My Golf Spy Ball Test - General Discussion

[trackcoach13]

> @caniac6 said:

> > @trackcoach13 said:

> > > @caniac6 said:

> > > Ordered some Snell MBT-X based on the ball test. Not particularly impressed. I believe I'll stick with the PRO V1X.

> >

> > How many rounds you test it?

>

> Just a couple, but how many do you need to figure that you like one better than the other? To answer my own question, one less than I tried it.

 

I asked because you provided no insight as to either ball or your game. Are you a plus handicap, single digit or other? Do you like the launch, distance, spin, greenside control, etc better of one over the other?

 

Forgive me for being somewhat skeptical but most times I see a guy poopoo a ball for a ProV1, he usually is a 15 handicap or worse who has very little game or insight to how the ball performs. Just hits a few bad shots and it must be the ball. Not saying that is you but a little more insight might help others here.

[caniac6]

> @trackcoach13 said:

> > @caniac6 said:

> > > @trackcoach13 said:

> > > > @caniac6 said:

> > > > Ordered some Snell MBT-X based on the ball test. Not particularly impressed. I believe I'll stick with the PRO V1X.

> > >

> > > How many rounds you test it?

> >

> > Just a couple, but how many do you need to figure that you like one better than the other? To answer my own question, one less than I tried it.

>

> I asked because you provided no insight as to either ball or your game. Are you a plus handicap, single digit or other? Do you like the launch, distance, spin, greenside control, etc better of one over the other?

>

> Forgive me for being somewhat skeptical but most times I see a guy poopoo a ball for a ProV1, he usually is a 15 handicap or worse who has very little game or insight to how the ball performs. Just hits a few bad shots and it must be the ball. Not saying that is you but a little more insight might help others here.

 

4 handicap. Titleist was longer, straighter, to me, felt better. Just better over all performance for me. You might have better results with the Snell, but I didn't. I also like the TP5X and the Srixon XV better. I really don't know how to quantify my preferences, except I just liked the feel and performance of those balls vs. the Snell.

[JDW3]

> @caniac6 said:

> > @trackcoach13 said:

> > > @caniac6 said:

> > > > @trackcoach13 said:

> > > > > @caniac6 said:

> > > > > Ordered some Snell MBT-X based on the ball test. Not particularly impressed. I believe I'll stick with the PRO V1X.

> > > >

> > > > How many rounds you test it?

> > >

> > > Just a couple, but how many do you need to figure that you like one better than the other? To answer my own question, one less than I tried it.

> >

> > I asked because you provided no insight as to either ball or your game. Are you a plus handicap, single digit or other? Do you like the launch, distance, spin, greenside control, etc better of one over the other?

> >

> > Forgive me for being somewhat skeptical but most times I see a guy poopoo a ball for a ProV1, he usually is a 15 handicap or worse who has very little game or insight to how the ball performs. Just hits a few bad shots and it must be the ball. Not saying that is you but a little more insight might help others here.

>

> 4 handicap. Titleist was longer, straighter, to me, felt better. Just better over all performance for me. You might have better results with the Snell, but I didn't. I also like the TP5X and the Srixon XV better. I really don't know how to quantify my preferences, except I just liked the feel and performance of those balls vs. the Snell.

 

I have had a similar experience. I am currently a 5.5 handicap.

 

I have been playing Snell's for a few years now (after playing Prov1x for years before that) but put a Prov1x in play for a couple rounds this year. The Prov1x was consistently 5 yards longer on my drives vs the Snell MTB black and x, it had better holding power on mid to long irons into the green and had better greenside spin.

 

Both the Snell MTB balls are good and will fit a lot of people but I will be switching back to the Prov1x.

[pjerzy]

> @caniac6 said:

 

> 4 handicap. Titleist was longer, straighter, to me, felt better. Just better over all performance for me. You might have better results with the Snell, but I didn't. I also like the TP5X and the Srixon XV better. I really don't know how to quantify my preferences, except I just liked the feel and performance of those balls vs. the Snell.

 

But feel is useless and everyone should ignore it. That is now the Lord's word.

[Pittknife]

> @cxx said:

> > @Pittknife said:

> > > @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.

> >

> > Your understanding of hardness as it pertains to the transfer of energy to a ball is completely wrong. Track coach provided a very good video explaining temperature and compression.

> >

> > I’ll explain why your matching if the hardness theory is incorrect. You probably google searched the famous steel ball will bounce higher than a rubber ball and found “proof” that a material like steel will bounce higher than rubber on a steel surface. If you look you will see a golf ball that is harder and more compressed than a basketball and a couple other ball types that have less hardness and compression will not bounce as high. Think of if this way, if you take a 100 lb steel ball and drop it on that steel plate what will happen? Take a rubber ball the same size and what will happen? This doesn’t apply to dissimilar materials, which is polymer (ball) against titanium.

> >

> > Elastic if the material and it’s ability to deform and undeform directly affects its kinetic potential. Easy talk: the more a ball can be compressed to an extent the more energy it can covert to rebounding. When you talk about elastomers they are greatly affected by temperature. Notice the wording extent, you can over or under compress a ball to where you won’t have optimal transfer of energy. Let’s say you have two balls 100 compression and 70 compression (that have same characteristics except compression) for your swing the 100 compression has optimal compression when it’s 80 f outside, when it changes to 40 f the 100 compression ball will not be able to compression optimally because colder temperature contracts the material and makes it harder for it to compress further. Now the 70 (softer) ball becomes optimal. It’s a pretty simple principle.

> >

> > By the way, harder anything doesn’t mean better. Titanium especially grade 5 which is mainly used in golf is not considered hard for metals. Hardness and toughness are not he same thing, titanium is actually very soft when measured using hrc and can’t be heat treated to change its molecular structure like carbon steel. Carbon is much harder and can achieve over 60 hrc easily. Why isn’t carbon used in driver heads? It’s because density and the need for the face to be able to deform and not past the plastic deformation phase and crack. Basically, you need a softer metal that can have variable thin walls to act like a trampoline.

> >

> > Another way to think about this, when you buy a trampoline the surface isn’t made of steel. WhT would happen if you jump on a steel surface, you won’t be bouncing, the polymer netting of trampolines provides a higher bounce.

> >

> > To say you want harder materials to match the club face is just as wrong as saying lower compression won’t go further when it’s colder. It’s just simply not true, it’s called science.

> >

> > And as a former golf industry designer, I won’t be posting data sets that belong to the companies I worked for. That would be very stupid of me to post proprietary data that I may have worked in and do not own. This isn’t even a data issue, it’s a simple physics and material science issue.

>

> I accept that my analogy of the maximum power transfer in audio does not apply to ball-clubface collisions. It seemed reasonable at the time but may be a jump too far.

>

> The scatter chart of the measured ball compression vs distance does look like there is a relationship, if the measurements are good. There are enough strange results in the data to cast some doubt on the quality of that.

>

> So your saying the titanium shell with the same characteristics as the face does not result in the maximum speed after impact. That is disappointing. What does when you don't restrict it to golf ball materials?

 

It won't work because you can't generate the compression needed on a hollow titanium ball with the kinetic energy a person can deliver with a titanium golf club head. Most likely the needed energy to propel the titanium would force titanium past plastic deformation (ultimate yield strength). It's actually easy to make titanium balls. The reason the steel ball bounces more efficiently off the steel plate is because the steel plate is rigid and fixed, the energy is being redirected to the ball. A golf club doesn't act that way, the more mass in the ball the more energy will be directed back in the club.

 

I love the fact that ball testing is being highlighted but the data, test method and motive is suspicious at best. Tests like this should not be presented as some kind of legitimate test. Raw data is not provided, sampling certification, repeated and peer confirmation was not done. I'm not saying that Callaway ball is good or bad, I've tried it and it's not my thing. There is a little secret in the golf industry, there is no "best" to any equipment. Too many variables where it is impossible to make a "best" equipment, golfers are just to diverse in their swing dynamics. I designed an iron that I thought had the perfect cg/moi for 10-20 handicaps with 90-100 chs. It performed amazingly on the swing robot while adding close to 6yds on the 6 iron. I was very anxious to release my results and show our management team thinking I just revolutionized the iron market. When we went to do player testing, no one could hit it well. While having what I considered perfect cg/moi the sole needed to do this would not perform for how mid handicappers generally swing, meaning they don't have the steep AOA that a better player has. I bring this up because how you conduct the test greatly skews your results, if you don't have a scientific background (even if you do sometimes) it's far too easy to get excited and make claims on false testing.

[tsecor]

DeChambeau has nothing on you. lol. Thank you for the post. That was very cool to read. loved it

[GoGoErky]

> @pjerzy said:

> > @caniac6 said:

>

> > 4 handicap. Titleist was longer, straighter, to me, felt better. Just better over all performance for me. You might have better results with the Snell, but I didn't. I also like the TP5X and the Srixon XV better. I really don't know how to quantify my preferences, except I just liked the feel and performance of those balls vs. the Snell.

>

> But feel is useless and everyone should ignore it. That is now the Lord's word.

 

Probably depends on ones definition of feel. The joe weekend golfer associates sound with feel. More knowledgeable or avid golfers differentiate them and feel becomes more about how strikes feel on the body or the club feels in the swing

[NRJyzr]

> @Pittknife said:

>

> I love the fact that ball testing is being highlighted but the data, test method and motive is suspicious at best. Tests like this should not be presented as some kind of legitimate test. Raw data is not provided, sampling certification, repeated and peer confirmation was not done. I'm not saying that Callaway ball is good or bad, I've tried it and it's not my thing.

 

 

I'm fine with the ball test, flaws and all. I find it easy to ignore the narrative conclusions, and even the distances listed, due to the additional variables, launch and otherwise, that affect distance. Spin, ball speed, that gets it for me.

 

But there's additional somethings to consider, especially dealing with the whole compression discussion. At the lower swingspeeds, and I'm including all the 7 iron testing in that group, the ball speed difference between the firmer balls and the softer balls is about 1 mph, and in some cases, not even that. But... since the Precept Lady/Laddie craze in the 90s, players who swing in the higher rent district report losing distance with the lower compression balls. No one ever did anything scientific with it, but it was always reported to be something north of 110mph.

 

For the sadly short time I could swing around 115mph with a driver, I found some of that distance loss with lower comp golfballs, not unlike the test results. Now that I'm 110 at best, maybe, sometimes... I don't see distance loss with the softer balls (played the Duo U quite a bit at the end of last year).

 

If one assumes all of the above is valid, it seems to me that the relationship between ballspeed and swingspeed with lower comp balls is less linear, once one reaches a point somewhere north of 110mph.

 

Point being, there's no reason to turn one's nose up at a softer ball, if one doesn't swing in the PGA Tour Average zip code with a driver. And even if one does, there's no reason not to use said ball if you can live with a few extra yards distance loss, and it otherwise checks all your boxes.

 

some rambling random thoughts as I drink caffeinated beverages while participating in an online meeting.... {shrug}

[jjfcpa]

So one of the results of the test was that if you have a high swing speed (in excess of say 110), then you may lose distance if playing a softer ball (lower compression).

 

Is the contrary also true. If you have a slow swing speed, say 85 mph, will you lost distance if you play a firmer ball?

[tsecor]

the test does not show that. A fast ball is a fast ball.....the gap just closes and balls like the chromesoft tested better than the Titleist line at multiple swing speeds> @jjfcpa said:

> So one of the results of the test was that if you have a high swing speed (in excess of say 110), then you may lose distance if playing a softer ball (lower compression).

>

> Is the contrary also true. If you have a slow swing speed, say 85 mph, will you lost distance if you play a firmer ball?

 

 

[Nessism]

 

 

> @jjfcpa said:

> So one of the results of the test was that if you have a high swing speed (in excess of say 110), then you may lose distance if playing a softer ball (lower compression).

>

> Is the contrary also true. If you have a slow swing speed, say 85 mph, will you lost distance if you play a firmer ball?

 

The data is in the study for you to review. Look at the compression vs. ball speed chart. Click "driver" and "85mph" speed, then read the chart. More ball speed will almost always lead to more distance.

[North Butte]

I just did a back-of-envelope linear extrapolation (almost certainly not correct but a general approximation) comparing ball speeds for some under-90 compression urethane balls (like Chrome Soft and Qstar Tour) vs. over-110 compression ones (like Zstar XV and ProV1x).

 

If you take the test result differences between 115mph and 85mph swings and extrapolate them to lower clubhead speeds, somewhere down in the 60-70mph range the difference between ball speeds of high and low compression will approach zero. There's a remote chance that the effects would reverse somehow if we were taking under-60mph clubhead speeds but that's such a distinct realm of ballflight dynamics that a linear extrapolation is unlikely to work well.

[Pittknife]

> @jjfcpa said:

> So one of the results of the test was that if you have a high swing speed (in excess of say 110), then you may lose distance if playing a softer ball (lower compression).

>

> Is the contrary also true. If you have a slow swing speed, say 85 mph, will you lost distance if you play a firmer ball?

 

The answer is yes. It is about fitting the right compression vs the ambient air. You will lose distance on your *drives playing an under or over compressed ball.

[soregongolfer]

> @Pittknife said:

> > @cxx said:

> > > @Pittknife said:

> > > > @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.

> > >

> > > Your understanding of hardness as it pertains to the transfer of energy to a ball is completely wrong. Track coach provided a very good video explaining temperature and compression.

> > >

> > > I’ll explain why your matching if the hardness theory is incorrect. You probably google searched the famous steel ball will bounce higher than a rubber ball and found “proof” that a material like steel will bounce higher than rubber on a steel surface. If you look you will see a golf ball that is harder and more compressed than a basketball and a couple other ball types that have less hardness and compression will not bounce as high. Think of if this way, if you take a 100 lb steel ball and drop it on that steel plate what will happen? Take a rubber ball the same size and what will happen? This doesn’t apply to dissimilar materials, which is polymer (ball) against titanium.

> > >

> > > Elastic if the material and it’s ability to deform and undeform directly affects its kinetic potential. Easy talk: the more a ball can be compressed to an extent the more energy it can covert to rebounding. When you talk about elastomers they are greatly affected by temperature. Notice the wording extent, you can over or under compress a ball to where you won’t have optimal transfer of energy. Let’s say you have two balls 100 compression and 70 compression (that have same characteristics except compression) for your swing the 100 compression has optimal compression when it’s 80 f outside, when it changes to 40 f the 100 compression ball will not be able to compression optimally because colder temperature contracts the material and makes it harder for it to compress further. Now the 70 (softer) ball becomes optimal. It’s a pretty simple principle.

> > >

> > > By the way, harder anything doesn’t mean better. Titanium especially grade 5 which is mainly used in golf is not considered hard for metals. Hardness and toughness are not he same thing, titanium is actually very soft when measured using hrc and can’t be heat treated to change its molecular structure like carbon steel. Carbon is much harder and can achieve over 60 hrc easily. Why isn’t carbon used in driver heads? It’s because density and the need for the face to be able to deform and not past the plastic deformation phase and crack. Basically, you need a softer metal that can have variable thin walls to act like a trampoline.

> > >

> > > Another way to think about this, when you buy a trampoline the surface isn’t made of steel. WhT would happen if you jump on a steel surface, you won’t be bouncing, the polymer netting of trampolines provides a higher bounce.

> > >

> > > To say you want harder materials to match the club face is just as wrong as saying lower compression won’t go further when it’s colder. It’s just simply not true, it’s called science.

> > >

> > > And as a former golf industry designer, I won’t be posting data sets that belong to the companies I worked for. That would be very stupid of me to post proprietary data that I may have worked in and do not own. This isn’t even a data issue, it’s a simple physics and material science issue.

> >

> > I accept that my analogy of the maximum power transfer in audio does not apply to ball-clubface collisions. It seemed reasonable at the time but may be a jump too far.

> >

> > The scatter chart of the measured ball compression vs distance does look like there is a relationship, if the measurements are good. There are enough strange results in the data to cast some doubt on the quality of that.

> >

> > So your saying the titanium shell with the same characteristics as the face does not result in the maximum speed after impact. That is disappointing. What does when you don't restrict it to golf ball materials?

>

> It won't work because you can't generate the compression needed on a hollow titanium ball with the kinetic energy a person can deliver with a titanium golf club head. Most likely the needed energy to propel the titanium would force titanium past plastic deformation (ultimate yield strength). It's actually easy to make titanium balls. The reason the steel ball bounces more efficiently off the steel plate is because the steel plate is rigid and fixed, the energy is being redirected to the ball. A golf club doesn't act that way, the more mass in the ball the more energy will be directed back in the club.

>

> I love the fact that ball testing is being highlighted but the data, test method and motive is suspicious at best. Tests like this should not be presented as some kind of legitimate test. Raw data is not provided, sampling certification, repeated and peer confirmation was not done. I'm not saying that Callaway ball is good or bad, I've tried it and it's not my thing. There is a little secret in the golf industry, there is no "best" to any equipment. Too many variables where it is impossible to make a "best" equipment, golfers are just to diverse in their swing dynamics. I designed an iron that I thought had the perfect cg/moi for 10-20 handicaps with 90-100 chs. It performed amazingly on the swing robot while adding close to 6yds on the 6 iron. I was very anxious to release my results and show our management team thinking I just revolutionized the iron market. When we went to do player testing, no one could hit it well. While having what I considered perfect cg/moi the sole needed to do this would not perform for how mid handicappers generally swing, meaning they don't have the steep AOA that a better player has. I bring this up because how you conduct the test greatly skews your results, if you don't have a scientific background (even if you do sometimes) it's far too easy to get excited and make claims on false testing.

 

Okay, you need to stop. I'm having college physics and chemistry flashbacks lol ;)

[soregongolfer]

> @Pittknife said:

> > @jjfcpa said:

> > So one of the results of the test was that if you have a high swing speed (in excess of say 110), then you may lose distance if playing a softer ball (lower compression).

> >

> > Is the contrary also true. If you have a slow swing speed, say 85 mph, will you lost distance if you play a firmer ball?

>

> The answer is yes. It is about fitting the right compression vs the ambient air. You will lose distance on your *drives playing an under or over compressed ball.

 

Maybe we can get that other website to do the test again in August.

 

I play the Srixon Z-Star XV when it's warm and the Callaway Supersoft when it's cold. I only do this because balls plug and are easily lost in the winter and the Callaways are cheap. Obviously I hit the XV's further in the warm months because of warmer air, harder turf, etc. I never thought about compression being a source of gains but believe that is the case. The question is how much? Could it be more than 5 yard for a guy with a SS 115-120? Is a guy hurting himself substantially by using a softer ball in the summer?

[gioreeko]

> @"North Butte" said:

> I just did a back-of-envelope linear extrapolation (almost certainly not correct but a general approximation) comparing ball speeds for some under-90 compression urethane balls (like Chrome Soft and Qstar Tour) vs. over-110 compression ones (like Zstar XV and ProV1x).

>

> If you take the test result differences between 115mph and 85mph swings and extrapolate them to lower clubhead speeds, somewhere down in the 60-70mph range the difference between ball speeds of high and low compression will approach zero. There's a remote chance that the effects would reverse somehow if we were taking under-60mph clubhead speeds but that's such a distinct realm of ballflight dynamics that a linear extrapolation is unlikely to work well.

I think that at 60-70 mph swings the golfer should be happy if the ball gets off the tee at all, and jump for joy if it goes past the red tees!!

 

[Carolina Golfer 2]

> @soregongolfer said:

> > @Pittknife said:

> > > @jjfcpa said:

> > > So one of the results of the test was that if you have a high swing speed (in excess of say 110), then you may lose distance if playing a softer ball (lower compression).

> > >

> > > Is the contrary also true. If you have a slow swing speed, say 85 mph, will you lost distance if you play a firmer ball?

> >

> > The answer is yes. It is about fitting the right compression vs the ambient air. You will lose distance on your *drives playing an under or over compressed ball.

>

> Maybe we can get that other website to do the test again in August.

>

> I play the Srixon Z-Star XV when it's warm and the Callaway Supersoft when it's cold. I only do this because balls plug and are easily lost in the winter and the Callaways are cheap. Obviously I hit the XV's further in the warm months because of warmer air, harder turf, etc. I never thought about compression being a source of gains but believe that is the case. The question is how much? Could it be more than 5 yard for a guy with a SS 115-120? Is a guy hurting himself substantially by using a softer ball in the summer?

 

I'm pretty sure the rest was done in AZ and temps were in the 80's

[NRJyzr]

> @Pittknife said:

> > @jjfcpa said:

> > So one of the results of the test was that if you have a high swing speed (in excess of say 110), then you may lose distance if playing a softer ball (lower compression).

> >

> > Is the contrary also true. If you have a slow swing speed, say 85 mph, will you lost distance if you play a firmer ball?

>

> The answer is yes. It is about fitting the right compression vs the ambient air. You will lose distance on your *drives playing an under or over compressed ball.

 

 

 

It would have to be a pretty low swingspeed. Look at the 7 iron and wedge results for the 85mph driver swingspeed. Not much spread there, and the swingspeed for those clubs for an 85mph driver player would be a fair amount below that.

[NRJyzr]

> @soregongolfer said:

> > @Pittknife said:

> > > @jjfcpa said:

> > > So one of the results of the test was that if you have a high swing speed (in excess of say 110), then you may lose distance if playing a softer ball (lower compression).

> > >

> > > Is the contrary also true. If you have a slow swing speed, say 85 mph, will you lost distance if you play a firmer ball?

> >

> > The answer is yes. It is about fitting the right compression vs the ambient air. You will lose distance on your *drives playing an under or over compressed ball.

>

> Maybe we can get that other website to do the test again in August.

>

> I play the Srixon Z-Star XV when it's warm and the Callaway Supersoft when it's cold. I only do this because balls plug and are easily lost in the winter and the Callaways are cheap. Obviously I hit the XV's further in the warm months because of warmer air, harder turf, etc. I never thought about compression being a source of gains but believe that is the case. The question is how much? Could it be more than 5 yard for a guy with a SS 115-120? Is a guy hurting himself substantially by using a softer ball in the summer?

 

 

One of the anecdotes I mentioned in my earlier post was from a guy who was an occasional (maybe more than occasional) long drive guy, who was 120+ with his normal length driver. He talked about the soft balls fluttering and dying on him, quite a bit more than just a few yards short of his usual distance. Based on that, i would say yes, at 120 you could be losing more than 5 yards with a soft ball.

 

That's where you have to ask yourself if the performance of the ball in all other areas is such that you can live with that distance loss. Seems anyone in that zipcode can afford a few yards of distance loss. Maybe it's just easy for me to think that because I'm not in that higher rent district, LOL.

[scomac2002]

Obviously late to this thread. Took me an age to figure out that this test wasn't on WRX, but a competing site.

 

Not at all surprised by the results as a slow swing speed player that is now comfortably playing A flex shafts. I get more distance from the higher compression tour type balls. I don't typically play these sorts of balls, but that may change as I get my game back (hopefully) and begin playing more regularly. I've always just bought something that was on sale in quantity assuming that the differences were marginal, but this test seems to confirm my anecdotal obervations when using a premium ball.

[soregongolfer]

> @"Carolina Golfer 2" said:

> > @soregongolfer said:

> > > @Pittknife said:

> > > > @jjfcpa said:

> > > > So one of the results of the test was that if you have a high swing speed (in excess of say 110), then you may lose distance if playing a softer ball (lower compression).

> > > >

> > > > Is the contrary also true. If you have a slow swing speed, say 85 mph, will you lost distance if you play a firmer ball?

> > >

> > > The answer is yes. It is about fitting the right compression vs the ambient air. You will lose distance on your *drives playing an under or over compressed ball.

> >

> > Maybe we can get that other website to do the test again in August.

> >

> > I play the Srixon Z-Star XV when it's warm and the Callaway Supersoft when it's cold. I only do this because balls plug and are easily lost in the winter and the Callaways are cheap. Obviously I hit the XV's further in the warm months because of warmer air, harder turf, etc. I never thought about compression being a source of gains but believe that is the case. The question is how much? Could it be more than 5 yard for a guy with a SS 115-120? Is a guy hurting himself substantially by using a softer ball in the summer?

>

> I'm pretty sure the rest was done in AZ and temps were in the 80's

 

Which would back what Pittknife stated earlier. That being a harder ball goes further when it's warm compared to a softer ball, but that flip flops when it's cold. When I look at that ball study, I only see a few miles an hour difference between many of the hard and soft balls (Pro V1 vs. AVX for example). So, yes, technically the softer balls are slower, but only a MPH or 2 of ball speed which equates to 2 to 4 yards. I am not counting the outliers, of course, as there was a substantial difference between the Snell and Callaway balls that, frankly, I do not believe.

I didn't know the test was done in AZ. Thanks for that tidbit!

[lambo428]

Of course, one can pick apart the results and the test methodology, but in the end, it's just entertainment. Further, I really, really appreciate that a golf site even bothered to execute and publish this test (via robot no less). I'm sure that all golf websites which are dependent on ads from OEM's wouldn't dare conceive/publish this type of review/test.

 

For me, the bottom line is the performance of the product on the golf course therefore all info is helpful. I think we should applaud that website for the huge balls it took to publish test data about any golf product.

[Mcgeeno]

I’m so conflicted and confused haha.

 

Read through hundreds of posts. 110 mph low handicap player who likes soft balls and has had his entire world turned upside down lol.

[North Butte]

> @Mcgeeno said:

> I’m so conflicted and confused haha.

>

> Read through hundreds of posts. 110 mph low handicap player who likes soft balls and has had his entire world turned upside down lol.

 

Only if 2mph of ball speed and perhaps 3-4 yards of driver distance is earthshattering for you. I'd think someone swinging at 110mph could easily indulge himself in a nice, soft feeling ball at the expense of driving it 281 yards instead of 284 yards.

[hahanice]

I posted this on the mgs forum but feel the need to post here too. I'm curious to know how many people do their own test when choosing balls and equipment. I always do head to head tests. Meaning playing alone and hitting the same shot multiple times with different balls. I've seen 2 or 3 people who have done actual tests and their results make actual sense.

I switched from duo to project a to z star. When this test came out I thought it was awesome because they like the z star. So it confirmed my belief that this ball was superior.

One of the things I've been struggling with is iron distance. Longer than my friends off the tee, or at least keeping up, a club short on all irons. Been trying to change my swing all spring to figure out the issue. I play blades (srix 945) and needed to play my back up irons (CG Tours) and felt like they were even shorter, so my friend told me to try duos again. Got just about ALL of my distance back. Did some head to heads and the duo and z star were close on most tests, but there were a few holes where I hit duo to the center of the green with 2 balls and I tried z star 5 times and couldn't get it there. The duo also moved less in the air for me.

The difference in feel is also shocking. Z star now feels like trying to hit a boulder with a hockey stick.

Something similar happened last year when I tried to switch from dt trusoft to prov1 (because I thought I was the man and needed an elite ball).

I'm currently a 2.7 with a 105 or so mph driver. I play blades which may play a part as well. Just saying that I swing fairly quick in the amateur golf world, and if the softest ball ever works for me it should work for more people than not.

[GolfChannel]

The “study” for me got me superficially over my idea of the proper feel of a golf ball. I was chasing soft versus performance. I have played a V1x since reading the review and my game has benefited from the change and now the V1x feels soft once I let my mental bias of what is soft fall to the wayside and just committed to playing the “harder” ball.

 

Along those lines, I really want to try the Tour BX, but I will wait till the new generation comes out so j can get them at a discount or pick up some at a discount off lost golf balls.

[ghoul31]

They should have tested some 2 piece balls

I want to see if they are longer and straighter

Most people prefer to spend $1 per ball than $4 per ball anyways

 

 

[BeerPerHole]

I just learned of this study today. I was intrigued but not surprised about the firmer balls being longer at higher speeds. I've narrowed my playing down to the ZStar and ZStar XV the past several months. I noticed the XV seems to explode off the driver, go longer. If the swing is off (thankfully, happening less often lately) though, the XV goes wild more than the ZStar. Both have been excellent. The Q Star Tour data also caught my attention. The ball feels great, does whatever I want but is not as long off the tee. The data seemed to agree with that. Congrats to Dean at Snell for his product showing so well.

[bunta]

seriously why isnt there more love for the Tour B RX ? From the chart, it did very very well if 85mph and 115mph were both checked (which i believe shifts the averages to 100mph). I mean it beat out almost all of the other balls in many categories including driver and 7 iron. Spin and carry numbers too.

[caniac6]

> @bunta said:

> seriously why isnt there more love for the Tour B RX ? From the chart, it did very very well if 85mph and 115mph were both checked (which i believe shifts the averages to 100mph). I mean it beat out almost all of the other balls in many categories including driver and 7 iron. Spin and carry numbers too.

 

I had a lot of love for the RX, especially when it was sold for $39.95. When the price came within a few dollars of the PRO V family, it lost a lot of it's appeal.