Straightest "tour" ball is....?

[bogey69]

What ball is a tour level ball, or damn close, that just wants to go straight? 

 

I'm not too concerned about the longest, from what I see, the longer balls are only a yard or two (or maybe 3) ahead of the shorter and softer ball.  I think the 8 yards in the spy test was an outlier.  I don't see that.   

 

2021 for me will be about eliminating mistakes and penalties. So what goes the straightest????

 

105 driver swing speed.

[chippa13]

For me it is the TP5X or the Tour BX.

[cgasucks]

The one that is hit by the late Moe Norman.

[Hougz79]

TP5X for me.  Honorable Mention to Srixon Z Star XV.

[trackcoach13]

TP5x for me.

[pallmall]

The tour ball with lower spin should be a straighter ball, such as TP5x.

[MMB1500]

I've not tried the TP5X but in my experience the Tour BX is pretty straight. 

 

Maybe it's just me but I have never found the Pro V1 to have the same quality. 

[bluedot]

In the Today's Golfer testing, it was the ProV1x.  The MGS data, at least for me, is a little bit harder to sort out, but both the ProV1's came out very well in that, too.

[bogey69]

I think we need to differentiate between shots that are offline due to off-centeredness (Pro V1 and V1x are very good and therefore "straight" by that measure), and those that are offline due to not helping to mitigate swing flaws...I thought a softer ball might do that (lower spin).  Maybe not a "tour" ball, but logically this would be the Tour B RX maybe??  I'm right on the 105 mph threshold, so Bridgestone gets a bit confusing for me.

 

[FakeClubPro]

Pro V1x.  There is a good golf ball test article where they used the robot and clubs - that Bob Parsons brand PXG.   Based on 3 or 4 swing speeds.   It showed the golf balls with the lowest dispersion.  

 

https://Not allowed Per Todaysgolfer's UK request/features/equipment-features/2019/september/robot-tested-which-golf-bal-suits-my-game/

 

Vice Pro also did well.  Scroll down at the bottom of the article for dispersion based on swing speed.

115 mph swing speed - Bridgestone Tour B XS.

[bluedot]

20 minutes ago, bogey69 said:

I think we need to differentiate between shots that are offline due to off-centeredness (Pro V1 and V1x are very good and therefore "straight" by that measure), and those that are offline due to not helping to mitigate swing flaws...I thought a softer ball might do that (lower spin).  Maybe not a "tour" ball, but logically this would be the Tour B RX maybe??  I'm right on the 105 mph threshold, so Bridgestone gets a bit confusing for me.

 

 

In theory and under the laws of physics, you are correct that a ball that is spinning less would curve less and therefore "mitigate" swing flaws.  The catch is that the "real world" differences in spin required to actually do that are far, far beyond the differences in driver spin rates.  There just isn't any ball that is going to do that, and the converse isn't true, either; a ProV1x, which is a higher spinning ball, won't go more offline from the driver than a low spin ball, simply because the balls are engineered so that the spin rate differences don't really show up until you are hitting irons, especially wedges.  A ball that spins too much or too little off the driver just won't go anywhere, and all the manufacturers are working under the same set of rules to optimize driver distance.

[GBBM]

The RX is about as straight as a urethane ball can be imo. I’ve found the same thing with the U Fli Soft I bought on clearance this summer from The Golfworks. 
 

The firm core balls with soft urethane covers like B XS and V1X seem to curve more on shots that aren’t struck perfectly square. Which, of course, they’re designed to do. 

[GBBM]

55 minutes ago, FakeClubPro said:

Pro V1x.  There is a good golf ball test article where they used the robot and clubs - that Bob Parsons brand PXG.   Based on 3 or 4 swing speeds.   It showed the golf balls with the lowest dispersion.  

 

https://Not allowed Per Todaysgolfer's UK request/features/equipment-features/2019/september/robot-tested-which-golf-bal-suits-my-game/

 

Vice Pro also did well.  Scroll down at the bottom of the article for dispersion based on swing speed.

115 mph swing speed - Bridgestone Tour B XS.

Dispersion consistency due to design is important obviously but they don’t set the robot up to hit anything but straight shots. 

[bogey69]

4 minutes ago, GBBM said:

Dispersion consistency due to design is important obviously but they don’t set the robot up to hit anything but straight shots. 

This makes perfect sense. Thank you. 

[GBBM]

40 minutes ago, bluedot said:

 

In theory and under the laws of physics, you are correct that a ball that is spinning less would curve less and therefore "mitigate" swing flaws.  The catch is that the "real world" differences in spin required to actually do that are far, far beyond the differences in driver spin rates.  There just isn't any ball that is going to do that, and the converse isn't true, either; a ProV1x, which is a higher spinning ball, won't go more offline from the driver than a low spin ball, simply because the balls are engineered so that the spin rate differences don't really show up until you are hitting irons, especially wedges.  A ball that spins too much or too little off the driver just won't go anywhere, and all the manufacturers are working under the same set of rules to optimize driver distance.

We really don’t have any data other than straight shot data with robots and anecdotal data from actual golfers. No one is setting up a robot to hit and measure the differences on 25 yard wipes, which I would love to see.
 

We do know that firm balls with soft urethane covers spin relatively more than soft cored urethane covered balls and especially surlyn covered balls when struck at oblique angles. That’s what they’re designed to do. Which actually seems to back up the anecdotal data from actual golfers who notice more curvature when striking those balls as at oblique angle, as human golfers are wont to do at times. 
 

So I know lots of people like to cite robot data as the be-all, end-all on this topic, but it doesn’t tell the whole story. And I think it’s somewhat insulting to other golfers in the community to suggest their actual personal experiences aren’t valuable or are faulty. 

[bluedot]

3 hours ago, GBBM said:

We really don’t have any data other than straight shot data with robots and anecdotal data from actual golfers. No one is setting up a robot to hit and measure the differences on 25 yard wipes, which I would love to see.
 

We do know that firm balls with soft urethane covers spin relatively more than soft cored urethane covered balls and especially surlyn covered balls when struck at oblique angles. That’s what they’re designed to do. Which actually seems to back up the anecdotal data from actual golfers who notice more curvature when striking those balls as at oblique angle, as human golfers are wont to do at times. 
 

So I know lots of people like to cite robot data as the be-all, end-all on this topic, but it doesn’t tell the whole story. And I think it’s somewhat insulting to other golfers in the community to suggest their actual personal experiences aren’t valuable or are faulty. 

 

Maybe you can help me out and show me where I suggested that anybody's personal experiences aren't valuable or are faulty.  I talked about physics and the USGA to answer a question, nothing more.  You don't like robot testing, I do.  Let it go at that and don't misquote me.

 

And I'll add this: In the case of the MGS testing they didn't set up the robot to hit the ball dead straight; they had it set to play a draw, presumably to more accurately reflect the obvious fact that none of us deliver the club exactly square to the ball.  Their data, in other words, reflects a spin axis that is NOT perfectly vertical, and spin RATES don't change because the spin AXIS changes.

Edited November 13, 2020 by bluedot

[GBBM]

7 hours ago, bluedot said:

 

Maybe you can help me out. Their data, in other words, reflects a spin axis that is NOT perfectly vertical, and spin RATES don't change because the spin AXIS changes.

A draw is an entirely different animal than a fade/slice. It tends to lower spin rather than increasing it.  If the only differentiating factor is spin axis, why do balls perform differently when struck with a robot set to hit the same shot over and over and over? Don’t design principles/materials account for the differences in spin between balls when spin axis is held constant? 

[bluedot]

11 hours ago, GBBM said:

A draw is an entirely different animal than a fade/slice. It tends to lower spin rather than increasing it.  If the only differentiating factor is spin axis, why do balls perform differently when struck with a robot set to hit the same shot over and over and over? Don’t design principles/materials account for the differences in spin between balls when spin axis is held constant? 

 

I know this isn't going to convince you of anything, but the issue isn't whether or not a draw spins more than a fade, or a hook spins more than a slice, or if any of those spin more than a "straight" ball.  There isn't any question that players make swings that make the ball spin more or less than what robot testing might show.  And I'll grant you that for MOST players a fade DOES spin more than a draw because they've delofted the club when they hit the draw.

 

The question is whether two balls that have similar spin rates off a driver to begin (and they all do!) somehow change disproportionately when the spin axis tilts off vertical because the player has made a particular type of swing.  What is basically being claimed here is that a premium ball like a ProV1 adds spin AT A HIGHER RATE off a driver than a less expensive, non-premium ball when the spin axis tilts.  In short, that would mean that the premium ball behaves worse, while the cheaper ball performs better on a poorer strike.

 

That would be a remarkably big elephant in the room in the construction, sale, and performance of golf balls.  Usually, if there is an elephant in the room, we can see it, and I just have a feeling that somebody might have studied that elephant and even quantified it's size.

 

 

[arbeck]

You can easily put launch conditions into a shot calculator and see that spin really doesn't effect left or right much at all. If you launch a ball at 150mph, at 15*, with a 45* spin axis to the right, and then just change the amount of spin using 2000 RPM and 5000 RPM; you'll see minimal difference between the amount off line. And that's with 3000 RPM difference. The difference between tour ball spin off the driver is more like 300-500 RPM. If you plug in a 500 RPM distance in spin, the difference in offline will be imperceptible.

 

The only thing that MIGHT influence one ball being straighter than the other is the dimple pattern. It's possible that different dimple patterns can be effected by the wind more or less than others. Unfortunately, humans have just about no way to test this. We just aren't consistent enough, and the wind isn't consistent enough from shot to shot for us to learn much of anything. 

[bluedot]

3 hours ago, arbeck said:

You can easily put launch conditions into a shot calculator and see that spin really doesn't effect left or right much at all. If you launch a ball at 150mph, at 15*, with a 45* spin axis to the right, and then just change the amount of spin using 2000 RPM and 5000 RPM; you'll see minimal difference between the amount off line. And that's with 3000 RPM difference. The difference between tour ball spin off the driver is more like 300-500 RPM. If you plug in a 500 RPM distance in spin, the difference in offline will be imperceptible.

 

The only thing that MIGHT influence one ball being straighter than the other is the dimple pattern. It's possible that different dimple patterns can be effected by the wind more or less than others. Unfortunately, humans have just about no way to test this. We just aren't consistent enough, and the wind isn't consistent enough from shot to shot for us to learn much of anything. 

 

Great stuff; thank you!

[Hat Trick]

For me the Chrome Soft is really straight and the distance is as good as the others with the 2020 version.  I never thought I would play their ball until this year.

[Drewhill44]

The 2020 Bridgestone Tour BX and XS have been the straightest for me. Flies the best through crosswinds and into the wind than any other ball I’ve played.  

[GBBM]

On 11/14/2020 at 7:31 AM, bluedot said:

 

I know this isn't going to convince you of anything, but the issue isn't whether or not a draw spins more than a fade, or a hook spins more than a slice, or if any of those spin more than a "straight" ball.  There isn't any question that players make swings that make the ball spin more or less than what robot testing might show.  And I'll grant you that for MOST players a fade DOES spin more than a draw because they've delofted the club when they hit the draw.

 

The question is whether two balls that have similar spin rates off a driver to begin (and they all do!) somehow change disproportionately when the spin axis tilts off vertical because the player has made a particular type of swing.  What is basically being claimed here is that a premium ball like a ProV1 adds spin AT A HIGHER RATE off a driver than a less expensive, non-premium ball when the spin axis tilts.  In short, that would mean that the premium ball behaves worse, while the cheaper ball performs better on a poorer strike.

 

That would be a remarkably big elephant in the room in the construction, sale, and performance of golf balls.  Usually, if there is an elephant in the room, we can see it, and I just have a feeling that somebody might have studied that elephant and even quantified it's size.

 

 

What happens when we strike a V1X and a Spongebob ball with a Vokey wedge with the exact same strike? 

[bluedot]

10 hours ago, GBBM said:

What happens when we strike a V1X and a Spongebob ball with a Vokey wedge with the exact same strike? 

 

I think the answer is that whatever the differences are between the V1x and the Spongebob ball, those differences will be pretty much the same regardless of the strike.  If the V1x spins +/- 10% more on a perfect strike vs. the other ball, then it's going to spin +/- 10% more on any strike vs the Spongebob.  If the particular swing and strike adds spin to the V1x, then that exact same swing and strike will add spin to the Spongebob.  Neither ball is going to do anything except react to the club, and the performance characteristics aren't "smart"; they don't change according to the strike.

 

Anticipating what you might say or ask next, it's true that a 10% of a bigger number is a bigger number, so it's true that the V1x will be adding more RPM's than the Spongebob on a strike that adds spin, whether that strike is intentional or not.  (The same would be true, btw, for a strike that reduces spin, intentionally or not, like delofting the club on a knockdown.) 

 

The catch, as Arbeck pointed out several posts ago, is that for the spin rate of one golf ball to another to cause some sort of excess curvature, the rates would have to be MUCH higher than is the case.  Not a little higher; MUCH higher.  There just isn't anything under the laws of physics that says otherwise. 

 

To be clear, I don't care what ball anybody plays, and I not only believe but have posted MANY times that the most important thing by far is that a player use the same ball ALL THE TIME, whether that is a $50/doz ball or a ball sold in 18 ball packs at Walmart.  And for sure, I get that there are a LOT of players out there that either don't want to pay $50, or don't care what they use.  I even (sort of) get the "I like a soft feel" thing, despite how much I disagree with that as a way to choose golf balls.

 

But the idea that somehow a premium ball that is performs more consistently on square strikes becomes a less consistent ball off imperfect strikes, while a non-premium ball somehow remains consistent and therefore better for inconsistent players is just not defensible.  Cost is one thing; the belief in magic is another.

[Uncut]

Bridgestone Tour BX. Laser beam

[madeintheshade]

Supposedly the Wilson Staff raw ball

will be straighter, because the painting add imperfections. No idea if there is anything backing this up. 

[dripsauce]

Titkeist left dash 

[RobotDoctor]

..... created with good ball striking fundamentals, a square face at impact, and with a lot of constructive practice.  No ball is a panacea.  There is no magic ball.  No short cuts.

[ShowMe]

Bridgestone Tour B RX and Titleist Tour Speed for me.

[ShowMe]

2 hours ago, RobotDoctor said:

..... created with good ball striking fundamentals, a square face at impact, and with a lot of constructive practice.  No ball is a panacea.  There is no magic ball.  No short cuts.

For my golf swing, I have found some balls to have less left/right dispersion than others.  Same thing with the clubs and shafts.