Which ball of the following manufacturers is the lowest compression for a 100mph Driver swing speed?

[nad12]

Hi,

Of the following brands which golf ball in their line-up is recommended as their lowest compression ball I should use in order to **not** lose distance from a 100mph Driver swing speed?

Titliest

Callaway

Bridgestone

Srixon

Wilson

 

To use the Srixon brand as an example, it could be recommended that for a 100mph driver swing speed that the UltiSoft and Soft Feel golf balls would be over compressed and therefore lose distance, however the AD333 is the lowest compression ball in their line-up that would not lost any distance with a 100mph SS. Of course, the AD333 Tour, Z Star and Z Star X are their other balls, however it is the AD333 their would be their lowest compression ball that would not lose any distance. Hope this makes sense.

I ask this as I like low compression, soft feeling golf balls, however I don't want to be losing distance with them. I would rather know the balls that won't lose any distance and then go from there.

Thanks in advance.

[jmgledhill]

Check out the ball comparison at mygolfspy it's really comprehensive with some nice charts all the way at the bottom.

 

[arbeck]

It doesn't really work that way. At 100 MPH the Q Star Tour (which I believe is the AD333 Tour) loses about 1MPH of ball speed to the Z Star. The Z Star loses about 1MPH to the Z Star XV. When sorting the balls by ball speed, you'll see that it's almost a direct relationship to compression.

At 85MPH the gap narrows to about 1.5MPH from best to worst ball.

 

I think a firmer ball is almost always going to be faster, but the amount that it's faster drops the slower you swing. And once you get below about 85MPH the difference in speed is very much overwhelmed by the noise in strike.

 

[North Butte]

> @arbeck said:

> It doesn't really work that way. At 100 MPH the Q Star Tour (which I believe is the AD333 Tour) loses about 1MPH of ball speed to the Z Star. The Z Star loses about 1MPH to the Z Star XV. When sorting the balls by ball speed, you'll see that it's almost a direct relationship to compression.

>

> At 85MPH the gap narrows to about 1.5MPH from best to worst ball.

>

> I think a firmer ball is almost always going to be faster, but the amount that it's faster drops the slower you swing. And once you get below about 85MPH the difference in speed is very much overwhelmed by the noise in strike.

 

That's a very well stated and concise summary of the reality (as I see it at least) of golf ball "compression". My one quibble is the last sentence which I think could be amplified somewhat.

 

Below about 85mph differences are overwhelmed by noise in robot tests. For amateur golfers, the "noise in strike" overwhelms almost any attempt to quantify specific differences between balls.

 

I know this forum likes to treat Titleist as some sort of villain (for reasons that escape me) but I recall many years ago reading their marketing literature that claimed any small differences in "distance" among their balls were far less impactful on a golfer's game than matching up performance "working from the green, back".

 

Now in recent years they've started dabbling in more distance-oriented advertising. But their original point was a good one. There' s no way 2mph of ball speed off the driver can save you more strokes than you'd lose by playing a ball that didn't suit you in every other way. And I'd go farther and say if you find a modern, name-brand ball that suits you in terms of sound/feel, ball flight, how it reacts when hitting the green and how it responds in the short game then FORGET ABOUT BALL SPEED. It's going to be close enough to optimum as makes no matter.

 

[arbeck]

> @"North Butte" said:

> That's a very well stated and concise summary of the reality (as I see it at least) of golf ball "compression". My one quibble is the last sentence which I think could be amplified somewhat.

>

> Below about 85mph differences are overwhelmed by noise in robot tests. For amateur golfers, the "noise in strike" overwhelms almost any attempt to quantify specific differences between balls.

>

> I know this forum likes to treat Titleist as some sort of villain (for reasons that escape me) but I recall many years ago reading their marketing literature that claimed any small differences in "distance" among their balls were far less impactful on a golfer's game than matching up performance "working from the green, back".

>

> Now in recent years they've started dabbling in more distance-oriented advertising. But their original point was a good one. There' s no way 2mph of ball speed off the driver can save you more strokes than you'd lose by playing a ball that didn't suit you in every other way. And I'd go farther and say if you find a modern, name-brand ball that suits you in terms of sound/feel, ball flight, how it reacts when hitting the green and how it responds in the short game then FORGET ABOUT BALL SPEED. It's going to be close enough to optimum as makes no matter.

>

 

The one caveat here is that all things being equal, a firmer ball will spin more and react better around the green. Spin is generated by the soft cover pinching between the harder inner layers and creating friction. If we show the same chart with wedge spin you can see that the firmness vs spin is almost linear.

It is possible to have a firmer overall ball spin less. Callaway does this with the Chromesoft and Taylormade does it with the TP5. You can accomplish this by some combination of making the cover of the firmer ball harder/thicker or making a mantle layer that is harder on the softer ball but with a softer core. But in general firmer = more spin.

 

Amateurs in general need more spin added. Slow swing speed amateurs need even more. So it's kind of counter intuitive, but a slow swing speed player probably would benefit most from the harder ball.

 

 

 

[North Butte]

I’d imagine the holy grail for golf ball makers is a ball that performs like a good 110-compression Tour ball but makes a soft squishy sound like a Duo Soft.

[arbeck]

> @"North Butte" said:

> I’d imagine the holy grail for golf ball makers is a ball that performs like a good 110-compression Tour ball but makes a soft squishy sound like a Duo Soft.

 

Probably, but I'm not sure the laws of physics will let this happen.

[nlinneman20]

I'm 100mph and I'm loving the Maxfli Softflis. Love the matte colors, love the accuracy off the tees, I find it stops on mid/short iron shots and around the green I have been trying to bump and run more and they roll out just fine.

 

I used to use urethane and around the green it would stop ya, but when i'm trying to get it to roll 10 yards and it stops a yard after hitting the green it doesn't help me much. If you hit your irons as high as I do, you can stop anything on the green. Now if you hit low line drives, ya these will probably roll off the back.

[Titleist_PT23]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @arbeck said:

> > It doesn't really work that way. At 100 MPH the Q Star Tour (which I believe is the AD333 Tour) loses about 1MPH of ball speed to the Z Star. The Z Star loses about 1MPH to the Z Star XV. When sorting the balls by ball speed, you'll see that it's almost a direct relationship to compression.

> >

> > At 85MPH the gap narrows to about 1.5MPH from best to worst ball.

> >

> > I think a firmer ball is almost always going to be faster, but the amount that it's faster drops the slower you swing. And once you get below about 85MPH the difference in speed is very much overwhelmed by the noise in strike.

>

> That's a very well stated and concise summary of the reality (as I see it at least) of golf ball "compression". My one quibble is the last sentence which I think could be amplified somewhat.

>

> Below about 85mph differences are overwhelmed by noise in robot tests. For amateur golfers, the "noise in strike" overwhelms almost any attempt to quantify specific differences between balls.

>

> I know this forum likes to treat Titleist as some sort of villain (for reasons that escape me) but I recall many years ago reading their marketing literature that claimed any small differences in "distance" among their balls were far less impactful on a golfer's game than matching up performance "working from the green, back".

>

> Now in recent years they've started dabbling in more distance-oriented advertising. But their original point was a good one. There' s no way 2mph of ball speed off the driver can save you more strokes than you'd lose by playing a ball that didn't suit you in every other way. And I'd go farther and say if you find a modern, name-brand ball that suits you in terms of sound/feel, ball flight, how it reacts when hitting the green and how it responds in the short game then FORGET ABOUT BALL SPEED. It's going to be close enough to optimum as makes no matter.

I'm always torn by these charts. I'll take the data for what it is / have no reason to believe it's wrong. But I just play better with the SuperSoft type balls; 2 out of my last 5 round were in the 70s and I hit drives on two different holes where I've never been before (one was so far down I think it may have hit a yardage marker or something - it is inconceivable that it would go that far with my swing speed. Of course, it's possible I could have been even farther down with a ProV1x...).

 

I could get past the feel preference of the soft balls if I thought the firmer/tour ones were doing something more for me (I think they do nothing for me on full swing iron shots and I'm still undecided on the short game aspect). However, I just like the ball flight off the irons on the SuperSoft type balls more, and that is something that has been harder to adjust to (with the others).

[BeerPerHole]

Funny thing is...when you look at the charts it jumps out at me (at least) that for us weekend warriors driver distance from very firm to pretty soft (for the most part) is insignificant. The QStar Tour shows up a couple yards shorter than the XV. I love driving both of those balls. And, with my broad standard deviation on where I make contact with the face it doesn't seem to matter which one I play. On my last post-work 9 on Tuesday I took a mully off the tee and my partner tossed me an old Mojo. I hit the longest drive I ever hit on that hole - easily reaching the par 5 in 2. Go figure. But...I did roll off the back of the green on my approach...

I do see that QStar Tour as a sleeper in the ball industry. Lately, however, I've seen the price on it creep up at our local shop. It was a steal when I first found it. I miss the old Project a too. The new one's not as good but costs more...

[arbeck]

> @agolf1 said:

> I could get past the feel preference of the soft balls if I thought the firmer/tour ones were doing something more for me (I think they do nothing for me on full swing iron shots and I'm still undecided on the short game aspect). However, I just like the ball flight off the irons on the SuperSoft type balls more, and that is something that has been harder to adjust to (with the others).

 

Until recently my longest drive ever was with a Wilson Duo, 314 yards according to GPS. It was a perfect storm of great strike a wonderful bounce on a slope and roll. I've recently beat it with a Bridgestone BXS that somehow went 326. I don't know how it bounced that far, and there it was slightly downhill, and there must have been a tailwind; but still my 100MPH swing speed should never get a ball out that far. This is just the example of why 1) picking a ball on driver distance isn't probably the best idea and 2) trying to do your own on course testing to find the longest ball is impossible for a normal human.

 

At normal swing speeds a soft ball might not be much different on an iron. It's going to spin way less and launch higher; so it's going to go further. And for a lot of people that's a plus. But if you are trying to hit a consistent distance, spin is generally your friend. I know that I would get flier type shots more often with the softer balls than I do now with the higher spinning models.

[North Butte]

> @arbeck said:

> At normal swing speeds a soft ball might not be much different on an iron. It's going to spin way less and launch higher; so it's going to go further. And for a lot of people that's a plus. But if you are trying to hit a consistent distance, spin is generally your friend. I know that I would get flier type shots more often with the softer balls than I do now with the higher spinning models.

 

I found when playing AVX for nearly a year and a half that I fell into the habit of chasing distance with my irons. Across the board the lower spin was giving me a couple yards, plus the middle irons rolled out a bit extra. And if I really went after a shot, swinging 101% instead of 95% on a 7-iron or 8-iron I could often eke out an extra half a club beyond what I considered my stock shot distance with a Pro V1x or similar.

 

So pretty soon my "120 club" which used to be 9-iron started to seem like a decision. That 9-iron was average 122 or 123 and if i stood on it maybe 128-129. But the PW if I really went after it could just about get to 120. Very addictive at first. Until I started overswinging./mishitting and coming up way short on one approach shot then nailing it one-hop over the green on the next. I was chasing my own tail and no longer had a "stock" distance in mind.

 

I'm back to Pro V1 now and also more recently changed to a set of irons with weaker lofts, as well. So I'm just about there with resetting my expectations. I now think of 115 as my stock distance with a (42 degree) 9-iron and am equally likely to be a couple yards long or maybe five yards short. And I no longer have any urge to swing out of my shoes instead of just taking one more club. The extra spin of this combination means swinging harder just spins the ball a little more and makes it stop faster, without adding a whole lot of extra distance. My scores have trended down 3-4 strokes since changing from strong lofts plus AVX to weak lofts plus Pro V1x.

[arbeck]

> @BeerPerHole said:

> Funny thing is...when you look at the charts it jumps out at me (at least) that for us weekend warriors driver distance from very firm to pretty soft (for the most part) is insignificant. The QStar Tour shows up a couple yards shorter than the XV. I love driving both of those balls. And, with my broad standard deviation on where I make contact with the face it doesn't seem to matter which one I play. On my last post-work 9 on Tuesday I took a mully off the tee and my partner tossed me an old Mojo. I hit the longest drive I ever hit on that hole - easily reaching the par 5 in 2. Go figure. But...I did roll off the back of the green on my approach...

> I do see that QStar Tour as a sleeper in the ball industry. Lately, however, I've seen the price on it creep up at our local shop. It was a steal when I first found it. I miss the old Project a too. The new one's not as good but costs more...

 

I played the QStar Tour most of last year. I can't really say that I noticed a ton of difference in driver distance, but I don't think I would ever be able to notice that on the course unless there was a huge discrepancy. What I did notice is that (especially in windy conditions) I tended to get fliers more often than I do when I use a harder spinnier ball. I tend to believe that the 600-1000RPM of back spin you lose on a 7i with it was the root cause. Add a little moisture and striking the ball a little high on the face and I'm in knuckle ball territory. Add a tail wind and I'm suddenly worried about an 8i going 160 yards.

 

Price is the other thing that concerned me. The Q Star Tour shouldn't be any cheaper to make than the Z Star. So how do they sell it for less? Are they simply making less profit on it? Or are they keeping their margins by widening their manufacturing tolerances on it? This isn't something I would have worried about in the past. But now that I've seen evidence that poor tolerances can lead to real problems with the balls, I'm hesitant to play a budget version of a tour ball.

[gioguy21]

want to see something odd? using the chart above -- the AVX and the Bridgestone BX are all but identical - except the BX is ~8 yards further carry?? how?

[arbeck]

> @gioguy21 said:

> want to see something odd? using the chart above -- the AVX and the Bridgestone BX are all but identical - except the BX is ~8 yards further carry?? how?

 

Look at the peak height. The AVX has a specifically different dimple pattern to lower ball flight. Titleist talked about this when it launched. It's a low spinning, low trajectory ball. The dimple patterns do two things. First, they reduce drag making the ball go further. Second, they generate lift helping the ball go higher in the air. The AVX leaves with the same launch and slightly lower ball speed, but because it generates less lift it peaks out lower, but lands at nearly the same angle. This is only showing carry distance. So the Bridgestone has about 1MPH more ball speed with equivalent launch and spin. That should make it carry 2 yards further or so. The extra 6 yards comes from the dimple pattern that helps the ball get higher and stay in the air slightly longer. Since both balls are landing at the same angle, you can think of that last 8 yards of carry as a right triangle with the angle of 34.9. If you go back to trigonometry you might remember that tan x = opposite / adjacent. The Bridgestone started descending from 3 yards higher. So lets use that as the opposite length. We'd then calculate the adjacent length as 8.4 yards. So that extra carry distance is totally within the realm of what we would expect given those numbers. Of course this is all fudging because balls don't travel in straight lines, they curve because of drag. But it's close enough to show the numbers make sense.

[gioguy21]

> @arbeck said:

> > @gioguy21 said:

> > want to see something odd? using the chart above -- the AVX and the Bridgestone BX are all but identical - except the BX is ~8 yards further carry?? how?

>

> Look at the peak height. The AVX has a specifically different dimple pattern to lower ball flight. Titleist talked about this when it launched. It's a low spinning, low trajectory ball. The dimple patterns do two things. First, they reduce drag making the ball go further. Second, they generate lift helping the ball go higher in the air. The AVX leaves with the same launch and slightly lower ball speed, but because it generates less lift it peaks out lower, but lands at nearly the same angle. This is only showing carry distance. So the Bridgestone has about 1MPH more ball speed with equivalent launch and spin. That should make it carry 2 yards further or so. The extra 6 yards comes from the dimple pattern that helps the ball get higher and stay in the air slightly longer. Since both balls are landing at the same angle, you can think of that last 8 yards of carry as a right triangle with the angle of 34.9. If you go back to trigonometry you might remember that tan x = opposite / adjacent. The Bridgestone started descending from 3 yards higher. So lets use that as the opposite length. We'd then calculate the adjacent length as 8.4 yards. So that extra carry distance is totally within the realm of what we would expect given those numbers. Of course this is all fudging because balls don't travel in straight lines, they curve because of drag. But it's close enough to show the numbers make sense.

 

...hmm. similar ballspeed, spin, descent angle, pretty much everything else except one doesn't go as high or as far. got it.

 

yea, BX please.

 

[arbeck]

> @gioguy21 said:

> ...hmm. similar ballspeed, spin, descent angle, pretty much everything else except one doesn't go as high or as far. got it.

>

> yea, BX please.

>

When you are talking about 8 yards of carry distance, 3 yards of extra height is a big deal.

 

[Titleist_PT23]

> @arbeck said:

> At normal swing speeds a soft ball might not be much different on an iron. It's going to spin way less and launch higher; so it's going to go further. And for a lot of people that's a plus. But if you are trying to hit a consistent distance, spin is generally your friend. I know that I would get flier type shots more often with the softer balls than I do now with the higher spinning models.

I believe they are about 1/2 club longer off the irons for me. Stopping power with these clubs is only marginally worse, as they seem to fly higher (partial wedges are a different story). I'm not sure on the flyer thing. I don't dispute the concept but I've always thought there's +/- 5 yards of carry distance on my reasonably good iron shots due to any number of things (exact strike, loft delivered, etc). Add in judging the wind, elevation, air, exact lie, and it's something I can't detect reliably from shot to shot. Maybe it's worse (with a low spin ball) but I think the tales told here are often overstated - people get nasty flyers from all club / ball combos at some time and in only one scenario is it entirely the equipment's fault. There are people that think the Ksig3 spins too much - i.e. using something (urethane still) that spins less than this should cause the same problem to some degree but no one ever complains about it like they do with the crappy balls.

[rwbloom93]

> @nad12 said:

> Hi,

> Of the following brands which golf ball in their line-up is recommended as their lowest compression ball I should use in order to **not** lose distance from a 100mph Driver swing speed?

> Titliest

> Callaway

> Bridgestone

> Srixon

> Wilson

>

> To use the Srixon brand as an example, it could be recommended that for a 100mph driver swing speed that the UltiSoft and Soft Feel golf balls would be over compressed and therefore lose distance, however the AD333 is the lowest compression ball in their line-up that would not lost any distance with a 100mph SS. Of course, the AD333 Tour, Z Star and Z Star X are their other balls, however it is the AD333 their would be their lowest compression ball that would not lose any distance. Hope this makes sense.

> I ask this as I like low compression, soft feeling golf balls, however I don't want to be losing distance with them. I would rather know the balls that won't lose any distance and then go from there.

> Thanks in advance.

 

I don't think anyone can answer your question. "Soft feel" is so subjective, one person's soft feel is another person's "hard as a rock".

 

Your swing path and ball flight characteristics will effect which ball provides the best performance for you. Plus whether or not you need greenside spin to score well.

 

Generally, the best "soft" urethane balls (IMO) from the major manufacturers are ones with core compression between 60 and 80:

Titleist - AVX (especially if you are a high ball hitter)

Callaway - Chrome Soft

Bridgestone - Tour B RX and S and Tour B XS

Srixon - AD333 Tour (Q-Star)

TaylorMade - Project (a)

 

If you don't need/want Urethane covers:

Titleist - TourSoft or TruSoft

Callaway - Superhot

Bridgestone - e12 or old e6

Srixon - AD333 (Q-Star_

TaylorMade - Project (s)

 

Only you can answer the question by playing a lot of golf and determining what performs best.

Playing a lot of golf is not a bad thing, right?

Good luck!

[Red4282]

To the op. Almost impossible to answer. Compression and ball speed have a direct correlation most of the time, but Ball speed doesnt always equal more distance as launch and spin are the other parts of the distance formula. It is possible a lower compression ball with lower ball speed could be better for you given the spin and launch performance makes up for it. It is such an impossible question to answer on a forum, so many variables for different people.

 

As to the claim that a dimple pattern reduces drag and therefore is longer is a myth. A dimple pattern does have an influence on drag and just determines that balls spin pattern. If we lower drag, we lower spin. If a player is already a lower spinning player he will lose yards with this ball and isnt a good choice. Some players need a little extra drag, or spin to keep their ballflight high enough and stable.

[NRJyzr]

> @Red4282 said:

> To the op. Almost impossible to answer. Compression and ball speed have a direct correlation most of the time, but Ball speed doesnt always equal more distance as launch and spin are the other parts of the distance formula. It is possible a lower compression ball with lower ball speed could be better for you given the spin and launch performance makes up for it. It is such an impossible question to answer on a forum, so many variables for different people.

 

 

The ball speed to compression effect isn't linear, due to the higher speeds compressing softer balls too much, to the point that the ball/club collision becomes increasingly less efficient, losing too much energy. You can see this by the gap closing in comparing the 115 and 85 swings, and especially using the 7 iron ballspeed data.

 

It's too bad they didn't do anything at 100 or even 105, might have been interesting.

 

I expect if the famous ball test had included a Duo Soft, considerably softer than any of the balls in that test, it would have displayed an even larger gap between it and the longest balls than exists between the Duo Pro or B RXS and those balls, with the 115mph driver swing.

 

 

[nad12]

Thanks for all your replies. Some very analytical responses resulting from the charts.

I'm wondering if the likes of a Callaway SuperSoft or a Bridgestone Extra Soft would over compress with a 100mph swing speed and therefore lose distance. It's just I love how those balls feels when putting.

[North Butte]

Any hard evidence for possible “overcompressing” is a very close call. If it exists at all it is on the order of 1-2mph of ball speed and even then only for much higher than 100mph swings. Hardly worth worrying about.

[arbeck]

> @nad12 said:

> Thanks for all your replies. Some very analytical responses resulting from the charts.

> I'm wondering if the likes of a Callaway SuperSoft or a Bridgestone Extra Soft would over compress with a 100mph swing speed and therefore lose distance. It's just I love how those balls feels when putting.

 

At about 100MPH you are only going to lose 1-2MPH of ball speed. At 115 you're going to lose 4MPH max. Every MPH of ball speed is about 2 yards of carry distance. So it's probably not really worth worrying about. However, those softer balls also tend to spin a whole lot less off irons and wedges. Only you can decide if it's worth giving that up.