo, Jack and Seve who played Maxfli had swapped and Titleist had Tiger. It wasn't very popular so it just didn't have the same impact as the Pro v1. Titleist were the first to get the feel right along with the performance.

[pinestreetgolf]

isn't that around inflation?

 

No. Inflation adjustment only works when demand is the only constraint on price (like with a commodity). The most popular driver in 1997 was the Callaway Big Bertha with a sticker at stock of $600 even. Now the most popular driver is the Callaway Epic at $499.99. Irons now are slightly cheaper as well. If anything, the number that should be adjusted is the 2017 number up to account for much cheaper mfg. and retail prices. Of course you can always "adjust for inflation" but its only meaningful if inflation is the only significant variable in the price over time. In this case its actually cheaper now, not more expensive.

 

Look, I'll be clearer here......they are Maxfli HT, last generation,1999, w/ 3 piece wound w/ durable skin.......can but them on eBay, NIB.

 

There is little to no distance loss compared to a new Pro V.

 

Half the rounds I've played in last 3 years were with them, the rest the Pro Vx. Much of my opinion on this is based on that.

 

What did you use to measure distance? How did you factor out wind and roll?

[Nard_S]

isn't that around inflation?

 

No. Inflation adjustment only works when demand is the only constraint on price (like with a commodity). The most popular driver in 1997 was the Callaway Big Bertha with a sticker at stock of $600 even. Now the most popular driver is the Callaway Epic at $499.99. Irons now are slightly cheaper as well. If anything, the number that should be adjusted is the 2017 number up to account for much cheaper mfg. and retail prices. Of course you can always "adjust for inflation" but its only meaningful if inflation is the only significant variable in the price over time. In this case its actually cheaper now, not more expensive.

 

Look, I'll be clearer here......they are Maxfli HT, last generation,1999, w/ 3 piece wound w/ durable skin.......can but them on eBay, NIB.

 

There is little to no distance loss compared to a new Pro V.

 

Half the rounds I've played in last 3 years were with them, the rest the Pro Vx. Much of my opinion on this is based on that.

 

What did you use to measure distance? How did you factor out wind and roll?

 

I've played same course for 25 years, needless to say reading yardages via markers is easy. I hit same club for same distance. There's a pattern ( on solid strikes) where several differences keep showing up. In order of magnitude,

 

1. Wind is more consequential w/ HT from every direction. So distance control and predictability of it is harder.

2. The Pro V rolls better and truer on the green. Line of putt can be more aggressive. HT is more a slave to break.

3 , Curvature on ball due to face/path is slightly more pronounced. The ratio of cause/effect is a bit higher

4. On rare occasion I can back up a Pro Vx but usually ball is a step or two from divot. An HT is usually an extra step away. A B330 S which I used a lot prior is slightly more than both and frankly better off the tee for me than either. Pro Vx is best putting ball I ever used though.

5. Flyer lies are real wild card w/ HT, much more predictable w/ Pro Vx or newer balls.

[rawdog]

isn't that around inflation?

 

No. Inflation adjustment only works when demand is the only constraint on price (like with a commodity). The most popular driver in 1997 was the Callaway Big Bertha with a sticker at stock of $600 even. Now the most popular driver is the Callaway Epic at $499.99. Irons now are slightly cheaper as well. If anything, the number that should be adjusted is the 2017 number up to account for much cheaper mfg. and retail prices. Of course you can always "adjust for inflation" but its only meaningful if inflation is the only significant variable in the price over time. In this case its actually cheaper now, not more expensive.

 

Look, I'll be clearer here......they are Maxfli HT, last generation,1999, w/ 3 piece wound w/ durable skin.......can but them on eBay, NIB.

 

There is little to no distance loss compared to a new Pro V.

 

Half the rounds I've played in last 3 years were with them, the rest the Pro Vx. Much of my opinion on this is based on that.

 

What did you use to measure distance? How did you factor out wind and roll?

 

I've played same course for 25 years, needless to say reading yardages via markers is easy. I hit same club for same distance. There's a pattern ( on solid strikes) where several differences keep showing up. In order of magnitude,

 

1. Wind is more consequential w/ HT from every direction. So distance control and predictability of it is harder.

2. The Pro V rolls better and truer on the green. Line of putt can be more aggressive. HT is more a slave to break.

3 , Curvature on ball due to face/path is slightly more pronounced. The ratio of cause/effect is a bit higher

4. On rare occasion I can back up a Pro Vx but usually ball is a step or two from divot. An HT is usually an extra step away. A B330 S which I used a lot prior is slightly more than both and frankly better off the tee for me than either. Pro Vx is best putting ball I ever used though.

5. Flyer lies are real wild card w/ HT, much more predictable w/ Pro Vx or newer balls.

 

Based on this alone, I should be buying more ProVs. I've been seeking a ball that bucks the laws of gravity.

[Uhit]

...as if a long hitter would have to think less, wouldn't need to be a shot maker, "just" (dumb) bomb and gauge.

 

The farther the ball travels, the more skill you need - in EVERY regard - including shot shaping, course management etc...

 

If I play a course as intended, I don't have to think how I could play the course with my set of skills.

 

Very, very well said. So many in this thread want the "classic courses played as they were intended" like golf is paint-by-number. What a load of nonsense.

 

And I have no idea how anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of geometry could call someone who hits the fairway 60% of the time at 280 "more accurate" than someone who hits it 50% of the time at 310. The 310 player is WAY more accurate.

 

Yes, I am also surprised, how many stresses personal preferences without looking at the whole picture.

 

If I try to look at the whole picture, I see much more disadvantages and real danger for the game golf, caused by a roll back, than real benefits.

 

If someone wants to protect the perceived past, one should buy the corresponding books, and create his own memory collection,

but leave the reality and others, that want to play now and in future golf, alone.

 

-

 

...and I don't think, that it makes sense for the majority to subdue to the wishes of people, which are driven by envy. :stop:

 

I'm not sure where the reference to longer hitters are less accurate came from, but those who know the game know who the great drivers of the ball are or were. Jack, Greg Norman, Nick Price, Rory, Tiger (early 2000's) and many more. All were long and could work the ball both ways. Guys like Fred Funk and Tim Clarke wouldn't be classed as "great drivers" even though they have probably hit more fairways than most during their careers.

 

Well I'm looking at what's coming, the kids that have been shown the correct technique, how to train. At the moment there are 60 odd guys averaging over 300, if nothing changes then it will soon be a lot higher. Is it more interesting everyone smashing it? Well maybe for some.

 

My intentions may be selfish, but I am not envious, and the game us bigger than anyone person or group. People who love the game will always play it.

 

Well, I rather find it odd, that the rest of the field can compete despite they do not average over 300 yards...

 

...anyway, the farther you hit it, the more precise and foresighted you have to play...

 

...and you have to be a better shot maker, to shape the ball a long way around a tree line, or over a dog leg, without direct view on the target area.

 

-

 

The better the archer, the better he can hit a target in far distance...

 

...assuming, that he is able to reach it with a single shot!

[Uhit]

isn't that around inflation?

 

No. Inflation adjustment only works when demand is the only constraint on price (like with a commodity). The most popular driver in 1997 was the Callaway Big Bertha with a sticker at stock of $600 even. Now the most popular driver is the Callaway Epic at $499.99. Irons now are slightly cheaper as well. If anything, the number that should be adjusted is the 2017 number up to account for much cheaper mfg. and retail prices. Of course you can always "adjust for inflation" but its only meaningful if inflation is the only significant variable in the price over time. In this case its actually cheaper now, not more expensive.

 

Look, I'll be clearer here......they are Maxfli HT, last generation,1999, w/ 3 piece wound w/ durable skin.......can but them on eBay, NIB.

 

There is little to no distance loss compared to a new Pro V.

 

Half the rounds I've played in last 3 years were with them, the rest the Pro Vx. Much of my opinion on this is based on that.

 

What did you use to measure distance? How did you factor out wind and roll?

 

I've played same course for 25 years, needless to say reading yardages via markers is easy. I hit same club for same distance. There's a pattern ( on solid strikes) where several differences keep showing up. In order of magnitude,

 

1. Wind is more consequential w/ HT from every direction. So distance control and predictability of it is harder.

2. The Pro V rolls better and truer on the green. Line of putt can be more aggressive. HT is more a slave to break.

3 , Curvature on ball due to face/path is slightly more pronounced. The ratio of cause/effect is a bit higher

4. On rare occasion I can back up a Pro Vx but usually ball is a step or two from divot. An HT is usually an extra step away. A B330 S which I used a lot prior is slightly more than both and frankly better off the tee for me than either. Pro Vx is best putting ball I ever used though.

5. Flyer lies are real wild card w/ HT, much more predictable w/ Pro Vx or newer balls.

 

Based on this alone, I should be buying more ProVs. I've been seeking a ball that bucks the laws of gravity.

 

Maybe you should try the OnCore Elixr instead, with more perimeter weighting, than average balls, like the ProV...

 

...you know, more mass in the perimeter, helps to stabilize the flight, and the roll...

 

...same with a wheel of a bicycle.

 

-

 

I tried it! :golfer:

 

-

 

btw

 

A nice experiment is to rotate a wheel of a bicycle, whilst holding it only with one finger below one end of the axis! :beruo:

[rawdog]

Maybe you should try the OnCore Elixr instead, with more perimeter weighting, than average balls, like the ProV...

 

...you know, more mass in the perimeter, helps to stabilize the flight, and the roll...

 

...same with a wheel of a bicycle.

 

-

 

I tried it! :golfer:

 

-

 

btw

 

A nice experiment is to rotate a wheel of a bicycle, whilst holding it only with one finger below one end of the axis! :beruo:

 

Can't remember if you were a part of this discussion. If not, take a look. We covered the effects of hi-MOI golf balls pretty well here.

 

http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/1542602-what-cracks-me-up-about-this-site/page__st__210

[Uhit]

Maybe you should try the OnCore Elixr instead, with more perimeter weighting, than average balls, like the ProV...

 

...you know, more mass in the perimeter, helps to stabilize the flight, and the roll...

 

...same with a wheel of a bicycle.

 

-

 

I tried it! :golfer:

 

-

 

btw

 

A nice experiment is to rotate a wheel of a bicycle, whilst holding it only with one finger below one end of the axis! :beruo:

 

Can't remember if you were a part of this discussion. If not, take a look. We covered the effects of hi-MOI golf balls pretty well here.

 

http://www.golfwrx.c...e/page__st__210

 

Thank you, but there was not much beef in it except of this link:

 

https://www.youtube....3cQ&app=desktop

 

I liked that ball, except of it's durability (and the feel was only good, but not great).

 

When testing the OnCore Elixr against different balls (including the B XS and the Nassau Range One),

the mentioned balls were noticeably better in regard of distance control and directional stability, than everything else - especially at longer putts over 50 feet.

 

 

Edit:

 

sorry, mismatch feet and yards... :blush:

[pinestreetgolf]

There isn't a human alive who can read greens or aim a putter well enough that the tiny amount of mass multiplied by the force of gravity over the length of the putt matters. Never mind that he's claiming he was able to tell with his naked eye, which is even more ridiculous.

[storm319]

isn't that around inflation?

 

No. Inflation adjustment only works when demand is the only constraint on price (like with a commodity). The most popular driver in 1997 was the Callaway Big Bertha with a sticker at stock of $600 even. Now the most popular driver is the Callaway Epic at $499.99. Irons now are slightly cheaper as well. If anything, the number that should be adjusted is the 2017 number up to account for much cheaper mfg. and retail prices. Of course you can always "adjust for inflation" but its only meaningful if inflation is the only significant variable in the price over time. In this case its actually cheaper now, not more expensive.

 

Look, I'll be clearer here......they are Maxfli HT, last generation,1999, w/ 3 piece wound w/ durable skin.......can but them on eBay, NIB.

 

There is little to no distance loss compared to a new Pro V.

 

Half the rounds I've played in last 3 years were with them, the rest the Pro Vx. Much of my opinion on this is based on that.

 

What did you use to measure distance? How did you factor out wind and roll?

 

I've played same course for 25 years, needless to say reading yardages via markers is easy. I hit same club for same distance. There's a pattern ( on solid strikes) where several differences keep showing up. In order of magnitude,

 

1. Wind is more consequential w/ HT from every direction. So distance control and predictability of it is harder.

2. The Pro V rolls better and truer on the green. Line of putt can be more aggressive. HT is more a slave to break.

3 , Curvature on ball due to face/path is slightly more pronounced. The ratio of cause/effect is a bit higher

4. On rare occasion I can back up a Pro Vx but usually ball is a step or two from divot. An HT is usually an extra step away. A B330 S which I used a lot prior is slightly more than both and frankly better off the tee for me than either. Pro Vx is best putting ball I ever used though.

5. Flyer lies are real wild card w/ HT, much more predictable w/ Pro Vx or newer balls.

 

I am confused because I do not see a complaint here with regards to distance which as Tom pointed out is all that the USGA is focused on. So basically you don't like that solid core, multilayer balls today are too consistent and you miss the inconsistencies attributed with the inefficient construction of past wound balls? Nostalgic about opening a box of wound balls only to find half of them out of round? Rolling back the ball restrictions will not bring those wound inconsistencies back.

[storm319]

There isn't a human alive who can read greens or aim a putter well enough that the tiny amount of mass multiplied by the force of gravity over the length of the putt matters. Never mind that he's claiming he was able to tell with his naked eye, which is even more ridiculous.

 

Agreed. Not to mention he could be striking the ball differently to compensate for the difference in perceived feel between the two balls. Inconsistencies with the wound ball (out of round, off center core) could have an impact as well.

 

What is even more ridiculous are the putting inconsistency complaints while claiming no distance loss off the tee :cheesy:

[Uhit]

There isn't a human alive who can read greens or aim a putter well enough that the tiny amount of mass multiplied by the force of gravity over the length of the putt matters. Never mind that he's claiming he was able to tell with his naked eye, which is even more ridiculous.

 

 

I don't know about you, but if I hit several balls with my putter on a practice green, and some of them end in a distance of above 50 feet in less than 1 yard distance to the hole, and others don't,

I would say, that those balls are better in regard of distance control (in conjunction with me, and my putter).

 

If this is completely attributable to perimeter weighting, or the cover of the ball, or the overall compression, or the balance of the ball (position of COG), or the confidence, or some of those points together, is another question.

 

Because the Range One (a one piece range ball), did perform as well, I think that the balance (concentricity of the layers) probably played a major role in my test.

 

There are enough other test, that show, that the inner manufacturing quality of a ball (read: "balance"), plays a noticeably roll in putting - at least in regard of direction.

 

In regard of distance control, feel is for sure a factor.

 

And if all comes together, it is no surprise, that you can detect a noticeably difference - ok - maybe not everyone every time.

 

-

 

Edit:

 

sorry, mismatch feet and yards... :blush:

[Nard_S]

There isn't a human alive who can read greens or aim a putter well enough that the tiny amount of mass multiplied by the force of gravity over the length of the putt matters. Never mind that he's claiming he was able to tell with his naked eye, which is even more ridiculous.

 

80% of putting is distance control, you have that putts drop. Stats do not lie for me, multiple birdie rounds and low putt count happen w/ pro V more often, they just do and I never been a T fan boy.

[pinestreetgolf]

There isn't a human alive who can read greens or aim a putter well enough that the tiny amount of mass multiplied by the force of gravity over the length of the putt matters. Never mind that he's claiming he was able to tell with his naked eye, which is even more ridiculous.

 

80% of putting is distance control, you have that putts drop. Stats do not lie for me, multiple birdie rounds and low putt count happen w/ pro V more often, they just do and I never been a T fan boy.

 

That isn't how statistics work. If you shoot a 60 with the top flite and an 80 with the proV that doesn't mean the top flite caused it, it means you happened to be using it when you shot the 60. You're going to get an uneven distribution of made putts with both balls. If you flip a thousand coins you won't get exactly 500 heads and exactly 500 tails, but its still the same likelihood of either on the next flip. Similarly, if you putt a bunch of balls with the ProVs and the other ball you will make more of one (you have to, just like the coin) but it tells you zero about which is more likely (just like the coin).

 

"Hey, i flipped a coin a million times and got 680,000 heads. All those math idiots are wrong its not 50/50 at all."

 

There isn't a human alive who can read greens or aim a putter well enough that the tiny amount of mass multiplied by the force of gravity over the length of the putt matters. Never mind that he's claiming he was able to tell with his naked eye, which is even more ridiculous.

 

 

I don't know about you, but if I hit several balls with my putter on a practice green, and some of them end in a distance of above 50 feet in less than 1 yard distance to the hole, and others don't,

I would say, that those balls are better in regard of distance control (in conjunction with me, and my putter).

 

If this is completely attributable to perimeter weighting, or the cover of the ball, or the overall compression, or the balance of the ball (position of COG), or the confidence, or some of those points together, is another question.

 

Because the Range One (a one piece range ball), did perform as well, I think that the balance (concentricity of the layers) probably played a major role in my test.

 

There are enough other test, that show, that the inner manufacturing quality of a ball (read: "balance"), plays a noticeably roll in putting - at least in regard of direction.

 

In regard of distance control, feel is for sure a factor.

 

And if all comes together, it is no surprise, that you can detect a noticeably difference - ok - maybe not everyone every time.

 

-

 

Edit:

 

sorry, mismatch feet and yards... :blush:

 

Nobody would argue that the ball/feel is irrelevant to putting. He claimed that a ball was resistant to break at a different rate i.e. it was effected by Earth's gravity less than the other ball.

[storm319]

There isn't a human alive who can read greens or aim a putter well enough that the tiny amount of mass multiplied by the force of gravity over the length of the putt matters. Never mind that he's claiming he was able to tell with his naked eye, which is even more ridiculous.

 

80% of putting is distance control, you have that putts drop. Stats do not lie for me, multiple birdie rounds and low putt count happen w/ pro V more often, they just do and I never been a T fan boy.

 

That isn't how statistics work. If you shoot a 60 with the top flite and an 80 with the proV that doesn't mean the top flite caused it, it means you happened to be using it when you shot the 60. You're going to get an uneven distribution of made putts with both balls. If you flip a thousand coins you won't get exactly 500 heads and exactly 500 tails, but its still the same likelihood of either on the next flip. Similarly, if you putt a bunch of balls with the ProVs and the other ball you will make more of one (you have to, just like the coin) but it tells you zero about which is more likely (just like the coin).

 

"Hey, i flipped a coin a million times and got 680,000 heads. All those math idiots are wrong its not 50/50 at all."

 

[nsxguy]

The problem is joe six pack seeing dj hit 350+ yard drives and thinks he can do it. So joe goes and buys $500 latest and greatest driver and first thing he does is goes to the back tees. Then he proceeds to fire off an over the top old man missile that starts out 20 yards left 30 feet off the ground cuts back across the fairway and ends up 207 yards out and 48 yards right of fairway. “Mustve ballooned on me, shouldve got the exter flex”.

 

don't sell six-pack abs short

 

[Uhit]

There isn't a human alive who can read greens or aim a putter well enough that the tiny amount of mass multiplied by the force of gravity over the length of the putt matters. Never mind that he's claiming he was able to tell with his naked eye, which is even more ridiculous.

 

80% of putting is distance control, you have that putts drop. Stats do not lie for me, multiple birdie rounds and low putt count happen w/ pro V more often, they just do and I never been a T fan boy.

 

That isn't how statistics work. If you shoot a 60 with the top flite and an 80 with the proV that doesn't mean the top flite caused it, it means you happened to be using it when you shot the 60. You're going to get an uneven distribution of made putts with both balls. If you flip a thousand coins you won't get exactly 500 heads and exactly 500 tails, but its still the same likelihood of either on the next flip. Similarly, if you putt a bunch of balls with the ProVs and the other ball you will make more of one (you have to, just like the coin) but it tells you zero about which is more likely (just like the coin).

 

"Hey, i flipped a coin a million times and got 680,000 heads. All those math idiots are wrong its not 50/50 at all."

 

There isn't a human alive who can read greens or aim a putter well enough that the tiny amount of mass multiplied by the force of gravity over the length of the putt matters. Never mind that he's claiming he was able to tell with his naked eye, which is even more ridiculous.

 

 

I don't know about you, but if I hit several balls with my putter on a practice green, and some of them end in a distance of above 50 feet in less than 1 yard distance to the hole, and others don't,

I would say, that those balls are better in regard of distance control (in conjunction with me, and my putter).

 

If this is completely attributable to perimeter weighting, or the cover of the ball, or the overall compression, or the balance of the ball (position of COG), or the confidence, or some of those points together, is another question.

 

Because the Range One (a one piece range ball), did perform as well, I think that the balance (concentricity of the layers) probably played a major role in my test.

 

There are enough other test, that show, that the inner manufacturing quality of a ball (read: "balance"), plays a noticeably roll in putting - at least in regard of direction.

 

In regard of distance control, feel is for sure a factor.

 

And if all comes together, it is no surprise, that you can detect a noticeably difference - ok - maybe not everyone every time.

 

-

 

Edit:

 

sorry, mismatch feet and yards... :blush:

 

Nobody would argue that the ball/feel is irrelevant to putting. He claimed that a ball was resistant to break at a different rate i.e. it was effected by Earth's gravity less than the other ball.

 

I think, that he may have misinterpreted the things he has perceived whilst testing balls.

 

I also think, that a ball, that has more perimeter weighting (higher MOI at the same speed) is less prone to be deviated by irregularities on the green - especially on long puts.

 

However, in my experience, a ProV has no advantage in this regard.

[Nard_S]

Putt lines are a function of speed. That it is what I meant by "80%".

 

Whatever, ..........thanks you guys cured me.