My Golf Spy Ball Test - General Discussion

[Pittknife]

> @b81smith said:

> I found the results shocking. I'm the typical low handicap who looks for his golf ball when I hit one off line - if I find a tour level ball I keep it, anything else gets left beside the fairway, along the tree line, etc where ever I find them I toss them out so someone else can collect them if want balls. I only keep the prov's, chromes, tp5's, vice's, snells, all the X versions of those, etc - basically if a tour player uses them and they're good enough for them - then I'd keep them. So I end up with maybe 10 different kinds of balls in the bag. WELL this test proves balls vary widely and due to compression and quality control even balls in the same sleeve can vary. So I'm making a conscious effort to only stock prov1 prov1x and haven't tried them yet but if I come across a bridgestone tour b X I'll try it. Those three are IT for me. I'm giving away or using all the others for shag bag material.

>

> Remember: Soft = Slow. Since I am not hitting it 350 whenever I want to, I'll use a harder ball that still spins plenty. I'd like a drop n stop instead of a rip back. I have no issues stopping balls on greens and most the time I have issues with them sitting too hard. So I'll take the advice of **** and use just those 3 exclusively - they're all pretty similar in terms of compression, spin, distance, etc. Titliest and Bridgestone have the most control over the supply chain and highest quality standards. I'm sad because taylormade and callaway (I thought) were right up there but trust me we're not getting the same as the pros play and the quality control over the pros balls are spot on. Not so much for the balls on the shelf.

 

Soft does not equal slow, in what temperature and condition at what launch conditions? *Speed is about matching compression to your launch conditions and environment. a billiard ball is harder than a golf ball, does that mean you can hit if farther?

 

This is why most people have an issue with this amateur unscientific test they did.

[mmack067]

I asked them a few questions on IG this morning and they actually replied to every single post. Thing is, they didn't actually answer anything and instead were just being typical dinks about it. So rather than taking the same amount of time to reply with an answer that would be useful for the whole community, they're replying with standoffish nonsense complaining about social media, saying they published something awesome and now I just want more, etc. Idiots.

[arbeck]

> @Pittknife said:

>

> 1. A swing robot is not always accurate, ask the guys at the kingdom from Taylormade about that. Overtime and due to the gears, pulleys or whatever it uses it will have start to drift at settings, it's a lot of force. The base must be fixed otherwise you will have different dispersion.

> 2. These guys present this data like it's gospel or even valid, it's not. There are a lot of people that read that and took it at face value. Any reputable research is posted with all data points and testing method, any challenges are answered and debated.

> 3. Any invalidation of any data point will cause the whole test to be invalidated until ran again. That's will real testing labs will never publish anything until they are almost certain and have repeated data to prove so, that can be pier reviewed.

> 4. As I have said, I worked with Dean Snell for 5 years. Dean will tell you his factory isn't making more consistent balls than Callaway's. It's impossible. Callaway own's their factories and has complete control. Direct to market companies contract out to an OS2 or OS3, they have very little control over what these factories do. Contract factories have competing goals than their customers, they want to reduce cost and make more money, even at the cost of quality if they can get away with it. When you own the factory, the goals are in alignment.

>

> I understand these guys mentality, they want to be the "a ha" guys that found something and be the first to publish it. It is reckless to post findings like that.

 

You're saying a company wouldn't be tempted to increase the amount of tolerance allowed in the finished product if it boosted profitability? Callaway has the ability to manufacture to tighter tolerances than Snell if they want. But that doesn't mean they will. If 5 out of a 1000 balls are out of tolerance for Titleist and 10 out of 1000 are out of tolerance for Callaway, the average consumer will never and can never know, but it might make enough of a difference on the bottom line for a company to allow it to happen. If any of these companies wanted they could test every single ball coming off the line and reject them if they don't meet very strict tolerances, but I doubt any of them do this. They most likely test a large enough random sample and extrapolate how many bad balls they will have in the overall batch and have a level they are willing to live with. I'm not saying Callaway is any worse than Titleist. I don't even want to imply it. On the other hand I don't want to imply that all of them are created at the same standard.

 

I think you're trying to hold this test to way too high of a standard. Maybe that's because the people who ran it are kind of a-holes at times. Maybe that's because people are taking the study as gospel. This wasn't a rigorous scientific study. They aren't scientists. And anyone who is claiming that this proves a Snell ball is 18 yards longer than a Chromesoft is an idiot. That doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of useful information in the numbers. There's no reason not to believe the dry ball numbers (launch, ballspeed, and spin) as far as I know. If there is, tell me. There's no reason not to believe that there is an almost linear relationship between compression and ball speed at the speeds most players swing at. There's also enough evidence presented that a certain number of balls being sold have enough consistency problems to be noticed.

 

Telling everyone that the entire published output is worthless doesn't do a service to anyone. There is good stuff there. Letting people know what stuff is good and what numbers to basically ignore is what we should be doing.

[cxx]

Wishon did mention one time that the ball that maximizes energy transfer from a driver is a titanium spherical shell. Makes sense. Impedance matching for maximum transfer is the best you can do.

 

I wonder if Callaway is going to take legal action. I don't think the testing that was performed would stand up to inquiry. Doesn't really conform to any industry standards much less anything more rigorous. I suppose the authors could claim that they were providing an entertainment product and not performing actual testing.

[Pittknife]

> @arbeck said:

> > @Pittknife said:

> >

> > 1. A swing robot is not always accurate, ask the guys at the kingdom from Taylormade about that. Overtime and due to the gears, pulleys or whatever it uses it will have start to drift at settings, it's a lot of force. The base must be fixed otherwise you will have different dispersion.

> > 2. These guys present this data like it's gospel or even valid, it's not. There are a lot of people that read that and took it at face value. Any reputable research is posted with all data points and testing method, any challenges are answered and debated.

> > 3. Any invalidation of any data point will cause the whole test to be invalidated until ran again. That's will real testing labs will never publish anything until they are almost certain and have repeated data to prove so, that can be pier reviewed.

> > 4. As I have said, I worked with Dean Snell for 5 years. Dean will tell you his factory isn't making more consistent balls than Callaway's. It's impossible. Callaway own's their factories and has complete control. Direct to market companies contract out to an OS2 or OS3, they have very little control over what these factories do. Contract factories have competing goals than their customers, they want to reduce cost and make more money, even at the cost of quality if they can get away with it. When you own the factory, the goals are in alignment.

> >

> > I understand these guys mentality, they want to be the "a ha" guys that found something and be the first to publish it. It is reckless to post findings like that.

>

> You're saying a company wouldn't be tempted to increase the amount of tolerance allowed in the finished product if it boosted profitability? Callaway has the ability to manufacture to tighter tolerances than Snell if they want. But that doesn't mean they will. If 5 out of a 1000 balls are out of tolerance for Titleist and 10 out of 1000 are out of tolerance for Callaway, the average consumer will never and can never know, but it might make enough of a difference on the bottom line for a company to allow it to happen. If any of these companies wanted they could test every single ball coming off the line and reject them if they don't meet very strict tolerances, but I doubt any of them do this. They most likely test a large enough random sample and extrapolate how many bad balls they will have in the overall batch and have a level they are willing to live with. I'm not saying Callaway is any worse than Titleist. I don't even want to imply it. On the other hand I don't want to imply that all of them are created at the same standard.

>

> I think you're trying to hold this test to way too high of a standard. Maybe that's because the people who ran it are kind of a-holes at times. Maybe that's because people are taking the study as gospel. This wasn't a rigorous scientific study. They aren't scientists. And anyone who is claiming that this proves a Snell ball is 18 yards longer than a Chromesoft is an idiot. That doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of useful information in the numbers. There's no reason not to believe the dry ball numbers (launch, ballspeed, and spin) as far as I know. If there is, tell me. There's no reason not to believe that there is an almost linear relationship between compression and ball speed at the speeds most players swing at. There's also enough evidence presented that a certain number of balls being sold have enough consistency problems to be noticed.

>

> Telling everyone that the entire published output is worthless doesn't do a service to anyone. There is good stuff there. Letting people know what stuff is good and what numbers to basically ignore is what we should be doing.

 

A company like Callaway doesn't do that. I do not like Callaway, I don't like Callaway people, I spent most my life down the hill at Tmag. I have nothing to gain from defending them. You shouldn't speak to things you clearly don't have an understanding of, which is speculating a company cutting corners on purpose. I've been in the room in these quality meetings and I have met Callaway manufacturing engineers (we all shared the same factories). One of the biggest concerns with the larger companies is the idea of "cost of poor quality". They do their absolute best to not have issues exactly like this one occur that could affect their "premium brand image".

 

There isn't someone with even a surface understanding of manufacturing that doesn't understand what happens when a defect is found post sale. It usually cost 3-4x what it would of to not have the mistake. It has explicit and implicit cost.

 

What you just said is the exact issue, you don't cherry pick what is correct and what is incorrect when the data set contains error. No one would base a decision on data sets that contain error. Some could be good, some could be bad, how can you tell unless all the data is validated. When you publish a finding such as this that has serious implications your *test/proof has to be valid. By posting this to the entire golf market they brought on the scrutiny. This isn't some dude bought some balls then went and told his friends he likes X vs Y. No one would hold him to any standards. When you present data and yourself as an expert you need validity, which clearly is not in this test.

[North Butte]

> @Pittknife said:

>

> Soft does not equal slow, in what temperature and condition at what launch conditions? *Speed is about matching compression to your launch conditions and environment. a billiard ball is harder than a golf ball, does that mean you can hit if farther?

 

If a Chrome Soft produces less ball speed than a Pro V1x when both are at 70F, then Chrome Soft will produce less ball speed than ProV1x when both are at 40F or 100F.

 

If Chrome Soft is slower than Pro V1x when both are hit at 100mph then Chrome Soft will be slower than ProV1x when both are hit at 80mph or 120mph.

 

Temperature and clubhead speed affect both balls, whichever one is faster is faster at any (reasonable) temperature and clubhead speed.

[Pittknife]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @Pittknife said:

> >

> > Soft does not equal slow, in what temperature and condition at what launch conditions? *Speed is about matching compression to your launch conditions and environment. a billiard ball is harder than a golf ball, does that mean you can hit if farther?

>

> If a Chrome Soft produces less ball speed than a Pro V1x when both are at 70F, then Chrome Soft will produce less ball speed than ProV1x when both are at 40F or 100F.

>

> If Chrome Soft is slower than Pro V1x when both are hit at 100mph then Chrome Soft will be slower than ProV1x when both are hit at 80mph or 120mph.

>

> Temperature and clubhead speed affect both balls, whichever one is faster is faster at any (reasonable) temperature and clubhead speed.

 

That's not true. Put a soft & hard ball and chill it to 40f, then hit them. The compression and elasticity changes. Look at the effects of polymers and water absorption and adsorption. That's why during injection molding a hygroscopic material has to be *dried (dehumidified) at an optimal -40f to reduce it to the recommended ppm. Urethane is hyproscopic and easily absorbs water even due to humidity. Once a polymer is saturated in water it changes it's property, both temperature and humidity have a significant affect. I know this because 1. I'm an engineer with a bsme, 2. I worked in the golf club industry and have conducted a large array of research and test with both amateurs and professionals, 3. I am an expert in injection molding and plastics to which I still support the factories that produce balls and sporting goods, 4. I am a +2 handicap and have personally tested most of these balls and have a pretty good understand besides the whole physics and materials debate.

 

40f is a reasonable temperature that people play in.

[Pittknife]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @Pittknife said:

> >

> > Soft does not equal slow, in what temperature and condition at what launch conditions? *Speed is about matching compression to your launch conditions and environment. a billiard ball is harder than a golf ball, does that mean you can hit if farther?

>

> If a Chrome Soft produces less ball speed than a Pro V1x when both are at 70F, then Chrome Soft will produce less ball speed than ProV1x when both are at 40F or 100F.

>

> If Chrome Soft is slower than Pro V1x when both are hit at 100mph then Chrome Soft will be slower than ProV1x when both are hit at 80mph or 120mph.

>

> Temperature and clubhead speed affect both balls, whichever one is faster is faster at any (reasonable) temperature and clubhead speed.

 

And if you need further understanding read this: https://www.weatherworksinc.com/weather-golf-ball-distance

 

I would say 50f is reasonable temperature, so your statement is entirely incorrect.

[North Butte]

Every golf ball loses speed and distance when it is cold. Everybody knows that.

 

Temperature effects "soft" balls and "firm" balls. If a hot Pro V1x has more ball speed than a hot Chrome Soft then a cold Pro V1x has more ball speed than a cold Chrome Soft. Soft balls don't magically gain ball speed when the temperature (or clubhead speed) drops. And that's what it would be. Magic.

[Pittknife]

> @"North Butte" said:

> Every golf ball loses speed and distance when it is cold. Everybody knows that.

>

> Temperature effects "soft" balls and "firm" balls. If a hot Pro V1x has more ball speed than a hot Chrome Soft then a cold Pro V1x has more ball speed than a cold Chrome Soft. Soft balls don't magically gain ball speed when the temperature (or clubhead speed) drops. And that's what it would be. Magic.

 

A ProV1x doesn't have the same compression as a Chrome soft. If the chrome soft has lower compression than a Pro V1x than at lower temperature the Prov1x performance as a Chrome soft. If you know that than why are you arguing.

[North Butte]

Compression has nothing to do with losing ball speed in cold temperatures. Both low compression and high compression balls lose ball speed in cold temperatures. If Chrome Soft is really is "slower" than Pro V1x (just for example, I am not saying I totally believe the M.G.S. test about that) then it's not slower when the weather is warm. It's slower, period.

[Pittknife]

> @"North Butte" said:

> Compression has nothing to do with losing ball speed in cold temperatures. Both low compression and high compression balls lose ball speed in cold temperatures. If Chrome Soft is really is "slower" than Pro V1x (just for example, I am not saying I totally believe the M.G.S. test about that) then it's not slower when the weather is warm. It's slower, period.

 

You Are completely wrong. I gave you a link already that pretty clearly explains that compression has a performance affect in different temperatures. Not one time did anyone argue low compression balls lose speed in the cold, low compression balls lose less speed in the cold. From your post it seems You have zero understanding of material science, physics, thermodynamics or chemistry. I don’t know how to explain it any clearer to you or provide anymore evidence that will make you understand. I just hope the rest of the 9000 post you have isn’t as inaccurate or blatantly false as in this thread.

[soregongolfer]

Pittknife, welcome to the board. Your knowledge is much appreciated!

[North Butte]

> @Pittknife said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > Compression has nothing to do with losing ball speed in cold temperatures. Both low compression and high compression balls lose ball speed in cold temperatures. If Chrome Soft is really is "slower" than Pro V1x (just for example, I am not saying I totally believe the M.G.S. test about that) then it's not slower when the weather is warm. It's slower, period.

>

> You Are completely wrong. I gave you a link already that pretty clearly explains that compression has a performance affect in different temperatures. Not one time did anyone argue low compression balls lose speed in the cold, low compression balls lose less speed in the cold. From your post it seems You have zero understanding of material science, physics, thermodynamics or chemistry. I don’t know how to explain it any clearer to you or provide anymore evidence that will make you understand. I just hope the rest of the 9000 post you have isn’t as inaccurate or blatantly false as in this thread.

 

That link you posted starts out well enough. It shows the relationship between temperature and ball performance. Good stuff.

 

Then he just throws this in...

 

" If you are playing golf and the air temperature is below 50 degrees, a higher compression golf ball won't travel as far as a low compression ball. Pro tip, men, don't be afraid to use a woman's (low compression) golf ball if you are playing when the air temperature is below 50 degrees."

 

Which is the same nonsense that people like you have posted and reposted and repeated until I'm sick to death of hearing it. It is not true. That guy is a meteorologist who I'm sure knows he stuff about air density. But the higher compression nonsense is way outside his supposed expertise.

 

So again, show me one piece of concrete evidence for what you are claiming. I do not dispute that every single golf ball ever made gets slower and shorter when it is cold. But you can't fix that by switching to a lower compression ball. The lower compression ball will be affected by the cold to EXACTLY THE SAME EXTENT as a higher comparession ball. There's no plausible mechanism for it to act otherwise.

[North Butte]

P.S. And the fact he mentions a "women's (low compression) golf ball" illustrates that he's not just repeated second hand B.S. he's repeating second hand B.S. from 15+ years ago during the Precept Lady craze.

 

Some memes like that just will not die.

[Pittknife]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @Pittknife said:

> > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > Compression has nothing to do with losing ball speed in cold temperatures. Both low compression and high compression balls lose ball speed in cold temperatures. If Chrome Soft is really is "slower" than Pro V1x (just for example, I am not saying I totally believe the M.G.S. test about that) then it's not slower when the weather is warm. It's slower, period.

> >

> > You Are completely wrong. I gave you a link already that pretty clearly explains that compression has a performance affect in different temperatures. Not one time did anyone argue low compression balls lose speed in the cold, low compression balls lose less speed in the cold. From your post it seems You have zero understanding of material science, physics, thermodynamics or chemistry. I don’t know how to explain it any clearer to you or provide anymore evidence that will make you understand. I just hope the rest of the 9000 post you have isn’t as inaccurate or blatantly false as in this thread.

>

> That link you posted starts out well enough. It shows the relationship between temperature and ball performance. Good stuff.

>

> Then he just throws this in...

>

> " If you are playing golf and the air temperature is below 50 degrees, a higher compression golf ball won't travel as far as a low compression ball. Pro tip, men, don't be afraid to use a woman's (low compression) golf ball if you are playing when the air temperature is below 50 degrees."

>

> Which is the same nonsense that people like you have posted and reposted and repeated until I'm sick to death of hearing it. It is not true. That guy is a meteorologist who I'm sure knows he stuff about air density. But the higher compression nonsense is way outside his supposed expertise.

>

> So again, show me one piece of concrete evidence for what you are claiming. I do not dispute that every single golf ball ever made gets slower and shorter when it is cold. But you can't fix that by switching to a lower compression ball. The lower compression ball will be affected by the cold to EXACTLY THE SAME EXTENT as a higher comparession ball. There's no plausible mechanism for it to act otherwise.

 

I’m going to be serious for a second, are you stupid? Have you taken a high school chemistry or science class? Do you understand how polymers react to temperature, specifically durometer of urethane and advanced rubbers? Do you understand why people change out their tires for winter vs summer? A lower compression ball when temperature gets below 50 will transfer energy better than a higher compression ball. The molecular structure of the polymer rearranges due to temperature. You have absolutely zero knowledge of science or engineering. You are arguing with a degrees engineer that just so happened to design golf products for some of he biggest names in golf about a basic principle any bipedal hominoid can understand.

 

I don’t even need to use science to explain it to you, it’s very simple if you have ever played golf in the cold. I’m starting to doubt you are even a golfer if you don’t understand this.

[Pittknife]

> @soregongolfer said:

> Pittknife, welcome to the board. Your knowledge is much appreciated!

 

 

Thank you bro

[Pittknife]

> @"North Butte" said:

> P.S. And the fact he mentions a "women's (low compression) golf ball" illustrates that he's not just repeated second hand B.S. he's repeating second hand B.S. from 15+ years ago during the Precept Lady craze.

>

> Some memes like that just will not die.

 

I guess golf digest, Dean Snell & Phil Michelson are idiots. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.golfdigest.com/story/cold-facts-about-golf-balls/amp

 

https://thegolfnewsnet.com/golfnewsnetteam/2018/02/16/should-golfers-play-softer-compression-ball-when-cold-108447/

You seem to also don’t understand the basic function of compression and distance: https://golf-info-guide.com/golf-equipment-news/what-does-golf-ball-compression-really-mean-what-ball-should-you-be-using/

 

 

 

This means that a higher compression ball when having it temperature lowered becomes harder absorbs water and will lose more distance vs a softer compression ball.

 

The only thing you are doing is further reinforcing how stupid you are by making very false statements. This isn’t my opinion, this is fact. 9000 post of absolute garbage, you should be ashamed for posting such stupidity.

 

*are you a flat earther by any chance

[trackcoach13]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @Pittknife said:

> > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > Compression has nothing to do with losing ball speed in cold temperatures. Both low compression and high compression balls lose ball speed in cold temperatures. If Chrome Soft is really is "slower" than Pro V1x (just for example, I am not saying I totally believe the M.G.S. test about that) then it's not slower when the weather is warm. It's slower, period.

> >

> > You Are completely wrong. I gave you a link already that pretty clearly explains that compression has a performance affect in different temperatures. Not one time did anyone argue low compression balls lose speed in the cold, low compression balls lose less speed in the cold. From your post it seems You have zero understanding of material science, physics, thermodynamics or chemistry. I don’t know how to explain it any clearer to you or provide anymore evidence that will make you understand. I just hope the rest of the 9000 post you have isn’t as inaccurate or blatantly false as in this thread.

>

> That link you posted starts out well enough. It shows the relationship between temperature and ball performance. Good stuff.

>

> Then he just throws this in...

>

> " If you are playing golf and the air temperature is below 50 degrees, a higher compression golf ball won't travel as far as a low compression ball. Pro tip, men, don't be afraid to use a woman's (low compression) golf ball if you are playing when the air temperature is below 50 degrees."

>

> Which is the same nonsense that people like you have posted and reposted and repeated until I'm sick to death of hearing it. It is not true. That guy is a meteorologist who I'm sure knows he stuff about air density. But the higher compression nonsense is way outside his supposed expertise.

>

> So again, show me one piece of concrete evidence for what you are claiming. I do not dispute that every single golf ball ever made gets slower and shorter when it is cold. But you can't fix that by switching to a lower compression ball. The lower compression ball will be affected by the cold to EXACTLY THE SAME EXTENT as a higher comparession ball. There's no plausible mechanism for it to act otherwise.

 

Here you go genius:

 

 

 

[cxx]

> @trackcoach13 said:

 

> Here you go genius:

>

>

>

>

 

You know that video is Wilson DUO advertising right?

And the weatherman's article?

 

Your evidence is not convincing. If you have it, you should reference the measured data directly. Temperature vs compression for several designs.

 

It's my understanding, as stated before, that the optimal ball for transfer of energy is one with the same hardness as the club face. Somewhat impractical for playing golf, but supported by the M.G.S. conclusion that higher compression results in faster ball speed.

If you have evidence that golf balls change compression due to temperature in some way other than monotonically, that might support you idea, then let's see it.

If anyone has real evidence, whether public or proprietary let's see it.

 

 

Edit: Two of the three linked articles that referred to drop in distance due to temperature got it wrong. Should be 2% per 10 deg F rather than 2 yards. Thanks Larry That part is based on changes in air density rather than compression. They must have copied it from somewhere.

[crazygolfnut]

Is the earth still flat? Just wondering.

[Hammer22]

> @Pittknife said:

> Soft does not equal slow, in what temperature and condition at what launch conditions? *Speed is about matching compression to your launch conditions and environment. a billiard ball is harder than a golf ball, does that mean you can hit if farther?

>

> This is why most people have an issue with this amateur unscientific test they did.

 

Thanks for injecting some sense in to all this idiocy, even though it is entertaining reading about all the people that have to dump their current balls for some magic potion that will miraculously shave so many strokes off their games.

 

 

[95124hacker]

Played the Volvik S4 again today. Starting to like it more. Pretty good distance off the irons.

[bunta]

We need Bryson to do a ball test

[trackcoach13]

> @cxx said:

> > @trackcoach13 said:

>

> > Here you go genius:

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> You know that video is Wilson DUO advertising right?

> And the weatherman's article?

>

> Your evidence is not convincing. If you have it, you should reference the measured data directly. Temperature vs compression for several designs.

>

> It's my understanding, as stated before, that the optimal ball for transfer of energy is one with the same hardness as the club face. Somewhat impractical for playing golf, but supported by the M.G.S. conclusion that higher compression results in faster ball speed.

> If you have evidence that golf balls change compression due to temperature in some way other than monotonically, that might support you idea, then let's see it.

> If anyone has real evidence, whether public or proprietary let's see it.

>

>

> Edit: Two of the three linked articles that referred to drop in distance due to temperature got it wrong. Should be 2% per 10 deg F rather than 2 yards. Thanks Larry That part is based on changes in air density rather than compression. They must have copied it from somewhere.

 

It is not 2% per 10 deg F. That would equate to 12% from 40 deg to 100 deg which would 30 yards on 250. Do you even stop and think about what you say? Also, are you suggesting Simonutti is lying in that video to sell the Duo? Go away please.

 

Here is a video by trackman U...note it says elasticity further affects performance in temperature which is what pittknife and Simonutti are saying.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[crazygolfnut]

"If this was only a golf ball..."

 

 

[tsecor]

anyone wanna sell their chromesofts?? lol

[GDTBATH]

> @tsecor said:

> anyone wanna sell their chromesofts?? lol

 

Lol. I’ve got a dozen on my shelf that will end up sitting there for two years before I toss them.

[Popeye64]

> @cxx said:

> Wishon did mention one time that the ball that maximizes energy transfer from a driver is a titanium spherical shell. Makes sense. Impedance matching for maximum transfer is the best you can do.

>

> I wonder if Callaway is going to take legal action. I don't think the testing that was performed would stand up to inquiry. Doesn't really conform to any industry standards much less anything more rigorous. I suppose the authors could claim that they were providing an entertainment product and not performing actual testing.

 

Legal action,,,,,,, what?????? They simple published their findings. I swear I F ing hate the mentality of people who are sue happy.

[rkelso184]

> @Popeye64 said:

> > @cxx said:

> > Wishon did mention one time that the ball that maximizes energy transfer from a driver is a titanium spherical shell. Makes sense. Impedance matching for maximum transfer is the best you can do.

> >

> > I wonder if Callaway is going to take legal action. I don't think the testing that was performed would stand up to inquiry. Doesn't really conform to any industry standards much less anything more rigorous. I suppose the authors could claim that they were providing an entertainment product and not performing actual testing.

>

> Legal action,,,,,,, what?????? They simple published their findings. I swear I F ing hate the mentality of people who are sue happy.

 

Holy cow! Didn't this escalate quickly. MGS clearly cover them self saying get a ball fitting. They never ever also set a list of balls 1 - ? They simply had 4 categories. Also alot of slow balls in the test but we all are going on about Callaway not the others...