Might be going back to a Cheaper, Non-Tour Ball...

[bluedot]

You aren't going to like this, but I'm in an area under "shelter and stay" restrictions, so I don't have much to do beyond arguing on the internet with people I've never met, so here goes.

With all due respect, testing data indicates a couple of things that you might want to keep in mind. First, the general rule of golf ball compression is that harder is longer and softer is shorter, and that what happens in the winter is that lower compression balls harden and begin to perform like higher compression balls in terms of distance. Second, what most golfers call "feel" is just the sound the cover makes; it isn't a performance characteristic at all; spin rate IS a performance characteristic, just like distance and dispersion are. Preferring the SOUND a ball makes is fine, but shouldn't be confused with what the ball DOES after it leaves your club.

That said, I play in senior tournaments with guys that play all sorts of different golf balls, and excel with them, including even guys that Pinnacles. You can play ANY ball successfully if you play it all the time and know what to expect on chips and pitches and distance off the putter. BUT I think you would generally find that most better players believe that more spin off a wedge is important and valuable, so the vast, vast majority of good players are using a premium ball that is toward the high end of the spin rate. And for the most part, that now means a higher compression ball. That may seem counter-intuitive, but it's true.

[MelloYello]

The premise was not that players don't universally want more spin in the short game. It's clear they do. Increasing spin around the green is almost never a bad thing. Granted, in most cases it's not necessary.

My question was whether that ought to be the primary variable in ball selection. I have a very good short game so I'm rather confident I can mitigate some loss in spin when pitching with my 60*, especially at the kinds of "amateur" courses that I play. It might be a net gain for someone like myself to play a ball that launches higher, goes straighter and even feels softer and more pure if at the end of the day it produces lower scores overall.

That's the performance question. Do we do better with a ball that launches lower and feels firmer while maximizing spin or do we actually net a better experience by sacrificing some spin so we can improve in other areas?

Again, I have a very good short game and last year I was still not able to get below a 7-handicap. That's because one can have a scratch short game and still lose a lot of strokes. Handicap is driven more by GIR than anything else. Unless we're talking about guys who are inept around the green, the fact remains that handicap is mostly driven by a variable that we associate with the long game (GIR).

So why are we so resistant to fitting ourselves to balls that better help our long games if indeed that's the feature that's really being represented by our handicap?

It's simply not the case that one needs an inordinate amount of spin for most green-side shots. Most chips and pitches don't call for that. And even the ones that do are still not converted on a regular basis.

So why are people defaulting to golf balls that are optimized to the most difficult, low-percentage shots they'll face and which often happen to be the most expensive on the market?

Personally, I had always assumed that I was "too good" to use anything except a Tour ball. But I'm beginning to think that may not be the case. If anything, the ball question might be irrelevant. But I'm starting to look at the long-game vs short-game argument and well...being a short game wizard just hasn't gotten me very far.

I'm going to give some cheaper balls a chance this year and see if in the end there's any real change. My hunch is there probably won't be. I bet one adjusts and then makes a new set of mistakes. For instance, when I played in Albuquerque and hit the ball 10-20% further because of the extreme elevation, it just led to more over-swinging. It didn't really make me a better player.

Makes me think golf is all the more mental. People find ways to suck no matter what advantages they're given, LOL.

[munichop]

Like Tanner I switched to lower compression balls in winter and when it warmed up I would switch back. But in 2015 I decided to stay with my "winter" ball after it warmed up and continued to score better. While everyone needs to decide on their own what they prefer I think most golfers using a urethane ball designed for pros do it as a result of marketing and the feeling that they are part of the "club" of better golfers. I initially played surlyn for colder weather and higher launch - and had to adjust around the green. Now if I hit a pro v it feels like a brick compared to the lower compression balls. My driver distance varies more based on rollout than carry distance so the tru feel I am currently using goes just as far as anything else I have tried.

But one thing I disagree with on the idea of feel being sound only is that if that were the case no one would worry about stingers in the cold. Feel and sound while related are not the same. Just ask a guy who has sore hands from arthritis. I believe lower compression balls feel better to me because you get more face contact on a normal strike.

Finally, additional spin is only an advantage if you have the skill to manage that spin. I think most players don't have that skill nor the time to practice enough to maintain it.

[bluedot]

Mello,

First and foremost, I'll write again, as I do in almost every post about golf balls, that you can play any ball successfully. The key is, IMO, that you play the SAME ball all the time because of the way different balls react around the green. My partner in CGA senior four balls plays a Pinnacle; he's a 6 index, and one of the best putters I've ever seen. So keep that core belief of mine firmly in place as you read below.

I agree with you 100% that THE single most important factor in scoring is GIR's, or, to use Mark Broadie's term, "proximity of approach". And that isn't just GIR's, of course; the best way to have a good short game is to miss greens in places where you have a good chance to get up and down.

I think where I would differ with you is your third paragraph: "That's the performance question. Do we do better with a ball that launches lower and feels firmer while maximizing spin or do we actually net a better experience by sacrificing some spin so we can improve in other areas?" You are implying that a cheaper, softer ball lauches higher and, I think, goes farther. I think testing shows that this is a false choice.

On average, premium balls go farther; there's no way around that. What is significant, at least to me, is that the difference off the driver between the longest and the shortest balls now is less than 3%. Each player can decide for himself if that matters (it does to ME!) but the bottom line is that the days when you could hit a cheap ball like a Pinnacle 15 or 20 yards farther than you could a Titleist balata are just gone. I used to carry a bag of Pinnacles and Top Flites and HX Hots to use off the tee in scrambles; I don't bother anymore. Same with launch height and same with spin rates off a driver. You cannot gain distance by saving money in 2020; those days are gone forever.

The big differences in addition to price, of course, are spin rates off a wedge, and here the differences become MUCH larger, on the order of 20%. You can choose to forego more spin, of course, but that difference is about SIX TIMES bigger than the distance difference. Which is why most people that advise golfers about how to pick a ball advise them to start at the flagstick, or at least the green, and work back.

So I'll say it again, though I know before I write it that it's counter-intuitive and therefore likely to be ignored. Harder balls tend to go slightly farther, and can be made to spin a LOT more than softer,cheaper balls; the trade-off is that balls that spin more cost more. That doesn't mean they're better, or that you can't play great golf with a soft, cheap ball. It's just a matter of deciding what you want.

[Tanner25]

Sounds good Bluedot. I am not arguing. Just letting you know, I like a softer ball. Also, I have tendonitis in my wrists and a softer ball is just a little easier on the body.

[LeoLeo99]

I find that spinny balls like ProV1 and Chrome Soft magnify my misses. They make my bad shots worse. I don't play high spin shots around the green. Therefore, I play Z tour or TP5x or Tour RX balls because I feel like I should be playing urethane but in reality, as long as the greens aren't crazy hard, I can play a decent surlyn ball just fine.

[MelloYello]

I actually totally agree that the expensive Tour balls are the longest these days. That's become pretty clear to me based on my experiences. I think the top-shelf, premium golf balls have been specifically engineered to be the longest off the tee and the most high-spin around the greens.

Does that qualify as a "scam" or is that just common sense business? Why would you sell a cheap ball that out-performs the premium ball off the tee or around the green? You'd lose money! Call me a cynic but it sounds perfectly logically that magically the most expensive products ended up having the best performance at both extremes. I definitely remember things like the Slazenger Raw Distance balls being longer than almost anything 10 years ago. Last year I jokingly bought a box and was shocked to find they had been neutered. They were WAY shorter than expected--far shorter than the ProV1x's I had been playing. Is that a coincidence? As an adult I suspect not, LOL.

But IMHO a lot of golf is still played "in between." Is sacrificing 5- or even 10-yards off the tee really going to kill me? Not if I'm answering honestly. And does that extra spin around the green really make me better? Eh, I don't know. Maybe on a few shots here or there. But are those the shots I should be worried about? Probably not.

So yeah, I agree with you that premium balls win in distance and spin, but as you say, the margins are pretty slim now-a-days. Do we really need 20% more spin on chip shots? Is that what's holding us back? Maybe if we didn't miss the green with that 8-iron we wouldn't be chipping in the first place?

It seems to me that a lot of these cheaper balls have one thing going for them--they're more helpful off the irons. They're almost all softer which is a huge confidence booster. And they're almost all significantly more high-launching which again, is a big factor in iron-play. If you feel you can make a smoother swing with that 8-iron, odds are you'll end up hitting more greens and that 20% loss of spin in the short game won't really be felt at all.

That's sort of my view on things right now. For me, I think I need the most "help" in the irons. And that's where these cheaper balls seem to pay off.

 

 

 

[lewburg]

I'm currently start to test balls to see what best fits me. It's still cold here in NY, but I noticed that balls like Pinnacle Rush and Distance perform almost as good as Pro v1's this time of year. Exactly as you say. So far, I have eliminated TM Project a balls. Didn't like

I will be test premium balls like Snell MTB, Vice Pro, Pro v1, etc once it warms up.

[lewburg]

I'm currently start to test balls to see what best fits me. It's still cold here in NY, but I noticed that balls like Pinnacle Rush and Distance perform almost as good as Pro v1's this time of year. Exactly as you say. So far, I have eliminated TM Project a balls. Didn't like the feel at all.

I will be test premium balls like Snell MTB, Vice Pro, Pro v1, etc once it warms up. More to follow...

[lewburg]

I'm currently start to test balls to see what best fits me. It's still cold here in NY, but I noticed that balls like Pinnacle Rush and Distance perform almost as good as Pro v1's this time of year. Exactly as you say. So far, I have eliminated TM Project a balls. Didn't like the feel at all.

I will be test premium balls like Snell MTB, Vice Pro, Pro v1, etc once it warms up. More to follow...

[MountainGoat]

I wonder if it’s possible to conduct a completely blind test of golf balls - I.e., testing balls with no labeling whatsoever. I have a sneaking suspicion that few mid-handicappers could tell a meaningful difference.

 

[FuzzyKnuckles]

Leo, I'm wondering too if by playing a premium, urethane ball (Z-Star XV), my misses are magnified as well. Anyone have any evidence or testimony about comparing a lower spinning ball to a higher spinning ball on your mishits? In my case, I hit a draw with my driver, and my miss is a cut/slice. I feel like my mishits end up ~10-25 yards to the right of my target. Would a Surlyn, or other lower spinning ball, shrink the magniture of my miss? Anybody ever tested this or noticed anything?

[Dr_Saga]

Hitting high vs low compression balls in the cold weather definitely can have an effect on what you perceive to be a well struck shot. This can have an impact on the mental aspect of your game. Hitting a tour ball in the cold with a driver, for me, feels like it’s made out of brick. I typically couldn’t get over that first tee shot and it would create an issue for me later on.

[bluedot]

In addition to the balls not being labeled, I think you'd have to put headphones or earplugs on the golfer as well, because of the confusion and association of sound and "feel".

Sound aside, I don't think a mid-handicapper would really notice the difference off the tee. But I think even a mid-handicapper would see differences on how the ball behaved from around 150 in, and especially off wedges and even the putter. Spin rates in close vary a LOT, and a 20% or more change is going to lead to noticeable differences in how much a ball rolls out after hitting the green. Not better or worse, but different for sure.

[MountainGoat]

I'm probably the only person who believes this, but I think the short game performance of high-rent balls relates more to the friction aspects of urethane when compared to surlyn. Surlyn covers are smoother and harder and don't grab as well as urethane.

 

[NRJyzr]

 

Such as is my opinion, it's about cover softness. Urethane is softer than surlyn, but there are varying grades of urethane softness. Back in Ye Olde Days, the various Callaway balls had different cover hardness, you could see a difference; the softer covers would check up more than the firmer covers.

Those HX Red and Blue, 3pc vs 2pc, days were a lot of fun.

[NRJyzr]

 

It might just be a combination of factors inherent to the surlyn balls. They tend to spin less and fly a little higher (to offset the lower spin), it could be just that combo is helping give you your results.

There are some surlyn balls that will provide you with a decent amount of short game spin. I found the Wilson 50 Elite surprising around the greens, relatively speaking. The Top Flite D2 Feel worked pretty well for me 10+ years ago, as well, no idea if the current version (if there is a current version) is still reasonably close to what I saw in performance terms.

Those sorts of balls are out there. As someone mentioned already, there's not a lot of testing in that regard, such as is found with premium product.

Can't hurt to try a few, right? It's not like you're spending $3-4 per ball in test costs.

[tangojay]

I went to a cheaper non-tour ball because I stink and am a cheapskate!

I am so happy for Kirkland golf balls with a urethane cover. I can stop them and on a rare occasion spin them back, plus if I lose one, I can just walk away knowing am not out couple of bucks!

[Titleist_PT23]

I bounce around between 7 and 9 and also prefer the surlyn balls. I understand its max potential off the tee may be shorter. Off the irons I think they fly higher and are 1/2 club longer possibly due to lower spin.

I've found I play better with them, I think because I like the iron shot feel/ball flight more and make better swings as a result. If you gave me only ProV1Xs I'm sure I could get accustomed to that over time (there is a huge familiarity bias in everything equipment).

My short game is pretty average for my skill level. I just live with the fact that a couple times per round it would have been nice to have more spin. I probably make a few less pars over time but probably also make a few less doubles trying flops or shots were your margin for error on landing spot or contact is very low.

[BeerPerHole]

I really like the Velocity. Almost snagged a dozen of them the other day.

[Chief Illiniwek]

Rather than start my own thread I’m going to piggy back onto this one.

I’m a 3.8 who hits a lot of greens. Terrible out of the sand, mediocre short game, solid putter. Swing speed of 105 but hitting late 30’s and a physical job has left me with quite a few aches and pains in the shoulders elbows and wrists. I’ve always struggled with my shots ballooning and for my skill level I’m a bad wind player because of this.

For years I’ve played Bridgestone although would put a ProV1 or X into play. Played the B330S and it’s decedents. But there’s always been something at the back of my mind... I have a huge yard and plenty of room to hit balls so I hit nearly every night. My shag ball buckets literally have 500 plus balls. Well among those balls are probably 3-4 Snake Eyes balls. Don’t laugh. But every time I grab one of these crap balls out of the bucket I know it’s gonna feel sweet and FLY. I first took notice when I’d pick up balls at the end of the night. It never failed the longest or close to the longest would be a Snake Eyes. And taking notice of that I also caught on to how soft and pure they felt. But I’ve never pulled the trigger and always thought since I’m a decent player I need to be playing those high end balls.

Well today I finally decided today is the day, I played Wednesday and ballooned a lot of shots that went nowhere in the wind and I thought that’s it I’m buying a dozen Snake Eyes. Well I guess they haven’t made them in years lol so now I need to find another ball with those characteristics. Anyone got a highly similar recommendation? I’m thinking Noodle and they feel nice too but I don’t find them as far as my stupid Snake Eyes when I’m picking up my shag balls...

[Tanner25]

GM Chief,

 

I found Snake Eyes on Amazon. Amazon.com : Snake Eyes SDF Soft Distance Yellow Golf Balls FE : Sports & OutdoorsAlso, Vice Drive has the same amount of dimples and is two piece. In my opinion, the Soft Feel is a winner for a 2 piece ball. I am curious about the Mizuno's 2 piecers as well. They have a cool blue logo.

[Chief Illiniwek]

Thanks Tanner! I’d actually seen those as well as 36 mint used ones on eBay. I just hate to buy them and love them and then run out because I can’t get more. I go through a few dozen balls each year. I still may pull the trigger though!

[MBBG]

Q Star with spin skin or the Titleist Tour Soft might be best of both worlds for you. Go Illini.

[Chief Illiniwek]

I’ll check them out, thanks for the recommendation! I-L-L!

[DLiver]

OP I recently switched away from a "tour" ball to a ball geared toward players with lower swing speed. This ball launches higher, flies straighter and doesn't spin quite as much around the green, but has without question improved my game. I don't even know why I tried this ball, because I had been happy with "tour balls" for years, but it is clearly better for me in every way.

[NoTalentLefty]

I’ve played the game for 45 years now, mostly with a two piece surlyn golf ball . Got down in my prime to single digits. I see no reason to change. That’s me and my opinion . We can make the numbers say anything we want to hear. I think a low spinning golf ball is what helps most hacks. Better players? I wouldn’t know.

[Myherobobhope]

Reducing cost without impacting scores would be awesome... I need as low of a spin ball as I can get with driver, so I'm not sure if there is a good surlyn option...

I think the "tour" golf ball mentality is probably great for ball companies and bad for golfers... That said, I usually play expensive golf balls... I might have to screw around with $20 dozen, as I usually play Snell and at $30 a dozen, it's not that bad.

[cristphoto]

I think currently there is a void in the golf ball market. Years ago I would play the Precept Extra-Spin, Maxfli XS, and the Titleist HP2-Tour balls. All of these were two-piece construction with a softer Surlyn cover. All three provided good feel, distance, and spin with the bonus of being less expensive that the top tier balls. When ever I would see a test review on these they would always remark how close they came to tour level performance. Back in the day major champions played each of these balls on Tour (Nick Price, Greg Norman, Cory Pavin). For decent skilled golfers these were a good option.

[Zen_Golfer]

I believe that the reason why you no longer see urethane covered 2-piece balls is that theres really no advantage to it and surlyn balls are more durable. 2-piece balls are no longer lower spin off the driver than a tour ball is (because all balls are low spin off the long clubs these days) and a 2-piece ball will never be able to perform like a 3, 4 or 5-piece around the green.

I used to play the Bridgestone E5 back in the day and it was a good ball but if I wanted the spin around the greens, other than cost there was really no advantage to it.