My Golf Spy Ball Test - General Discussion

[arbeck]

> @Godfather said:

> Spin axis differences between balls are interesting as that can only be the strike and not the ball.

 

I imagine that the core misaligned by even just fractions of a millimeter might cause the spin axis to tilt.

[Myherobobhope]

> @arbeck said:

> > @Godfather said:

> > Spin axis differences between balls are interesting as that can only be the strike and not the ball.

>

> I imagine that the core misaligned by even just fractions of a millimeter might cause the spin axis to tilt.

 

I wish they had tested the maxfli on the seam against not on the seam

[GoGoErky]

> @T-MAC said:

> I love it when they suggest that people need to forget about FEEL!

> Forget about feel? In Golf?? LOL!

> I've tried just about every ball out there. I used to be a ProV1 guy for years. Then I switched over to the Bridgestone B330S, then went to the RX when they came out (I prefer a softer feel). A couple years ago I switched to the Chrome Soft and love them. Every year I go out and buy the "new" models of several manufacturers to give them a try. This year I've been playing the new Bridgestone RX and RXS along with the Taylormade TP5. I keep going back to the Chrome Soft because I prefer the feel and the way it performs around the green. My swing speed is in the low 100's with the driver and I haven't noticed a heck of a lot of difference in distance with any of the balls that I try.

> Sorry, but I'm not going to let the "test" change my mind about what golf ball I play and I think it is utterly ridiculous that these "golf guys" are suggesting we golfers forget about "feel".

> They said the same thing when I told them I thought the putter they chose as the "best" felt like a brick and I couldn't putt with it.

> I guess the guys at **** have hands of brick.

 

Most golfers associate feel with sound.

[North Butte]

> @GoGoErky said:

> > @T-MAC said:

> > I love it when they suggest that people need to forget about FEEL!

> > Forget about feel? In Golf?? LOL!

> > I've tried just about every ball out there. I used to be a ProV1 guy for years. Then I switched over to the Bridgestone B330S, then went to the RX when they came out (I prefer a softer feel). A couple years ago I switched to the Chrome Soft and love them. Every year I go out and buy the "new" models of several manufacturers to give them a try. This year I've been playing the new Bridgestone RX and RXS along with the Taylormade TP5. I keep going back to the Chrome Soft because I prefer the feel and the way it performs around the green. My swing speed is in the low 100's with the driver and I haven't noticed a heck of a lot of difference in distance with any of the balls that I try.

> > Sorry, but I'm not going to let the "test" change my mind about what golf ball I play and I think it is utterly ridiculous that these "golf guys" are suggesting we golfers forget about "feel".

> > They said the same thing when I told them I thought the putter they chose as the "best" felt like a brick and I couldn't putt with it.

> > I guess the guys at **** have hands of brick.

>

> Most golfers associate feel with sound.

 

It was established 40 years ago that if you take a "feel" player and have him wear earmuffs, he suddenly can't "feel" anything. It doesn't mean he has "hands of brick", it's just that what golfers call "feel" is actually sound.

 

Golfers like the way "soft" balls and "soft" golf clubs sound at impact. That preference is why every manufacturer spends huge amounts of money and effort fine tuning the sound that their products produce. Sound can make or break the market acceptance of a golf ball or golf club.

 

[Lodestone]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @TheCityGame said:

>

> > For the record, my process is basically this : Even as a low single digit, I don't think that with my 102mph swing speed and the variability of my swing that a ball amounts to much of an effect on my score. I generally hit my approach shots high enough and play on soft greens that spin doesn't make a big difference on approaches. On green side shots, I'm also more likely to rely on trajectory than spin to control my run-out. But, I rely on spin enough that I don't care for a 2-piece surlyn ball.

> >

> > **Given all that, I'm just not going to spend $45+ a dozen on golf balls. Just like I don't buy new clubs each year.**

>

> How much do you generally pay for a round of golf ?

>

I can relate to both the original post and the response. I played a ton of golf in my 20s, through my 40s, on a tight course and lost a lot of balls. Also found a lot of balls. Also I didn't have a surplus of $ to spend on balls. And frankly, my performance didn't seem to change much as the dozen new balls I started with in the bag somehow mutated into a dozen or so "found" balls of assorted brands. My first ace was in 1978, with a "Black Titleist" I had found in the tall grass on the previous hole. It was what we used to call a "gray brain", which described what it looked like. In those days the pro shop wanted the ball, and would include it in a little trophy. Most people thought it was a joke that I had put this "gray brain" into a Hole-In-One trophy.

I took 10 years off from golf, and got back into it 7 years ago and while I have more money now, I am still a cheapskate, so while I decided I would play one ball, and it would be ProV1, I would buy used balls. I've only dabbled rarely with some decent "found" balls. Still doesn't seem to matter.

My supply of the used ProV1s is down to the point I needed to decided what to do next. I did the math. I calculated how many I lose (not many), vs. how many just get old and yellow and scratched up. I calculated all of the other dollars I spend to play this game, and decided that golf balls is a pretty small fraction of the cost.

So I went with the 4 for 3 Titleist deal on the Prov1s.

 

I think the best application for the test is to see if the ball you've been using, or any ball you've been thinking of trying out (in my case the Snells) has any glaring performance characteristics that you might keep in mind. In my case I'll probably spring for a dozen Snells and see how I like them.

[TheCityGame]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @TheCityGame said:

>

> > For the record, my process is basically this : Even as a low single digit, I don't think that with my 102mph swing speed and the variability of my swing that a ball amounts to much of an effect on my score. I generally hit my approach shots high enough and play on soft greens that spin doesn't make a big difference on approaches. On green side shots, I'm also more likely to rely on trajectory than spin to control my run-out. But, I rely on spin enough that I don't care for a 2-piece surlyn ball.

> >

> > **Given all that, I'm just not going to spend $45+ a dozen on golf balls. Just like I don't buy new clubs each year.**

>

> How much do you generally pay for a round of golf ?

>

 

These days I'm a member somewhere, so it's complicated. But, I will say this : if I had a local course that was $30 for 18 holes and it was virtually indistinguishable from a course that was $45 per round, I sure as h*ck wouldn't play that 45 dollar course very often.

[GolfTurkey]

I have three takeaways from the test other than the ball data / rankings:

1. It shows that it's absolutely nuts to aim straight at the flag, even for a robot, so I certainly won't be doing it in future. I'm signing up with DEKADE tonight!

2. Any individual shot' s flight at the range has to be viewed suspiciously, unless the balls are of unusually high quality and in pristine condition.

3. There may be method to the madness of BDC testing every ball in advance and of pro's who throw the ball away after a bad hole.

[rybo]

Couple of thoughts

 

The test shows what works for a given set of swing variables, and most likely they are vastly different then what any of us produce. Take two golfers both have 115mph swings, one is low spin producer the other is a high spin producer......different balls will work best for each.

 

No information on the exact heads and shafts used.

 

Chrome Soft did quite well in both the 7 iron and wedge segments.

 

They weigh distance much too high in all of their tests. Their hybrid test was quite telling, the Cobra King Oversized tested to have exceptional accuracy (something you want from a hybrid) and tested within 6 yards of carry distance from 1st .....did not even place.

 

If they really want to test max distance then the next test should have the robot set up to each individual ball. Titleist has two premium balls that are pretty much used at 50/50 on tour, because one ball doesn't fit everyone!

 

 

[North Butte]

> @rybo said:

> Couple of thoughts

>

> The test shows what works for a given set of swing variables, and most likely they are vastly different then what any of us produce. Take two golfers both have 115mph swings, one is low spin producer the other is a high spin producer......different balls will work best for each.

>

> No information on the exact heads and shafts used.

>

> Chrome Soft did quite well in both the 7 iron and wedge segments.

>

> They weigh distance much too high in all of their tests. Their hybrid test was quite telling, the Cobra King Oversized tested to have exceptional accuracy (something you want from a hybrid) and tested within 6 yards of carry distance from 1st .....did not even place.

>

> If they really want to test max distance then the next test should have the robot set up to each individual ball. Titleist has two premium balls that are pretty much used at 50/50 on tour, because one ball doesn't fit everyone!

>

>

 

To me it looks like they hit just about enough balls to discern general trends and tendencies in distance and spin. Not necessarily large enough samples to tease out small differences between specific ball models but enough to establish the broad strokes of distance and spin performance.

 

They would have needed to hit something like 10x or 20x as many shots under much better controlled conditions to even speculate as to relative "accuracy" or "dispersion" of different balls, much less to quantify degree of shot-to-shot variability. So make what you will of the distance and spin numbers but the "accuracy" stuff is purely speculative and anecdotal.

 

Quantifying variability or frequency of rare events takes truly enormous sample sizes. Quantifying average or typical performance with reasonable uncertainty levels is by comparison far easier.

[T-MAC]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @GoGoErky said:

> > > @T-MAC said:

> > > I love it when they suggest that people need to forget about FEEL!

> > > Forget about feel? In Golf?? LOL!

> > > I've tried just about every ball out there. I used to be a ProV1 guy for years. Then I switched over to the Bridgestone B330S, then went to the RX when they came out (I prefer a softer feel). A couple years ago I switched to the Chrome Soft and love them. Every year I go out and buy the "new" models of several manufacturers to give them a try. This year I've been playing the new Bridgestone RX and RXS along with the Taylormade TP5. I keep going back to the Chrome Soft because I prefer the feel and the way it performs around the green. My swing speed is in the low 100's with the driver and I haven't noticed a heck of a lot of difference in distance with any of the balls that I try.

> > > Sorry, but I'm not going to let the "test" change my mind about what golf ball I play and I think it is utterly ridiculous that these "golf guys" are suggesting we golfers forget about "feel".

> > > They said the same thing when I told them I thought the putter they chose as the "best" felt like a brick and I couldn't putt with it.

> > > I guess the guys at **** have hands of brick.

> >

> > Most golfers associate feel with sound.

>

> It was established 40 years ago that if you take a "feel" player and have him wear earmuffs, he suddenly can't "feel" anything. It doesn't mean he has "hands of brick", it's just that what golfers call "feel" is actually sound.

>

> Golfers like the way "soft" balls and "soft" golf clubs sound at impact. That preference is why every manufacturer spends huge amounts of money and effort fine tuning the sound that their products produce. Sound can make or break the market acceptance of a golf ball or golf club.

>

 

I'm a feel player. I often go to the range with my headphones and sometimes I'll go play a couple holes before returning home. I can tell the difference between the range balls, a Titleist ProV1x, and a Chrome Soft when I hit them off driver, irons, or putter - and that's while I'm listening to music. I can also tell the difference between putters, especially carbon and SS - while listening to music.

Truth is, some people have good feel and use that to their advantage, and some people have hands of brick.

If the MGS guys don't think feel plays a significant role in golf, then they have hands of brick.

[North Butte]

And yet when they take a dozen people like yourself, give them blank golf balls and block their ears they can't tell one ball from the other. Go figure!

 

I know from my wasted youth hanging around high end audio shops, if you try hard enough you can hear (or feel) anything that you're convinced is there. Belief is the most powerful force that human being ever encounter.

[mmack067]

> @T-MAC said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > > @GoGoErky said:

> > > > @T-MAC said:

> > > > I love it when they suggest that people need to forget about FEEL!

> > > > Forget about feel? In Golf?? LOL!

> > > > I've tried just about every ball out there. I used to be a ProV1 guy for years. Then I switched over to the Bridgestone B330S, then went to the RX when they came out (I prefer a softer feel). A couple years ago I switched to the Chrome Soft and love them. Every year I go out and buy the "new" models of several manufacturers to give them a try. This year I've been playing the new Bridgestone RX and RXS along with the Taylormade TP5. I keep going back to the Chrome Soft because I prefer the feel and the way it performs around the green. My swing speed is in the low 100's with the driver and I haven't noticed a heck of a lot of difference in distance with any of the balls that I try.

> > > > Sorry, but I'm not going to let the "test" change my mind about what golf ball I play and I think it is utterly ridiculous that these "golf guys" are suggesting we golfers forget about "feel".

> > > > They said the same thing when I told them I thought the putter they chose as the "best" felt like a brick and I couldn't putt with it.

> > > > I guess the guys at **** have hands of brick.

> > >

> > > Most golfers associate feel with sound.

> >

> > It was established 40 years ago that if you take a "feel" player and have him wear earmuffs, he suddenly can't "feel" anything. It doesn't mean he has "hands of brick", it's just that what golfers call "feel" is actually sound.

> >

> > Golfers like the way "soft" balls and "soft" golf clubs sound at impact. That preference is why every manufacturer spends huge amounts of money and effort fine tuning the sound that their products produce. Sound can make or break the market acceptance of a golf ball or golf club.

> >

>

> I'm a feel player. I often go to the range with my headphones and sometimes I'll go play a couple holes before returning home. I can tell the difference between the range balls, a Titleist ProV1x, and a Chrome Soft when I hit them off driver, irons, or putter - and that's while I'm listening to music. I can also tell the difference between putters, especially carbon and SS - while listening to music.

> Truth is, some people have good feel and use that to their advantage, and some people have hands of brick.

> If the **** guys don't think feel plays a significant role in golf, then they have hands of brick.

 

Let's assume that what you just said is true. How do you use "feel" as an advantage? If you can detect vibrations up the shaft at a certain rate better than someone else, how does this actually relate to on course performance and expected score?

[Z1ggy16]

I found the test very interesting. People still need to get fit though...This test showed the Chrome Soft X spinning fairly low-ish for 7i, but when I tested it on GCQ it spun more than any other ball in the shop. The TP5X also spun insanely low compared to Chrome Soft X, but I ended up using that because I got better speeds, and with soft public greens, I don't have any issue playing my 7i with 5800 spin because I can launch the ball high enough to get a good descent angle.

 

Will I be going out and buying 6 dozen MTB-X's tomorrow? No. Will I maybe try to find a sleeve online or something to try it out? Sure. If I can gain 5 or 6 yards on a drive, that makes up for 5-6 yards I might lose due to higher spin off my irons compared to TP5x.

 

The number one thing this did make me think about though is buying used balls of LGB.com. I started buying there years ago because as a hack, I was easily losing 4 or 5 balls a round (some days more) and I'd go through 6 dozen balls or something per year. But now that I've gotten many lessons and I'm almost to single digit index, I'm rarely losing balls. It might be time to start buying new if even brand new balls aren't flying straight using a robot. Who knows what a used ball might be causing.

[arbeck]

> @rybo said:

> Couple of thoughts

>

> The test shows what works for a given set of swing variables, and most likely they are vastly different then what any of us produce. Take two golfers both have 115mph swings, one is low spin producer the other is a high spin producer......different balls will work best for each.

>

> No information on the exact heads and shafts used.

>

> Chrome Soft did quite well in both the 7 iron and wedge segments.

>

> They weigh distance much too high in all of their tests. Their hybrid test was quite telling, the Cobra King Oversized tested to have exceptional accuracy (something you want from a hybrid) and tested within 6 yards of carry distance from 1st .....did not even place.

>

> If they really want to test max distance then the next test should have the robot set up to each individual ball. Titleist has two premium balls that are pretty much used at 50/50 on tour, because one ball doesn't fit everyone!

>

>

 

I don't understand why your first two points make a difference. The shafts and heads they use are irrelevant. A ball that is slow with shaft A will be slow with shaft B. It might pick up more ball speed, but so will the faster ball. Yes, different balls will work for different people, and they give you the information here to pick the ball best for you. For instance I learned that the balls I mostly use (Wilson Duo U and Srixon Q Star Tour) are hurting me with spin on irons and wedges and making me give up distance off the driver. Not a ton, but enough that I shouldn't use them. If you are a high swing speed player who generates a ton of spin though and can give up a few yards of distance, they might work out well for you. For me, I know I really don't like the way the balls feel/sound once they approach the V1x/XV level of firmness. So I'm picking the ball that performs best at the 100ish compression range.

 

The Chromesoft isn't an awful ball. It still spins alright, but things like the ProV1, Srixon Z Star, and Bridgestone R XS perform better with spin on wedges and irons. And you don't lose any ball speed with the driver. Most golfers aren't going to notice the difference, but it is there.

 

When testing clubs they aren't weighing any of the individual categories more than others. They're basically setting up a hole, having people hit shots, and compiling the strokes gained for each club. If you think strokes gained weighs distance too much, you can argue that. But most everyone accepts strokes gained as the gold standard.

 

Setting up a robot to maximize each ball would tell us nothing. The idea is to know which balls launch higher, which ones spin more, which ones have the best ball speeds and then try to fit them to our game. Or pick the ball you like the feel of and fit your equipment around that ball (though with the way the manufacturers change the ball from year to year, I'm not sure this is the best bet). A competent fitter could probably make any of the top 10 balls work best for you by fitting your equipment around it. I'm also not sure your Titleist example is very good. The V1 and V1x perform almost identically. I would say the differences between them could easily come down to the margin of error of the test or manufacturing tolerances. The only difference is really feel. Titleist seems to believe that there really is one best ball and their balls should perform a certain way to achieve that, then you can pick the one you like the feel of better.

[TheCityGame]

> @GolfTurkey said:

> I have three takeaways from the test other than the ball data / rankings:

> 1. It shows that it's absolutely nuts to aim straight at the flag, even for a robot, so I certainly won't be doing it in future. I'm signing up with DEKADE tonight!

I can't imagine a more wrong thing to take away from that study.

 

[GolfTurkey]

> @TheCityGame said:

> > @GolfTurkey said:

> > I have three takeaways from the test other than the ball data / rankings:

> > 1. It shows that it's absolutely nuts to aim straight at the flag, even for a robot, so I certainly won't be doing it in future. I'm signing up with DEKADE tonight!

> I can't imagine a more wrong thing to take away from that study.

>

 

I can tell that you’re wearing black shoes?

[Celeras]

> @rybo said:

 

> They weigh distance much too high in all of their tests. Their hybrid test was quite telling, the Cobra King Oversized tested to have exceptional accuracy (something you want from a hybrid) and tested within 6 yards of carry distance from 1st .....did not even place.

>

>

Two words for you: Strokes Gained.

 

[nsxguy]

> @TheCityGame said:

> > @nsxguy said:

> > > @TheCityGame said:

> >

> > > For the record, my process is basically this : Even as a low single digit, I don't think that with my 102mph swing speed and the variability of my swing that a ball amounts to much of an effect on my score. I generally hit my approach shots high enough and play on soft greens that spin doesn't make a big difference on approaches. On green side shots, I'm also more likely to rely on trajectory than spin to control my run-out. But, I rely on spin enough that I don't care for a 2-piece surlyn ball.

> > >

> > > **Given all that, I'm just not going to spend $45+ a dozen on golf balls. Just like I don't buy new clubs each year.**

> >

> > How much do you generally pay for a round of golf ?

> >

>

> These days I'm a member somewhere, so it's complicated. But, I will say this : if I had a local course that was $30 for 18 holes and it was virtually indistinguishable from a course that was $45 per round, I sure as h*ck wouldn't play that 45 dollar course very often.

 

Ahhh, so you don't know then ?

 

OK, let's say $40. Is that fair ?

 

And since you didn't say what you WOULD pay for a dozen balls, let's say $25.

 

Given you're a "2" (was it ?) you probably don't lose many and most rounds play a single ball.

 

So you pay $40 to play a round of golf, are very serious about it (this is an assumption because I don't know very many 2s who aren't serious about their games) and you would sacrifice what might be the best possible ball for your game for $1-2 per ROUND ?

 

Now if you were the udder guy who posted who ~~uses~~ loses 3-4 balls per round I could certainly understand that.

 

I guess I just don't understand this sort of thinking.

[dcmidnight]

I think you are completely missing what I believe is @TheCityGame s point.

 

The round cost in his example is a metaphor for the cost of two brands of golf balls, he's saying if the more expensive one is indistinguishable from the less exepensive, he's not inclined to play the more expensive one. Emphasis on indistinguishable.

[North Butte]

> @dcmidnight said:

> I think you are completely missing what I believe is @TheCityGame s point.

>

> The round cost in his example is a metaphor for the cost of two brands of golf balls, he's saying if the more expensive one is indistinguishable from the less exepensive, he's not inclined to play the more expensive one. Emphasis on indistinguishable.

 

And something like 3 yards of driver distance or 200rpm of wedge spin qualifies as "indistinguishable" in any real-world test. If there's a ball that I was convinced actually cost me (with my puny, slow swing) something like 6, 8, 10 yards of distance or if it spins 1,000rpm less off the wedges then I wouldn't care if the ball were free. I'd keep playing a Snell or ProV or TP5 or whatever works best. But you can't conclude that there's a meaningful difference in two balls that show tiny differences in performance and I sure wouldn't pay twice as much for a ball just for what (appeared to be) a difference of one percent or so in performance on one test.

[dcmidnight]

> @"North Butte" said:

> And something like 3 yards of driver distance or 200rpm of wedge spin qualifies as "indistinguishable" in any real-world test. If there's a ball that I was convinced actually cost me (with my puny, slow swing) something like 6, 8, 10 yards of distance or if it spins 1,000rpm less off the wedges then I wouldn't care if the ball were free. I'd keep playing a Snell or ProV or TP5 or whatever works best. But you can't conclude that there's a meaningful difference in two balls that show tiny differences in performance and I sure wouldn't pay twice as much for a ball just for what (appeared to be) a difference of one percent or so in performance on one test.

 

Couldnt agree more.

[arbeck]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @dcmidnight said:

> > I think you are completely missing what I believe is @TheCityGame s point.

> >

> > The round cost in his example is a metaphor for the cost of two brands of golf balls, he's saying if the more expensive one is indistinguishable from the less exepensive, he's not inclined to play the more expensive one. Emphasis on indistinguishable.

>

> And something like 3 yards of driver distance or 200rpm of wedge spin qualifies as "indistinguishable" in any real-world test. If there's a ball that I was convinced actually cost me (with my puny, slow swing) something like 6, 8, 10 yards of distance or if it spins 1,000rpm less off the wedges then I wouldn't care if the ball were free. I'd keep playing a Snell or ProV or TP5 or whatever works best. But you can't conclude that there's a meaningful difference in two balls that show tiny differences in performance and I sure wouldn't pay twice as much for a ball just for what (appeared to be) a difference of one percent or so in performance on one test.

 

I mostly agree with this. For instance, the MaxFli Tour, ProV1, Srixon Z Star, Snell MTB, Taylormade TP5, and Bridgestone Tour B XS all have basically indistinguishable numbers. They're all in the compression range I can tolerate the feel of. None of them are really going to cost me anything. However the MaxFli had a much larger area of dispersion on the driver. The Snell MTB-X also showed this off the driver. That leads me to believe that the QC on those balls might not be quite as good. The ProV1 and TP5 are much more expensive that the Bridgestone and Srixon. I can subscribe and save on Amazon to the Bridgestone and get them for about $36/dozen. That puts them in the same range as the Snell and the MaxFli. So, I'm going to start playing the Bridgestone.

[Tizod]

> @Krt22 said:

> I wonder if that was just environmental influences. > @battlewagon said:

> > > @Krt22 said:

> > > Yes they are great, but pretty happy with my zstar XV durability. The test also confirmed that the Cut Blue is garbage. I ordered a sleeve to test and cut every single one with wedge shots. Was wondering if that is why they named the company cut lol

> >

> > It's really funny you say that and your results have lined up with the test. However, I've been playing Cut Blue for over a year exclusively and have never once cut one of them with a wedge. I just lost a ball I had played with for at least 2.5 rounds and it had not a blemish on it. Now, that being said I'm a pretty slow-swing kind of guy, and maybe that impacts the results a little. But for the price I'll take the Cut Blue every single time.

> >

> > That is the key point here with these kind of tests. It really is completely up to the individual and people shouldn't put so much stock in these tests. It's input sure...but it's just one of dozens of inputs that you should review and not be taken as the be-all end-all.

>

> Yeah I am a higher speed player (Driver peaks at 115ish mph). I don't even typically take full wedge shots but I cut every single ball in the sleeve within one round. They would end up being more expensive for me since the cuts were large enough to go right into the shag bag. I had the same issue with the original TP5X, so far the Z-star and Pro V1 hold are holding up the best

 

I am not a high speed player. I am a very average 90ish MPH SS, 12 handicap with Wedges that are a couple of years old. I mentioned before, I tried a Cut Blue and on the second hole, after a full wedge into a green, I went to mark my ball and found the cover completely shredded to the point I could actually peel it off. Never seen anything like that in all my years of playing.

 

As someone else mentioned, TXG did a video recently where they compared the 2018 Blue to the 2019 and they saw very different results in terms of the balls spin rates (the 2018 spun much higher). I am convinced that there was some sort of production or design issue with the 2018 which resulted in a crazy amount of spin at the cost of a very fragile cover which they have since quietly corrected.

[cpeck]

@arbeck just throwin this out there, plenty of sellers with them list at 30 or better shipped on tour bxs on ebay.

 

https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F264304111872

[jjfcpa]

> @TheCityGame said:

> They did not report their sample sizes in the text of the document, or the video. And, they were asked in the comments about sample sizes and didn't answer.

>

> Now, it's possible they tested every ball 10 times (for instance) and sometimes they threw out 3 results and sometimes they threw out 0 results so they don't have a pat answer. But, this, in no way, would invalidate the data. It just makes certain hypothesis tests more difficult for an outsider.

>

> A little bit of GEEK SPEAK coming, but there's no way around it in this discussion. . .

>

> They did report their standard deviations (second page of their tables. You can click on the tabs at the top). I assume these are "Sample Standard Deviations" (estimates of the "true" std devs based on the sample)

>

> BUT, not knowing the sample size can make a difference. For instance, I tested the "NULL HYPOTHESIS" : "Speed of MTB-X" is equal to "Speed of Pro V1x". (generally in statistics, you set up your tests under the assumption that two things are equal and see if you can disprove that.)

>

> **Or in the common tongue, "is there a significant difference between the MTB-X and the Pro V1x?"**

>

> To be VERY loose with the statistical language here. . .

>

> If the sample sizes are 10 for each ball, we can be about 98% sure the MTB-X has higher speed than the Pro V1x.

>

> If the sample sizes are 2 for each ball, we can be about 64% sure the MTB-X has higher speeds. (2 is the lowest number you can use and still estimate a standard deviation, so they definitely used at least 2).

>

> For the 2 highest balls, MTB-X vs Mizuno RB Tour X, the numbers are similar (98% sure if the sample sizes are 10). The reason this doesn't change much is that the balls are closer in speed, but the SD of the mizuno is smaller.

>

> To test this yourself, go to

>

> https://www.medcalc.org/calc/comparison_of_means.php (for instance)

>

> put in the average ball speed and std deviation for each ball you want to compare and 'make up' your sample size.

>

> Last thought : it's kind of interesting to sort by standard deviation. For instance, you can sort by "standard deviation" on carry distance and offline distance for a 7 iron at either speed. Gives an idea of which balls perform more consistently (of course, this factor is completely overwhelmed by the variability in the input of the human).

 

Provocative to say the least and it would have been useful had they indicated the sample size. I did get the impression that they did do some re-testing, especially when they referred to some balls going 40 yards offline with the driver, when they expected it to be on top of the previous ball based on brand.

 

I also wish they would have talked about the Oncore Elixir a little more because it seems to have tested very well and it sort of goes against the grain since it is a relatively soft ball but had good distance. It definitely seems to be an outlier and worth considering if you have a slow swing speed and like to hit a softer ball. They are also a great value - which they didn't indicate - when you can currently buy them for $ 25 a dozen under their current promotion (I've gotten numerous emails).

[arbeck]

> @cpeck said:

> @arbeck just throwin this out there, plenty of sellers with them list at 30 or better shipped on tour bxs on ebay.

>

> https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F264304111872

 

Yeah, I know if I can shop around I can get a deal. And I am going to by a few dozen at a time when they do specials or a find an exceptional deal. But the ease of having Amazon ship me a box every couple of months is worth a few dollars to me. Plus the more I subscribe to, the more I save. So adding the balls on Amazon, might have bumped me to 15% savings on another item or two. I also don't want to buy too many at a time, because I still have some Duo U's and Q Star Tours I need to use. While I now know that those balls aren't the best for me, they're good enough to use in fun rounds, on par 3 courses, and on other short courses where I don't really hit driver.

[TheCityGame]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @TheCityGame said:

> > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > @TheCityGame said:

> > >

> > > > For the record, my process is basically this : Even as a low single digit, I don't think that with my 102mph swing speed and the variability of my swing that a ball amounts to much of an effect on my score. I generally hit my approach shots high enough and play on soft greens that spin doesn't make a big difference on approaches. On green side shots, I'm also more likely to rely on trajectory than spin to control my run-out. But, I rely on spin enough that I don't care for a 2-piece surlyn ball.

> > > >

> > > > **Given all that, I'm just not going to spend $45+ a dozen on golf balls. Just like I don't buy new clubs each year.**

> > >

> > > How much do you generally pay for a round of golf ?

> > >

> >

> > These days I'm a member somewhere, so it's complicated. But, I will say this : if I had a local course that was $30 for 18 holes and it was virtually indistinguishable from a course that was $45 per round, I sure as h*ck wouldn't play that 45 dollar course very often.

>

> Ahhh, so you don't know then ?

>

> OK, let's say $40. Is that fair ?

>

> And since you didn't say what you WOULD pay for a dozen balls, let's say $25.

>

> Given you're a "2" (was it ?) you probably don't lose many and most rounds play a single ball.

>

> So you pay $40 to play a round of golf, are very serious about it (this is an assumption because I don't know very many 2s who aren't serious about their games) and you would sacrifice what might be the best possible ball for your game for $1-2 per ROUND ?

>

> Now if you were the udder guy who posted who ~~uses~~ loses 3-4 balls per round I could certainly understand that.

>

> I guess I just don't understand this sort of thinking.

 

I was just saying what @DCMidnight cleared up.

 

If a $30 ball is no different than a $45 ball performance-wise, there's no incentive to play the more expensive ball. Balls aren't even a blip on the "golf cost" radar, but that doesn't mean I want to spend even 1 cent more per golf ball if it's not going to help scoring.

 

I'm not out there playing top-flites, but I have done some "personal testing" of cheaper 2-piece balls. If cost was important enough to me, I'm SURE I could make it work. I'd have to adjust how I play some shots, but at some point the time commitment to re-familiarize myself with the characteristics of a new ball isn't worth it.

 

 

[nsxguy]

> @TheCityGame said:

> > @nsxguy said:

> > > @TheCityGame said:

> > > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > > @TheCityGame said:

> > > >

> > > > > For the record, my process is basically this : Even as a low single digit, I don't think that with my 102mph swing speed and the variability of my swing that a ball amounts to much of an effect on my score. I generally hit my approach shots high enough and play on soft greens that spin doesn't make a big difference on approaches. On green side shots, I'm also more likely to rely on trajectory than spin to control my run-out. But, I rely on spin enough that I don't care for a 2-piece surlyn ball.

> > > > >

> > > > > **Given all that, I'm just not going to spend $45+ a dozen on golf balls. Just like I don't buy new clubs each year.**

> > > >

> > > > How much do you generally pay for a round of golf ?

> > > >

> > >

> > > These days I'm a member somewhere, so it's complicated. But, I will say this : if I had a local course that was $30 for 18 holes and it was virtually indistinguishable from a course that was $45 per round, I sure as h*ck wouldn't play that 45 dollar course very often.

> >

> > Ahhh, so you don't know then ?

> >

> > OK, let's say $40. Is that fair ?

> >

> > And since you didn't say what you WOULD pay for a dozen balls, let's say $25.

> >

> > Given you're a "2" (was it ?) you probably don't lose many and most rounds play a single ball.

> >

> > So you pay $40 to play a round of golf, are very serious about it (this is an assumption because I don't know very many 2s who aren't serious about their games) and you would sacrifice what might be the best possible ball for your game for $1-2 per ROUND ?

> >

> > Now if you were the udder guy who posted who ~~uses~~ loses 3-4 balls per round I could certainly understand that.

> >

> > I guess I just don't understand this sort of thinking.

>

> I was just saying what @DCMidnight cleared up.

>

**> If a $30 ball is no different than a $45 ball performance-wise, there's no incentive to play the more expensive ball. Balls aren't even a blip on the "golf cost" radar, but that doesn't mean I want to spend even 1 cent more per golf ball if it's not going to help scoring.

**>

> I'm not out there playing top-flites, but I have done some "personal testing" of cheaper 2-piece balls. If cost was important enough to me, I'm SURE I could make it work. I'd have to adjust how I play some shots, but at some point the time commitment to re-familiarize myself with the characteristics of a new ball isn't worth it.

>

>

 

Totally agree. If 2 balls are so close I'd get the cheaper one also.

 

That's just not what I read when you said "I'm just not going to spend $45+ a dozen on golf balls".

 

No worries.

 

 

[bogeypro]

From a statistical standpoint, they should have included the raw data. What’s up with good better best chart?! What are they rating this against?

 

This isn’t their best test, imo. Too many questions about it and too many questions about their conclusions.

[tyorke1]

Anyone add up the overall ranking, distance verses dispersion, what were the winners.