My Golf Spy Ball Test - General Discussion

[gohatters]

My big takeaway from the test was that when you pay for the better balls you’re really paying for Quality Control. Not necessarily performance.

 

Most of the balls they tested perform well enough. Some go farther. Some spin more. But most are acceptable depending on what you’re looking for.

 

But as they get more expensive, you’re getting more consistency.

 

For my average round, I’m happy to give up some of that to save significant money. But if I’m playing competitively then I’ll pony up for my Srixons. Again, not perfect. But most certainly better than the Gamer Urethanes I play otherwise.

[DFinch]

> @gohatters said:

> My big takeaway from the test was that when you pay for the better balls you’re really paying for Quality Control. Not necessarily performance.

>

> Most of the balls they tested perform well enough. Some go farther. Some spin more. But most are acceptable depending on what you’re looking for.

>

> But as they get more expensive, you’re getting more consistency.

>

> For my average round, I’m happy to give up some of that to save significant money. But if I’m playing competitively then I’ll pony up for my Srixons. Again, not perfect. But most certainly better than the Gamer Urethanes I play otherwise.

 

I agree with this, but it's concerning how much that quality control was shown to affect performance. When you get random shots that go 40 yards offline with a robot with "premium" balls it gets really hard to swallow even for non-competitive rounds. The off-center core issue for multi-layer balls potentially makes them worse than cheap 2-piece balls because there's no center core to unbalance the ball. I just started cutting old balls yesterday and the first (older) ProV1 I cut was visibly off-center...and they're among the best in QC. It's put a light on the industry that I hope results in significant improvement across the board.

 

[North Butte]

I can't begin to estimate how many multipiece urethane balls I've hit over the years. A hundred dozens maybe? And I have never seen a ball fly 40 yards offline on a well-struck, well-aimed shot. Or even 20 yards. Maybe in a stiff crosswind but not just a normal shot that veers wildly because of the ball. It simply doesn't happen to me, sorry.

[cristphoto]

> @gohatters said:

> My big takeaway from the test was that when you pay for the better balls you’re really paying for Quality Control. Not necessarily performance.

>

> Most of the balls they tested perform well enough. Some go farther. Some spin more. But most are acceptable depending on what you’re looking for.

>

> But as they get more expensive, you’re getting more consistency.

>

> For my average round, I’m happy to give up some of that to save significant money. But if I’m playing competitively then I’ll pony up for my Srixons. Again, not perfect. But most certainly better than the Gamer Urethanes I play otherwise.

 

I agree. I've mostly played the ProV1 since it came out but every year I would try similar balls from other companies. I recall for a while I liked the Bridgestone B330S from maybe 10 years ago. Good ball but I noticed on more than one occasion a close look at the dimples would show that maybe 10 or 20 dimples on the ball weren't cut properly. You could see the rim of the dimple was higher that the balls surface (and could feel it too). This would show up on maybe half the balls in the dozen. Through all the years I've played the ProV1 I have never seen this. The only other comment I have is once I tried some used balls from LGB and every now and then I could see a weird flight pattern with the driver. Sort of a quick fade/draw zig-zag flight. My playing partners saw it too so I'm not crazy. Turned me off to water balls.

[Red4282]

> @DFinch said:

> > @gohatters said:

> > My big takeaway from the test was that when you pay for the better balls you’re really paying for Quality Control. Not necessarily performance.

> >

> > Most of the balls they tested perform well enough. Some go farther. Some spin more. But most are acceptable depending on what you’re looking for.

> >

> > But as they get more expensive, you’re getting more consistency.

> >

> > For my average round, I’m happy to give up some of that to save significant money. But if I’m playing competitively then I’ll pony up for my Srixons. Again, not perfect. But most certainly better than the Gamer Urethanes I play otherwise.

>

> I agree with this, but it's concerning how much that quality control was shown to affect performance. When you get random shots that go 40 yards offline with a robot with "premium" balls it gets really hard to swallow even for non-competitive rounds. The off-center core issue for multi-layer balls potentially makes them worse than cheap 2-piece balls because there's no center core to unbalance the ball. I just started cutting old balls yesterday and the first (older) ProV1 I cut was visibly off-center...and they're among the best in QC. It's put a light on the industry that I hope results in significant improvement across the board.

>

 

> @DFinch said:

> > @gohatters said:

> > My big takeaway from the test was that when you pay for the better balls you’re really paying for Quality Control. Not necessarily performance.

> >

I fear QC will stay the same and they will just do away with multicolor cores. Then nothing will appear offcenter.

[DFinch]

> @Red4282 said:

> > @DFinch said:

> > > @gohatters said:

> > > My big takeaway from the test was that when you pay for the better balls you’re really paying for Quality Control. Not necessarily performance.

> > >

> > > Most of the balls they tested perform well enough. Some go farther. Some spin more. But most are acceptable depending on what you’re looking for.

> > >

> > > But as they get more expensive, you’re getting more consistency.

> > >

> > > For my average round, I’m happy to give up some of that to save significant money. But if I’m playing competitively then I’ll pony up for my Srixons. Again, not perfect. But most certainly better than the Gamer Urethanes I play otherwise.

> >

> > I agree with this, but it's concerning how much that quality control was shown to affect performance. When you get random shots that go 40 yards offline with a robot with "premium" balls it gets really hard to swallow even for non-competitive rounds. The off-center core issue for multi-layer balls potentially makes them worse than cheap 2-piece balls because there's no center core to unbalance the ball. I just started cutting old balls yesterday and the first (older) ProV1 I cut was visibly off-center...and they're among the best in QC. It's put a light on the industry that I hope results in significant improvement across the board.

> >

>

> > @DFinch said:

> > > @gohatters said:

> > > My big takeaway from the test was that when you pay for the better balls you’re really paying for Quality Control. Not necessarily performance.

> > >

> I fear QC will stay the same and they will just do away with multicolor cores. Then nothing will appear offcenter.

 

I think you'd still be able to see the bond line. I could see the "graduated core" process becoming more popular. Since it's changing the characteristics with heat and time rather than gluing different materials together it's probably easier to keep it even.

 

[Celeras]

Didn't want to make a new thread for this one, figured I'd just dump it here with the others:

 

Worst I've ever seen by a long shot!

 

[Holy Moses]

> @Celeras said:

> Didn't want to make a new thread for this one, figured I'd just dump it here with the others:

>

>

> Worst I've ever seen by a long shot!

>

 

Callaway makes bad balls, but are we sure that’s a Chrome Soft split open?

[crazygolfnut]

> @Celeras said:

> Didn't want to make a new thread for this one, figured I'd just dump it here with the others:

>

>

> Worst I've ever seen by a long shot!

>

 

That pic may explain a few things. I played that ball for awhile and had very poor results. Thought it was me.

[GoGoErky]

> @"Holy Moses" said:

> > @Celeras said:

> > Didn't want to make a new thread for this one, figured I'd just dump it here with the others:

> >

> >

> > Worst I've ever seen by a long shot!

> >

>

> Callaway makes bad balls, but are we sure that’s a Chrome Soft split open?

 

You will have to take the persons account for it but I have nothing to question the legitimacy of the post. So far it’s only been Callaway homers I’ve seen making comments defending Callaway on the various accounts that reposted this

[trackcoach13]

> @"Holy Moses" said:

> > @Celeras said:

> > Didn't want to make a new thread for this one, figured I'd just dump it here with the others:

> >

> >

> > Worst I've ever seen by a long shot!

> >

>

> Callaway makes bad balls, but are we sure that’s a Chrome Soft split open?

 

Here is a thread about Callaway Chrome Soft from this site and it includes an image of insides and it is identical to the ball in this thread.

 

https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/1491990/callaway-chrome-soft-truvis-balls-are-not-balanced/p1

 

[trackcoach13]

> @crazygolfnut said:

> > @Celeras said:

> > Didn't want to make a new thread for this one, figured I'd just dump it here with the others:

> >

> >

> > Worst I've ever seen by a long shot!

> >

>

> That pic may explain a few things. I played that ball for awhile and had very poor results. Thought it was me.

 

Would love to seen the ball above in action before it was cut. Yikes.

[xxio]

Is it even a different material/layer or an actual core? It looks like just painted.

[NoTalentLefty]

I tested a Titleist ProV 1, a Titleist DT TruSoft, and the Taylormade Project(a). I didn’t lose or gain anything from the ProV 1 and the Project (a) other than little more backspin from the Titleist DT TruSoft. No distance was lost on any ball. TruSoft was for me . Don’t think the mygolfpie got it right.

[Red4282]

> @NoTalentLefty said:

> I tested a Titleist ProV 1, a Titleist DT TruSoft, and the Taylormade Project(a). I didn’t lose or gain anything from the ProV 1 and the Project (a) other than little more backspin from the Titleist DT TruSoft. No distance was lost on any ball. TruSoft was for me . Don’t think the mygolfpie got it right.

 

Yep they just made up data... ?

[NoTalentLefty]

> @Red4282 said:

> > @NoTalentLefty said:

> > I tested a Titleist ProV 1, a Titleist DT TruSoft, and the Taylormade Project(a). I didn’t lose or gain anything from the ProV 1 and the Project (a) other than little more backspin from the Titleist DT TruSoft. No distance was lost on any ball. TruSoft was for me . Don’t think the mygolfpie got it right.

>

> Yep they just made up data... ?

 

Who said they made it up??? Just think there is more to it . Reading comprehension is not GolfWRXers strong suit.

[rwbloom93]

> @Red4282 said:

> > @NoTalentLefty said:

> > I tested a Titleist ProV 1, a Titleist DT TruSoft, and the Taylormade Project(a). I didn’t lose or gain anything from the ProV 1 and the Project (a) other than little more backspin from the Titleist DT TruSoft. No distance was lost on any ball. TruSoft was for me . Don’t think the mygolfpie got it right.

>

> Yep they just made up data... ?

 

The data has little to no value unless you're the robot (with its perfect swing plane and strike)....

I tested balls a few times a week (in an open field 100 x 300 yds) for almost a year. I wrote a long message on that website with my findings and they deleted it. I was careful to say my data only applies to me and my swing ....but my results didn't match their results or interpretations so my comment was not allowed to stand.

 

For the record, I have a flat swing plane with driver (85 mph), ball close to middle of stance, "descending blow", weak grip, limited wrist action, and my "miss" is toe side and high on club face. My ball flight is a draw/hook or more commonly a block/draw (which finds the FW a good percentage of the time). If I try to "cut" the ball its normally just a straight pull, if I move the ball more to the front (left foot) I tend to "top or thin" it.

 

Based on the above...I have best results (distance) with mid compression balls (65 to 75 core compression). I have never, ever, ever hit a Prov1x or Tour B X further than than mid compressions as the robot suggests...I mean never! My best distance results are with the 2017 Bridgestone e6 (especially toe center), 2018 Titleist TourSoft and Velocity, 2018 TaylorMade Project (a).....Very close behind is the Bridgestone Tour B RX, XS, and RXS....(The Titleist ProV1x and Tour B X go no where for me...10-15 yards shorter.)....BTW I don't hit the soft balls very far either with the driver (Duo/Callaway Supersoft/Softfli ...very short like the high compression balls)

 

With long irons I hit the Wilson Staff Duo Spin longer than any other ball. The "soft" core balls are better than the mid and high for 5,4, and 3 irons (for me).

 

For short irons, the only ball I have ever backed up on a green is the Chrome Soft (Tevis)....however....the Chrome soft is just average for me on drives and long irons (so I don't play it....I use the Chrome soft only in scrambles for inside 100 yds shots (pin in front).

 

Some will say it's all in head....LOL....No, it's based on a year of testing (fall, winter, spring, summer.....wind, rain, etc...). I have no allegiance to any ball or manufacturer....I only want best results.

 

So yes, Mygolfpie got it wrong (very badly) for me and my swing. ...If I was the robot, I would be very interested in the column.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[rwbloom93]

nt

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Red4282]

> @rwbloom93 said:

> > @Red4282 said:

> > > @NoTalentLefty said:

> > > I tested a Titleist ProV 1, a Titleist DT TruSoft, and the Taylormade Project(a). I didn’t lose or gain anything from the ProV 1 and the Project (a) other than little more backspin from the Titleist DT TruSoft. No distance was lost on any ball. TruSoft was for me . Don’t think the mygolfpie got it right.

> >

> > Yep they just made up data... ?

>

> The data has little to no value unless you're the robot (with its perfect swing plane and strike)....

> I tested balls a few times a week (in an open field 100 x 300 yds) for almost a year. I wrote a long message on that website with my findings and they deleted it. I was careful to say my data only applies to me and my swing ....but my results didn't match their results or interpretations so my comment was not allowed to stand.

>

> For the record, I have a flat swing plane with driver (85 mph), ball close to middle of stance, "descending blow", weak grip, limited wrist action, and my "miss" is toe side and high on club face. My ball flight is a draw/hook or more commonly a block/draw (which finds the FW a good percentage of the time). If I try to "cut" the ball its normally just a straight pull, if I move the ball more to the front (left foot) I tend to "top or thin" it.

>

> Based on the above...I have best results (distance) with mid compression balls (65 to 75 core compression). I have never, ever, ever hit a Prov1x or Tour B X further than than mid compressions as the robot suggests...I mean never! My best distance results are with the 2017 Bridgestone e6 (especially toe center), 2018 Titleist TourSoft and Velocity, 2018 TaylorMade Project (a).....Very close behind is the Bridgestone Tour B RX, XS, and RXS....(The Titleist ProV1x and Tour B X go no where for me...10-15 yards shorter.)....BTW I don't hit the soft balls very far either with the driver (Duo/Callaway Supersoft/Softfli ...very short like the high compression balls)

>

> With long irons I hit the Wilson Staff Duo Spin longer than any other ball. The "soft" core balls are better than the mid and high for 5,4, and 3 irons (for me).

>

> For short irons, the only ball I have ever backed up on a green is the Chrome Soft (Tevis)....however....the Chrome soft is just average for me on drives and long irons (so I don't play it....I use the Chrome soft only in scrambles for inside 100 yds shots (pin in front).

>

> Some will say it's all in head....LOL....No, it's based on a year of testing (fall, winter, spring, summer.....wind, rain, etc...). I have no allegiance to any ball or manufacturer....I only want best results.

>

> So yes, Mygolfpie got it wrong (very badly) for me and my swing. ...If I was the robot, I would be very interested in the column.

>

>

>

>

>

>

See this is where people take data the wrong way. The test didnt say a harder compresson ball is longer than a softer compression ball. It said that they offer more BALL SPEED. Which all that means is potentially longer given other data points are met (proper fit for player). Raw data is raw data, bottom line. Distance is a formula. Ball speed is only part of that formula.

 

[mmack067]

Imagine ignoring all of their report because you hit a bunch of balls in a field with no real way to measure anything

[rwbloom93]

 

> See this is where people take data the wrong way. The test didnt say a harder compresson ball is longer than a softer compression ball. It said that they offer more BALL SPEED. Which all that means is potentially longer given other data points are met (proper fit for player). Raw data is raw data, bottom line. Distance is a formula. Ball speed is only part of that formula.

>

The raw data, and their conclusions from the raw data, say a 85 mph swing speed player is losing distance if not playing a Titleist ProVx or Bridgestone TourB X (I don't have any Snells). I have dozens of each ball (and have hit 100's of drivers with each) and it's not true for me. They are 10-15 yards shorter.

 

[rwbloom93]

> @mmack067 said:

> Imagine ignoring all of their report because you hit a bunch of balls in a field with no real way to measure anything

 

...or how about this..... A golfer ignoring real life results from their own personal tests in favor of what an article says is the best ball for you (distance) based on a robot swing.

[GoGoErky]

> @rwbloom93 said:

> > @mmack067 said:

> > Imagine ignoring all of their report because you hit a bunch of balls in a field with no real way to measure anything

>

> ...or how about this..... A golfer ignoring real life results from their own personal tests in favor of what an article says is the best ball for you (distance) based on a robot swing.

 

Or how about they and many have said play what you want and what works for you. And they are putting out information to help people make decisions on what to try.

 

Nobody cares what someone else plays or why. You have your methods and that works for your decision making progress. They worked with industry experts to develop a study, used an independent facility and posted the raw data.

 

You don’t like the data or don’t believe it fine. At the end of the day no one is hurt by not accepting the data and choosing their own method. But at the same time saying one testing is better than the other is a little silly when one is based purely on on a persons swing and the numerous variabl associated with that swing compared to one that had less variables

 

[North Butte]

All I know is this. If a fairly well controlled, carefully conducted test using a hitting robot says Ball A is a couple yards longer than Ball B and a guy hitting a few balls with no way to measure distance tells me Ball A is 15-20 yards shorter than Ball B,

I know which one of these is more likely to be true than the other.

 

I remember at the height of the K-Sig craze some guy posted that he hit one driver shot with the original K-Sig and it was 15 yards farther than any other ball on the market. He said that one swing proved it as far as he's concerned. Must be nice to go through life with such sublime certainty about everything.

[crazygolfnut]

All I know is that a human being is not as consistent with swing speed, setup, angle of attach, etc. as a robot. Information from both sides are good to consider.

[flushem]

There are two breeds of people. One know the truth and the other blind.

[crazygolfnut]

> @flushem said:

> There are two breeds of people. One know the truth and the other blind.

 

I always thought there were three types of people. Those who can count, and those who can't. ..... :)

[xkilgorextroutx]

> @rwbloom93 said:

> > @mmack067 said:

> > Imagine ignoring all of their report because you hit a bunch of balls in a field with no real way to measure anything

>

> ...or how about this..... A golfer ignoring real life results from their own personal tests in favor of what an article says is the best ball for you (distance) based on a robot swing.

 

You admittedly have a slow and unorthodox swing, yet you pooh-pooh all the data that was compiled using exact measurements and rigorous testing in favor of yours in a decidedly unscientific and unmeasurable environment. OK.

Gotta love the internet... sheesh.

[Red4282]

> @rwbloom93 said:

>

> > See this is where people take data the wrong way. The test didnt say a harder compresson ball is longer than a softer compression ball. It said that they offer more BALL SPEED. Which all that means is potentially longer given other data points are met (proper fit for player). Raw data is raw data, bottom line. Distance is a formula. Ball speed is only part of that formula.

> >

> The raw data, and their conclusions from the raw data, say a 85 mph swing speed player is losing distance if not playing a Titleist ProVx or Bridgestone TourB X (I don't have any Snells). I have dozens of each ball (and have hit 100's of drivers with each) and it's not true for me. They are 10-15 yards shorter.

>

Their conclusions were “softer is slower” not “softer is shorter”. You reached your own conclusions by mis interpreting what was being said.

 

[soregongolfer]

> @"North Butte" said:

> All I know is this. If a fairly well controlled, carefully conducted test using a hitting robot says Ball A is a couple yards longer than Ball B and a guy hitting a few balls with no way to measure distance tells me Ball A is 15-20 yards shorter than Ball B,

> I know which one of these is more likely to be true than the other.

>

>** I remember at the height of the K-Sig craze some guy posted that he hit one driver shot with the original K-Sig and it was 15 yards farther than any other ball on the market. He said that one swing proved it as far as he's concerned. Must be nice to go through life with such sublime certainty about everything. **

 

Wow. I remember you writing post after post about how bad the KSig was and you still hadn't hit it up to that point. You need not cast stones on that particular subject.